Sitting of 10 April 1919

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Brentford Gas Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE, RETIREMENT AT SIXTY-FIVE).
Address for "Return of Copy of Minute by the Secretary of State for India stating the circumstances under which two members of his permanent establishment have been retained in the service after they have attained the age of sixty-five."—[Mr. Montagu.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  RUSSIA.

    BOLSHEVISM (REPORTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel WALTER GUINNESSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make arrangements for the White Paper (No. 1), containing a collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, to be on sale at all large railway and other bookstalls?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I will certainly consider the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member.

    RUSSIAN FORCES (ASSISTANCE).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Government will consider giving assistance to General Judenitch and General Dutov?
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: The whole question of assistance to the various Russian
    2190
    forces striving to re-establish order in Russia is receiving His Majesty's Government's careful attention.

    CANADA AND UNITED STATES.
    Mr. HURDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is to be the exact status of the permanent Canadian representation now to be established at Washington; and what will be its functions in relation both to the British and Canadian Governments?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieutenant-Colonel Amery): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 7th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Western.

    CENSORSHIP (NEWS FROM IRELAND).
    Major O'NEILLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland when it is proposed to remove the censorship on news from Ireland?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. A. W. Samuels): My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Major O'NEILL: Will the announcement that the Press Bureau is to come to an end at the end of the month have any connection with the censorship in Ireland?
    Mr. SAMUELS: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any statement and I am not.

    REDCAR (PETTY SESSIONAL DIVISION).
    Mr. GRATTON DOYLEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether representations have been made to him by the citizens of Redcar for the formation of a separate petty sessional division for Redcar and district in view of the inconvenience which arises from the present system; whether his attention has been called to the fact that frequently there are Courts held at Redcar without the magistrates having the assistance of a magistrate's clerk; and whether the

    2191
    Secretary of State, in view of the discontent recently expressed, will represent to the Standing Joint Committee of the North Riding the need of a revision of the petty sessional area?
    The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Hamar Greenwood): My right hon. Friend has received a representation on the subject from Redcar. The matter is one in which he has no statutory authority to intervene, but as the justices for the division in which Redcar is now included have informed him that they will welcome any suggestion for the improvement of the administration of justice, he is sending the representation to them for their consideration.

    EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether it is the practice of the Home Office, upon certain certificates being obtained, to allow experiments on dogs in which the dog is kept alive after the experiment until the main object of the experiment has been attained, although the dog is found to be suffering severe pain, or pain which is likely to endure?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir; experiments are allowed under these conditions on proper certificates as required by the Act, but the further condition is added that if the animal is suffering severe pain which is likely to last, it must at once be painlessly killed, whether the main object of the experiment is attained or not.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Am I to understand that if an animal is suffering temporarily severe pain, or is suffering considerable pain which is likely to last, it will not be killed unless the object of the experiment is obtained?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, the hon. Baronet is not to understand that; and in reference to supplementary questions I wish he would put them down, as the words which he has used are capable of more than one interpretation.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Baronet lay on the Table a copy of the licence which is issued in cases where
    2192
    an operation is performed without anæsthetics or where a dog or another animal is allowed to remain alive after an operation?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Certainly any Members of the House can have a copy of the licence issued generally if he wishes. With reference to the specific licence, I shall have to consult the Home Secretary.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Who is the judge of whether the animal is suffering severe pain which is likely to last?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: There may be several persons to judge, among others an inspector of the Home Office.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the total number of experiments permitted to be made on dogs in 1917 in which the experimenter was permitted to perform the experiment without anæsthetics, and the total number of experiments performed on dogs in 1917 in which the experimenter was permitted to keep the dog alive after it had recovered from the anæsthetic?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot answer this question as regards dogs alone. The same certificates are required under the Act for cats as for dogs, and, therefore, the Returns do not distinguish them. The number of experiments of the first class mentioned in the question performed in 1917 was 887; the number of the second class was 147. In the majority of these cases cats were the subjects of the experiments.
    Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Were not the large proportion of these 887 cases mere inoculations of infection, with no cutting of any kind?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is so.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my hon. Friend direct that in the next Return the figures for dogs and for cats be given separately?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: Under the present Act I cannot promise that. If my hon. and learned Friend will support the Amendment down in my name to the Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, and it is passed, I think that I can promise him what he desires.
    Lieutenant-Colonel GUINNESS: Could not a distinction be made between experi-

    2193
    ments of inoculation with infection and experiments involving cutting which are now all lumped together?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the Amendment standing in my name is accepted, I think I can promise that also.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    UNMARRIED WIVES (DEATH GRATUITY).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Pensions Minister why the death gratuity of £5 is not admissible in the case of unmarried wives of soldiers?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The Royal Warrant makes provision for unmarried wives on the basis of dependency, but does not extend to them the full benefits payable to soldiers' widows. The £5 grant is payable only to soldiers' widows.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is what I am asking, why the gratuity is not paid in those circumstances?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I thought the hon. Member would probably know it was not included in the Warrant and that is why it is not payable.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is why I put down the question whether in view of the fact that these unmarried wives have the same hardships when their husbands are killed he cannot grant the £5 death gratuity in these cases as in the ordinary cases?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think it has been the considered policy that the slight differences between unmarried wives and widows should be retained.

    ARMY TRANSFER Z.
    Colonel MILDMAYasked the Pensions Minister whether he will endeavour to deal with the delay, under present circumstances, before applications for pension from men transferred to Army Transfer Z are considered?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I must refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the very full statement which I made on this subject last week (and of which I am
    2194
    sending him a copy) in reply to the question put to me by the hon. and learned Member for South Salford.

    INDIGENT DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir S. HOAREasked the Pensions Minister whether local pensions committees are only authorised to pay £5 to meet the expenses of indigent discharged soldiers, their wives, and dependants; whether, in the event of the expenses exceeding this amount, the expenses have to be met by the Poor Law guardians; and whether, if this is the case, local committees can be authorised to incur a greater expenditure in order that no Poor Law taint should be attached to the funerals of discharged soldiers and their dependants?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No Grant can be made by local war pensions committees to meet the funeral expenses of a discharged man's dependants. The Grant of £5 which could formerly be made to meet the funeral expenses of a discharged disabled man has now been increased to a maximum of £7 10s.; and the Committees have been duly informed.

    LABOUR CORPS (F. J. RILEY).
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the Pensions Minister whether his attention was called to the case of F. J. Riley, late No. 4654, Labour Corps, of 142, Holyhead Road, Wednesbury, on 12th February, 1919; whether on 28th February a report was called for from the special medical board; whether a reminder was sent to the president of the medical board on 26th March; whether his Department is still unable to secure a report; whether he is aware that Mr. Riley has a blind wife and two children dependent upon him and, at the time of his application, possessed no income whatsoever; whether it is customary for such delay to take place in the settlement of such claims; and, if so, whether he will create machinery to speed up such settlements?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The special medical board's report has now been received in this difficult case, and arrangements are being made for Mr. Riley's admission to a neurological hospital. Whilst he is in hospital he and his family will be eligible for the full treatment allowances under Article 6 of the Royal Warrant. The present degree of disablement is assessed at 40 per cent.,

    2195
    and when treatment allowances cease to be payable pension will be paid on that basis in lieu of the former award of £26.

    WAR BONUSES AND ALLOWANCES.
    Brigadier-General Sir OWEN THOMASasked the Pensions Minister whether the new additional bonus of 20 per cent. for eight months paid on war bonuses and allowances to dependants of soldiers and sailors will be extended to the dependants of officers and men of the merchant service whose lives were lost in auxiliary ships, and whose dependants are receiving Government allowance through the London and Liverpool War Risk Association?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The bonus of 20 per cent. to which the hon. and gallant Member refers is only added to the pensions and allowances payable by the Ministry of Pensions. In the case of the Mercantile Marine only those men or the dependants of those men who signed Admiralty agreements to serve for the period of the War are pensionable by my Department, and the dependants referred to in the question presumably do not come within that category.
    Major BREESE: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the claims of these widows?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: They do not come within my Department, as I told the hon. Member. They are receiving allowances through the War Risks Association.

    ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
    Mr. F. C. THOMSONasked the Pensions Minister whether, seeing that the widows of officers killed during the War were not informed individually or by any direct means of the system of granting alternative pensions, and in many cases are still ignorant of it, he can see his way to alter the rule that alternative pensions can only be granted from the date of application there for?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the application for alternative pension is made within three months of the notification of the award of the flat-rate pension, payment is made with arrears from the day following the death. In other cases, payment is made as from the date of application. In view of the difficulty which a postponement of the application
    2196
    occasions in the investigation of the claim, I do not consider that any relaxation of the rule can be made. The provision of alternative pension was given full publicity when the Warrant was published in August, 1917, and three months' grace was then allowed.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is there no way of notifying each widow who might have a claim of her rights, as in many cases widows have not found out until just the other day?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will consider whether it is possible to call each widow's attention to the matter, but there has been great publicity already given to the fact that widows are entitled in certain cases to claim alternative pensions, and the hon. Member's question to-day will add to the publicity.
    Mr. STURROCK: What does the hon. Gentleman mean as to full publicity having been given?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There have been statements in the Press, which are the usual means of publicity, following questions and answers in this House.
    Mr. HOGGE: What is to hinder the right hon. Gentleman during the six months which elapse between the death of the husband and the close of the separation allowance in the case of an ordinary soldier telling the widow she has that claim and arriving at a decision before the expiry of the six months?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I want the widow who is entitled to an alternative pension to have an alternative pension, and I will see whether it is possible to give each widow some direct and personal notice of her rights.

    SEPARATION ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. STOKERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has been informed of the case heard in the Nottingham Summons Court on Monday, 31st March, 1919, on an application by a wife for an increase of separation, allowance of 25s., under the Married Women's Act, when the defendant, who was described as a waste-paper dealer, admitted that he was in receipt of a pension of £1 13s. 3d., out-of-work pay of £1 9s., and out-of-work pay in respect of five children, for whom, whilst the wife was maintaining them, he was

    2197
    drawing the allowance of 18s., making a total of £4 0s. 3d., for performing no service of public utility; and whether he is prepared to take any steps to deal with this state of affairs?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have been asked to reply to this question. Time has not permitted of the inquiries which I am making into this case being completed. I may say, however, that supplementary donation is not payable in respect of children unless they are actually dependent on the applicant. As regards the pension referred to, which I assume to be a pension on account of disability arising from military service, the Government follow the principle which they have asked employers to observe in fixing wages, and do not take such a pension into account on a claim for donation.

    ASSESSMENT TO INCOME TAX.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that whilst pensions paid to men wounded in this country are not now liable for Income Tax the pensions of men who retired from the Army prior to the War are still liable, he will consider the possibility of treating all pensions alike?
    Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): I would refer my right hon. Friend to the answers given to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed on the 27th February and to the right hon. and gallant Member for Totnes on the 13th March. I am sending copies to my right hon. Friend.

    WAR GRATUITY (POST OFFICE SERVANTS).
    Mr. IRVINGasked the Secretary to The Treasury (1) whether he is aware that the war gratuity as well as the Service gratuity is being paid to all soldiers on discharge with the exception of the Post Office men in receipt of full civil pay; whether it has been the practice in previous campaigns to pay signallers their full civil pay in addition to their military pay, because of the essential character of their craft; and whether, seeing that the Army was dependent upon the Post Office service to supply it with an efficient signal service at the outbreak of war, that the grant of full civil and military pay was made after due consideration, and that the Government recognised that it was right to pay the men at this rate, he will refrain from repeated attempts to whittle
    2198
    away the terms of service which were mutually agreed upon; and (2), if he will state what were the reasons which lead the Government to expressly exclude Post Office servants in receipt of full civil pay from the operation of the Royal Warrant governing the war gratuity; whether he is aware that many of these men served in South Africa, at the expiration of which campaign a similar gratuity was paid; whether he is aware that these men have rendered unique service to the State and that because of their special skill they have been debarred from promotion; whether he is aware of their treatment by the Government in the matter of the increased separation allowances and the service gratuity; whether he is aware that it was only after many months of agitation that the Government decided that the men had all along been entitled to the payments which had been withheld; whether he is aware that these volunteers are being compulsorily retained with the forces despite their early enlistment and long service; and whether, having regard to the necessity to avoid unrest, he will urge the Government to pay the war gratuity to all soldiers on discharge?
    Lieutenant-Commander N. CRAIGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Post Office servants of the Government were in the early days of the War invited to join the Signal Section of the Royal Engineers on the footing of receiving full Army pay and emoluments in addition to civil pay; whether the War gratuity can be considered otherwise than an emolument in the contemplation of an enlisting soldier; if he will say upon what principle these Civil servants are denied the War gratuity and offered in lieu and as a concession, an arbitrary sum of £1 per year of service with the Colours, and whether he will take steps to remove a sense of grievance which causes dissatisfaction and saves little money?
    Mr. THOMAS GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for War whether at the conclusion of the South African War any discrimination was made between soldiers, on the basis of civil occupation, with regard to the payment of blood money, and whether, having regard to the reasonable expectation that the 1914 volunteers had of receiving a similar payment, he will take steps to secure an amendment of the terms under which the War gratuity is payable?
    Mr. J. DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state why, in the payment of the War gratuity, a distinction is drawn between men in receipt of full civil pay in and out of the Post Office service; whether he is aware that many of the Signallers served during the South African War and were paid a gratuity similar in amount to the War gratuity on their discharge; and whether, having regard to the grievances of these men on the questions of the gratuities and also of the increased separation allowances, he will endeavour to allay the discontent by treating all serving soldiers on an equal footing?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I have been asked to reply to these questions. The claims of these men on every point except the War gratuity have, I understand, been fully met. The service gratuity which they are drawing is in no sense an arbitrary amount, but is that provided for all soldiers under the pay warrant. Soldiers are entitled to this gratuity under the terms of their enlistment. Such, however, is not the case with the War gratuity, and the conditions under which service should or should not reckon for the War gratuity were the subject of most careful consideration by the Government. The Post Office men in question, though they stand alone in drawing full civil pay from the Government, in addition to Army pay, do not stand alone in their exclusion from the War gratuity.

    ADULTERY.
    Mr. HAILWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to make adultery a criminal offence punishable by law, so that some little satisfaction may be given to those whose homes are violated and in order to discourage as far as possible recourse to what is known as the unwritten law?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is in the negative.

    CHILDREN (HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether under the existing law children of fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen years of
    2200
    age can be employed in offices for eleven hours per day, inclusive of meal times; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of remedying by statute this menace to child life?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: There are no legal provisions restricting the hours of employment in offices of persons over fourteen years of age. My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to introduce legislation dealing with the hours of employment of young persons between fourteen and eighteen in all occupations not covered by the Acts relating to factories and mines.

    FIRE BRIGADE MEN (AIR-RAID SERVICES).
    Mr. A. SHORTasked whether it is proposed to acknowledge by way of medal or decoration the services of members of fire brigades performed during air-raid attacks in the course of the War; and, if so, when a Report can be expected?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to replies which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to questions on this subject on 24th March and 2nd April.

    STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (PASSENGERS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what further provision has been made to provide passages for passengers from the Straits Settlements over and above those for whom passages have been provided in the ambulance transport "Marama"?
    Colonel AMERY: No further special provision has yet been made. The Governor has been asked what is the number of really urgent cases still remaining, and on the receipt of his reply every effort will be made to obtain accommodation for these.

    SEALS AND PENGUINS (PROTECTION).
    Colonel YATEasked what steps are being taken to prevent the extermination of seals and penguins in the Antarctic regions?
    Colonel AMERY: Sealing in the Colony of the Falkland Islands and its Dependencies is regulated by Ordinances which prohibit the taking of seals without a licence. The taking of penguins at any time has been prohibited; and the eggs of the birds are also protected by law.

    WESTMINSTER HALL (ROOF REPAIRS).
    Sir S. ROBERTSasked the First Commissioner of Works what was the original estimate for the restoration of Westminster Hall; how much has already been spent and how much more it is estimated will have to be spent; and when it is expected the work will be complete?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): The original estimate for the repair of the roof trusses of Westminster Hall was £60,000; of this amount £39,000 has been expended to date. The total increase on the original estimate due to War conditions is being determined, and it is anticipated that the work will be completed in May, 1921.

    KING CHARLES' STATUE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the First Commissioner of Works when it is proposed entirely to remove the hoarding from King Charles' statue at Charing Cross; if he will state why it has only partly been removed up till now; and what is the estimated cost of the whole work?
    Sir A. MOND: The hoarding will be removed when the repairs to the fractured bronze casting have been completed, which will be in a month or five weeks. The hoarding and protection of sand bags were partly removed to allow of the repairs being undertaken. The cost of the whole work in estimated at £710, of which the cost of repairs to bronze and the removal of hoardings, etc., will be £300.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ROYAL NAVAL COLLEGE, GREENWICH.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what were the maximum and minimum numbers of officers under training, exclusive of holidays, at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, in 1913?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The maximum number was 133; the minimum number (for a short period only) was fifty-nine.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked what is the area of ground and the area occupied by buildings in what is comprised by Greenwich Hospital; what is the extent of the river frontage; what is the annual payment made by the Admiralty to the funds of Greenwich Hospital for the use made of it as the Royal Naval College?
    Dr. MACNAMARMA: The buildings, occupy 4½ acres of the grounds of Greenwich Hospital, which are 18¼ acres in. extent, apart from the ground and buildings of the Dreadnought Seamen's Hospital. The river frontage is 900 ft. The annual contribution paid by the Admiralty in respect of the Royal Naval College is £6,500. The cost of upkeep of the buildings and grounds of the college is also borne by Navy Votes. The rates, I may add, are paid by the Treasury valuer.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Have the Board considered getting rid of this white elephant, and handing it over to the Imperial War Museum, or has there been any discussion with the First Commissioner of Works on that point?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not recognise it by the description "white elephant."
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will submit the view that it should be handed over, but I cannot imagine that the Board would agree.

    SICK-BERTH STAFF (FALCONER HALL REPORT).
    Colonel THORNEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty when the Falconer Hall Committee Report on the sick-berth staff of the Royal Navy will be issued?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The report from Surgeon-Commander Falconer Hall has been received, and the question of what improvements can be effected in the conditions of the sick-berth staff is at present being considered. Some improvement has already been effected in the prospects of advancement of this branch by an increase in the number of chief petty officer ratings.

    TRAWLERS AND DRIFTERS.
    Mr. MACQUISTENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the case that fishermen whose trawlers and drifters were taken by the Admiralty and lost by mine or otherwise in the course of the War are only receiving compensation either on the pre-war value of their boats or at least sums insufficient to replace their boats, and consequently are unable to put to sea; and whether he will take steps to secure that these men get new or second-hand boats equal to those that were lost, and further secure that all fishermen who were members of the Fleet, Grand or Auxiliary, and whose tackle has decayed in their absence, have advances made to them to enable them to again engage in their calling?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not the case that compensation for trawlers and drifters lost on Admiralty service during the War is being paid on their pre-war value. When these vessels were first requisitioned a valuation on a pre-war basis calculated on an agreed formula was inserted in the Charter Parties, but, subsequently, on the representations of owners, the Admiralty agreed to pay market value at the time of loss. The losses of trawlers were very numerous, but compensation has been accepted by all owners who have lost vessels, with six exceptions only to date. In the case of drifters, a scale of compensation has not, unfortunately, been agreed generally, but settlements have been reached with the majority of English owners who have lost vessels on Admiralty service by individual negotiation. I hope settlement may soon be reached in outstanding cases. The question of enabling fishermen, who have served in the Fleet during the War, and whose tackle has decayed in their absence, to engage again in their calling has been under consideration and is at present under correspondence with the Military Service (Civil Liabilites) Department.
    Mr. FRANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the scale of compensation is such that due appreciation will be shown to these gallant men for their conduct during the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The compensation is according to the market value at the time of loss. Our appreciation we hope to mark by assisting the men in some other way apart from that question.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is it not a fact that the market value is frequently a sum between £2,000 and £3,000, whereas the cost of replacing the vessel would amount to £5,000 or £6,000, and would it not be a graceful act on the part of the Government to recognise the services of the fishermen by giving them a boat instead of giving them money which would not be sufficient to provide a new boat?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Of course, I quite agree that the market value at the time of loss is not the cost of replacing these boats. We have settled the trawler cases—there are only six or seven left—and I hope that we may be able to settle the drifter cases. But we do desire to mark the country's sense of the services which these men have performed, and we have a scheme under discussion which I will be very glad to show to the right hon. Gentleman if he will examine it.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Will they replace the boat which has been lost by another boat instead of giving a money payment?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not competent to say whether that will be a feasible proposition.
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will you give the men the means of putting to sea? It is a great calamity to us all that these men cannot be fishing, and it would be a good investment to give them a boat and let them get to sea at once.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I agree, and I hope, as we have settled the English drifters' question to be able to settle the Scottish drifters' question.
    Mr. D. HERBERT: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether these men have not got a legal claim, as in the case of de Keysers Hotel, which is reported in to-day's paper?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have not examined that. I should think it is farfetched. What they get is the market value at the time of the loss. The difficulty is that the present market value is far more than that.

    INDUSTRIAL LIFE INSURANCE.
    Sir MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to appoint a Com-

    2205
    mission or Committee to inquire into the terms and conditions of industrial insurance; and whether, if so, he will undertake to see that there is some representative of the industrial insurance agents, on that body?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): It has been decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into industrial assurance, but the terms of reference to the Committee have not yet been definitely settled. In reply to the concluding paragraph of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 27th March to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston.
    Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider, seeing that the Government have decided to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into life assurance, direct representation of agents and collectors upon such Committee; and if he will advise that wide terms of reference, to include remuneration and conditions of service of agents and collectors, shall come within the scope of the inquiry and secure that agents and collectors shall give evidence for each life office and be permitted to cross-examine witnesses?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In reply to the first part of this question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 27th March to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston. The terms of reference to the Committee to be appointed to inquire into industrial life assurance have not yet been definitely settled, but the question whether the scope of the inquiry should include the conditions of service of agents and collectors is receiving consideration. Applications have been received from some of the associations which represent insurance agents to be allowed to give evidence, and such applications will be submitted to the Committee when appointed.

  IMPORT RESTRICTIONS.

    SUGAR.
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the proposed importations into this country of German-grown beet sugar in part payment of the war
    2206
    indemnity, adequate protection will be afforded to sugar growers in the British Colonies?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies gave on 10th March to a question addressed to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle North.

    ADVISORY COUNCIL.
    Mr. FRANCEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether four trade union representatives on the advisory council of the Restrictions of Imports Department have resigned; and, if so, what reason they have given for this course?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part therefore does not arise.

    MATCHES.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can say why, considering the duty of assisting the recovery of the industries of Belgium, only 90,000 gross of boxes of matches per month is allowed to be imported from that country, whilst 290,000 are permitted from Scandinavia; and if he will take steps to see that our Ally has at least equal privileges with a neutral country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Having regard to the capacity of Belgium as compared with that of Scandinavia to export matches to this country, I do not think that the ration accorded places Belgium under any disadvantage in this matter.

    FLOUR.
    Major WARD-JACKSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in order to develop the flour-milling industry of the United Kingdom, consideration will be given to the reduction of flour imported from overseas, with a corresponding increase in the imports of whole wheat?
    The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. This question will certainly be considered, but I am not able at present to make any statement on the subject.

    ANIMAL DISEASES (SLAUGHTERHOUSES).
    Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider

    2207
    the advisability of immediately making all diseases of animals that are communicable to human beings compulsorily notifiable, and of providing adequate compensation to be paid subsequent to any action that may in the public interest be determined; and if he will consider that in any scheme of national reconstruction there shall be provided a public abattoir for every urban district, and that in every district powers should be granted to the local authority to compulsorily close private slaughter-houses?
    Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the necessity of immediately making all diseases of animals that are communicable to human beings compulsorily notifiable, and of providing adequate compensation to be paid subsequent to any action that may in the public interest be determined; and whether, in any scheme of national reconstruction, he will consider the desirability of providing a public abattoir for every urban district, and of granting in every such district powers to the local authority to compulsorily close private slaughterhouses?
    Mr. ALFRED SHORTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of making all diseases of animals that are communicable to human beings compulsorily notifiable?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): Questions relating to the notification of diseases of animals and as to providing compensation are dealt with by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. In regard to the group of diseases mentioned, I will confer with my right hon. Friend. The question of providing public slaughter houses is under consideration.

    BEER AND SPIRITS.
    Major M'LEANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain the reason for the continuance of restrictions on the supply of spirits from bond?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. The restrictions on the delivery of spirits from bond were imposed at the time
    2208
    when it became necessary to limit the output of beer, and for the purpose of maintaining the proportion between the amounts of spirits and of beer normally consumed. So long as the output of beer continues to be limited, it is thought desirable to impose corresponding restrictions on the delivery of spirits for home consumption.
    Mr. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend that the restrictions on the output of beer should be absolutely withdrawn?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have given a good deal of consideration to this matter, and I am making a submission to the Cabinet.
    Mr. B. TILLETT: May I add my appeal to that?
    Mr. JOHN JONESasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that, owing to the restrictions on brewing, brewers are unable to employ their demobilised men because there is not sufficient work for them; that, if the Government would release another 25 per cent. of beer, brewers would be able to reinstate the majority of their former employés, although they would have to discharge the women who have been temporarily employed in their place; that if the trade could be restored to its normal conditions, the women could be retained on account of shorter hours of labour; and whether this matter can be reconsidered?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that the restrictions on brewing have reduced the amount of labour required in breweries as compared with conditions before the War. As I have already stated, the question of increasing the output of beer is now under consideration, but the decision rests not with my Department but with the Cabinet. I cannot at present make any further statement on the matter.

    MOTOR SPIRIT.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large stocks of petrol which are believed to be held in this country, he can give an assurance that no further increase in the selling price of motor spirit is contemplated; and can he say when a reduction in price can be expected?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is a fairly large stock of motor spirit available for civilian purposes at present in this country. Maximum prices for motor spirit are at present in operation, but I cannot say if any reduction in price is to be expected in the near future.
    Major NEWMAN: Can I have an answer to the first part as to whether any increase is contemplated?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Not by me.

  RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

    WAGON SUPPLY.
    Mr. GRATTAN DOYLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there are on the North-Eastern Railway system thousands of wagons shunted in sidings and remaining unused through need of repairs; and whether, in view of the complaints of traders, any steps can be taken to expedite the release of joiners and wagon wrights in order that many of these wagons may be available for service?
    Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am aware that there are considerable arrears in the repairing of wagons generally, although the circumstances stated in the question in respect of the North Eastern Railway in particular had not previously been brought to my notice.
    The Ministry of Labour applied for the release as pivotal men of about 400 employés of private wagon-repairing firms, the majority of whom have already been released. There can only be very few employés of private wagon-repairing firms remaining in the forces who are eligible for demobilisation. Steps are being taken to obtain particulars of such men and their release will be expedited as much as possible. The question of expediting the release of railway workshop staff is also receiving consideration.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say if certain railway companies are declining to employ skilled wagon builders and wheelwrights because they are over forty years of age?
    Mr. WARDLE: I should like notice of that question.

    BOYS' BRIGADES (TRAVEL FACILITIES).
    Mr. HAILWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the cheap railway facilities granted to cadets can be extended to members of boys' brigades; and if he is aware that if this is not arranged at an early date it will deprive about 3,000 boys in Manchester alone of their Whit-week holiday in seaside camps?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This matter has already been under consideration, but owing to the present position of the railways, it is, I fear, improbable that it will be found practicable to grant the cheap facilities referred to this year.
    Mr. HAILWOOD: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that it is introducing a form of duress in regard to these boys seeing that cadets already have these facilities because they are associated with the War Office and boys' brigades are not?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It is a question of necessity.

    GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY (EMPLOYMENT AT WAGON SHOPS).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the officials at the Great Central Railway wagon, shops, Annesley, Notts, have refused applicants for work on the ground that they are over forty years of age and that a man of forty-three years of age, with twenty-nine years' experience as a wagon builder and wheelwright, was so refused; and whether he will state if general instructions have been issued by this company that applicants over forty years of age are not to be engaged?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am communicating with the railway company on the matter, and will let the hon. Gentleman know the result.

    COTTON TRADE.
    Mr. FRANCEasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the alarming decrease in cotton exports for March; and if he can give the House the reasons for this?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The exports of cotton yarns and fabrics in March, 1919, were higher in value than in March, 1918; amounting to £12,166,561 as compared with

    2211
    £10,971,506. But the quantities exported show on the whole a substantial decrease. The main reason for this decrease (which is not confined to March, but is equally true of the preceding months) is the fact that buyers are at present holding off, owing no doubt to some extent to lack of confidence in the maintenance of present prices. It is to be hoped that before long the opinion may grow that no advantage is likely to be secured by further waiting, and that business will accordingly again become active.
    Mr. FRANCE: May I ask if the decrease in quantities is not, approximately, 100,000,000 yards for March, and is the hon. Member aware that some of this is partly due to the restrictions on exports which his Department has imposed?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot answer that question offhand.
    Mr. WADDINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the feelings caused in Manchester cotton-trade circles by his decision to allow the free import of manufactured cotton goods; will he state if he consulted any associations or individuals directly connected with the cotton trade before coming to a decision; and, if so, will he give the names of the associations or individuals consulted?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The decision which has just been announced was taken after full consideration of the recommendation of the Consultative Council on Imports, who took every relevant matter into account. Representatives of the trade were consulted before the recommendation was made, but I cannot undertake to give the names.
    Mr. WADDINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will cause inquiries to be made as to the prices at which cotton manufactured goods from the United States are being offered in this country compared with the prices for the same class of goods in the United States, and if, before allowing free importation, he will make a condition that a certificate shall accompany all imports, showing the home consumption value in the country of production and the sale price in this country; and will he, where dumping is practised, refuse admission for the goods, and will he also provide for confiscation of goods where false certificates are issued?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made recently by the Leader of the House to the effect that an anti-dumping Bill was actually in print. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to anticipate the statement which will be made when the Bill is under consideration, but if my hon. Friend cares to send in any information in his possession on which the suggestions in his question are based, I shall be glad to consider it.

    COAL COMMISSION.
    Brigadier - General COCKERILLasked the Prime Minister whether the Coal Commission is inquiring or is about to inquire into the question of nationalising the mines; and, if so, whether he will add to the Commission not less than six members representative of the interests of the private consumers and of the distributors of coal, who are not at present directly represented?
    Mr. WARDLE: The Coal Commission is not at present sitting. Its future activities will depend upon the result of the Miners' ballot which is now being taken. Until the result is known nothing can be decided.
    Brigadier-General COCKERILL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that six out of twelve members of the Commission have already reported in favour of nationalisation despite the fact that Mr. Justice Sankey stated that the evidence before the Commission was inadequate in order to enable them to decide such a momentous question, and, having regard to that fact, does he think that the interests of these persons should go wholly unrepresented?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am aware of what the hon. Member has stated, but there is the fact that the question has not been judged and there is no reason why fresh evidence should not be taken and another decision perhaps arrived at.

    LAND ACQUISITION (VALUERS' SALARIES).
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to pay the whole-time valuers proposed by the Land Acquisition

    2213
    Bill salaries, and to employ them on terms of service and pension commensurate with the highly skilled and responsible posts they are to fill; and whether the rate of salary and other terms can be stated to the House before the Second Reading of the Bill?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, I do not think the precise details can conveniently be settled at this stage.
    Mr. SCOTT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the amount and whether it will be commensurate?
    Sir G. HEWART: I cannot name any particular figure, but I have not the smallest doubt that the salary will be adequate.

  DEMOBILISATION.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he will issue from time to time, on lines similar to those of the War Office, a statement showing the numbers demobilised from the various Government Departments; and, in the event of such a statement being easily available, will he give the number that have been demobilised from 1st January to now or other convenient date?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow on the 2nd instant.

    ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL.
    Captain AINSWORTHasked the Prime Minister whether the Board of Trade Electricity Supply Bill will be presented to Parliament at an early date, in view of the fact that the Board of Trade Bill has been prepared as the outcome of a unanimous Report of its Committee after full consideration extending over three years?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope it may be possible to present this Bill before the House adjourns for the Easter Recess, or very soon after the Recess.

  JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked whether any decision has been come to regarding the establishment of joint industrial councils on the lines of the Whitley Report in the case of Government Departments and their employés as a result of the conference at Westminster on 8th April?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As a result of the conference on 8th April a Provisional National Joint Committee composed of Departmental representatives and representatives of the staff associations, has been set up to consider a Whitley scheme for the administration Departments of the Civil Service. As I had the pleasure of presiding over the meeting, perhaps I may say that I think from the spirit which prevailed there will be a satisfactory and profitable solution of our difficulty.

    GRADE A COUNCILS.
    Captain ORMSBY-GOREasked the Minister of Labour if he will state how many Joint Industrial Councils, Grade A, on the lines of the Whitley Report have been established by 1st January, 1st February, 1st March, and 1st April, 1919, respectively; and whether the greater part of the industries of the country are now covered by these councils?
    Mr. WARDLE: In answer to the first part of the question the number of Joint Industrial Councils set up under the Whitley Report by the dates mentioned is as follows:

    By 1st January, 1919

    …

    …

    19

    By 1st February, 1919

    …

    …

    24

    By 1st March, 1919

    …

    …

    24

    By 1st April, 1919

    …

    …

    29

    Since 1st April the thirtieth council has been set up, and another holds its first meeting to-morrow.
    These councils cover a total of about 1,800,000 workpeople, and further councils, covering an additional 700,000 workpeople, will be established in the near future, when they will comprise the great majority of the well-organised industries of the country, apart from four of the largest industries, namely: engineering, ship-building, mining, and railways, for which, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, no permanent joint bodies have yet been set up.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Has any council been set up for the agricultural industry?
    Mr. WARDLE: In the agricultural industry wages boards are in operation.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: But is it not a fact that wages boards only have a limited area over which they can exercise control—namely, hours and wages?
    Mr. WARDLE: I think not. I think that under the last Trade Boards Act, of last year, they can extend their operations.

    APPRENTICES (EXTRA PAYMENT).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour whether he can now say what are the results of the negotiations with the Joint Industrial Council with regard to the extra payment to apprentices; what is the scale of allowances; and when they will be paid?
    Mr. WARDLE: Including under Joint Industrial Councils other associations representative of employers and workpeople:

    (1) A scheme has been agreed in the engineering industry and approved by my right hon. Friend. Copies of the scheme have now been circulated to all Employment Exchanges. The wages payable to the apprentice are set out in the scheme, and I will furnish the hon. Member with a copy.

    (2) My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to approve before Easter schemes in eight important industries. All these schemes will be printed at once and circulated to the Employment Exchanges. The wages agreed will be stated in the schemes.

    (3) Negotiations with other industries are in a forward state, and schemes will shortly be approved.

    (4) The allowances will be paid weekly to the apprentices. Arrangements have in certain cases been made to render the scheme retrospective in its operations.

    Mr. ROWLANDS: Will the hon. Gentleman let me have that scheme at once—he promised it some time ago?
    Mr. WARDLE: The scheme has only just been put into operation, but I will send my hon. Friend a copy at once.

    BACHELORS (TAXATION).
    Mr. SITCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of his agreeing to give effect to the proposal now being pressed from certain quarters that he should include in the forthcoming Budget some provision for taxing bachelors as such, he will consider the advisability of qualifying any provision of that nature so as to ensure some distinction between bachelors who have no dependants and those who have, in order to prevent any hardships falling upon the latter, many of whom remain out of wedlock through an honourable recognition of claims upon them for support from aged parents or near relatives who might otherwise become chargeable to the ratepayers under the Poor Law?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

    RECTOR'S CLUB (PROFITS).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a strict supervision is being exercised over the accounts of Rector's Club and similar institutions, so that the Inland Revenue may receive the full benefit of the vast profits of these undertakings?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The various statutory provisions to ensure the due assessment and collection of Income Tax are of general application, and would of course be operative in the cases which my hon. Friend has in mind.

    BRITISH CELLULOSE AND CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
    Lieutenant - Colonel MALONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company are about to increase their capital by approximately £1,250,000 in preference shares; and whether this matter has received a licence under the revised Regulation 30 F of the Defence of the Realm Regulations?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The application of the company for permission to issue fresh capital

    2217
    was granted in January last, prior to the introduction of the Defence of the Realm Regulations referred to.

    INCOME TAX.
    Sir OWEN PHILIPPSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Grocers' Federation is reported to have been refused representation upon the Income Tax Commission on the ground that co-operative societies and trading bodies were not being allowed representation on the Commission; and whether, seeing that the co-operative societies have a representative on the Commission, as he announced on 27th March last, he will favourably consider granting representation to the Grocers' Federation, the Associated Chamber of Commerce, or the National Chamber of Trade?
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made sufficient provision for the representation of chambers of commerce on the Commission of Inquiry into the Income Tax; and whether, as a matter of fact, the small or individual trader is unrepresented while co-operative societies have secured representation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave to similar questions on Tuesday last.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked upon what basis he estimates that the Income Tax on the joint incomes of married people will or may increase from £20,000,000 to £50,000,000; and if that estimate is based upon the prospective increase of marriages or upon the prospective increase in the rate of taxation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The difference in the figures is accounted for by the fact that in the majority of cases the incomes of husband and wife are not at present distributed between them in such a way as to secure the maximum relief which separate assessment would render possible.

    FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the delay in introducing the
    2218
    Budget or in making some definite statement in connection with the future taxation of industry is having a prejudicial effect on the reconstruction of trade, and is consequently reducing the opportunities for the employment of labour; and if he will consider the advisability of making some statement before the Easter Recess?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I propose to open the Budget on Wednesday, 30th April, and the Government will ask the House to allow the discussion to continue after 8.15 if it is not found possible to conclude it before that hour. I should have much preferred to make it before Easter, but, unfortunately, I have not found it possible to do so.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    COCOA.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Food Controller whether it is now proposed to remove all control of the import and price of cocoa, and whether, in view of the stocks of cocoa in this country, the restriction will be removed under which only 50 per cent. of the total amount imported is allowed to be exported from this country?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Ministry of Food has exercised no control over the import of cocoa apart from taking the necessary steps to ensure that sufficient tonnage is placed at the disposal of importers to enable them to bring adequate supplies to this country. The question of removing or suspending the controlled price is now under review. As regards export, although there are considerable stocks of raw materials in this country, there is a great shortage of the finer qualities, and in order to safeguard home supplies it is still considered necessary to maintain the existing restrictions. I may add that the quantities of raw cocoa normally exported from this country before the War were very considerably below 50 per cent. of the importation.

    POTATOES.
    Mr. JOHN DENNISasked the Food Controller whether his attention has been directed to a public speech at Doncaster on the 5th April last by a member of the Potato (Growers' Prices) Commission; whether he is now prepared to adopt the view of the authority in question, who was

    2219
    also director of vegetable supplies and responsible for the contracts made with growers of the 1918 crop of potatoes, as to the validity of claims by such growers for all wastage subsequent to 1st November, 1918, other than normal; and, if not, whether he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject?
    Mr. ROBERTS: My attention has been called to a speech made at Doncaster on the 5th April by an official of the Agricultural Organisation Society who was formerly director of vegetable supplies at the Ministry of Food. I have, however, nothing to add to the statement recently made in this House in reply to the hon. Member, which was quoted in the speech in question.
    Mr. DENNIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that in the speech in question at Doncaster the interpretation of the Commissions' finding, as announced in this House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, was repudiated by the late Director of Supplies?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware that some misunderstanding has arisen, and I regard the incident as unfortunate.
    Captain COOTEasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that a meeting took place between delegates of the Farmers' Union and officials of his Ministry on 4th April at which proposals with regard to the assessment of compensation for the potato crop were submitted by the latter and that these proposals were rejected by the Farmers' Union delegates as being unsatisfactory; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in order that the pledge given in this House that the promises given with regard to the potato crop would be honourably fulfilled may be carried into effect?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Representatives of the National Farmers' Union and others were recently called into consultation by the Ministry of Food, with a view to their assisting the Ministry in determining the steps to be taken for the assessment of compensation due to potato growers as the result of abnormal wastage in certain districts. I cannot at present make any statement regarding the proposals and counter proposals discussed, but the hon. Member may be assured that the representations made by the growers will receive the fullest consideration.
    Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Is it not a fact that there is no real difference of opinion on principle but only on matter of detail?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think that is what my reply indicates.
    Major WOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a final statement upon this matter before the Adjournment?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I will endeavour to do so.

    MEAT.
    Mr. HAILWOODasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that the Manchester meat supply averages 75 per cent. frozen meat and 25 per cent. home-killed, whilst in the case of Liverpool and Birkenhead these figures are reversed; and whether this distribution is due to the present lack of ships on the Irish cross-Channel service to Manchester?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The hon. Member's statement is not correct. The average percentages of home-killed meat issued in the areas of Liverpool and Manchester have during the last few weeks been 49.4 per cent. and 51.7 per cent., respectively.

    MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (DEPARTMENTS).
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSOMasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the following Departments are still in existence, namely: Mechanical Warfare Overseas Allies Department, Munitions Shipping Finance and Losses Department, and the Factory Construction Department; what good purposes they now serve, and what is the monthly cost to the taxpayer of their maintenance; and how soon may their functions cease and the offices occupied returned to their former tenants?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): The answer is a long one, and I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The following is the answer referred to:
    The three Departments of the Ministry of Munitions to which the hon. Member refers are still in existence. The Mechanical Warfare (Overseas and Allies) Department is now employed in compiling a com-

    2221
    plete and permanent record of the numerous developments of the various types of tanks of Great Britain and the Allies, and the results of the extensive experiments made in connection with this new and important weapon. The staff which, at the date of the Armistice, numbered thirty-four, has been reduced to twelve persons, and the average monthly cost of the Department to the taxpayer is now £288. The work of the Department will be completed in about six months, and is being continued at the request of the War Office. The transfer of the work to that Department is at present under consideration. The Munitions Shipping Finance and Losses Section is recovering from carrying companies sums due for loss or damage of stores; arranging for the salvage of munition cargoes sunk during the War; and settling general average claims in connection with munition cargoes. The staff which on Armistice Day numbered eighteen, has been reduced to eight persons, and the average monthly cost is now £128. The amount recovered by the Section in the year to 31st December, 1918, was £54,000. It is anticipated that the work of the Section must continue for some time. The Factory Construction Department is engaged in supervising the completion of extensions of steel works towards which financial assistance was given by the Government. The staff which on the cessation of hostilities numbered twenty-seven, has been reduced to fourteen, and the average monthly cost is now £640. The work of the Department will probably be completed by the end of June next. It is anticipated that it will be possible for the Ministry to vacate the offices referred to during the next two weeks by utilising space at their disposal elsewhere which is being set free as the result of reductions effected in the staffs of other sections under their control.

  MUNITIONS.

    AIRCRAFT FACTORIES.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he is aware that numbers of men have been discharged from certain aircraft factories within the London area since 11th November last; that discharges are still being made despite the fact that within these factories there are stocks of raw material suitable for being used in the manufacture of doors, cupboards,
    2222
    stairs, wardrobes, and other necessaries in the construction of houses, and the internal fittings of the same, and that the machinery capable of making these useful articles is now standing idle; and whether he will consider the advisability of using this material, machinery, and labour for this purpose within these factories or of its disposal for immediate use elsewhere?
    Mr. HOPE: There is only one National aircraft factory in the London area to which the conditions indicated in the question would, in any way, apply, and that factory is engaged on the salvage of aircraft rendered obsolete by the termination of the War. I understand that there is sufficient capacity in the country for the manufacture of doors, cupboards, and other house fittings. Materials and machinery suitable for the purpose and surplus to the requirements of the Government are being placed on the market by the Disposals Board.
    Mr. LUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the Graham-White factory in Edinburgh there are several thousand cubic feet of wood, all of which is suitable for house-building purposes, and, having regard to the Government's programme, is it not desirable that that wood should be used for building purposes instead of men being dismissed and coming on to the unemployment fund as they are doing?
    Mr. HOPE: The instance I had in mind was not the one at Edinburgh. I have no knowledge of the wood being stored there.
    Mr. LUNN: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries?
    Mr. HOPE: Certainly.

    SIR E. SANDERS' REPORT.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCKasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether, in view of its public interest and importance, he will issue as a White Paper Sir Edgar Sanders' Report to the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) for the year ending 31st December, 1918?
    Mr. HOPE: I will have the hon. Member's suggestion considered.

    EXPLOSIVES, DINAS MAWDDWY.
    Mr. HADYN JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of

    2223
    Munitions whether he will say how the explosives now in the magazine at Dinas Mawddwy are being disposed of; what kind of new explosive is to be introduced; whether he will state the address or situation of the two magazines from which the new explosives have to be cleared; and whether such explosives can be stored in a magazine more accessible than that of Dinas Mawddwy?
    Mr. HOPE: The explosives now in the magazine are being dumped into the sea, as they are waste. I do not consider it in the public interest to say what kind of new explosive is to be introduced. The greater part of the new explosive will be brought from Ruabon, where it is stored in a brick works, which have to be evacuated without delay in view of the public necessity of producing bricks on the largest possible scale. The rest will come from Corsham, Wilts, where the magazine has to be relinquished owing to an agreement with the Bath Portland Stone Quarry Company. It is impossible for this quarry to be worked until these explosives are removed. It is impossible to find storage accommodation for this explosive at a more suitable spot than Dinas Mawddwy.

    SURPLUS MILITARY STORES.
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he will state how he proposes to deal with surplus military stores; and whether, in order to avoid the expense of middlemen and the transport of stores, he will arrange that from time to time public auctions should be held in all military camps and stations where there are surplus huts, furniture, and implements which can be used on the land, or any other stores which are likely to be purchased locally?
    Mr. HOPE: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made in the House by the Deputy-Minister of Munitions on the 5th March last, and the various public announcements which have from time to time appeared on the subject.

    MINISTRY OF LABOUR (APPOINTMENTS BOARD).
    Captain Sir R. BLADESasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that
    2224
    advertisements appealing to employers are being issued by the Appointments Board, simply inviting employers to apply for the services of officers, but giving no indication of the qualifications of such officers as are available; and will he direct in future that advertisements, where possible, should give some indication of the qualifications of those whose services are available?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am aware that the advertisements issued by the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour simply invite applications from employers without any indication of the qualifications of the men whose services are available. The fact is that the qualifications of the men available are so varied that it would be impracticable, within the limits of a Press advertisement, to publish them in sufficient detail to be of any real use to employers; but the Department publishes and circulates lists of candidates with qualifications grouped as to professions and industries, and these are issued to such firms as notify vacancies, according to the nature of the vacancy. I will arrange for a sample list to be sent to the hon and gallant Member.
    Mr. SITCHasked how many applications for employment have been received by the Appointments Department of the Ministry since the date of the Armistice from officers and men and ex-officers and men, respectively; and what number of such applicants are known to have been placed since that date in employment, other than with public departments, through the agency of the Department with individuals or firms by whom they were employed prior to joining the forces, and with individuals or firms by whom they were not employed prior to joining the forces?
    Mr. WARDLE: Since 11th November, 1918, 113,001 applications from serving and discharged officers and men have been received by the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour in respect of employment. This figure includes claims for priority of release to return to employment awaiting them, and applications for new employment to be found for them, and cannot be analysed so as to distinguish serving from discharged officers and men. As regards the second part of the question, as a result of applications by officers and men and by employers, about 165,000 release slips, accompanied by information as to the conditions of the

    2225
    employment awaiting them, have been issued by the Department. It is not possible to ascertain how many of these release slips have proved operative. Exclusive of 210 placed in Government Departments, 1,427 ex-officers and men are known to have been placed by the Department in new employment since 11th November, 1918. A number of officers failed to notify the Department when placed.
    Major Earl WINTERTON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that in some cases applications by officers and men for employment in their former prewar employment have not been sent on to the employers in question until two or three months after the original application was made?
    Mr. WARDLE: I have no knowledge of that. If my Noble Friend will give me any instances of that kind, I will inquire into them at once.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is he aware that in two cases of two men whom I employed, six weeks after they entered my employment I received a letter from his Department asking me if I would employ them?

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (UNEMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. RAPERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, of the total number of applicants at the Holloway Labour Exchange last week, out of the approximate total of 3,800, nearly 60 per cent. were discharged soldiers; and whether it is proposed to take immediate steps to deal with the serious question of unemployment among ex-Service men, which is illustrated by these figures?
    Mr. WARDLE: Out of 3,887 men registered for employment at the Holloway Employment Exchange on 21st March—to which date, I presume, my hon. Friend refers—54 per cent. were ex-Service men and less than 3 per cent. were disabled ex-Service men. I hope that the revival of industry will before long make it possible for the men now unemployed to obtain satisfactory employment. In the meantime divisional councils and local advisory commitees throughout the country are doing all in their power to increase the area of employment immediately available. Special steps are, moreover, being taken with regard to disabled men.

  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.

    OPERATIVE COTTON SPINNERS.
    Mr. FREDERICK GREENasked the Minister for Labour whether his attention has been called to the joint decision of the cotton manufacturers and the operative spinners to cause a stoppage in the spinning industry for the purpose of keeping up the prices, and to cause this stoppage in such a way as to secure the operatives while unemployed getting unemployed benefit at the public expense instead of coming upon the dispute funds of their trade unions; whether he has had representations from the weaving sheds of Lancashire and also from the lace and hosiery trades of Leicester, Nottingham, and other places protesting against this attempt of one branch of an industry to deprive other branches of the industry of their raw material except at swollen prices, and what steps he proposes to take?
    Mr. WARDLE: I am aware that work is to be suspended for a time in a certain section of the Lancashire cotton-spinning industry, and, after full consideration, it has been decided that out-of-work donation will be paid to the operatives during the period of suspension (excluding the ordinary three day's waiting period and a further three days representing the Easter holidays). The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and, in any case, concerns the Board of Trade rather than the Ministry of Labour. I must not, however, be understood as assenting to the hon. Member's suggestion as to the causes underlying the suspension.

    RETIRED CIVIL SERVANTS (PENSIONS).
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the temporary addition made to salaries of Civil servants, it is proposed to accord similar treatment to retired Civil servants, many of whom have served their country for forty years?
    Mr. PRATT: It has now been agreed that as a provisional arrangement war bonus within certain limits shall be reckoned for pension, but this concession cannot be extended to Civil servants who are not in receipt of war bonus at the time of their retirement.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (POST OFFICE SERVANTS).
    Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the Government decision to release all conscientious objectors; and whether, in these circumstances, he will permit Post Office servants who have been employed on other work of national importance to return to their Post Office duties?
    Mr. T. GRIFFITHSasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the decision of the Government to release all conscientious objectors who have served two years in prison; whether, among the men released, there are Post Office servants whose skill and ability would be an advantage to the public service at the present moment; and whether he will withdraw his prohibition against the employment of these men on Post Office work?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I am aware of the decision of the Government to which reference is made, and I am considering to what extent it justifies the reinstatement of Post Office servants who have been allowed to take up work of national importance outside the Post Office. I am not in any circumstances prepared to reinstate men who have remained in prison.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of ex-soldiers, especially members of the Royal Engineers, who were formerly Post Office employés, have the greatest possible objection to serving anywhere with conscientious objectors?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Yes; I am aware of it.

    COMMERCIAL WIRELESS SERVICE.
    Major WATTS MORGANasked the Postmaster-General whether the commercial ship and shore wireless stations formerly staffed and controlled by the Post Office are now staffed and controlled by the Admiralty; whether the Admiralty is at present carrying on a limited commercial wireless service through these stations; whether it is proposed that the Admiralty should permanently retain these stations; and, if not, will he say
    2228
    when the stations will be returned to the control of the Post Office and opened for ordinary commercial work?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The answer to the hon. Member's first two inquiries is in the affirmative. The matters referred to in the remainder of the question are still under consideration.
    Major MORGAN: Having regard to the dissatisfaction and friction arising, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite the return of the control to the Post Office?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: The whole thing is under consideration, and a Committee has been appointed, under the chairmanship of Lord Milner, which is going into these details.
    Major MORGAN: When may we expect a reply?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: They held their first sitting this morning. I cannot give any idea when a reply will be given, but I hope before long.

    AIR POSTAL SERVICE (EXPERIMENTAL).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Postmaster-General if he has made any arrangements for the provision of an aerial post in this country, or between Great Britain and Ireland, or from London to the Continent; if any experiments or trials have been made with the object of setting up such a postal service, and if he can make any statement on the subject?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: An experimental service has been established between Folkestone and Cologne for the conveyance of Army mails. No other Air mail service has been established in this country, or with Ireland or the Continent.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate an early flying service to Scotland?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: As soon as airmen can find London in a fog and land in a fog it will be practicable, but at present it is quite impossible, because the efficiency is only about 60 per cent.

    TELEPHONE ACCOUNT.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that a deposit of £1 is required from subscribers to the telephone service, he will give directions that such subscribers shall not be pressed for payment of amounts less than £1?
    Mr. ILLINGWORTH: Monthly accounts of telephone fees actually incurred are rendered, but it is not the practice to press for payment when the deposit in hand is deemed sufficient to cover a further month's fees.

  HOUSING.

    COUNCIL (MEMBERSHIP).
    Mr. J. DAVISONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in a case where an urban district council have adopted the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and have erected houses, there is a widespread opinion that a tenant of one of these houses is disqualified from being elected and sitting as a member of the council; and whether, if this opinion is correct, he will consider the advisability of introducing an Amendment to the Housing and Town Planning Bill with the object of meeting this point which, under the new housing scheme, will become more acute?
    Dr. ADDISON: I will look into the point raised in the hon. Member's question, and if it appears that legislation is necessary to deal with it, I will consider whether any provision to meet it would come within the scope of the Housing and Town Planning Bill.

  HEALTH VISITORS.
  Sir H. HARRISasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to issue an order prescribing the qualifications and salaries of health visitors; and, if so, whether he is willing to receive suggestions on the subject?
  Dr. ADDISON: I have the subject of the training qualifications and duties of health visitors now under consideration; and though my hon. Friend will no doubt assume that I have competent advisers, I
  2230
  shall of course be happy to receive suggestions from him. I may add that I have already invited suggestions from a number of representative persons.

  VENEREAL DISEASES (NOTIFICATION).
  Mr. CAIRNSasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware of a hospital in the North of England which had, in 1917, 2,688 venereal cases for treatment, and in 1918 2,371 cases, and can he make an Order for the notification of such cases or incorporate in the Health Bill some powers to enforce such notification?
  Dr. ADDISON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made in the House yesterday by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

  HIGHER EDUCATION (SERVICE MEN).
  Mr. ROBERT YOUNGasked the President of the Board of Education how many applications have been received by the Board of Education since the date of the Armistice, from officers and men, and ex-officers and men, for financial assistance to enable them to pursue courses of higher education at universities and similar institutions; what is the number of individuals to whom financial assistance has been given; and what is the average amount of such assistance given in each case?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): At present the Board have dealt only with applicants in urgent need of financial assistance under special Regulations, and interim Grants have been made to these students pending settlement of their applications for a final award. The total number of applications for interim Grant received up to the 5th instant is 1,623, and of these 1,149 have been approved. The average amount of assistance granted per applicant is £28 per term. The amount of the interim Grant does not indicate or prejudice the amount of the final award which I will expedite as much as possible.

  EDUCATION RATE.
  Mr. LEONARD LYLEasked the President of the Board of Education if he will take into consideration the heavy burden of the education rate in poor thickly-populated districts with the object of devising some scheme by which the cost of elementary education can be more equitably borne by the community as a whole?
  Mr. FISHER: The Regulations for Grants for elementry education recently issued make considerable provision for lightening (proportionately) the burden borne by the poorer and more thickly-populated districts. The problem is one of great difficulty, and if the hon. Member can make any contribution to its solution or the removal of any features which can properly be described as inequitable, I shall be grateful to him.

  RETAIL BUSINESS LICENCE.
  Major Earl WINTERTONasked the Minister of National Service why he has not granted a licence to start a retail business applied for by Mr. Harrison Baker, of 14, Southfield Road, Broadwater, Worthing?
  Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. Inquiries are being made into this matter, and I will communicate the result to my hon. and gallant Friend.

  IRISH CATTLE TRAFFIC.
  Major NALLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he will explain why Irish cattle traffic, that could be most conveniently dealt with at the port of Manchester, has been diverted to Holyhead by the Director of Cross-Channel Transport; and whether he is aware that the Director is also a London and North-Western Railway Company official?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): This matter has been dealt with by the Ministry of Shipping in conjunction with the Ministry of Food. There is at present a serious shortage of tonnage suitable for the carriage of live stock, and as a steamer can make on the average three trips to Liverpool or Holy-
  2232
  head against two to Manchester, it is considered important to make the fullest possible use of the shorter route. I must repudiate the insinuation which appears to be contained in the last part of the question.
  Major NALL: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consult the Minister-designate of Transport, as this is one of the cases m which transport is being carried long distances by rail where it need not go by rail at all?
  Colonel WILSON: At the present moment it is a question which entirely rests with the Ministry of which I spoke.

  WAR MEDAL AND RIBAND.
  Major-General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether a general war medal has been decided upon and the design of a ribbon for the same been approved; whether the design of the ribbon has been registered under the Patents and Designs Act, and an Order issued by the Army Council that no person will be allowed to deal in such ribbon without the written permission of the Army Council; and whether he is aware that such an Order, if issued, is directly contrary to the decision come to by this House on Wednesday, the 2nd April last, when the Army (Annual) Bill was in Committee of the Whole House; and what steps he proposes to take to see that the Army Council do not by administrative action over-ride the decision and order of this House?
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): A general war medal has been decided upon, and the design of a riband has been approved. The design of the riband has been registered under the Patents and Designs Act, the object of such registration being to ensure that all the riband manufactured shall be conserved for Government requirements It is the intention that a free preliminary issue shall be made to all men entitled to the medal, whether serving or discharged. The quantity of riband required exceeds 2,000,000 yards, and if the private manufacture and sale of this riband is permitted before Government requirements are satisfied, the issue of the riband will be delayed for a very long time. As in the case of the 1914 Star riband, which was similarly

  2233
  registered, this riband will be released for general sale as soon as sufficient quantities are obtained. The War Office is not only responsible for obtaining sufficient riband for the Army, but has to provide for the consolidated requirements of all Government Departments, which include the Admiralty, Air Ministry, Colonial Office, Board of Trade, India Office, and all Dominions.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: Then my right hon. Friend has no intention of licensing all the traders in this country who desire to provide this riband for soldiers after the public issue has been completed?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No; I do not intend to do that, but I think it is perfectly natural that we should try to get the riband out for men who have earned it as quickly as possible, and for that purpose we muse have control in the first instance.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman does not propose to license all the traders afterwards, because the wording in the Order is that they may not deal in it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Oh, no!
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: When the Army (Annual) Bill was before this House, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Cumberland (Major C. Lowther) proposed that the Army licence should be given, and the right hon. Gentleman will probably remember that he said he could not accept it.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that I have no intention whatever of over-riding the law of the land, and if I had such extreme intention I could not carry it into effect. The law has been passed and must rule. Administrative action can in no way run counter to law.
  Sir I. PHILIPPS: But does not my right hon. Friend see that if he makes this a Patent production, and does not take steps to see that it is not a monopoly, he is creating a gigantic monopoly in the country for the supply of riband to 10,000,000 soldiers and sailors?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir; what we want to do is to get these ribands out so that they may be worn before the people have almost forgotten about the War, and the moment that is over there will be free trade.

  MILITARY AWARDS.
  Captain CHARLES CRAIG(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has come to any decision yet as to making a distinction in the 1914 and 1915 ribbon?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; a decision has been reached that it should be a silver rosette similar to that which marks the repeated D.S.O. on the 1915 ribbon for the 1914 men of the original Army. I have submitted to a Committee a study of the Regulations which shall secure that this rosette is only to be given to those people who in 1914 really took part in the fighting, and not distributed to large masses of people who never went beyond Havre.
  Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: May I ask whether it is proposed to give a free issue of this new ribbon with the rosette upon it?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; we intend in the first instance to make a free issue not only to serving but to discharged soldiers, and that issue will be governed by the same roles as the ribbon.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ADAMSON: May I ask the Home Secretary what is the business to be taken to-day; and is it intended to take the Motion for Adjournment on Tuesday? Can the right hon. Gentleman also state whether the Prime Minister will be in a position to make a statement to the House before the Adjournment?
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): The Adjournment will take place on Wednesday instead of Tuesday. The Prime Minister hopes to return on Tuesday, and to make a statement to the House on the Motion for Adjournment on Wednesday. In these circumstances, on Tuesday the Second Reading of the Aliens Restriction Bill will be taken.
Mr. ADAMSON: What about the business for to-day?
Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): We propose to take the first four Orders on the Paper:
Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill—Second Reading;

2235
Scottish Board of Health Bill—As amended, to be considered; Public Health (Medical Treatment of Children) (Ireland) Bill—As amended, to be considered; and the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill—As amended, to be considered.
We also propose to take the Financial Resolution on Order 6, Housing, Town Planning, etc.
Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not insist upon Attempting to take the Report stage of the Scottish Board of Health Bill. That Bill only finished its Committee stage yesterday, and has not been yet reprinted for use on Report. There are some very important Amendments to be put forward, and it would really be a serious restriction of our opportunities to amend that Bill if its consideration were forced to-night.
The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I should like to put it to my right hon. Friend that if the discussion on the Acquisition of Land Bill ends at a reasonably early hour I hope he will not press the Government not to go on to the Report stage of the Scottish Health Bill. In putting it down on the Paper I did so after I had approached many of my Scottish colleagues on the subject. The Bill has been fully discussed in Committee, and the Amendments are very few. I know no Amendment which any hon. Member desires to put down except those which my right hon. Friend opposite has consulted me about. I really think the opportunity is so valuable that it ought not to be thrown away; and I would appeal to my right hon. Friend not to press the matter until we see what progress is made with the other business.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sorry, but I must press the matter. My right hon. Friend knows that there are at least three very important Committees sitting. Members are scattered over those Committees, and no longer have the opportunity of concentrating their attention on these very important Bills. I should very, very strongly object to this measure being taken any further to-night.
Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the only measure for Tuesday will be the Aliens Bill?
Lord E. TALBOT: Much depends on what may be left over. We shall probably suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to finish outstanding business.
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Lord E. Talbot.]

FRONT OPPOSITION BENCH.
Captain BERTRAND WATSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Will you kindly inform the House under what conditions, and by whose authority, certain hon. Members have taken their seats to-day on the Front Opposition Bench?
Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that a party—I do not know whether to call it a new party or whether it is one of the old parties—has been recently formed under the chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert). In order to assist that right hon. Gentleman in his duty, two hon. Gentlemen who help him as Whips have taken their seats beside him, in accordance with the practice of the House, and in order that he should not be at a disadvantage as compared with his colleague sitting on his immediate right (Sir D. Maclean). I see no objection to it. Moreover, there is more room on that bench than on any other.

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL).
Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. John William Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Stanley

  2237
  Johnson and Major M'Micking; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Neville Chamberlain and Sir Edgar Jones.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Captain Elliot, Mr. Leonard Lyle, Mr. Simm, Sir E. J. Thomas, Major Barnes, Lord Henry Cavendish - Bentinck, Captain Charles Craig, Major David Davies, Sir Cyril Cobb, Mr. Thomas Davies, Mr. Devlin, Mr. Galbraith, Major Hills, Mr. M'Guffin, Mr. John Murray, Mr. Onions, Sir Alfred Warren, and Colonel Weigall; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Francis Lowe, Major Christopher Lowther, Mr. Wilson-Fox, Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. Waddington, Lieutenant-Colonel Walter Guinness, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, Sir William Watson Cheyne, Mr. Sugden, Mr. Hopkins, Major Wood, Mr. Hugh Edwards, Sir John Tudor Walters, Colonel William Thorne, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Waterson, Mr. John Taylor, and Mr. Pemberton-Billing.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee A the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Bill): Dr. Addison, Major Astor, Mr. Attorney-General, Major Birchall, Sir Francis Blake, Mr. Davison, Mr. France, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Kiley, Captain Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Perkins, Sir Philip Pilditch, Colonel Royds, and Mr. Leslie Scott.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to change the name and extend the objects of the Legal and General Life Assurance Society; and for other purposes." [Legal and General Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill intituled, "An Act for enabling D. H. Evans and Company, Limited, to re-arrange its capital and to provide for the cancellation of its founders' shares and to issue fully paid ordinary shares in exchange therefor, and for altering the memorandum and articles of association of that company and to increase its capital, and for enabling D. H.
2238
Evans and Company Founders' Shares Company, Limited, to accept such ordinary shares of D. H. Evans and Company, Limited, in exchange for the founders' shares of that company, and to pay to the directors of D. H. Evans and Company Founders' Shares Company, Limited, compensation for loss of office as directors of that company; and for other purposes." [D. H. Evans and Company Bill [Lords.]

LEGAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
D. H. EVANS AND COMPANY BILL [Lords.]
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
BILL PRESENTED.
HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING, ETC. (SCOTLAND), BILL,—"to amend the enactments relating to housing, town planning, and the acquisition of small dwellings in Scotland," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ACQUISITION OF LAND BILL.
  Order read for Second Reading of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Bill.
  The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  4.0 P.M.
  In moving, very briefly, the Second Reading of this Bill, I may, perhaps, offer two observations which will receive assent in all quarters of the House. The first is that, whatever else may be uncertain about the plans and purposes of national reconstruction, this Bill undoubtedly involves, and involves upon a considerable scale, the acquisition of land for public purposes. Hardly a candidate at the last election omitted to see and to say so much, and there is probably not a Member of this House who is not, in some form, pledged to that course. The second observation is that for the land so acquired a fair price must be paid. It is, perhaps, conceivable that there are wicked vendors who, when they sell land, desire to get a price which is too high. It is just possible, too, that there are virtuous purchasers who, when they buy land, desire to pay a price which is too low. The task of Parliament is less exciting but not less difficult. It is to provide machinery by which, in case of dispute, a price that is fair and reasonable may be fixed, and fixed without unnecessary expense or avoidable delay. That is the sole purpose of the present Bill. It is always easy and even attractive to criticise a Bill not for what it is but for what it is not. I should like to admit cheerfully and at once that there is an enormous number of things which this Bill does not attempt to do. Its scope is strictly limited, and its object is, as the title of the Bill says, "to amend the law as to the assessment of compensation in respect of land acquired compulsorily for public purposes, and the costs in proceedings thereon." That the law on this matter needs amendment few, I imagine, will deny. Experience extending over seventy years and more has provoked a general, if not a unanimous, opinion that the Lands Clauses Acts, with their two arbitrators and umpire, their provision as to costs, and the method of
  2276
  valuation which they encourage and foster, are for many purposes, at any rate, at once extravagant, dilatory, and cumbrous.
  How does the present Bill approach this problem? It begins by setting up a new tribunal for valuation. It lays down certain rules to guide the tribunal in assessing the value of land. It regulates the procedure before the tribunal, and it modifies the law as to costs. It gives finality to the awards of the tribunal, subject to one appeal and one appeal to the King's Bench Division upon questions of law. Finally, it regulates the relations between the provisions of the present measure and the existing enactments as to the assessment of compensation. The sole purpose is to secure fairness both as to price and as to the costs, and as the Bill deals only with cases where the amount of compensation is disputed, it may well be that one of its useful effects will prove to be that it reduces the number of disputes. In other words, if you cannot expect more than fair compensation and if you cannot count upon conducting your dispute at the public expense, there is a certain temptation to dispute taken away.
  May I say a word or two upon some of the main provisions of this Bill? The House, I am sure, appreciates the fact that the Bill confers no additional power of acquisition of land at all. It starts with the case where land is now or hereafter authorised to be acquired compulsorily by any Government Department or any local or public authority, and there is a question of disputing compensation. That question is by this measure referred to someone or other, but only to one of a panel of official valuers, and those valuers in turn are appointed and rules as to their selection in individual cases are to be made by a reference committee. That committee, so far as England is concerned, is to consist of the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institute, and there are corresponding provisions in relation to Scotland and Ireland. The House will observe that there is reference to these valuers upon two points. First of all, they are to be appointed for such term as may be determined by the Treasury; and, secondly, during the period in which they hold office they are to be debarred from private practice as estate or land agents, surveyors, or valuers.

  2277
  The proposal to refer questions of this kind to a panel of referees is not novel, and the House will no doubt recall a recent precedent. Under this Bill it is proposed that the valuers shall be debarred from private practice. I do not think I need say anything in explanation or justification of that proposal. There are at least two good reasons. In the first place there is the obvious inconvenience, upon which I need not dwell, of a man sitting one day in a judicial capacity and another day he is giving evidence as an expert witness upon a controversial issue of the same kind. The second reason is that it is anticipated that under the provisions of this measure there will be a sufficient volume of work to occupy the whole time and energy of the gentlemen who may be appointed to carry out this work. Then there follows certain rules for the guidance of the official valuer. I need not enumerate all of them, but I will mention one or two. The first, and in some respects perhaps the chief, is that no allowance is to be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory—that is to say there is to be no 10 per cent., which has come to be the conventional figure under the Lands Clauses Acts, although, as the House is aware, that figure has no place in the Acts themselves. Not only is there to be no 10 per cent., but there is to be no allowance at all. That proposal, again, is not without precedent, and it is to be found in comparatively recent legislation. It was so in the case of the Smallholdings and Allotments Act of 1908, the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, the Development and Roads Improvement Funds Act, 1909, and in the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916.
  The next rule which is laid down for the guidance of the official valuers relates to the general principle upon which the measure of value is to be ascertained—that is the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise. I cannot help observing that since the Bill was printed that proposal has excited at least two criticisms, and I will say a word upon each of them. In the first place, it is said on the one hand that the phrase "a willing seller" ought to be followed by the phrase "a willing buyer." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I note that that remark has some adherents in this House, but I cannot help thinking that arises through a misunderstanding. The
  2278
  phrase "a willing seller" presupposes a willing buyer, and accordingly that phrase has been embodied in recent legislation. If hon. Members will look at Section 25, Sub-section (1), of the Finance Act of 1910, they will find that these words are copied, word for word, from that Section—that is the exception which deals with the fixing of the gross value of land for the purpose of land values.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in any part of that Act the phrase "a willing buyer" is not inserted?
  Sir G. HEWART: That may be so and that is exactly what we desire in this Act to avoid.
  Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: Is the House to understand that the phrase, "a willing seller," import a willing buyer? Is it not possible to imagine a case of a man who desires to sell, but there is no market in which to sell?
  Sir G. HEWART: The term, "a willing seller," considered at large, written upon a sheet of paper, might not imply a willing buyer, but in the words in this context I say that a willing seller does import a willing buyer at a price which land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise. That imports a willing buyer. My second observation is that this is not an innovation. I think it has been said that now, for the first time, this phrase finds its way into a Bill, but that is not so. The Clause proceeds to exclude value due to special suitability in certain cases, and it further excludes value due to the use of land in any illegal or insanitary manner. I do not think I need say a word in justification of that proposal, because it is one which, so far as land taken for houses is concerned, is already to be found in the Housing Act of 1890.
  Finally, there is a provision in proper cases for the calculation of the value upon the basis of reinstatement. May I say a word or two on the procedure laid down before the official valuer? There is, first of all—and those who know most about this kind of proceeding will probably be the most ready to welcome it—a limit upon the number of witnesses; and, secondly, it is provided that counsel or solicitor may be employed only by consent. Then there follows what I trust will appear to the House a useful provision as to the consolidation of proceedings on claims for compensation

  2279
  in respect of various interests in the same land. Nobody would deny that it is wrong that more should be paid for land in which several persons are interested than would be paid for it if there were a single owner in fee simple. The existing practice of separate assessments not only produces sometimes, in the aggregate, a greater amount than would be paid to the owner in fee simple, but it also leads to a considerable waste, both of time and of money, by reason of the multiplicity of proceedings. Then the Bill proceeds to lay down provisions which are of the essence of the matter as to cost. One of the disadvantages of the present system, or want of system, is that those who are selling land to a public authority can, as a rule, be perfectly certain that they can fight out the question of price at the expense of the public authority. That has two results. It leads to the pitching of the price too high, and it leads to quite unnecessary expense.
  These provisions in Clause 5 are important in three different respects. First of all, under the Lands Clauses Act, as a rule, those who are acquiring the land have to pay all the costs. It is quite true that that rule is modified to some extent by some recent Acts of Parliament, but this Bill goes further. This Bill, subject to certain exceptions, puts the rule the other way. It gives the tribunal an unfettered discretion as to costs. I said that there were certain exceptions. Let me refer to one. Under the Lands Clauses Act, if the sum awarded does not exceed the amount which is unconditionally offered, the result, and the only result, is that half the cost of the proceedings are borne by each of the two parties. Under this Bill, it is provided that in such a case, namely, where the purchasing authority has unconditionally offered a sum than which no larger sum is awarded, the costs not merely may but must be paid by the landowner. That, it is contemplated, will be an incentive, and a powerful incentive, to the acceptance of a reasonable offer. Finally, under the Lands Clauses Act there is no power to require a claimant for compensation to state either the amount of his claim or the particular nature of his claim. That, in practice, has proved to be a most embarrassing omission. It is obviously difficult—difficult to the point of impossibility—for those who are about to acquire the land to make a suitable offer if they cannot obtain
  2280
  particulars of the claimant's claim, or particulars of the nature of his claim. To some extent, and only to some extent, that omission has been repaired in certain Acts of Parliament. Sometimes you find a provision requiring that such particulars shall be given by the claimant, under penalty in case of default, if those particulars are asked. You find such a provision, for example, in the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and in various County Council Acts and other Acts; but, again, in this respect this Bill goes further. It makes it obligatory in all cases to give those particulars under penalty of having to pay the costs if the claimant fails to give them within a reasonable time.
  I pass from that to say a word or two on Clause 6, which provides for the finality of the award. The finding of the valuer upon the question of fact is to be final and conclusive, but upon a question of law he may state a case, or he may be required to state a case, for the opinion of the King's Bench Division. That appeal is to stop at the King's Bench Division. For the expedition of the settlement of the claimant's claim and the avoidance of excessive costs, it is not proposed that appeals of that character should be carried forward to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. I do not think that I need enter into the details of the proposals dealing with the effect that the new Act is to have upon existing enactments. Quite shortly, the provisions come to this, that the machinery of this Bill is to supersede the machinery of the other enactments so far as they relate to the same subject matter, except in certain specific cases which are named, where a yet more advantageous procedure is already provided. By another Clause in the Bill it is provided that nothing in this Act is to prevent the parties agreeing upon a single arbitrator, if they are so minded. If they do agree upon a single arbitrator, then he acts in the same way and with the same powers as if he were an official valuer appointed under the Act itself. Finally, it provided by the Definition Clause, the second part of Clause 10, that "land" includes water, and any interests in land or water, and any easement or right in, to, or over land or water, and "public authority" means any body of persons, not trading for profit, authorised by or under any Act to carry on a railway, canal, dock, water, or other public undertaking. That, in the briefest outline, is a summary

  2281
  of the provisions of the Bill. I always hesitate to express an opinion as to the meaning of the Scottish Clauses in a Bill, but I understand that the Scottish Clause in this Bill has come not from an English Office, but from the Scottish Office, and that it has the effect of applying the Bill to Scotland.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect it has upon the Scottish Smallholdings Bill?
  Sir G. HEWART: At the moment I am not in a position to answer that question, but I will ascertain, and it shall be answered. I was saying that this is a Bill of limited scope. We quite recognise that it does not deal with the mode in which compulsory powers are to be got. We quite recognise that it does not deal with all acquisitions of land compulsorily, but the Bill is intended to serve a particular, definite, and limited purpose, and within its scope I commend it to the House. There is one duty which I ought to perform before I sit down, and that is to express, on behalf of all concerned, the obligations which we feel to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott), who presided, and presided so ably, over a Departmental Committee whch went very fully, not only into this matter, but into many other matters, and upon whose recommendations we have fully drawn.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words
  "This House declines to proceed further with a measure which falsifies the hopes held out by the present Government at the General Election of a great scheme of land reform and which fails to provide a simple, cheap, and expeditious procedure for the granting of compulsory powers to acquire land and rights over, under, or in connection with land where it is in the national interest that such powers should be granted and makes no attempt to deal with the subject of compensation as a whole, and particularly with betterment and injurious affection."
  I desire, on behalf of the Committee over which I had the honour of presiding, to thank the Attorney-General for his ample and courteous appreciation of the services which we have tried to render. The Committee was one composed of men who were all very busy and all well experienced from different points of view in the very delicate topics with which we had to deal, and I can assure the House that they have devoted an amount of time to
  2282
  the consideration of this subject, to the sacrifice of their private interests, and deserve well of the nation. The Motion standing in my name may seem to some to be couched in terms of hostility to the Bill or to the Government. Neither were intended, but the matter is of so great importance, in spite of its very technical and difficult character, that I thought it my duty, on behalf of the Committee over which I presided, to attempt to bring before the House the larger aspects of the question, which without such a Motion could not have been discussed. The Motion indicates no distrust of the general policy or the intentons of His Majesty's Government. It is born of a belief that the Government have concentrated too much attention on the question of urgency, and have underestimated the desire of this House for thoroughgoing reform. The need of reform in regard to land is as urgent as it is in regard to any other single topic that was the subject of promises and speeches by the Government at the last election.
  I want to say a little about the urgency of the reforms, and the need for wise and thoroughgoing legislation. I and my Committee regard the private enjoyment of land as accompanied by a public trust. We think it is the duty of every owner of land on the one hand to use it in the national interest, and on the other to be content to give it up, when the public interest requires it, on payment of fair compensation. In our view, it is vitally necessary at the present time—more necessary now than it has ever been in the history of this country—that those two principles should be enforced. We have seen an illustration of the one in the use of land under the Corn Production Act. Another illustration with which my Committee are at present dealing is provided in the occupation of mines and minerals, and the development of the mineral resources of the country. The second principle, that every man who owns land has a duty when called upon by the nation on national grounds to give it up, seems to us to be inherent in the nature of modern society. It is the only condition upon which, in our view, a progressive community can permit private ownership of a monopoly like land. It is equally necessary, when land has to be taken from its owner, that he should not be robbed. Compensation must be fair, and owners must know that it will be fair. Otherwise, you will create a feeling of insecurity,

  2283
  such as has been created before now in this country by legislation in regard to the ownership of land. The result of such insecurity is that capital is not invested, and development is prevented. Just now, when reconstruction is so necessary, and the livelihood of everyone depends upon the promotion of industrial and agricultural productivity, it is more than necessary that we should avoid doing anything that will create insecurity in the minds of owners of land.
  There is special need of care in this matter. Nationalisation is no substitute for individual enterprise. My own view is that you will never get the same measure of brains, energy, adventurous courage and capital from a Government Department as you will from private enterprise. For that reason I and my Committee also reject nationalisation as a solution of the difficulties in regard to the development of the nation's resources. We should aim at making the land readily available whenever it is in the public interest that it should be acquired from its present owners, and no class interests must be allowed to stand in the way. To attain this we must have a simple, cheap, and expeditious procedure. Then we must make certain that the private owner is treated with justice; and secondly—this is of the greatest importance, and perhaps of all the particular objections to the way in which the Government have approached this subject this is the greatest—nothing must be done which will imperil the liberty of the subject. At first sight the point of my remark is not apparent. It is this: that if you leave to Government Departments the duty and the power of making Orders for the compulsory acquisition of land under any system which is analogous to that which has been the practice in recent years, and which is represented in each one of the Government measures that has been before this House involving the acquisition of land, we run a grave risk. At the outset I want to emphasise this. The risk is that a Government Department making such Orders, makes them in secrecy. No one knows the grounds upon which they act; there is no publicity to check them. In my view, the liberty of the subject in the future is more imperilled by bureaucratic and unchecked power of the Government Departments and of the Executive than ever it was in the days of the Stuarts by the Crown.
  2284
  Those are the principles we should have in mind in approaching the topic before the House.
  The present Bill is, as the Attorney General has pointed out, very limited in character. What is the whole subject, a part of which is touched by the Bill? The subject divides itself quite naturally, in the first instance, into two halves—first, the half which relates to the acquisition, to the power to take land compulsorily; and, secondly, the half which deals with compensation and all the other correlative questions which follow and have to be dealt with in respect of land when power to take it has already been granted. There is a number of different points connected with the taking of land after the power to take it has been granted. It is not merely a question of assessing the price of a particular piece of land. Hon. Members who are familiar with these questions will know that there is such a number of different topics of real, practical importance that anyone not familiar with the subject, when given a list of them, would be astonished. Let me take one or two of them. Take the question which, to my mind, is one of great practical importance in regard to the future development of this country after the War—the subject of betterment. Where the property is improved in value by the construction of public works of one sort or another in a district, as very often happens, under the present law a large present of value is made to the owner of the land so benefited. The country, the local authority, the railway company, whoever it may be, who is constructing the undertaking which causes the benefit, at present gets nothing out of the improved value. It is a windfall, a present to those who are so benefited. I ask why should that present be made? Why should not the community, or why should not the promoters, have the benefit of some of that pecuniary advantage they are bringing in their train? Take another subject, correlative to the subject of betterment, namely, what is known as injurious affection—that is, damage done to those who are in the neighbourhood of the undertaking by the user of the undertaking, which may be one which causes damage rather than betterment. Why should not the whole of that subject be dealt with? This Bill does not touch it. Take another subject that is not touched by this Bill. Private promoters, railway companies, statutory companies of all kinds, are excluded from the Bill. Why

  2285
  should not they be dealt with? If the price or the compensation fixed by the Bill whieh is to be paid to the owner whose land is taken is a fair price—and the Attorney-General has maintained that it is a fair price—why should the landowner whose land is taken for the purposes of a railway be paid a smaller price or a larger price than that? There is no rhyme or reason in it. The essence of the matter is that, wherever land is taken because it is in the national interest that it should be taken, that owner should receive neither more nor less than fair compensation. I suggest that there is no logical reason, or any reason of public policy, which should distinguish the case of a man whose land has to be taken for a school from that of a man whose land has to be taken for a railway company. It is utterly irrational, and a view this House ought not to sanction.
  I shall deal more in detail with the omissions from the Bill in a few moments. For the present, I recognise that the Government are treating this as an emergency measure. I believe that their view is, from what one has heard, that this Bill is essential to the carrying out of the other three Bills—the Housing Bill, the Ways and Communicationss Bill, and the Land Settlement (Facilities) Bill. I say no more on that subject, except to point out that in the Ways and Communications Bill they leave the Lands Clauses Acts, 1845, still to apply. That is utterly illogical. I know what answer the Attorney-General will make. He will say that although the draft of the Ways and Communications Bill sticks to the Lands Clauses Acts, yet this Bill, when it becomes law, will override those provisions in the Ways and Communications Bill. I believe that will be done as a matter of legal interpretation of the two Bills taken together, but it is a most confused method of legislating in this House. I recognise that certain powers must be obtained quickly in regard to the assessment of compensation. I believe the whole House agrees with that, and that the existing state of affairs is anomalous, that the prices paid are excessive, that the costs incurred have been excessive, and that, for the purpose of acquiring land for the great public purposes covered by the various Bills now before the House, new machinery is necessary. As such I welcome this Bill, as far as it goes. But if I may use
  2286
  an unparliamentary expression, this is a tinkering Bill, tinkering with a great subject. It is like sewing new cloth on to old cloth. The result will be it will tear all round the margin where it is sewn on. I can assure the House that the complexity of the legislation at the present time relating to this subject of the acquisition of land, compensation, and so on, is so great that it requires the most skilled lawyer to interpret it. I venture to assert, with some knowledge of the class, that there is no lawyer who can tell you without some considerable research what are the particular provisions to apply to any particular subject. I suspect the Attorney-General will agree with me. That being so, is not this the time when we do not want to tinker but when we want, if we can, if it is reasonably feasible with due regard to the time of the House which is available, to introduce a measure which will sweep away this network of cobwebs of outworn legislation, which is so difficult for even the most skilled lawyer to piece together and understand. We want to start clear in this period of reconstruction, and not to start with patchwork.
  There is another observation to be made about the present position as regards this Bill. Of course it is an emergency measure, but it is not only an emergency measure, it is a permanent measure, and it is intended to be a permanent solution of a problem which we have all recognised for many years past as crying for solution. That being so, it is impossible for us to regard it only as an emergency measure. The House must test it also from the point of view of its permanent character. Some of the omissions from the measure can be put right in Committee. The proposals in the Bill with which the House disagrees can be put right in Committee. But the scope of the Bill is defined by its Title, read in the light of its provisions. I am authorised by Mr. Speaker to say that under this Bill there are two subjects which are definitely excluded from its scope and cannot be brought in by way of Amendment in Committee. Those two subjects are betterment and injurious affection so far as land is concerned which belongs to owners none of whose land is taken. Let me explain that. You have adjoining the proposed site of a public undertaking two plots of land, one belonging to A and the other belonging to B. Part of the plot of owner A is taken. Compensation is paid to him

  2287
  for the land taken. Under the head of compensation in this Bill it may be, though I do not think it is clear, that injurious affection to him for severance and loss of amenities may be taken into account; and, conversely, weighed against that injurious affection, betterment to the rest of his land or other parts of his land may be brought into the account by way of set-off if an Amendment were brought in in Committee. But what about owner B, whose land is contiguous to the site that is taken, although not actually touched by it? It suffers and gains in the same way, and in exactly the same proportion as that of A. Under this Bill A can be compensated, B can get nothing. A can be made to pay by way of deduction from the purchase money something for the benefit he receives. The promoters or the public Department, or the local authority can get nothing out of B.
  There again you have a most anomalous position—an almost impossible position. To attempt to engraft this new growth on the old tree is foolish, and not only foolish but it is bound to lead to a great increase of cost in litigation, and so on, and in waste of money down that channel which all sensible people like to avoid, namely, the lawyer's pocket. These are two illustrations. Another point is this—although I have not the authority of Mr. Speaker upon it, for I did not ask him the question: The Bill is closely denned as a Bill which authorises payment of compensation where land is required for public purposes. "Public purposes" must be defined under the Bill as land taken by a Government Department or a public or a local authority within the meaning of the Bill, and if one looks at the definition in Clause 10, Sub-section (2), it will be found that there are excluded railway or other companies working for profit. Therefore you cannot under this Bill say that land taken by a railway company working for profit shall have the benefit of the provisions of the measure, and it will be outside the scope of the Bill in Committee to attempt to introduce Amendments for that purpose. Under the Bill, in my view, it is impossible to amend it by making its provisions applicable to cases of private promotion.
  I want next to deal with various other matters omitted from the Bill. I will take them as shortly as I can, and I hope the House will bear with me if I call attention
  2288
  to some of the points in the Report of my Committee dealing with this matter which are not covered by this Bill. The Report is Command Paper 9229 of last year. We recommended that the Lands Clauses Acts were now out of date and should be repealed and replaced by a fresh code. That is not done. We advised that the standard of value should be based on a newer principle—the market value as between a willing seller and a willing buyer. The Institute of Surveyors, and indeed all practical men, take the view that the Clause in the Bill has not the meaning which the Attorney-General puts on it, and that under it the owner can have put on him the price of a forced sale. I mention it by the way, because it is not clear from the Attorney-General's statement that he will accept an Amendment introducing the willing buyer. Another point omitted altogether is that the value of all separate interests in the property—the marketable value—should be assessed. It is true, at the same time, that assessed as they are to-day each has a separate interest. The Attorney-General said on that—I hope I am not doing him an injustice—that everybody knew that the freehold value of the land, when divided between the different interests, would give to each of those interests the whole of what they were entitled to.
  Sir G. HEWART: That is not quite so. What I said, I think, was that it would be agreed that no more ought to be paid where the interests were separate than would be paid if all the interests were in the hands of one owner, and that under the law as it stands now there is a tendency to raise the cost and also to give a larger aggregate than would be the total paid for the land were it in one hand.
  Mr. SCOTT: The point is one of some practical importance because in large cities where a considerable amount of the money of the working classes is invested in small house property and in leasehold property, we must have regard to the existing facts of the situation, which are—although it would surprise one if they did not know it—that when a freehold is divided up into a long leasehold, a subsidiary lease for a shorter period, and a tenancy, the value of each of those interests sold in the open market separately will very often total up more than the freehold by itself without any lease having been made, but with the houses on the

  2289
  land, would fetch in the open market. It is a curious fact, but it is a fact, that any legislation which provided that the freehold value should be taken as the total, the various interests only getting a share of that total, would have the effect of robbing the owners of these individual interests very likely of something they have paid for in hard cash. Another point not touched by the Bill which is quite important is this. Promoters should be allowed much more latitude in regard to notices to treat than they have at the present time. They should be allowed to give notice to treat for one interest and not necessarily for all interests. They should be allowed to give it for a future date, and not as at present forthwith. There is no reason, so far as we can see, why complete freedom should not be given promoters in that respect. It would help considerably in keeping down the cost of public undertakings. Another provision in regard to notice to treat, we think, should be that, after a claim has been sent in, if the promoters feel it is so large that they ought somehow or other to manage without that particular piece of ground, they ought to be allowed to withdraw the notice to treat, paying the owner who received the notice full compensation for any loss he has suffered thereby. Another important provision is in relation to restricted covenants which are often very burdensome and interfere greatly with the utilisation of land. My Committee suggested a provision for dealing with such covenants, especially in the matter of compensation, and that again we thought ought to be dealt with.
  But these are, after all, only smaller matters, and I want if I may to deal with the larger question of betterment. Many committees have sat and approved of the principle of betterment. The French Parliament last October passed an Act giving effect to the principle of betterment. Several Acts of Parliament, mostly private Acts, in this country have been passed giving effect to the principle of betterment. But hitherto in this country the difficulty has always been to find a method by which the cost of ascertaining the amount of betterment was very much less than the whole value of the betterment obtained. In the case of London County Council important schemes, the cost of ascertaining the betterment proved a considerable difficulty, and so my Committee set themselves
  2290
  to find a solution. The solution, which we believed to be fairly practicable, was this. In our first report in regard to the acquisition of and power to take land, we advised that a Sub-committee, so to speak, of the two Houses of Parliament should be appointed by the Parliamentary Selection Committee, and to that body should be added by the same Selection Committee a certain number of suitable men of affairs versed in local government matters, leaders of Labour, and others from outside. We proposed to call the body the Sanctioning Authority. We proposed to give it power to direct the compulsory taking of land whenever it was desirable in the public interests. We proposed that the Committee might sit by Commissioners wherever it was most convenient, in the provinces or in London, accordingly as the case might be, by one Commissioner for small matters and two or three for larger ones, and that there should be, on questions of policy, an appeal to Parliament. When it came before Parliament we suggested Standing Orders might be altered so that the matter should be taken as having passed all stages, including the Committee stage. Then we proposed that when promoters took the view that their undertaking was going to increase the value of a locality, they should come before the Sanctioning Authority and ask them to map out a betterment area, so that all property within that area, if bettered within a certain definite time, should pay a certain betterment charge, say, an annual charge representing 50 per cent. of the total increment in the value of the land in question. That procedure we proposed to carry out in practice by utilising the Inland Revenue Valuation Department, and we proposed to give to that Department, which is certainly improving as time passes in efficiency, the power and the duty, at the request either of the promoters or of the owners of the land, to make a valuation of the land at the time it is taken, the valuation then to be handed to the other side, with the probability that both parties would agree upon it as a basis. If they could not agree, they could take it before the assessment tribunal on appeal. A similar valuation would be made at the end of the betterment period, and the difference between the two would be the betterment, of course all other factors—appreciation or depreciation of value—being eliminated. We thought that that would be a perfectly simple and cheap

  2291
  procedure which would get over the great difficulty of cost experienced in betterment schemes in the past. I submit that that, having been threshed out in detail by men of practical experience, ought to be acted upon by His Majesty's Government and incorporated as one of the reforms in connection with their land acquisition proposals.
  Sir D. MACLEAN: In this Report, as I understand, they have quite put on one side as worthy of their consideration or adoption the existing Government scheme of valuation, and they have indicated as one which they would support the scheme which my hon. and learned Friend has just explained. Can we be told, without trespassing too much on his speech, what are the reasons for that differentiation?
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. SCOTT: I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know why we put aside the increment value under the Act of 1910 in favour of betterment. To be quite candid, we thought the valuations of the Finance Act, 1909–10, were rather artificial, and we thought it easier to arrive at a comparative result, it being borne in mind that it was only a comparative result we were after, to take the actual property as it stood, not the site value or the gross value, or the provisional value or any of the other values, but the value, and compare the value of the land as it was at the commencement of the undertaking and then consider it again at the end of the period. One reason why we took that line was this: we understood from the Inland Revenue Department that, in fact, when there was a transfer from the owner to the promoters of the land taken for the purpose of the undertaking there would have to be a valuation for that purpose made by the Inland Revenue Department. I think it is called an occasional valuation, and that valuation would give the Department all the details that an ordinary valuer looking at the land would give to the right hon. Gentleman or myself if we wanted to go and buy the land. That being so, as the Government Department would have to do the whole of the work, we thought it would be able to furnish a valuation to the parties for almost a nominal fee. We considered very carefully the question of the alternative system of recoupment. I will not trouble the House with details, but we took the view broadly that it was not a good thing to
  2292
  encourage promoters to become, as it were, land speculators on a large scale, by allowing them to buy a lot of land for the purpose of recouping themseves. But we did contemplate recoupment where the local authority was carrying out street improvements. There we thought it would be very useful. Now, a word about injurious affection. Injurious affection in the past has been given under very arbitrary rules and limitations. To the man a little tiny piece of whose land is taken injurious affection has been given, for the loss of amenities and all sorts of chimerical and potential matters, which a practical man must regard as very far-fetched and as resulting in giving him far more than he ought to have. I speak from practical experience of many cases. I do not personally regard the surveyors so much responsible as the lawyers. The Courts have, by a series of decisions, allowed to be brought into account a number of elements under the old Land Clauses Acts because of the terminology of the Acts. The Courts were right in their decisions, but as a result injurious affection has been given to the man a piece of whose land was taken in an undue amount. On the other hand, taking my previous case, the man none of whose land is taken, he has not been allowed injurious affection unless a number of very technical and legal conditions could be satisfied. He would have to show, for instance, that he would have been able to bring an action at law for damages in order to recover the amount if no statutory powers had been granted. Conditions of that kind have resulted in the man whose land is not taken getting very little for injurious affection. The view my Committee took was that there was no rhyme or reason for distinguishing between the two, but that both should be put on the same footing and that the amount given for injurious affection should be moderate and not excessive, and we provide, we believe, a system by which that could be carried out in practice.
  I have dealt at some length with the omissions from the Bill on the subject of compensation, and the corrollary matters of injurious affection, betterment, and so on, but I do not want to pause on the proposals of the Bill at any length, because they are mostly Committee points. I do want, however, to say a word or two on one or two of them. The proposal of the Bill is that the valuers should be whole-

  2293
  time valuers. I had a question down on the Paper to ask the Prime Minister, which the Attorney-General answered, What salary, what terms of service, and what terms of pension would be given to these men if they were asked to take office? It is vital that we should have absolutely the best men of their profession for this work, and we shall not get them unless they are given permanent appointments with a really high salary, a salary which is commensurate with the profits of their present business, and a pension to supplement the salaries. That is the only condition on which we can get them. My own view is that even if the Government are willing to give those terms, it would be better to have, not whole-time valuers, but surveyors, employed on the same terms as the referees under the Finance Act. My Committee discussed this matter and considered it at very great length, and we came to the conclusion that on the whole, though we recognised there were arguments on both sides, it would be better to have men in actual practice, and I will give two reasons to the House why we thought so. In the first place, we believed that conditions would be changing in this country during the next two decades very much and that it would be very important that the valuer employed to assess the compensation should be in close and daily touch with the actual market conditions, advising and carrying out transactions daily, so that he knew the price in fact paid. Another reason was for the purpose of saving expense at the hearing of the assessment cases. The more the valuer knows who sits as judge the less he will be dependent upon witnesses. The Bill by its proposal seems to me to attempt to get the best out of two best possible worlds. It wants the independence of the whole-time valuer, and at the same time to dispense with evidence, but you cannot do it. You must choose. You must either have a judge who will hear whatever evidence is tendered or you must have a skilled valuer who does not need the evidence. I do not say we would ever dream of inviting the House to reject the Bill if the Government insisted on this proposal, but I submit this criticism to the consideration of the Government on this matter, and hope they may see their way to leave it to the decision of the House, without putting Whips on, in regard to this particular proposal. The next point I want to make is that of legal and expert assistance. I am tarred. I am
  2294
  a lawyer, but I think it is an anomaly that a man should be entitled to employ whoever he likes—half a dozen King's Counsel if he chooses—for a £10 claim in the County Court, and not be able to employ legal assistance where he may have £10,000 or £100,000 at issue in a case of the acquisition of his land, unless the valuer consents. I asked surveyors their opinion on this matter, and they told me—all I asked, and my Committee took evidence about it—that in their opinion, on the whole, cases were shortened by having legal assistance, and my submission is that the remedy my Committee adopted of leaving complete discretion as to costs to the valuer was sufficient. Allow the valuer to disallow costs if he thought that unnecessary legal assistance or unnecessary experts had been employed. In regard to appeals, in this matter the King's Bench Division might quite easily go wrong. The judges of the King's Bench Division will not think me discourteous if I state the fact that appeals to the King's Bench Division ought not to be allowed, and I urge very strongly on the Government that a right of appeal should be allowed up to the House of Lords, where either the King's Bench Division or the Court of Appeal give leave to appeal, and not otherwise, on the ground that there is a really important question of law involved.
  Those are all the points I want to make on the subject matter of the Bill, and the omissions in connection with compensation and similar questions, but on the subject of the other half of this matter, the question of the acquisition of powers, I want to urge this upon the Government for their consideration: The Committee which I had the honour of presiding over was appointed by the Prime Minister in June, 1917. We reported on the first half of our subject in January, 1918, and since then that Report, urging the appointment of the sanctioning authority, the Sub-committee of the two Houses of Parliament, has received a quite astonishing measure of public support—almost unanimous public support—from the Press; and I think the Attorney-General will find that most Government Departments have given their approval, and from bodies which are looked upon as reactionary. May I quote a passage from the Report of the Law Society of England and Wales? They unanimously adopted, at their own council, the report of a sub-committee appointed to deal with the matter, and in

  2295
  that sub-committee's report there are two passages which I want to read. The first is:
  "The first and second reports of Mr. Leslie Scott's Committee relating to the acquisition and valuation of land, which have been referred to the Land Transfer Committee for consideration, are documents of unusual value and interest. They set out with accuracy and lucidity the present position of the law and procedure on the subject and make proposals which are far-reaching, bold, and, in the opinion of the committee, on the whole sound and reasonable."
  They go on to say this:
  "Speaking broadly, the Land Transfer Committee (of the Law Society) are prepared to support these recommendations as reasonable and fair amendments to the existing law and practice. With the principle of creating a sanctioning authority they are entirely in accord."
  They make one or two minor suggestions in relation to the subject of compensation dealt with in our second Report, but with that minor exception they approve in toto the whole of the two Reports which my Committee published. I venture to submit that that is very, very strong support, coming from a body like the Law Society, who are proverbially cautious and afraid of change unless it is going to be successful. I therefore strongly urge on the Government that they should deal with the matter.
  Hitherto there have been three forms of obtaining powers to take land. First, private Bill legislation in either House going through both Houses; second, Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament; and third, Departmental Order. As to Departmental Orders, I venture to submit that we ought to make an end of this system. I may read a passage from a letter which I received recently from that great lawyer, the present Master of the Rolls, on the subject of Departmental Orders. He says:
  "Local inquiries, as hitherto held, have formed no security to the subject against the arbitrary high-handedness of irresponsible officials who make Departmental Orders. The reports of the inspectors are not published nor are their contents disclosed. They are treated as confidential, and the Department is not under any obligation to follow the inspector's recommendation. The report may just be pigeon-holed and the Department may proceed without regard to it."
  That states the position in an unanswerable way. We have seen too much of D.O.R.A. during the War to want to have it continued during the years of peace. The present proposals of my Committee have been published, but we also deal with the whole subject of minerals, water
  2296
  rights, etc. For that reason we propose—and the mining authorities sitting on my Committee agree—that we should use the sanctioning authority procedure adumbrated in our first Report.
  In these circumstances what are the Government to do? We suggest that they should choose one of two courses—either withdraw this Bill and during the Recess frame a new Bill covering the whole subject, both the acquisition of premises and all the matters relating to compensation, betterment, injurious affection and private promoters; or, on the other hand, if they do not do that that they should introduce a new Bill dealing with the sanctioning authority and the acquisition of premises on the lines of my first Report, and deal with the present Bill in the only way in which I think it can be dealt with. I have asked Mr. Speaker whether it would be possible under the Standing Orders of the House to alter the title of the Bill so as to extend its scope. I understand that that is not possible. Therefore, the only solution is to introduce a secondary Bill, making three altogether, dealing with betterment, injurious affection, and private promoters, and then to amalgamate that Bill with the present Bill, which can be done in accordance with Standing Orders. The House could then deal with the whole subject.
  The reception given by the House to the Housing Bill and the Transport Bill shows conclusively that the House is ready for large measures of reform and will deal with them in no narrow, carping spirit. Things are possible now which six years ago were not possible and we could get through a great measure of reform of our whole land system, so far as acquisition for public purposes is concerned, without any difficulty. The Standing Committees system is working well. Bills are getting through rapidly, and with the good will of the House, the anxiety of the House to carry great measures of reform, and the good will of the Committees upstairs, there is no reason why the Government should fight shy of dealing with this problem. If they do not deal with it they will find the aftermath worse than dealing with it now. They will get into hopeless difficulties in the end. Therefore, one or other of these courses should be adopted.
  There is one point upon which I think their difficulties must be recognised. They want, for the purposes of these Bills—the Housing Bill, the Land Settlement Bill,

  2297
  and the Ways and Communications Bill—power to take land quickly, and they want it also for the Education Act, which they passed last Session, for emergency purposes. To meet that I would suggest that, while adopting the course which I have asked them to adopt, introducing either one Bill or two or three Bills to carry out the full reforms that are necessary, to insert in those Bills a provision that the procedure contained in the Bills allowing the Board ol Agriculture, the Local Government Board, and the Ministry of Ways and Communications to take land by Departmental Order should be allowed to continue during the emergency period. If an exception is made for emergency purposes and all these Departmental powers are allowed to be exercised on D.O.R.A. principles during the emergency, then I submit there should be no objection on the part of the Government to giving the country the simple, cheap, and expeditious procedure of obtaining land where it is required in the public interest for the development of our industries in this country.
  I ask them, therefore, to consider that proposal, which they might carry out by inserting in the Bill a provision that, say, to the 31st December, 1920, subject to any further extension by Parliament, the Departments in question should be allowed to go on with their Departmental Order system for the purpose of obtaining land for emergency purposes, but after that the liberty of the subject should be protected from the impediment of the Executive Department, and that we should then have a general code of procedure dealing with the whole subject. All the old Land Clauses Acts should be swept away; all these Statutes—and there is an enormous number of them giving these different powers—should be wiped out and consolidated; and instead of having, as we have to-day, about ten different Departments with power to acquire land, a Subcommittee of the two Houses should have that power, sitting by Commissioners where it is necessary, and controlled on all matters of policy by this House.
  Mr. ACLAND: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I think that the House owes a great debt of gratitude to the hon. and learned Member for having opened up the question in the way he has and having shown how big the matter really is, so that we are able to judge now in what a
  2298
  small and unworthy way the Government has chosen to deal with it. The acquisition of land by public departments, local authorities, railway companies, and for all purposes of public utility lies at the root of success in achieving the things which the country is determined to press on with in the nature of social reform in the next five or ten years. The question of land settlement for discharged soldiers is, of course, urgent. It is of the utmost importance. The questions of housing and allotments—I hope very much we may be able to concert measures by which our housing policy and allotments will go hand in hand as towns grow, so that everyone may have his bit of land at the same time as he gets his residence—the question of reclamation with regard to which there is a great deal of scientific ability available at the Board of Agriculture, and then we have great hopes of much being accomplished, the questions of roads, minerals, the obtaining of land for the new continuation schools, the obtaining of land for forestry, all those great developments and proposals for reconstruction depend on having the whole code of procedure of land acquisition thoroughly reformed, not little fringes of it touched on, as is done by this Bill, but the whole question gone into root and branch.
  The country has been waiting for something of that kind for a long time. There is no difference in any shade of public opinion as to the fact that these Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts are entirely out of date and ought to be swept away, and it will he a very great disappointment to see the small measure of reform that is now offered. It is not offered even as an instalment, because, from what I heard of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, there was no mention of any intention by the Government of taking any further steps whatever on those extraordinary monumental reports which have been presented by the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading talked about the limited purposes. The purposes for which land is required are not limited; they are unlimited. There are dozens of public purposes crowding forward. Each of them needs to have the way clear so that there shall not be the cumbrous method of obtaining land set about on all sides which reforms had hitherto to encounter. I was very much afraid when I saw that this

  2299
  question was not handled adequately in the King's Speech. There was no reference in it to this Bill. I put down an Amendment on the Address calling attention to that fact. Now that the Bill is produced, my fears are justified by the small scope of the measure put before the House.
  Let us see what are in brief the problem to be tackled and the case to be met. First of all, the old code under which land has been acquired has been for years out of date. The main Statute is the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, as modified by subsequent Statutes. That Statute was passed by a Parliament consisting mainly of landowners and lawyers, in the interests of landowners and lawyers, at a time when railways were just beginning to be made, when everybody thought railways were rather dangerous innovations and everyone was determined that if a railway company came along and took over a bit of land they should be certain to pay three or four times the value of the land they took. I have heard stories, and many other hon. Members may have heard them, of how, when branch railway lines were being made, and a public inquiry was held as to what route the railway should follow, whether on one side of a valley or the other, people came back from the inquiry infuriated, not because the railway was coming through their land, but because the railway was not coming through their land but was going on the other side of the valley, because under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts they would have been absolutely certain of getting three or four or even ten times any reasonable value that could be put upon the land. It is full time that that old code should go.
  Then there is the question of the powers of local authorities, and again our present procedure is an anachronism. The procedure is often by private Bill legislation. It is very popular in certain circles. It is very popular with the Parliamentary Bar and with certain officials of local authorities who have an annual trip to London at a time of year when the local authorities are engaged in putting through some proposal under the procedure of private Bill legislation at the expense of the local authority. I remember when I was a minor official with one of the big local authorities in the North of England being sent up to London on the business
  2300
  of the local authority and I found that I was expected to draw an allowance every night of two guineas, which was far more than ever I was allowed on public service when I was an Under-Secretary of State or something a good deal more important than when I was working for a local authority. So that I can imagine that in certain quarters this procedure of private Bill legislation is popular, but really it is expensive, dilatory and cumbrous in many ways to the last degree, and one hoped that the Government would have been able to deal with it comprehensively in a measure of this kind. There are under our present system endless ways under which public Departments can acquire land by different modifications in special Statutes of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, but there is no clearing house through which the different public Departments have to put their proposals, and there is no sanctioning authority. Of late years there has been a tendency, which this House ought to try to check, by public Departments to try and remove the control of their procedure further and further from this House, which ought to watch the actions of public Departments narrowly and closely. I worked out a day or so ago a short statement of the existing position, and I find that there are no less than eighty-one principal general Acts relating to the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes, and six extra Acts referring to the acquisition of land in London. There are nineteen different Acts under which local authorities may obtain compulsory powers, and there are thirteen different variations in the procedure of local authorities before they obtain powers to purchase. When they have obtained those powers there are eight variations in the procedure to be followed consequent on obtaining the ground. There are no less than eleven different Statutes with regard to costs, and there are no less than eleven different Statutes as to the means of assessing compensation. That gives some measure of the problem which had to be faced, and practically, unfortunately, it has not been faced.
  The Government had the ground very well prepared. They could not say that this was a matter sprung upon them in an emergency and that they had no time to do anything more than what is contained in this Bill. The matter was started and came before them a very long

  2301
  time ago. I believe that the first suggestion was contained in the interim Report of the Afforestation Committee, of which I happen to be chairman. We realised that unless that authority dealing with afforestation had simple, swift, expeditious, compulsory powers it would be extremely difficult for them to get the land which the nation needed to be planted so very urgently in order to meet the extraordinary position which the War had brought about. We recommended in that Report that there ought to be simple, quick, inexpensive powers for the compulsory acquisition of land as a necessary background of all post-war development schemes. We saw and pointed out that this would be needed by many other authorities besides that charged with afforestation, and we suggested that there ought to be a special body appointed to consider first of all—and this is a thing which the Government entirely omits—the co-ordination of the activities of the different Government Departments, and as to the granting of the use of compulsory powers; and, secondly, a tribunal to decide the compensation and the procedure which should be followed by that tribunal. Six months later, June, 1917, the Committee presided over by my hon. and learned Friend was appointed and produced its first Report in January, 1918, so that the Government has had that Report for fifteen months and no action taken on that Report has yet been put before the House. It would weary the House were I to refer again to the plan of that Committee with regard to a sanctioning authority, and I think the House was impressed by what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about that proposal. There is no doubt whatever that that Committee did a tremendous lot of work on its scheme and put forward well-thought-out proposals, and it is ten thousand pities that at this time, when all these reconstruction proposals are thronging to our attention, that there is no sign whatever from the Government or any suggestion that they are going to deal with this matter at all. The course taken seems the simplest to them, but I think it would be a case of the longest way round being the shortest way home. No doubt they would like to keep the Bill simple, but I think before they get to the end of acquiring the land that they want and the public authorities want for all the purposes arising, they will be sorry they have not taken the bull by the horns and dealt
  2302
  with the matter comprehensively and set up a proper sanctioning authority, thus facilitating the action of the local authorities greatly. I believe even on this Bill we shall have many Amendments and many arguments brought forward which would have been swept aside by the Minister responsible if only we had been able to show that all the schemes before being brought into effect would have been submitted to a sanctioning authority which, like that proposed by the hon. and learned Member, would have been first of all independent of the Departments and would have enjoyed the general confidence of the country. I believe there will be difficulties as time goes on, owing to not having a sanctioning authority before whom the schemes would go and which could see that no one Department was allowed to poach on the preserves of another, and which would give us some impartial judgment as to whether it was right that the land proposed to be taken for the purpose suggested should be taken. However, we have got to face the position.
  The Government clearly realised there was a problem, or else why do they appoint in such good time the Committee of my hon. and learned Friend? They must have realised that it was most pressing to have a solution ready immediately the War was over, or else they would hardly let him and his colleagues take up their time, all of which was valuable, in spending months in working out a scheme. Yet, when a solution is presented, they neither go into it or modify it, or appoint some other body to work over the ground again, if there was anything wrong in the solution as suggested. They looked the matter fairly in the face, and they hastened to pass by on the other side and took no notice of it at all. The history of the matter continues. The Committee went forward into the other questions and presented the second Report last November, which I hope we all studied with interest and improvement. I know I have. I find in that Report there are forty-one different recommendations which can be separately classified. It is extraodinarily difficult for me, as I think it will be for other hon. Members, to imagine on what principle the Government has gone in accepting some of the recommendations, ignoring others and modifying a third section. They seem to me to have started off in great form, since they put into the Bill, with or without qualifications, six of

  2303
  the first seven recommendations of that Committee. They took no notice whatever of the next ten, and it seems as if the Government and the draftsman must have gone to sleep. Then they woke up again and dealt with five of the next six, and then went to sleep over the whole of the rest of the Report, because there is only one of the remaining eighteen recommendations which is so much as referred to in this Bill. It is worth while running over briefly some of the things which the hon. and learned Member in his modesty put before us, but which seem to me to be necessary to satisfy the just aspirations of local authorities and of the public Departments, but which have been ignored. There is the point which, as all people acquainted with the subject know, has put promoters to unnecessary expense, that is, as to the reinvestments of the purchase money, and there is a recommendation on that that only one reinvestment shall be allowed and that is ignored. The Committee recommended that promoters might take part of land only, and they are often put to very considerable expense in having, by Section 92 of the Act of 1845, to take the whole of it. The recommendation on that subject has been ignored. Then it is recommended that they may take an easement on land only where that is sufficient. I do not know whether that is covered by the definition at the end of the Bill, but if not it is ignored. There is the point made by my hon. and learned Friend that the local authorities ought to be allowed to withdraw the notice to treat at any time in the proceedings if they find that costs are piling up against them, and that they would have to pay more than a reasonable sum for the land. Many of us could give instances where local authorities have had to go on where the notice to treat has been served and have had to pay extortionate amounts, whereas a simple provision enabling them to withdraw on paying the costs of the other parties previous to the withdrawal would have been perfectly just and reasonable. There was then the recommendation as to the extinction or modification of restricting covenants over land, which it is sought to clear and which is a perfectly reasonable thing where it can be shown that the extinction of those covenants is desirable in the public interest. That question has not been dealt with. There is a quite im-
  2304
  portant, although perhaps small question, about how to deal with an offer by the promoters to supply accommodation works, and that is left out. There is a question as to the powers of the promoters to sell surplus land. That ought to be unrestricted, and the rights of pre-emption by enabling owners ought to be done away with.
  Coming to the end, it is recommended that either party should be at liberty to obtain Inland Revenue valuations of the land and to bring those valuations as evidence before the tribunal which has to decide on the price, and also that they may bring the taxation Returns in possession of the Inland Revenue in as evidence for the decision of the case. That, I think, is a most important matter, and its omission shows how great is the disrepute and disrespect into which the great Budget of the Prime Minister has fallen, and for which some of us still retain considerable regard. But that obvious suggestion that the valuations under that Budget could be brought into Court as evidence, finds no shape or mention in this Bill. That Committee also practically proposed a new code as to injurious affection which would make the matter plainer and much simpler to everybody in the country. Tenthly and finally, the Government has entirely shirked the question of dealing with betterment. The question of betterment has been sufficiently described by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Leslie Scott), and I believe there is not really a Member of this House who would not agree with the main principles which his Committee proposed in paragraph 32 of their Report:
  "In our opinion the principle of betterment, i.e., the principle that persons whose property has clearly been increased in market value by an improvement should specially contribute to the cost of such an improvement, and the principle of injurious affection, i.e., the principle that persons whose properties are damaged by the construction or user of the promoters' works should be entitled to receive compensation, are correlative, and our proposals as to the principle of injurious affection are dependent on our proposals as to the principle of betterment."
  They also say,
  "We are convinced, not only that the principle is in itself just, but that the great difficulty which must inevitably be encountered in finding capital in the immediate future for public improvements will make it more important than ever before to discover and apply a fair and efficient method of securing some of the value created by them."
  It seems to me wrong altogether for the House of Commons, at a time when the

  2305
  finances of the nation are none too flourishing, as we shall find in a few weeks, when the Budget is put before us, to be asked, as it will be asked when the Bills for housing, for reclamation, for land settlement, for afforestation, and other purposes of that kind, to pay millions to landowners for purchasing land without incorporating this principle of betterment in this Bill, namely, that where land has increased in value by public improvement some means should be devised for getting part of that added value for the public which has created that betterment. It seems to me it is impossible, for instance, that where a local authority or a public department make a road through a piece of property which has hitherto not had a road, that something should not be deducted from the value of the land taken for the road on account of the double frontage given to the property by the road being made through it, which, of course, gives enormous value to the land, which perhaps before was practically valueless. I suppose we have to put this in our pipes and smoke it. The Government is not prepared to deal with any of these things, and we have to content ourselves with speculating as to how this comes about. I do not know—I can only guess that very possibly the Bill as drafted by the draftsman followed out the recommendations of the Committee faithfully and properly, but that when it was circulated amongst Ministers it was received with so much horror by certain of them that they were allowed to introduce blue pencils and to scratch out whole passages of very important legislation. It is very important legislation, if anything is really to be done effectively in the future. Someone must have raised the cry that the whole structure of the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts were in danger, and to some people that is a cry more horrible than the cry that the Church or the Constitution are in danger. I am afraid that the Government must have given way to that cry. In no other way can I account for the disappearance of all these admirable and necessary proposals from the Bill.
  As to the Bill itself, when I come to the provisions, or what is left of them, I say frankly that they are on the whole, so far as I have been able to study them, excellent. I believe it is quite right to have a whole-time valuer. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Scott) expressed doubt about that, but having known something
  2306
  of the way the public Departments that I have been connected with have suffered from the methods of valuers in private practice, I believe that in the long run it will be satisfactory to have whole-time valuers, valuing simply as servants of the public, and not in private practice. Those who are associated with me will be bound to oppose any modification of that suggestion in the Bill, which I believe to be perfectly sound. It is right, and I think no one at this time of day will question it, that there should be no allowance for the fact of a purchase being compulsory. It seems to me that as between the owner of land who comes forward and sells willingly and meets the public halfway and does not need to have the compulsory procedure put into force against him, and the man who hangs back and causes delays and difficulties, if there is any advantage in the price it ought to go to the man who is willing to sell without compulsory procedure, and it ought not to be, as it has too often been the case, that the unwilling seller gets the advantage. There will be no doubt as to the proposals of the Bill that the value of land which is increased by overcrowding, by the existence of slums, and by uses, whatever they may be, that are detrimental to health, should be disallowed altogether in computing the price which the owner is to obtain. Similarly I think that nearly all the provisions aimed at simplifying and cheapening the procedure in Clauses 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill are also very good, but controversy is, I think, going to centre round the definition of the value of land. That is a matter which has to be looked into very carefully, and about which there is a good deal to be said:
  "The value of land shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to be the amount which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise."
  Already that question has come up this afternoon, and we shall hear something more about it. I will try to make certain suggestions as to elements of value in land which seem to me to be legitimate and certain elements which seem to me absolutely illegitimate and which it is essential, if this Bill is to be any good at all, we should avoid admitting for a moment. First of all, we ought, I think, to realise what the land is mainly going to be used for. I suggest that the Bill in the main is wanted for the purpose of securing land for the settlement in agricultural districts of ex-Service men who deserve so well of

  2307
  us and who in their thousands are really wanting now to be settled on the land. I have had a recent experience of how keen that demand is. On Lady Day last a smallholder gave notice that he wished to leave his smallholding next Lady Day Althought that is nearly a year hence, I have had twenty-five applications for the smallholding, and the men are tumbling over one another in offering a competitive rental for this smallholding in the part of Devonshire in which I live. I thought the only way out of the difficulty which will arise was to hand the land over to the county council for them to select an ex-Service man and to give me what rent they think reasonable under the circumstances. There is no doubt that there is among the men returning from France a most passionate desire to settle down upon a few acres of the land for which they have fought so splendidly. What have we to avoid? We have to avoid particularly this: any chance of handing the land over to them at such a high rent or annuity, whether they go in as owners or tenants, as will not enable them to make a reasonable living. If the land is purchased too high our schemes of land settlement will either be disastrous from the start by exacting too high a rent or annual payment from the settlers, or else they will have to be made into charity schemes. That is, pay for the land at a certain price and then put on Grants-in-Aid out of the pockets of the taxpayers before the land is handed to the settler at a different price.
  What are the sort of elements which make up values at the present time? First of all—it is very difficult to verify this—there has been a tendency for all valuations to rise as measured in currency, owing to the world-wide inflation of currency, and it is very possible that that may be found to apply to land just as it applies to every commodity that comes into the market. Prices measured in currency now, and probably for dozens of years to come all over the world, will be probably much higher than they were before the War. That seems to me to be a legitimate rise in values. But it is not really a rise in values at all. It is only a rise in values as measured by currency. We ought also to remember that the burdens on land have enormously increased during the War. The tithe has very greatly increased. Income Tax has been enormously increased. Wages have gone
  2308
  up, and are now, I am glad to say going up again by 6s. 6d. a week all round. The whole cost of repairs and estate management is 60 or 70 per cent. at least higher than it was even a year or two ago, and there has been nothing to which the landowner can get any corresponding increase in his income. There has been, as a whole, great unwillingness to increase rents during the War, and I have heard of no contrary tendency now that the Armistice has come. Therefore, it is fair to some extent to allow some increase over pre-war prices when, as so very often happens nowadays, the landowner has to sell some of his land in order to pay the burdens of the rest of it. These elements of value will tend to be permanent.
  6.0 P.M.
  What I want to be certain that this House will not accept are elements in the value of agricultural land which are temporary, and which, if they are incorporated in the price of land to be acquired under this Bill, will make our scheme of settlement unsound when the land is finally handed on to the settler. Land has in many cases sold during the War extremely well. That has been so, especially where it has been put up for public auction, and where the tenant has had to compete against everybody who came against him in order to retain possession of his farm. Of course, many of these tenants during the War have been doing very well. They have made money, and sooner than leave their farms they have bid up very high to retain their farms, and a rather artificial standard of values has in that way been created. I know of one case where a man certainly bid more for his farm than he could possibly expect to make out of it in repayment of what he bad paid in the years to come. I asked him about it, and he said, "My son was at the front, and I could not allow the farm to go because I know he looks forward to coming into it when he comes back from the War. I had to bid up to a very, very high figure rather than lose the farm, because I knew he would have been so utterly disappointed, even though he will have frightful difficulties in making both ends meet, if he found on coming back that the farm was no longer in our family." That sort of element in values, the special value which the tenant is willing to give rather than let the farm go to someone else and he loses occupation of it, ought not to be a value capable of being charged against the settlers when they are put on the land. Therefore I am very shy of the

  2309
  suggestion of introducing any words relating to a willing buyer. It seems to me the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Bill was quite right in preferring only to name the price which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise, and I am very much afraid, if any reference is made to the willing buyer, the valuer might say, "The willingest buyer, of course, is the sitting tenant, who will bid up against the world to keep his holding." If these words are introduced, we must consider that element of price, and it seems to me to be quite unfair to bring them in when your object is to settle him on the land on terms which will enable him to get a decent living.
  But there is another element in value which is even more serious: the values of land have been inflated by the prices guaranteed by the Government for farm produce. There is a tendency for those guaranteed prices to decrease. They are still, in certain cases, pretty high. Highish prices for grain have been guaranteed for this harvest, and certainly for all land which might change hands in the next few months there would be that element—I think a very considerable element—in the price which would be given for the land, namely, these artificial prices created by Government Acts. We have hardly discussed at all the very important step the Government has taken in guaranteeing those prices, not only with regard to grain that is sold and comes into the market, but in regard to oats and barley which never leave the farm at all, and are never intended to leave the farm, and which are simply grown for the stock on the farm. Owing to purely administrative action which was never laid before this House at all, the farmer is to receive a guarantee of four-fifths of his barley, and two-thirds of his oats, which, of course, enables him to make a double profit—a first profit on the raw material which he is growing for feeding his stock, and, secondly, a profit when his stock comes to be sold. At any rate there is no doubt there is a system of guaranteed minimum prices, some pretty high, approximating to the War level, still in operation, and one's fear is—and everyone must share it—that land may be purchased now, having these high guaranteed prices in view, and then when the Government's policy as to these guaranteed prices comes
  2310
  to be reconsidered, and possibly the guarantees done away with altogether, or lower guaranteed prices fixed, then will be the time when the settlers will come in utterly unable to afford to pay the rent or the annuity in relation to the price originally paid for the land. It is worth following out. Suppose land is now bought on the basis of wheat at 75s. 6d. a quarter of 504 lbs. as it is now, and then comes to be handed over to a settler. When perhaps his house has been built on it and when possession has been finally taken a year or two later we may find the guarantee for wheat is 50s. or 60s. a quarter. The first thing that would happen would be that the settler would claim that he could not pay the rent or annuity on that basis at all, and the taxpayer undoubtedly would have to make good. That seems to be contemplated in one of the Clauses of the Land Settlement Bill which we shall be discussing next week. But the taxpayer is now paying already once in a rather artificial way in respect of that wheat. The Government for purposes of its own is not allowing wheat to be imported from the Argentine. It is insisting that it should be brought over from Australia.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Gentleman is raising a very argumentative point quite apart from the Bill.
  Mr. ACLAND: If that element is allowed to creep into the price, of paying on the present guarantees, the taxpayer will be in effect paying twice over, once on the present margin paid for wheat, up to the extent of £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 a year owing to bread being sold at a fixed price, and then over again owing to the land being purchased at a price dependent on this artificial price of wheat and then handed on to the settler when the values have adjusted themselves. How is it possible for the House to do what I am sure it will wish to do, to avoid these settlers being saddled wih this entirely temporary and artificial value of land at present? It seems to me that it is reasonable to ask that before land is actually acquired under this Bill the Government should lay before the House of Commons, and the House should accept it, something in the nature of a permanent policy as to the prices of agricultural produce We hope that in the last few weeks we have reached something more near stability with regard to agricultural

  2311
  labourers wages. There has been a great discussion about that on me Agricultural Wages Board, and a settlement has been arrived at. Is it impossible to expect the Government to arrive at a settlement on this question of agricultural prices, so that, at any rate, we may avoid what seems to be almost a certainty, that land will be bought at quite an artificial price at which no settler can afford to take it over. I believe under certain circumstances guaranteed minimum prices are thoroughly justifiable, if it is shown that the nation is going to get real value for the guarantees. To summarise, the view I have been forced to take on this Bill comes to this: that the Government has a great opportunity. They had the Report of the hon. and learned Gentleman presented to them in plenty of time. The first Report was presented fifteen months ago, and it has been entirely ignored. They have therefore firstly ignored half the subject altogether and have done nothing whatever to co-ordinate schemes of local authorities, and Government Departments or to simplify our procedure. With regard to the other part of the subject which they have dealt with, they have left out many absolutely fundamental features, and with regard to the quite limited matters with which this Bill deals there is, as the Bill stands, at present I fear great danger that the basis of purchase may be such as will result in effect in considerable doles being given out of the taxpayers' pockets to landowners, or else an utterly unsound system of land settlement for ex-Service men fixed which they cannot possibly expect to live upon. I hope we may hear from the Government some reply to the criticisms which have been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman and by myself, but as things appear to me at present, if he goes into the Lobby we shall support him.
  Captain COLIN COOTE: In a House which contains so many new Members, I fear the appearance of another lamb for the slaughter will hardly excite much pity, but I base my request for the indulgence of the House on the fact that during a year of the last Parliament I was the youngest and the most silent Member of that Parliament, through no fault of my own. In approaching this Bill I think everyone of moderate opinions must recognise that it is an honest attempt on the part of the Government to set up a fairer,
  2312
  quicker, and cheaper machinery of land acquisition. But it is only part of the machinery, and it is impossible to consider it apart from the other land measure which the Government proposes to introduce. When we approach the question of the price to be paid for land we have to consider to what classes of people we have to accord fair treatment. We have to give fair treatment, first of all, to the landlord; secondly, to the tenant or the settler; and, thirdly, to the taxpayer. Under the Bill, not only fair, but generous treatment is going to be given both to the landlord and to the settler. I cannot agree with the contention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) that there is a danger of the ex-Service tenant being unfairly treated, because under the further legislation which is proposed the ex-Service tenant is deliberately protected from being made to suffer in any way for the high prices which will have to be paid for the land at present. I was very glad the question of the valuers who are to be appointed was raised, because, inexperienced as I am, it has struck me quite independently when I was looking at the Bill. It seems to me that not only will it be very hard indeed to get men of sufficient experience and sufficient valuation capacity to fill these posts, but it will be absolutely impossible unless you guarantee to them a high and effective salary which is worthy of their capacity. That is the first element in the cost of this measure.
  The second element is the price which is paid for the land. I would ask the Government seriously to consider whether it is not rather unfair to the taxpayer to ask him to pay the whole difference between the admittedly high prices—the extortionate price—of land as it is now, and the price of land as it will be in seven years' time when the general settlement is made. I submit we ought to try to find a way out of that difficulty if it can possibly be arrived at. I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made the further point that really if the settler was to be protected under the terms of the Land Settlement proposed, it was in effect nothing more than charity. I ask again, Is it fair that the settler himself should accept charity from the State? If you ask any ex-Service man what he wants, he will tell you at once that he does not want charity. I would venture, in all deference, to make two suggestions to the Government, not in the hope that they will be accepted, but

  2313
  in the hope that at least some consideration may be given to them. The first is this: Are the Government committed to the policy of immediate purchase, or are they not? Would it be possible to confine your compulsory powers to powers of compulsory leasing in the first seven years? In that way you would, perhaps, have a little injustice to the taxpayer, but you would not have great capital liabilities for which he must be responsible at the end of seven years. But if the Government is committed to the policy of immediate purchase—and I am not sure it is not wise, because I, personally, am a great advocate of small-ownership, and, under a system of compulsory leasing, small ownership, of course, would be impossible—if, as I say, the Government are committed to a policy of compulsory purchase at once, the problem we have to face is whether some other way of arriving at a fair price cannot be attained other than is proposed in this Bill.
  I think the valuation under the 1909 Budget cannot be reckoned to be of much service for this purpose, because, after all, it was made for the purpose of taxation and not of purchase. That valuation was not made for the purpose of putting a price on the land with a view to selling, but was made with a view to taxation, and, therefore, in many cases totally false values were put upon the land. But I think it is a fact that, in the Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, the whole of the land of this country was put at an average value before the War of eighty years' purchase of the rent or income. We do not wish —nobody does—to be at all unfair in this matter. It is not fair to say that land should be the only thing which has not risen in price in consequence of the War. I think the landowner is just as much entitled to say that his particular commodity has risen in value as is the owner of any other commodity, and my suggestion is that you should have at once a fixed basis of purchase. You would get an immediate decision. Give the landowner seven years extra purchase to compensate him for the rise in war value. Make your fixed basis of purchase twenty-five years' purchase of the pre-war rent or income. I venture to submit that there would be no injustice there, and you would get your land at a price at which ex-Service men, or any other tenants, could pay an economic rent.
  2314
  Finally, may I say that, as an ex-Service man, I do welcome the courage and determination of the Government in dealing with this matter upon the broad lines which they have embarked upon. It seems to me that with the first measure we are asked to swallow the medicine first, and the sugar, in which medicine is usually concealed, will come afterwards. But I do think the Government are entitled to be congratulated upon the broad and sweeping proposals which exist, if not in this Bill, in other Bills which will come later, and I do not think that anybody would be justified, really, in voting against this Bill upon its Second Reading, because, after all, I am strongly of the opinion that half a loaf is better than no bread. I believe that the problem of acquiring land immediately is the most important thing in the whole matter, and I believe that, if we accept this half-loaf, the time may come when we may steal along to the oven and get a whole new loaf. Any proposal which would in any way lessen the cost of this acquisition of land by legitimate means should be examined before the measure is rushed through. This is a time of great financial shortage, of great financial straightness, when every penny that we can legitimately save should be saved. It has struck me, as a man of very moderate means, that the House of Commons is rather a spendthrift, and I do think that, even in the matter of hiring land for ex-Service men—admittedly a laudable object—we should exercise all reasonable economy. I beg to thank the House for the very courteous hearing they have given me, which is just as courteous as I fear it has been undeserved.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: May I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on the very excellent speech he has just delivered? He made two suggestions. The first was a very interesting one to me, because it fell to me on a Committee to consider this question of purchasing land compulsorily, and that Committee did very carefully consider his first suggestion, namely, whether land might not be taken on an annual payment for a time, instead of on payment of a capital sum, and of course the difficulty there rather is that, whereas in a great many cases that could be done without any hardship, in some cases where proprietors are small, where it is necessary to realise capital, it might be difficult. But I think there is a provision, if

  2315
  I am not mistaken, already in the Land Settlement Bill, under which land may be taken on lease. The suggestion is, no doubt, a valuable one, but, on the whole, I am rather inclined to think that it should be confined to voluntary cases as far as possible, and I think that where the owner of land can just as well do with an annuity or an annual sum, as he can with a capital sum, there is no reason why he should not be asked, and I am quite certain in very many cases for a purpose like this, particularly that of settling holders on the land, he would willingly agree to receive an annual payment. I see no objection whatever to that principle. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that we might very well buy all the agricultural land in the country on the basis of so many years' purchase of the land. That is rather attractive on the face of it, but it is really not sound for a permament basis, because it penalises a man who has let his land at a low rent, and puts a premium on a man exacting the highest rent for his land. If my hon. Friend looks into it closely, I think he will find there are many elements in the value of land, outside the actual rent of the moment. There is a very great difference sometimes between the actual rent being paid at any particular moment and the highest rent which could, under any circumstances, be obtainable for that particular land; and when you come to have to assess what is the highest rent which could be obtained at any given moment for any particular land, it comes to much the same thing as assessing the value. So that, while it looks well in theory, it really is not practicable.
  I should like to say a word about the speech of my right hon. Friend opposite. I do not want, and it would not be in order, to go into the question of guaranteed corn prices, but I really cannot understand the attitude of my right hon. Friend, because I think he must realise that that guarantee which is given for this one year has no effect whatever upon the value of agricultural land, and for the very simple reason that it is given solely for one purpose, which is, to enable a better wage to be paid to the agricultural labourer. It is consequential upon that, and it has not been proposed on any other ground. Two things have happened together—one the proposal for a large increase on the cost of the agricultural labourer, and the other
  2316
  that to meet that increase there should be a guaranteed corn price. If my right hon. Friend wants to know what the effect of that is upon the value of land farmed by tenant farmers, he has only to read the reports of what the tenant farmers are saying in all parts of the country, and I think he will realise that any addition they expect to get from the guaranteed corn prices is, in their opinion, very much less than they are likely to pay in increased wages. Therefore, so far from that action of the State having had any effect in increasing the price of land, I would venture to suggest it has had exactly the opposite effect. The right hon. Gentleman made a remark which I cannot personally understand. He said that land had not really increased in value, but had only increased in value measured by currency. I am afraid I cannot follow that. If he will pay for my land an increased value in currency, he may have a present of the fact that it has not actually increased in value. As the measure of all value at the time of payment for anything is really in currency, I cannot see what difference there can be between increase in value and increase in value measured in currency.
  Mr. ACLAND: You can have something which is going to be compared with other commodities, or something which is simply participating in the general rise of all commodities as measured by currency. I mentioned that land might be in the second, but there was no reason why we should not get at the first.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is to say, anything you buy now you have to pay more for, because the value of the purchasing power of money has fallen. If we come to that, it is perfectly clear that, relatively, the value of land has increased very much less than the value of anything else, because the figure has been given that the general value of land sold has exceeded what has been called pre-war value by something like 25 per cent., whereas it is s stated frequently in all parts of the House and in the country that the purchasing power of the sovereign has declined by at least a half. I do not think any hon. Member will contradict that. It is accepted that the purchasing power of money has fallen by 50 per cent., whereas the increased value of land, so far as the estimates I have seen, has ranged about 25 per cent.
  Therefore, if that increase were true, it would only be an increase of one-fourth of

  2317
  what the actual increase would be if it were proportionate to the fall in the value of a sovereign. I really do not think that my right hon. Friend need have troubled himself to have supposed that either of these factors, either the corn prices or the difference due to the reduced purchasing power of the money, would have any real bearing on the price that has been fixed by this Act. As a matter of fact, what we are considering here is not transitory, temporary values, such as bringing in the guaranteed corn prices for one single year. Does my right hon. Friend really suggest that the value of land is going to be seriously affected in a great quantity—he said it was a very serious matter indeed! Does he suggest the whole value of agricultural land in this country is going to be grievously injured because, to meet the rise in wages, a guaranteed corn price has been fixed for one single year? If my right hon. Friend cannot find any better reasons than that we need not attach very much weight to that side of the argument.
  I only wish to say this: I think everyone who has ever had anything to do with land would agree absolutely with the dictum of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division when he said that it is a thoroughly established principle—I should go further—he said it was a modern principle—I always thought, and I think I am right—that it is a principle always established in every State—that where the State requires land for public purposes it has an absolute right to take it. I have never questioned that. I believe the only qualification of that is that when the State takes the land—this is a qualification which my hon. Friend stated—it ought to pay fair compensation to the owner. That is all that anybody has a right to ask. All, however, as I understand it, the Government desire to do in introducing this Bill, is to improve the machinery by which that fair value may be assessed. It sounds quite simple to say that you are to fix a fair value for land; as a matter of fact, it is extremely difficult, and the Debate upon this Bill proves it.
  The danger which we have to guard against in this Bill—indeed, two—is the evils which have existed in the past, and to which my hon. and learned Friend referred—the evil of excessive compensation being paid, and of an excessive cost in arriving at that compensation. Excessive compensation is a legacy from the past. I quite admit that it is very neces-
  2318
  sary—indeed, highly desirable—that steps should be taken to avoid that evil in future, but I do not think that the Government can lose sight of the possibility of the other danger, that there may be an attempt in time to come to obtain land for less than its fair value. A Bill of this kind should be just as careful to avoid the danger that a man may have his property taken away for less than its worth, as that he should be able to exact unfair compensation for property which is rightly taken from him for the public use. It is from that point of view that I agree very strongly with the observations of the hon. Member for the Exchange Division, that it is highly dangerous to put in a willing seller and not to put in a willing buyer. I would remind my right hon. and learned Friend that a Court of law takes no account—perhaps I may venture very humbly to submit this point, though I fancy he will agree—that a Court of law takes no account of intentions or of the Debates in this House. What they do is to look at the actual wording of the Clause, and the Court judges from the actual wording of the Clause and from nothing else—except perhaps one other point. I believe—and here, again, I speak subject to correction and in the presence of legal gentlemen in this House—that the Law Courts do take account of it if they find that the wording of a Clause in one Act differs from the wording of an almost similar Clause in another Act. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong.
  Sir G. HEWART: The hon. Gentleman is quite right.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Very well; that is, I think, an important point. My right hon. Friend's point here was not quite a good point for him to make. He quoted as a precedent for the wording which he proposes in this Clause the basing your compensation upon a willing seller and omitting the willing buyer—and what was this precedent? The Finance Act of 1909–10. But, as I ventured to remind him, the Finance Act of 1909–10 contained a Clause in which there is the willing seller without the willing buyer, and another Clause which contained both the willing seller and the willing buyer. That Clause was for the purpose of ascertaining something which was called gross value, a fancy value that nobody ever heard of outside the Act, and which, so far as I am aware, has never been imposed, and I

  2319
  think I might safely challenge my right hon. and learned Friend to tell me what it means! I cannot say the precedent was a very fortunate one.
  The other part of the Act, however, in which both the willing seller and the willing buyer are mentioned is a Clause on which the actual value is here framed. I would suggest to him that, if we accept the Clause in the form in which he has put it, the attitude of the Court of law would be this: "Here is an Act—and there are other Acts as well—in which the willing buyer and the willing seller are mentioned, and we all understand that. Here, in this Act, the House of Commons has put in a willing seller and left out a willing buyer; it must have done that with a purpose. What would be that purpose? It was that there was to be no willing buyer: it was to be regarded as a forced sale." That appears to me to be a real danger. I think the danger was accepted by the House at my suggestion. I want to be fair and anxious to avoid taking land without fair compensation, and at less than fair compensation, as to avoid compensation in excess. I hope that when this matter comes into Committee that these words I have suggested will be inserted and on the ground that I have suggested.
  I come to a very important point—the panel. I shall deal with it on very broad grounds. It seems to me that there are certain principles from which it is always wrong to depart. One is the very simple principle that no one should be a judge in his own cause. I myself do not think it is right that under the circumstances a Government Department should be the authority to decide the issue, particularly a financial one, between the Government and the citizen. That is a very root issue. That brings us to this: that it is accepted you cannot create a Government Department—because it is perfectly obvious that all Government Departments are treated as one for this same purpose—you cannot have one Government Department which is subject to the control of the Minister of the day, which is recruited by the Minister of the day, appointed by him and removable by him, set up to decide financial issues between members of the public and other Government Departments. There is one very important aspect of that in connection with the existence of the judiciary. The judiciary has to decide issues of the
  2320
  most important kind between the State and the subject. For that very reason the judiciary is appointed under such safeguards that the members of it are irremovable and absolutely outside party and the Government. That is the judicial function which these Commissioners are to perform. Therefore either one of two should happen; either they must be selected from those who are in daily practice and daily contact with the work, and should, when they leave that work go back to their own work. After all, I think the point which my right hon. Friend made that they could not be doing this work one day and doing their own work another day was at variance with the existing practice. My right hon. and learned Friend knows perfectly well that that difficulty never has arisen under the existing system. Panels have been taken from those in actual practice and who are in constant contact with the problem of prices as it arises from day to day between one and another district. That aspect was very well argued by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division, and I need not repeat what he said. I endorse every word of it.
  There is another alternative, and one only so far as I can understand it. That is, that you may appoint these Commissioners as irremovable at a high salary, as you do the judges. You must do the thing one way or the other. They must be either judicial authorities independent of the Crown, or they must be drawn from outside, when they would equally be independent both of the Crown and of the subject. Their independence! That is the vital issue which I would like to impress upon those concerned. Are these Commissioners to be independent or are they not? Unless my right hon. and learned Friend can say that these men are to be absolutely independent his scheme falls to the ground. We cannot afford to whittle away vital principles of this kind. The third point is a kindred one, and that is there is to be no appeal beyond the High Court. I can hardly believe my own eyes when I read that. I would ask hon. Members opposite on the Labour benches how they would like it when there is some claim put forward under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, it might be only for a few shillings but which might involve a certain important principle, to be denied access to the highest Court of judiciary, if they felt it necessary? It is the inherent right of a

  2321
  subject of the Crown that he should have access to the Law Courts of the realm. I would ask my right hon. and learned Friend is there any precedent for such a proposal?
  Is it worth while to have a petty object of this kind—because it is a petty object—I am not speaking of the object of the Bill as petty, but the petty saving of a few shillings which this Clause suggests—of saving a few shillings here and there perhaps at the expense of hundreds of pounds. You are going to set up a precedent here. God knows where it may carry us to on a future occasion. Again, speaking under correction in the presence of legal Members, I believe there is no precedent existing for this except limitation, which is a perfectly proper one, that the appeal can only be carried beyond a particular Court of Justice by leave of the Court. That I believe to be, in many cases, the law. I have no objection to it. I would, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any precedent exists for limiting the right of the subject to appeal if he can get the leave of the Court to do so? I submit to introduce into a Bill of this kind a prohibition of the subject to obtain access to the Court of law is a thing which this House should never sanction, and I sincerely hope it will be amended in Committee.
  I do not think I need deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) as to the matters which are excluded from this Bill. I do not wish to express any strong opinion upon that. I think the thanks of everybody concerned in land, and of everybody who wishes to be concerned in land, are due to my hon. Friend and his Committee for the immense pains they took in studying this question. I think his Report is of very great value, and I do not materially differ from the conclusions to which he comes. But I do not desire to intrude my opinion between him and the Government as to whether this is the right moment for giving effect to all those suggestions, or whether some other opportunity may have to be found.
  I look upon this Bill just as I look upon the last measure which was introduced, not so much as a measure standing by itself, but as part of a great scheme of reconstruction. This Bill is merely part of the machinery by which those who are using the three other Bills are to obtain the land which they require. I am inclined to think that, however much we may agree with my hon Friend—we must, of course,
  2322
  entirely and very strongly sympathise with his paternal feeling for his own Report, and hope that all its excellent features will be given effect to as soon as possible—we must feel that we do not want to overload the ship. We have a great scheme of reconstruction to carry through. It has many ramifications. This is the first time in history, I believe, that this House ever attempted a scheme of such magnitude. There are four great Bills, besides all our financial questions. No doubt the Government has carefully considered this; if they say that this Bill will provide the machinery which they require to enable them to carry through the scheme of reconstruction in the other three Bills, and that that is as much as they can ask the House of Commons to do; if they are of that opinion, I should not stand up here and criticise them, But if, on the other hand, they think they can find time to tackle the whole question and to produce a codifying Bill, then that is a matter for the Leader of the House and for the Government, and I would not desire to express an opinion on it. I shall certainly not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I most sincerely hope that the Amendments which I have suggested will be met with in Committee, and I think, if they are made, that the passage of the Bill through the House ought not to be a difficult one.
  Sir R. WINFREY: After the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), I propose to limit my criticism to a very narrow compass. This Bill is, of course, the keystone of the Land Settlement Bill, in which I am keenly interested, and the keystone of the Housing Bill. In regard to the Housing Bill, I will leave that to other speakers, and will simply deal with this as it affects the Land Settlement Bill, which we are to discuss on Monday next. At present we have on the Statute Book the Small Holders and Allotments Act, passed in 1908. That Act is not considered strong enough to obtain land quickly for ex-soldiers. Consequently, the Government are bringing in on Monday a Land Settlement Bill to strengthen and to add to the Act of 1908. In the Act of 1908 there are compulsory Clauses for the purchase of land of a very similar character to the compulsory Clauses in the Bill which we are now discussing. The only real difference is that, in the compulsory Clauses in the Small Holdings Act of 1908, the Board of Agriculture appoints the single arbitrator, who is a land agent of repute but a

  2323
  man in private practice, and I suppose it has been found, in many cases at any rate, that the awards have been somewhat excessive. In the present Bill the arbitrators are whole-time servants of the State, and in that I thoroughly agree, because I think we shall get a more equitable award than under the Small Holdings Act of 1908. The Land Settlement Bill is to provide land for ex-soldiers, thousands of whom are desirous of settling upon the land. We were told the other day that the Government are prepared to put aside £20,000,000 for the object of that Land Settlement Act. Now, if we are to spend £20,000,000 upon land for ex-soldiers, it is quite evident that we shall have to use the provisions of this Bill very largely indeed.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: This £20,000,000 is not all for land. It is for equipment, for building houses, and all other kinds of purposes.
  Sir R. WINFREY: Yes, I quite understand that it is for building and other things. I will say two-thirds or three-fourths is for land. I am quite confident that if we are to get the land within a reasonable limit—the limit laid down in the Land Settlement Bill is two years, which is a very short time for getting the land, putting up houses, and so on—we shall have to use the compulsory Clauses in this Bill to a very considerable extent. Of course the House realises that it is only in certain parts of the country that we can settle the men on the land with any fair prospect of success. We cannot settle them on the poorest land in the country. We have got to select good agricultural land and to go to the good agricultural counties for it. There will not be sufficient land coming into the open market, and consequently we shall have to use these powers very largely in spending that£10,000,000 or £15,000,000 of money, as the case may be. Therefore we should come under these rules. The single arbitrator, who is to be called the "official valuer," is instructed, and he has to award the value of the land according to the following rule:
  "The value of land shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to be the amount which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise."
  What is the position to-day? It is that in the best agricultural districts in England land has gone up, not only as the hon.
  2324
  Member (Mr. Pretyman) just now said by 25 per cent. but, in some cases, by 50, by 70, and even in certain cases by 100 per cent. The best land for small holdings has gone up to that extent during the last two or three years. There are many reasons why it has gone up. We have been pledged to guarantee prices in order to stimulate production to the highest possible limit. I agreed to that policy, and I still agree to it. But there is no doubt it has had a marked effect on the price of land. Let me give one or two instances. The other day there was an estate for sale offered by the chief auctioneers in London, who had instructions from the vendor, who was an officer at the front, to sell it. It was in my county—a whole parish. I know this land and I know all the tenants on it. It was let at from 35s. to 40s. an acre; I do not think any rent was higher than 40s. The vendor said, "Value that estate, and I will decide to put it on the market." It was valued, by a very eminent firm of valuers, at £98,000, between £30 and £40 an acre. It was an estate of 3,167 acres, and that is a little over £30 an acre. What happened? Before the auction bills had been got out a land speculator came along and said to the firm of auctioneers, "I will give you £150,000 for the estate." That was an increase of £52,000 over what the competent valuer had placed on the land, and it was sold. That land speculator, within a week, turned round and sold it to the Olympia Farms Company for £200,000. That was £63 an acre. Now there was land that was letting, at the highest rent, at 40s. an acre, and it was sold, in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer, at that enormously increased price.
  I will give the hon. Gentleman opposite another instance. St. Peter's College put up a farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote), who made such an excellent speech just now. It was a farm of 122 acres, and the tenant was renting it at £96 17s. 3d. We know that colleges, as a rule, charge low rentals, and they do not revise their rentals, or very seldom, and probably this man, who had been farming for years, had it at the rental which he had in the bad times. It was put up by auction, and made £10,690. In other words, this land, that was letting at less than £1 per acre, made £80 an acre to sell—50 per cent. over the college valuation and the reserve they had

  2325
  placed on it. The remarkable part of it was that out of the 122 acres, 90 were bought by the tenant himself. That is an illustration of the enormous increase in the value of land under entirely artificial conditions. I wish to put this to the learned Solicitor-General—who, I know, is not an agriculturist, but who will take an interest, I hope, in the rural areas when he has the time and opportunity—Does he propose that under the Land Settlement Bill we should purchase land at these war prices? Because that is what they are, war prices, and nothing else; whereas, probably, in five or seven years' time, we shall have land going down again to its pre-war price. I am old enough to remember that we had the same thing in the early 'seventies. The year 1874 was the high-water mark of agricultural land in my district, and I remember that land sold for £80 and £100 an acre. Fifteen years afterwards it dropped down to £40, but it has now gone up again to about the same price, and is scheduled to-day at about where it was, so far as I know, in 1874.
  7.0 P.M.
  I want to know if the Government propose to spend £15,000,000 of the nation's money under these conditions, because I think it would be extremely dangerous to do so. Let me try and show the House what the nation will stand to lose. I have made some small calculations. First of all I want to point out that the Board of Agriculture anticipated the Land Settlement Bill, because they issued a circular to the county councils in December last saying, "Go on, buy land as fast as you can, and the Government will back you up, and stand any losses," and so the county councils have begun. Here is a letter which appeared in the Wisbech paper:
  "Can anything be done to stop the shameful abuse of their functions by the rural county councils in the mattter of acquiring land for small holdings for ex-soldiers. … The week before last the Isle of Ely County Council purchased a 250-acre farm in the Fenland. I happen to know all the facts about this farm. More than half of it is strong clay, unsuitable for small holdings. None of it is first-rate fen soil. It was bought with three other farms by a big farmer in 1910 for about £35 an acre, perhaps a little less. Had it been bought last week by any one member of the county council for himself it would not have made 1d. more than £50 per acre, if as much. The Isle of Ely County Council gave £80 per acre."
  That farm is on what was the Duke of Bedford's estate at Thorney, and all his
  2326
  farms were offered to the tenants and in some cases one farmer bought as many as three or four of the farms. Here is a farm bought for £35 an acre in 1910, four years before the War, and the county council has just paid £80 per acre for it. May I say that I believe that at the present time an arbitrator would probably give that award, but there would be costs in addition. Let us see how it works out. The Land Settlement Bill says that the tenants are to be charged a fair and reasonable rent—that is not only for the land, but for the houses and buildings which we are to put up. Therefore, the State is bound to lose, because we cannot erect buildings except at a great loss, and we cannot charge a rent that will cover the cost.
  If we lose upon the house and the buildings and the land, this is how I work it out. I will take this particular farm as an illustration, because it is actually going to happen in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wisbech. This 250 acres divided into 30-acre holdings—which is about the size of a holding on a fen farm upon which you can work a couple of horses—at £80 a year will cost £20,000, and the interest at 5 per cent. would be £1,000. On this land there is a farmhouse and two cottages, and we will assume the farmhouse will be divided into two, and one cottage added, making four houses. I put down four houses and farm buildings at £800 each, and I do not think that is excessive—at least, that is my experience of building houses in the colony of Holbeach—and that works out at another £3,200, which at 5 per cent. is £160. That makes a total of £23,200, and at 5 per cent. the county council will stand at £1,160 a year. Now they have to charge these men a fair rent. The rent which the Duke of Bedford charged his tenants on the Thorney estate certainly did not exceed £2 an acre, and they very often got a rebate of 15 per cent.; but I put it at £2 an acre. Therefore a man on a 30-acre holding paying £2 per acre has to pay £60 a year, and we will say his cottage costs £20 a year, so that the man stands at £80 a year, and I think that is a very fair rent.
  How does that work out? The county council would pay at £2 an acre £500. Eight houses at £20 comes to £160, so that the annual charge would be £660. The annual loss to the county council would be £500, and the total capital loss to the country would be £10,000; and this is to provide holdings for eight men. You may

  2327
  say that is an extreme case. Take the neighbouring county council in Lincolnshire, where the best land in the country for small holdings is to be found—I mean in the colony of Holbeach. Here three or four of the farmers have decided to retain possession of their farms, and they have bought them at a fair rent and offered some of them to the county council, and one offer is £90 per acre, and I believe the farmer will get it unless we alter in some way this Clause before it becomes law. At this rate we shall soon exhaust our £20,000,000, and I have come to the conclusion that if we put ex-soldiers on the soil at the present market price of good agricultural land in these districts, giving each man ten acres of land, we shall exhaust our funds before we have found housing and land accommodation for 25,000 men. That is a very serious position, and it means a loss to the State of a very large sum of money which I do no think is at all necessary. It is a loss of £600 per man for putting ex-soldiers on the land, and that is a very serious problem that the House ought to take into consideration.
  What are the alternatives? We have already compulsory leasing under the Small Holdings Act of 1908, and why not make greater use of that Act? The compulsory leases are for thirty-five years, and at the end of that time there is a revision of rent under proper conditions. The Board of Agriculture appoint a valuer, and if land has gone up during that time the landowner will get a little more, and if the price of land has gone down he will get a little less. At any rate, under this system the rents can be revised at the end of every thirty-five years, and that seems to me to provide an easy way out of buying agricultural land at the present war prices, which are not going to last.
  An hon. Member has already mentioned this system of a perpetual rent-charge in the Small Holdings Colonies Act, which I had the honour to introduce not long ago. I remember that the first Small Holdings Colonies Act was only to provide 6,000 acres of land as a mere trial. We got that land, and then it was found we wanted powers to increase it from 6,000 acres to 60,000 acres, but the Treasury at that time were adamant, and said, "You cannot have any money to buy land, and you must lease it." And so it was decided to provide under that Bill that landowners should be asked to part with the land at a perpetual rent-charge.
  2328
  That was not compulsory, and although it has been on the Statute Book for a year or more I do not think many acres have been obtained under its provisions. Why not have a compulsory perpetual rent-charge as an alternative? Otherwise we are going to land ourselves into great difficulties, and we are going to fritter away the greater part of the money that the State has given us for putting ex-soldiers upon the land in paying war prices and not achieving to anything like the extent I should like to see the object we have in view. That is my criticism of the Bill, and I trust that we shall hear from the Government that they intend to meet us in some way on this subject.
  Mr. ROYCE: I have listened with much interest to the Debate this afternoon, and I must say that what has struck me most in connection with the Debate is that there has been no suggestion, so far as I have been able to understand, to facilitate and meet the demand that is with us now of providing land for ex-Service men, and the necessary land for the erection of houses which are so imperatively needed. It seems to me that our first consideration should be how we can do this thing most quickly. The suggestion that was made by the hon. and learned Member opposite may be and probably is a very excellent one, but it seems to me if it were put into practice there would be no hope of anything like immediate action on the part of the Government, and it would take far too long.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-west Norfolk, who has just sat down (Sir R. Winfrey), has spoken upon a subject with which I know he is well acquainted, and although I do not attach so much importance to his figures, at any rate I do to his knowledge. In regard to small holdings the hon. Member is one of the pioneers of the movement, and he has been consistent in demanding them. He has been the father of a good many of the most successful holdings, and, when the hon. Gentleman opposite threw out the hint that nothing in the shape of nationalised land could ever hope to compete with individual enterprise, I could not help thinking, if we can take the county council allotments as a fair example of what nationalised land would be, and I cannot see very much difference, that so far as cultivation is concerned it shows up very favourably, more than favourably, in comparison with the average cultivation of

  2329
  land in our part of the country. As a member of a war executive committee during the late years of the War, I was a party to serving many cultivation orders by which farmers who have been associated with the land for generations were brought to the knowledge that their cultivation was very bad and that it could be very much improved. The fact that it was very much improved proves that private ownership and private enterprise do not fulfil all the conditions to which the hon. Member on the other side referred. May I say one word with regard to the appointment of official whole-time valuers. I must say that the paid official valuer seems to me to meet the case exactly. I have heard valuers objected to, and strongly objected to, in connection with the same executive committee with which I was concerned when it has been suggested that they should appoint someone in London. It was said, "How can they know intimately the local conditions that prevail in our part of the country?" There is a great deal to be said in that connection if we may judge by the result of some of their valuations. If, however, you take a man with local knowledge and experience you come face to face with the difficulty that he has local interests. Therefore, I am quite in accord with the provisions of the Bill for the appointment of official valuers.
  In reply to a question two days ago, it was stated that the county councils had acquired 21,888 acres of land. I hope that land has been acquired at a reasonable price. I hardly think that the county councils as a whole could have committed the extravagance that has been suggested by the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk, but I do think that the provisions in this Bill for the acquisition of land might be improved. My feeling is that a Commission should have been appointed, and that the willing seller should not have been consulted. This is a national case. It is something that is imperative in the national interest. We must have the land. It has been promised to the Service men, and that promise must be fulfilled. A Commission, it seems to me, would have been the easiest and readiest method of obtaining the land. Some hon. Members may say, "If land be taken from the farmers or landowners, why should not part of a man's business or merchandise be taken? Why should not a portion of a legal gentleman's business be taken and given to a returned Service man?" It seems to me that that is not a fair com-
  2330
  parison. The land is wanted for more purposes than the immediate settlement of the Service man upon it. The land is needed to stabilise the population. It is needed to improve the population. We have been told that the medical category of the agriculturist was lower than the medical category of the miner. It is easy to explain that. It has been somewhat difficult in the past for the best type of men to be content in the country. They have gone into the towns, and a drain has been made upon the country's population either by the demands of public works or the demands of the police, tramways, and a thousand other things. The type of man that has been left upon the land for the most part has not been equal to the men that I remember as a boy. Land, therefore, is required in the national interest. It is required to improve the character of the people—the breed of the people, if I may use that term—and it is most imperatively required. The easiest way of acquiring that land would have been by a Commission.
  The question as to the value of the land is an important one. The State should not be taxed. I have some little possession in land myself, and certainly I should not feel that I was hardly done by if I were called upon to part with a portion of that land as a part of my contribution for the defence that I have received at the hands of these men whom it is proposed to settle upon the land, and I think that that is the general feeling throughout the country. I do not want to intrude upon the rights of private property, but at the same time we can attach too much importance to this question of private rights. Where the nation's needs are concerned, surely we can be somewhat liberal! If the right hon. Gentleman opposite will accept in Committee some somewhat stringent Amendments with regard to the price that is to be paid for the land, I think I can promise him the support of the Members who sit upon these benches, but that is a matter upon which we should certainly insist. We are not going to pay the large prices that have been demanded. It is quite right, as the hon. Member for the South-West Division of Norfolk has said, that a number of farmers who have done remarkably well during the recent war period have offered a considerable acreage of land in our part of the country—and I believe it is the most suitable land in the country for the settlement of ex-soldiers—at a price that is utterly dispro-

  2331
  portionate to the price that they paid for it. I believe that £20, and in some cases £30, per acre profit has been asked. After all, I have not found the Board of Agriculture altogether a spendthrift board, and they are hardly likely to agree to such prices; but some very stringent measures must be taken to guard against them. I was very much embarrassed and involved when the right hon. Gentleman read that section dealing with the consolidation of proceedings on claims for compensation in respect of various interests in the same land. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) dealt with betterments and various other items in connection with land, I sighed for the time of the late Paul Kruger. The story is told of him that two brothers could not agree in the matter of an undivided farm. The old man thought for a few moments as to how he should proceed, and finally he said, "I think the best plan will be for the elder brother to divide the farm and for the younger brother to have the first pick." Something in the nature of those proceedings might diminish the number of legal gentlemen in this House, but, if I might say so without offence, it would very much advance the interests of agriculture.
  We have been talking about the man who has been to the War and whose business has been acquired by a man who has remained at home, and who has not had to make the same sacrifices. That man has scored in a double sense. He has got the business, and he has got security. The same thing has been in process in agriculture. There are quite a number of young farmers who volunteered for service. Owing to the recent rise in the price of land, the owners have sold the land, and these boys who have fought all these years for their country have come back to find that their homes have been sold over their heads. It is not the case only with farmers' sons. These boys are left stranded and landless at the present time, and I do hope that this Bill will do something for them. The same thing has occurred in the case of small holdings. The tribunals in their wisdom thought that a man who farmed less than a certain acreage could be dispensed with, and very often he was sent to fight. When he comes back again he finds that the rise in the price of land has prompted his landlord to sell his small holding, and he is
  2332
  dispossessed. There are at least half-a-dozen such cases which occurred in the village in which I live, and I can only imagine that the number throughout the country must be very large indeed. So far as I am concerned, I shall insist that this question of the value of land shall be settled in a manner that will prevent profiteering in land. With those reservations I would like the Bill to pass as quickly as possible, because so many other matters are dependent upon it. I feel, if the right hon. Gentleman will make a promise that in Committee this matter of the value shall be attended to, not in a perfunctory manner, but so that we can absolutely prevent profiteering in land, I can assure him that the people on these Benches will be prepared to support him.
  Lieutenant-Colonel WEIGALL: The Debate this afternoon has roamed over a very wide agricultural field and I suggest would have been more germane really to the terms of reference of an agricultural commission than to an Acquisition of Land Bill, and, still more, the line of argument which was started by my hon. Friend (Sir R. Winfrey) could, I submit, be more usefully applied in Committee on the Land Settlement Bill. I want to direct my observations to the general position with which we are faced on the introduction of the Acquisition of Land Bill. I added my name to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Leslie Scott), not because I wanted to impede this Bill in any way, but rather because I wanted to impel it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said that this was to be a machine to provide the motive power for the great measures of reconstruction which are now before the House. I agree. But I am not sure that the machine is of sufficiently high horsepower. I put my name to the Amendment because I hoped that owing to it we should have an assurance from the Attorney-General that the horse-power of the machine would be sufficiently high to carry out the whole scheme of the acquisition of land.
  What is the position? At the last election almost every Member absolutely pledged himself to provide a simple, cheap and expeditious form of local and other machinery for securing land for ex-soldiers and ex-sailors and for all national purposes. Does the Bill before us fulfil that pledge? I am not satisfied that it does. All that it does is to en-

  2333
  graft on to the existing extremely clumsy, cumbrous and slow machinery provisions which apply only to Government Departments and local authorities, and which make the existing system rather more cumbrous than it is. Piecemeal legislation must lead to confusion, and in the long run to unnecessary litigation. I want to be assured by the Attorney-General that this Bill is not as comprehensive as he would like to make it. In introducing the Bill he made it perfectly clear that it was an emergency measure. He did not satisfy me that there was any reason, having had the Report of my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. L. Scott) and knowing the pledges that were given at the election, why we should not have a high-powered machine and a comprehensive Bill to deal with the whole question once for all. I am quite sure the House is willing and I am equally certain that the country is willing. I hope the suspicion I have at the back of my mind is not true that this is not a practical proposal, but purely a political one. We have lived for a good many years now down at the bedrock of reality and at the same time we have been surrounded by an atmosphere of peril. I want to be assured that this is not a measure simply to cover up difficulties which in reality I am sure do not exist, and that we have not got a full comprehensive and complete measure to deal with the acquisition of land, but merely a certain political device because one side or the other could not be compromised unless one had what is called an emergency Bill.
  I want to refer to three elements in the Bill. First, the whole-time valuer. I have no objection whatever to your whole-time valuer so long as he is put in an absolutely independent position. I look upon that as vital. To secure that, the Treasury has to put its hands in its pocket. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in Committee can satisfy us that he is going to ensure to these men not only independence of position, but the sort of salary that they can command. Their knowledge and experience are purely personal. Divorce them from their business and they cannot go back, because it is lost. There are very few men in the country who, so far as agricultural land is concerned, have the experience and knowledge with which to give a sound, reasonable and fair judgment. I am sure the House will not agree with
  2334
  the principle enunciated by an hon. Member above the Gangway with regard to landowners who have fulfilled their obligations in the past in a way that can certainly be compared favourably with that of any other owners of property in the country. He enunciated the principle that it would be perfectly fair that they should consent to knock off a certain percentage because of the use to which the land was to be put. Surely the fair thing is to say that the nation requires the land for a national purpose. Simply because you happen to own a certain class of property which the nation requires, that is no reason why the nation should not give the full market value of the property at the time it is acquired. That leads me to my next point, namely, the full market value and the willing buyer. I want to be assured that there is any practical difficulty in adding the words "willing buyer" to the words "willing seller." I understood from the Attorney-General that the legal interpretation of a "willing seller" was the market value. If that is so, why not add the words? I am perfectly sure the House and the country will not be satisfied unless this land is bought at the fair market value, which is understandable by everybody.
  There is the other question of the market value being appreciated by causes outside the control of the owner, which raises the still further question which was dealt with to a limited extent by my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. L. Scott)—I refer to the sort of thing that happens if a railway is established in a purely agricultural district. There is no question of either injurious affection on the one hand or improvement in value on the other. It may interest the House to know what effect a small railway in a purely agricultural district has had. In the county in which I live there was a proposal for a railway a few years ago. It was to be for ten and a half miles. The line was not constructed. There were twelve parishes involved. The population in 1891 was 3,336, and in 1911, just before it was proposed to construct this railway, it had gone down by 9 per cent. In the same county, within a few miles, where precisely the same agricultural conditions obtain, another railway of nine and a half miles was constructed, and the population in a simliar number of parishes increased by 354 per cent. Where land is improved

  2335
  enormously by neither the effort of either owner or occupier, that is not touched in any way by the Bill. I would suggest to the Attorney-General that before the Committee stage he should make it perfectly clear to those of us who desire to see once for all the cumbrous machinery now involved in the acquisition of land for public purposes swept away that there are practical reasons why at this particular juncture the Government cannot fulfil to the full its promises in that direction, and that it does not shut the door, even during the lifetime of this Parliament, to endeavouring to pass a simple, cheap and expeditious form of legislative and administrative machinery whereby the aspirations of everybody inside and outside the House can be fulfilled.
  Mr. CAUTLEY: Although the Debate has ranged over a number of topics, the matters relevant to this Bill are very few, and I shall confine myself to them. The Bill proposes to introduce a new method of valuation and acquisition of land in the place of the Lands Clauses Acts. The sole question one has to consider is whether the machinery the Bill proposes to set up is more likely to attain its object than did the Lands Clauses Acts—that is to say, whether under this Bill we are likely to arrive at a fairer compensation to the owner of the land, both fairer as to price and fairer as to cost. It is undoubted that Parliament has always had the right to take the land of a private individual for public purposes. To carry out that, it passed the Lands Clauses Acts. We are now going to change them, because we think we can get a better system under this Bill. The only difference now is that we are going to use the powers of compulsory purchase, not for the benefit of the community as a whole, but for the purpose of evicting one class of tenants who are in possession of the land with the object of putting on the land another class of tenants. I only hope that the Government will extend this Bill to Ireland, and then we shall have some more evicted tenants there as we are apparently going to have a large number of evicted tenants in England. But to come to the relevant points of this discussion, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fees of the arbitrators are to fall upon the purchasers of the land, or are they going to be paid by the State? A good deal has
  2336
  been said in the course of this Debate as to the expense of procedure under the old Land Clauses Act. A considerable part of that expense consisted of the costs of the legal machinery for arbitration and for the arbitrators' fees. It is not clear whether in this Bill the fees of these arbitrations are to be paid by the public authority which acquires the land, or whether they are to be paid by the owner. If they are to be paid as part of the cost of arbitration, I do not think there will be very much saving in that portion of the expenditure as contemplated by this Bill. Part-time valuers have been referred to by several speakers but I protest most strongly against any suggestion for making them Government Civil servants, and appointing Government Civil servants as judges between a Government Department and the owners of the land as to the value to be put upon property.
  With the provision under Clause 2 I have very little fault to find. It is true that the 10 per cent. allowance for compulsory purchase is to disappear, and I quite recognise that feeling in the House and in the country is against that allowance, but I would point out that the 10 per cent. was originally granted in order to cover the cost of reinvestment of the purchase money by the dispossessed proprietor, and the loss of interest he might have incurred before he could get a satisfactory investment. If a public authority takes a farm of 500 acres and pays £20,000 for it, it will take the owner some little time to secure an equally good investment. He will not only lose his interest for a period, but he will be subject to expenses for stamp duties on the reinvestment. He may have to pay his stockbrokers and solicitors, and his outlay will run into a very considerable sum. Therefore in that way you certainly impose a fine upon the particular individual. I do not ask that the 10 per cent. should be continued. I recognise that it has to go. But I do want the House to understand the difficulty in which the owner is being placed.
  Take the position in which a lay owner will be placed. Take the very common case of a woman who is left tenant for life of the land with only a life interest, and with a number of young children to bring up. Or take the case of a man with no knowledge of law. On the case of another man, the owner of a very small property, probably fifty acres or thereabouts, his only property, I would ask the

  2337
  House to consider what would be the position of either of these persons under this Bill. It is laid down that he is not to employ a solicitor or a barrister or anybody to put his case before the tribunal. He will be met there by the representative of the public authority, probably a solicitor or a barrister, with a considerable number of years' legal training, a man who is constantly acting in a similar capacity as advocate in inquiries of various kinds. What will be that owner's position? Or take again the case of a woman or the man with small property. Neither has any knowledge of the law; neither has any experience of arbitration or litigation of any sort. What are they to do when they receive notices to treat under this Bill? If they employ a solicitor they must themselves pay the cost. Is the woman herself to go up with her own case and be pitted against the skilled clerk of the county or urban council? She is to be allowed one witness, and I entirely agree with that limitation, because in the old days the costs of arbitrations were unnecessarily swelled by the calling of a number of experts on each side. I agree, therefore, there should only be one expert on each side. I think the woman, for instance, ought to be allowed to have someone to appear for her and to put her case in a skilled manner. To leave the owner of the land which is to be seized by the county authority defenceless in this way cannot possibly result in what I am sure the Attorney-General wishes should occur, in their getting fair compensation.
  May I ask hon. Members also to look at the next Clause? The principle underlying this Clause is that the land is being taken for the good of the public. It is not always for the good of the public generally, but at any rate it is taken against the will of the owner of the land who does not want to part with it. Anybody who is acquainted with dealings in land is well aware there are a number of interests which come in. There are leases and mortgages and sub-leases and settlements and a whole variety of interests, and in most cases there is not a single valuation between the owner and the public authority, but the different interests have to be differently assessed and differently paid for. These are easements affecting land. There are questions of minerals and rights of road. There are restrictive covenants and all these tend to affect the value of the land. Yet the Bill proposes to put the lay-owner,
  2338
  who has really little knowledge of these things, into this position, that if the local authority makes an offer to him for all these complicated interests, say, of £5,000, or £500, as the case may be, and then he perfectly bonâ fide says he thinks that in fairness to his children it should go to an independent arbitrator, and although he does not do this with a view of piling up costs, yet if it should turn out that the amount awarded is less than the offer made by the local authority the whole of the costs of the inquiry are to be thrown on the owner, who has not desired to be brought into this litigation or to be disturbed in his property, and has acted throughout in a perfectly bonâ fide manner. I say that that is extremely unfair. If it is thought that in such a case each party ought to pay their own costs that might be reasonable, or if it were left to the discretion of the arbitrator before whom the case came, if he were given absolute power to say by whom they should be paid, it might also be reasonable. But it is not fair to leave it with this fixed direction which the arbitrator cannot vary, and it will create an amount of injustice which nobody with experience in these matters could possibly justify.
  Take the next Sub-clause in the Clause dealing with costs and there you will find an even greater injustice still, because it is provided there that if in the claim which the owner has to put in showing how his valuation is arrived at—and it is a very complicated question, as a great variety of interests may be involved—if in that claim the arbitrator thinks that insufficient particulars are given, the whole costs of the arbitration proceedings are to fall on the unfortunate owner. These points, no doubt, are Committee points, but then in these days one never sees the Bill in Committee: it goes straight upstairs, and the only chance of raising these matters is on the Second Reading. I will only add that if I can get an assurance from the Attorney-General that steps will be taken to prevent these injustices, if the right hon. Gentleman will undertake that the Bill shall be modified in the direction I have suggested, then I shall be pleased to give it my hearty support.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. W. R. SMITH: I think we must recognise that this is something in the nature of an emergency proposal. If it had had for its object the final dealing

  2339
  with the question of land acquisition in this country, we should have been compelled seriously to consider alternative suggestions of a character different from those contained in this Bill. We recognise that it is good in parts, and we do not want to reject that which is good and essential for our purpose because some of its Clauses may appear to be more or less objectionable. We in this part of the House are very anxious to assist the Government in this work of reconstruction in every way we can. We recognise the desirability of giving to the soldiers who are returning to this country, where they have the desire, the fullest opportunity of settling down on holdings in different parts of the country. We recognise also the great necessity of land being acquired and powers being taken for the purpose in order to construct the houses which are necessary for the protection of the health and the life of the people, and because of that we are anxious to give assistance to the passing of legislation which will enable land to be acquired in order that those ideas may be put into operation. But we feel that in dealing with this matter from the standpoint of an emergency proposal, we want to be careful not to establish permanently conditions which are going to be harmful to the general community, and we are rather afraid that the methods contained in the Bill in regard to the acquisition of land and the price to be paid for it, may have the result of standardising or stabilising the abnormal conditions that exist at present. That is a very great and serious difficulty. In some cases where farmers have been prepared to pay large sums for the farms they occupy, which have been put up for sale, the fact is to some extent due to the abnormal profits they have made during the War, which have given them facilities to purchase land in a way which would not otherwise be possible. That is the result to some extent of the profiteering that has taken place in this industry, and we want to take care that in any measure passed by his House we do not stabilise for the future anything in connection with land which is due to the artificial conditions through which we have been passing. That is the real point we are concerned with on these benches.
  We recognise that the proposals are simplified so far as procedure is concerned in regard to the acquisition of this land.
  2340
  Reference has been made to the difficulty the owner will be placed in owing to the restrictive measures contained in the Bill, by expert witnesses being limited to one and the lack of opportunity of having legal aid. It is well to notice that there is a further Clause which leaves them the right of going to arbitration if they seek to do so, and that appears to me to protect those who are merely anxious to get a fair price for the land they have to dispose of, whilst on the other hand simply protecting the public against people who might by the use of their financial resources be prepared to engage a large number of expert witnesses, who in my experience merely confuse the issue and therefore add to the expenses necessarily incurred. But we should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman the imperative necessity of trying to meet the House in regard to the price that is to be paid for this land. It has been said that to take the annual value is not a fair or reasonable proposal, because it has the result of penalising those who have let their land at a low rent. There is the valuation which was ascertained under the Finance Act, 1910. There surely, we have something to guide us in this matter, and something which was established and fixed in what were known as normal times, and we think the Government ought to facilitate some changes in this Bill which will make it impossible for the abnormal conditions and circumstances of the moment to be permanently carried on into the future. Some of us, while giving all the support we can to the suggestion of ex-soldiers being placed upon the land, are not very optimistic of the success which might follow from these proposals. Agriculture is not an industry a knowledge of which is so easily acquired as to permit a man to make a success of a holding who has had no previous experience, notwithstanding all the endeavours which may be made to give him instruction; and, if coupled with that disadvantage, there is to be a heavy financial responsibility, we shall merely be creating great disappointment in the minds of these people later on who have had their hopes built up by the promised inducements which have been held out.
  If, on the other hand, the only way that circumstances can be met is out of public expenditure, then again, is it fair and reasonable to tax the general public in order to meet a liability which has developed under abnormal circumstances

  2341
  and which under any reasonable conditions ought not to be carried forward to normal times? We are anxious to support all proposals which have for their object the making of this social reconstruction possible, but we are anxious to protect the future position of this country against the abnormal condition of prices which have developed during the last few years. We ought to make profiteering in land absolutely impossible, and we feel that whilst the Clause is left merely on the terms governed by a willing seller, we are not protecting the citizens generally against the encroachments which may be made in this respect. Apart from the rural aspect of the situation, there is the town side of it, and we shall undoubtedly have to use this measure as a means of acquiring land for the housing of our town workers, and if the Clause is left as it stands, what protection shall we have against those who are seeking to make the biggest prices, and will be helped in their desires and intentions by the fact that everyone, both from the point of view of industry and the public service is seeking to acquire land? Circumstances are abnormal in that respect, because in almost every industrial centre there is a tendency now to develop, whch will mean the need of land, and then coupled with that, if we have the public authority seeking it for housing purposes, we shall be giving land a value which, if the Clause is left as it is, we claim to be unfair to the general public. I should like the Government to give some further consideration to that point, whereby we may have greater protection than now seems to be provided by the Bill.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I support the Amendment, and I hope it will be pressed to a Division unless we can get some assurance from the Government, as requested by the last speaker. The Attorney-General did not seem to claim for the measure the importance of a really first-class Bill, and yet they have put before the House no proposal this Session which deals with a question of more vital importance. The way the Bill has been drawn is altogether inadequate. There has been disappointment, I am sure, in the country, if not in the House, with every measure of social reconstruction which has been introduced, but I think with regard to none will there be greater disappointment than the inadequate way in which the land question is tackled in this Bill. With regard to the Ministry of Health Bill,
  2342
  though excellent as a matter of machinery, there was great disappointment in the country because it did not deal or give powers to deal with the various problems which have arisen of recent years. It was merely a co-ordinating measure which gave no new powers. With regard to the Housing Bill, there was disappointment because the powers dealing with town planning were not made compulsory. In this measure, which is really the keystone of the whole edifice of social reconstruction, we have the most ineffectual powers of dealing with the matter.
  You cannot build houses unless you have land, and you want land at a reasonable and cheap price. The experience of local authorities who have had housing schemes is that every time they have failed was because they could not get an adequate supply of land to deal with the question. Why has there been this delay in bringing forward this measure? Shortly after the War started the Local Government Board circularised authorities, urging them to prepare schemes of housing and other matters of general reconstruction in which land was involved. The Government have known since 1914 that additional powers were required to deal with this question. If they had only shown the same anxiety to proceed with this matter as they did with regard to the Military Service Bill, we should have had a Land Bill of a vital kind passed before this. In 1914 the Report of the famous Land Inquiry Committee was issued. This inquiry covered a very considerable extent of England. I think about ninety towns were dealt with, and a population, excluding London, of over 9,000,000. The Committee found that the cost of acquiring land compulsorily by public bodies was out of all proportion to its real value, and that
  "this acts as a heavy check on all improvement schemes."
  That was the finding of a Committee set up by the Prime Minister himself, and it should be treated with the respect which it deserves. The Committee gave examples from various parts of the country of the way in which the difficulty of acquiring land at reasonable prices retarded the development of town and social problems generally.
  I will not range over the various examples which they gave, but will give an experience of my own town. To my own

  2343
  knowledge our housing attempts there during the last fifteen years have been hampered and held up on every occasion because of the impossibility of acquiring land at anything like a reasonable price. Though we have failed with regard to housing, we have had, and rightly, under the direction of the Board of Education, to find land for our school sites. A return given to me from our local education authority shows that during the last fifty years the land required for public school purposes cost on an average over £1,600 per acre, and that is land which not 100 years ago—because we are a very new town—was worth little more than its agricultural value. In fact, it was a distinguished Leader of this House who, towards the end of the 'seventies, happened to be on a visit to our individual centre and referred to our town as the youngest child of England's greatest enterprise. The education authority, as a town grows, naturally seeks for land in advance, and the schools are, generally speaking, on the outskirts or towards the outskirts of the town, yet land for those public purposes cost on an average £1,600 an acre. No wonder that our housing schemes have failed. We have at present several housing schemes before us. We have offers of land to-day on the outskirts of our towns, and we are asked £1,000 an acre in some cases for that land. I have had turned up the rateable value of those particular sites and I find that the rateable value, in the rate book, of that land for which £1,000 an acre is asked is £4 an acre.
  This Bill leave things practically as they are, because it does not afford any protection for urban districts against the artificial value which has been made by the growth of the town itself. The community, individuals by their enterprise, the municipality by the extension of their public services, by the money they have spent, have made that added value, and it is unjust to the community that the community should have to pay these exorbitant prices when land is required in the public service. What have the Government done in regard to this matter? By their delay in bringing forward a Bill of an adequate kind to deal with the huge problems before us, they have practically prevented us from taking steps which otherwise would have been effective. Under the Housing Bill, which we had before us the other day, the Local Government Board will give assistance to the
  2344
  local authorities, who shall not spend more than the equivalent of the 1d. rate, in providing the housing that is required. That is an excellent proposition for the municipality. As a member of our local authority I welcome it, but as a Member of this House I say that there is a great deal of financial unsoundness about it, because it involves with regard to the purchase of land an immense sum. When the local authorities are prepared to spend the equivalent of 1d. on the rateable value—and I think that there is no authority which is not going to work that proposal and will not willingly spend the 1d. in the £ in order to secure the assistance from the Government—it is immaterial to them what the cost of the land is, because whether they have to pay £200 or £400 or £1,000 per acre for land for housing purposes makes no difference whatever. It puts a premium on extravagance so far as the cost of land is concerned.
  We have felt that difficulty for years. The other day the General Purposes Committee of the council of which I am a member—consisting of men of all shades of political opinion—passed a resolution that there could be no sound solution of the urban problem of housing until land can be obtained at its agricultural value. On those lines this Bill makes a lamentable mistake in offering this assistance to local authorities for housing in the direction in which it offers it, and by putting the burden on the taxpayers and putting a great handicap and mortgage on the people. We were told by the President of the Local Government Board the other day that from 300,000 to 500,000 houses were required to make good the present shortage. From the benches on this side the estimate was given that the requirement was 1,000,000 houses. Suppose we take the average of what is required at 500,000 houses. I do not think there will be much dispute as to the accuracy of those figures. These houses, fortunately, have not to be built under the same conditions as prevailed in the past. No longer are we to have squalid houses, crowded together, with forty or fifty to an acre. The Local Government Board provides that we must have no more than twelve houses to the acre. For 500,000 houses that means that 40,000 acres of land will require to be bought for housing purposes, at the cost of the ratepayer and the taxpayer together That is 40,000 acres, and in the absence of

  2345
  adequate powers to acquire the land at a reasonable price, supposing we have to pay only a £100 more per acre than otherwise we would have to pay, and I think £100 is an under-estimate and that it will cost very considerably more, that means an unnecessary burden on the cost of those houses of £4,000,000. If the sum instead of being £100 in excess of a reasonable price is two, three or four times that amount, and my experience warrants the larger figure because we have had to pay £1,600 per acre, then we may have to spend £400 or £500 more per acre than we ought to pay, and that will run the sum to £20,000,000. But whether the sum be £4,000,000 or £20,000,000 it is a tax and a burden on the homes of the people, and you are putting the burden on the backs of those who are least able to bear it, and the plunder into the pockets of those who, as Adam Smith remarked, grow rich in their sleep.
  The Government have failed lamentably to grapple with this question. We were told we were going to have a new England and a land fit for heroes to live in, but you cannot have that unless you remodel your towns and get the land at a reasonable price, so that houses can be built with garden surroundings, with playgrounds for the children and with parks for the older people. You cannot do those things if you are to continue to pay a monopoly price for the land value. Reference has been made to the Valuation Act of 1910, and somewhat unsympathetic reference. I know nothing of the Debates that took place then, but as one of the outside public interested in social reform and the housing question, I know that outside that measure was hailed as the Magna Charta of land reform. Why should it be thrown overboard at this particular time? Outside we did not imagine that it was going to be a great revenue-producing piece of legislation, but we did expect that it was making the foundation of land purchase, and that when for the future any community required land for public purposes that it was no longer to go on paying the inflated value given by the community, but on the basis of the valuation of the Finance Act, 1909–10. I can see no injustice to anyone in taking that as the fair standard. Warning was given at that time that this legislation was introduced to protect the public for the future from monopoly values. Hon. Members have asked here to-day, Why should land be treated differ-
  2346
  ently as an investment from any other class of investment? I have always understood from the political economy I have read that land was essentially different from any other class of property because it was limited in area and in extent, and because it was essential to the well-being of every individual in a way which applied to no other form of property. I say, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable and fair, not only to the landlord, but also to those who live in crowded districts, and to the mothers and wives of our soldiers and to the little children who are now born, bred and brought up in sunless areas and narrow courts, that we should claim that land should be acquired for the provision of homes which will not be a disgrace to civilisation as they too often are at present. I must apologise for spending so much time on this particular subject, but I represent a town which unfortunately too often heads the tables of death mortality published week by week by the Registrar-General, and therefore there is some reason and some excuse for dwelling on this question. Our death-rate last year was, I am ashamed to say, 22.8 per thousand, and our infantile mortality 145 per thousand. From our experience in the past we will fail to tackle this question adequately until the land problem is solved on reasonable lines. I say that with no desire for spoliation or robbery, but let us learn wisdom from the mistakes made in the past, and let us see, in the future at any rate, that increases which arise from the growth and development of the community shall not be used as a handicap to the further development of the health and well-being of the community, but that the money and the increased value so arising shall go into the coffers of the community and be used for social purposes. Therefore, I say, it is lamentable that this measure should fail to deal adequately with the question, because this question of land purchase is surely the keystone and the foundation stone of that edifice of social reconstruction which was outlined on every platform during the last election. The country will be bitterly disappointed if they find that the housing programme is held up and the development of the towns limited because still the incubus of land monopoly hangs round it because the Government has failed to deal with the question. Our soldiers went overseas at great sacrifices. They did not stop to consider in the trenches whether they were

  2347
  making an equal or an unequal sacrifice with those at home, or to consider whether their capital, their life, was going to yield the same percentage as it was to the men who remained in munition works or the owners of property in this country. I say that those who have had their property defended by the lives of our soldiers should be willing to forego perspective profit in order that homes worthy of the name should be provided for the heroes who have returned.
  Major E. GRAY: I have been asked to place before the House one or two criticisms which arose from the consideration of this Bill by the Improvements Committee of the London County Council. That committee decided, I understand, yesterday afternoon that with very much regret they regarded this Bill as insufficient for its purpose, as failing in comprehensiveness and as likely, if adopted by this House, to stand in the way of that comprehensive reform which, in the opinion of the council, is so urgently needed. I believe all of us interested in this question of land purchase by local authorities would be very glad indeed to see effective action in this House on the lines of the Report of the Committee on the subject. It may indeed be said that this measure is but a tinkering with a small portion of the Subject. That may be justified on the ground that it is an emergency measure and apprehension on that score will be removed if we have an assurance that the whole question of land purchase by local authorities for public purposes shall be dealt with at an early date in a comprehensive manner. I hope that assurance may be given. There are one or two small points of detail I wish to mention. I believe that it is the practice in the existing forms of purchase to compensate the seller for damage done to his property when an estate is severed in twain and the local authority takes the pick of the estate. I had some connection for some years with the small holdings committee of a London local authority and I know that when we were searching within a fifty-mile radius of London for plots suitable for small holdings we naturally and quite rightly sought for the best portions of the estate wherever we could find them, knowing that unless we got the very best the small holdings could not be made to pay unless they were dealt with by thoroughly experienced agriculturists. To tell a returned soldier, with but little
  2348
  experience of the land, and with land not of the best, that by intensive culture he may make both ends meet, will, I believe, lead him in the long run into a most unfortunate position. When you have regard to the cost of buildings required for a small holding, which amounted to between £350 and £500 in pre-war days, and when you bear in mind the need for co-operating with others in hiring machinery and horses, and the need for intensive culture to be within the neighbourhood of markets, it will be seen that unless he has the very best land he is not going to succeed. In picking the site you will probably inflict upon the seller what I understand is technically termed "damage" due to the severance of his property. Under this Bill will there be compensation for the damage? I understand not. It is to be the land value, and that value is the value of a willing seller in the open market. I find extreme difficulty in visualising this seller who is about to forfeit the very best portion of his estate in the role of a willing seller. I doubt whether he will ever be able to reach that position, and whether anybody will ever be able to appreciate the position for him, even the most skilled arbitrator. If that damage is not to be included as part of the compensation, can the seller set up any claim for compensation apart from the sale of the land? Having had the land value considered by an arbitrator, can he go to a jury for compensation for damage? I believe that is not quite clear.
  There are two points I should like to make myself. One is with regard to the arbitrator. I have great doubt whether an official arbitrator divorced from general practice is likely to be the best person for valuing the land. I am inclined to the opinion that he will build up, unconsciously official values for land, and that his contact with local authorities as the purchasers, and no other purchasers, will tend to warp his natural judgment, and he will not be the very best of persons to decide the actual value of the land for the purpose required. I have heard it suggested in the Debate, and I concur in that view, that it is undesirable that one official, a State official, should be the arbitrator, when a State Department may be one of the parties to the arbitration, and the same applies where a local authority is one of the parties. I doubt the wisdom of severing this man entirely from private practice and making him a State official, and there

  2349
  by adding to the long list of State officials. No Bill seems to go through this House without setting up officials—far too many of them. I wonder how long the soldiers will be anxious to obtain these small holdings when a few of them have had a trial! Then, what duties will there be left for the State official who has been appointed official arbitrator? He would then find extreme difficulty in returning to private practice.
  Assuming that you have your official arbitrator, whether he be divorced from private practice or not, I would ask the House to consider the position of a seller and a buyer, when they appear before him setting forth one, their claim to purchase and the other their claim to a fair purchase price. The seller, inexperienced it may be, is not to have the assistance of counsel. I heard it suggested that the local authority would send their clerk. In London we should not send the clerk of the council, but we should send another official, who I believe is not excluded by this Bill, and that is our valuer, and I pity the poor seller face to face with the official valuer of the London County Council. I should like to know what opportunity that poor seller would have of putting his case fully and satisfactorily before the arbitrator when his opponent was a man—and I say it without any offence—who is familiar with every trick of the trade, whose long experience, particularly over a given area, would give him a knowledge greater than that possessed by the most expert of arbitrators, and would give him a dominating influence in the court of arbitration. This would put the seller at very great disadvantage. I appreciate the object and the desirability of curtailing expenditure, and making the procedure as cheap as possible, but if one local authority is to be allowed to employ an expert, as undoubtedly it would, I think the other party should be allowed to have an equal advantage so that the two might have their case fairly stated to the arbitrator.
  Major BARNES: I think it will be generally agreed that in introducing this particular Bill at this somewhat late stage of this part of the Session, the Government cannot be said to approach this great question of reconstruction in any logical sort of way. When we were having the memorable election which sent us into this House, I think that the outstanding pledge that was made, and the great promise which vivified and made that
  2350
  election a real thing, was that this country was going to be made a land fit for those men to live in who have done so much for us abroad. Based on that promise there were prospects and hopes held out in many directions, and it is perfectly clear that none of these hopes can be realised in any shape or form without dealing with the question of the land. One wonders how it is that this measure has come up as the last in this part of the Session instead of the first. We might have expected that it would have been brought in almost immediately, and I cannot see any real reason for ifs delay. I have studied with a good deal of interest many Reports that have been made under the Ministry of Reconstruction, but I do not know any Committee that has gone more closely or more exhaustively into the question of the acquisition of land than the Committee which sat to deal with that question. I do not know any Report which presented such complete recommendations so readily available for legislation as that Report. It was published some months before the election, and it has been within the knowledge of the Government, and for the life of me I cannot see why a great measure of land reform was not the first, or almost the first, to be introduced this Session. When it does come, instead of being a really great measure of reform, it is so scant, so emasculated, that one could hardly regard it as being a reform measure at all. One wonders what has been going on. One is always inclined to suspect nowadays, if things are not going just the right way, that there is some hidden hand. What hidden hand has been delaying the production of a really great Land Bill? That question has been put to the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Member for Horncastle (Lieutenant-Colonel Weigall), who suggested that political considerations may be delaying the production of such a measure. I would suggest to the Government that it would be a most unfortunate thing for them if an impression becomes current in the country that measures for dealing with this first and most vital question of reform are being delayed by the operation of any interests at all. In the short time during which I have been in this House it has been possible to realise that the things which interest the House most are not always the things which interest the country most, and that there are things which excite the attention of the

  2351
  country but which Sometimes fail to engage the attention of this House, and I venture to think that in the relative positions which the measures of this Session have taken there Is to be seen a lack of appreciation of what is the real feeling of the people of this country on this question. This Bill was introduced by the Attorney-General in so cool and dispassionate a manner as to suggest that what we were really dealing with was some measure for assessing the price of butter or margarine, and that there was no special interest attached to this question.
  To the great masses of this country a very special interest does attach to the question of dealing in land. The country is interested in it for two reasons—a sentimental reason and a practical reason I think the last figures that I saw before leaving the Valuation Department, which gave the total value of land and buildings in the United Kingdom, showed that value to be somewhere round about £6,000,000,000, and I think, too, that the figure at which the National Debt stands at present is about the same. That suggests that if we had not been obliged to spend all that money on the War we should have had a sum with which it would have been possible to have bought out the whole of the interests in property in this country, excluding perhaps mines and railways. The people of this country feel that in some sort of way they have to a great extent, not only by money but by blood, bought this country. We have a story in Northumberland of which we' are rather fond. It is an untrue story, but we are none the less fond of it for that. It is a story of a pitman who was walking once through the property of a certain noble lord, when he was met by the nobleman, who challenged his right to be there. "Well," said the pitman, "how did you come by this land?" "I got it from my father." "And how did he get it?" "He got it from his father." "And how did he get it?" And so it went back, until at last the noble lord said, "I suppose the first one got it by fighting for it." "All right," says the pitman, taking off his coat, "I will fight you for it." I think there is a feeling abroad among the people of this country to-day that they have during the last four or five years been fighting for this county. [An HON. MEMBER: "One class only?"] No, all classes. It perhaps is unreasonable and
  2352
  impracticable, but it is there, and we have to realise that the people feel that they have in some sort of way acquired a new title to this country—at least that they are not going to buy this land back at prices which are going to put great profits into the pockets of land and property owners. War has curious effects. It makes us poorer in some ways and richer in others. It makes life cheaper, but it apparently makes property dearer. We have heard during this Debate that the value of land has risen. I think the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) put it at something like 25 per cent., and it was also stated that it had gone up in some cases 50 per cent., 70 per cent., and even 100 per cent., and an hon. Friend behind me says "and over." There is no doubt there has been a considerable increase in the value of property —land and also buildings. We know that at the present time if the Rent Restriction Act was taken off the value of buildings would be at least double what it was before the War, so that if you take the figure of six thousand millions as representing the value in 1909, it would seem that the value of property in this country has grown on account of the War by a figure equal at least to some thousands of millions of pounds, and I think the people of this country are interested in knowing where that value is going to go.
  It is idle for us to imagine that they are not sensitive on the subject, when we look at the way in which they regard profiteering in general, the feeling directed against the shipowners, the way in which they have demanded and secured the Rent Restriction Act, which is really an Act by which people who own buildings, as apart from land, are prevented by law from realising at the present time that increased value. I am certain that if, as a result of this Debate, a feeling gets abroad in the country that the Government is indifferent as to the direction in which this great increase in land values goes, nothing would more undermine the confidence of the people in the Government than such an impression as that. There is also a practical reason why so much interest is taken in this measure, and that is that it is upon this Bill, and upon every Bill that may be brought in for dealing with land, that really all the great measures of social reconstruction depend. You had a Ministry of Health Bill. That Ministry of Health has got

  2353
  not merely a negative aspect but a great positive side, and it means that land will be required for all sorts of purposes, such AS sanatoria, playing fields, recreation grounds, etc. Then the Housing Bill cannot be carried out unless the land is first of all obtained, and under the Transport Bill money will be required for developing roads, railways, tramways, and so forth. In every direction you come to the land. We are engaged in this Parliament in bringing a great many ideals to earth, and when you come to earth you come to land, and when you come to land you come to the landowner, and when you want his land you naturally come up against the question of price. The real question we have got to settle at the present time with regard to that is where the difference between pre-war prices and present prices—a difference not owing to anything the landowner has done, but a difference owing to the general circumstances of the time and the conditions—where that difference is to go. Is the land to be bought for public purposes, and is the profit that is made on the purchase to go into the pockets of private individuals? That will be the question asked in this country, and this Government will be judged by the answer it gives to that question.
  What is the problem that the Government had to settle, and have to settle still? Because this Bill does not settle it. It is a two-fold one. Land had to be got, and got quickly, and it has to be got at a fair price. Let me draw attention to what is the present position with regard to the acquisition of land, and I should like to add a further tribute to what I have already said as to the work of the Committee presided over by the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the opposite bench. That report was of a most valuable character, not only for the recommendations it contained, but I think, particularly, for the amount of information that is attached to it in the form of schedules, appendices and analyses of legislation dealing with land. When you come to look at the present position with regard to the acquisition of land, what do you find? You find that there are something like eighty-eight general and local Acts under which land may be compulsorily acquired. There are five authorities to whom you may, under one circumstance or another, have to go to get final power. For instance, if you want to get land for a hospital you get it under the Public Health Act, but if it
  2354
  is a hospital for infectious diseases you must get that under the Isolation Hospitals Act. If you want to get land to bury a dead dog in, you have to get that under the Diseases of Animals Act. If it is for a human being who has died in the country, you get that under the Local Government Act of 1894. If he died in town, you get the land under the Interment Act, 1874. If you want to procure pleasure lands for the use of the community, if they are in the country they have to be got under one Act, but if in the town they have to be got under another. If you want to put up a school in which to educate the child of the working man you get that under one Education Act; if you want to get schools for secondary education you get the land under another Act. Land for railways is got under the Railway Act, and for light railways under the Light Railways Act. All the land of this country is in the parishes of this country, but if you want a piece of land for parish purposes, you get it under the Local Government Act of 1894, and if for county council purposes you have to get it under the Local Government Act of 1898.
  When it comes to the methods of getting land, you may get it either by private Bill or by Provisional Order or by Departmental Order. The procedure is of the most complicated character in every possible sort of way. There are two stages— the procedure before you get your powers, and the procedure after you get your powers. This Bill does do something, I acknowledge, to simplify the powers of the procedure you have to go through after you get your powers. Before you get them you have to advertise, to serve notice, petition for an inquiry, hold your inquiry, make your Provisional Order and send copies. There are from four to nine steps which you must take before you can get your powers, and ten to eleven different steps after you have got it. We hear a great deal nowadays about different dances. The Jazz waltz is well advertised, but I cannot imagine any measure, any dance, with such complicated steps and such a number as those which have to be pursued by a local authority that wants to get land for one purpose or another. When you have got your powers, the next thing is your compensation. In the second Report published by the Committee on the Acquisition of Land there is set out all the different Clauses which affect

  2355
  compensation, and they are in all under nineteen heads and 191 different Clauses. Then when you come to the question of tribunals, you may have one or two arbitrators and an umpire, or you may go to a justice or a jury. Here again this Bill does do something substantial to deal with this point, but, so far as simplifying the procedure before you get your powers, so far as helping the authorities to get the land, this Bill does nothing practical at all.
  9.0 P.M.
  I want to say something about the Finance Act, because that has been referred to in the course of this Debate. Every purchase that takes place under this new Bill will give rise to an occasion under the Finance Act, and I think we may look upon this measure as being to some extent a sequel to that Act. Since I came into this House I have realised that there are a number of Members who do not think any more highly of the Finance Act now than they did when it was passed in 1909–10, but there is this difference, that in the early days what we were accustomed to hear was not only denunciation of the Act, but denunciation of its author, and those hon. Members, I really think, have made progress from a Christian point of view. They have learnt to love the sinner, while they continue to reprobate the sin. But the second Report of the Acquisition of Land Committee may, I think, fairly be looked upon as a sequel to the Finance Act. In the usual sequel, the heroes and heroines generally come into their own, and if that Report had been really published with a view to justifying a great deal that was said at the time of the passing of the Finance Act, I do not think it could have carried out that purpose more effectively. It has been most interesting to sit in this House to-day and to hear from one hop. Member after another the admission that the Lands Clauses Act, and the measures under which land has been acquired in the past, are notoriously out of date and must be amended, and to find a great deal of what was said in the year 1909 endorsed by such a Committee as the Acquisition of Land Committee, because that Committee was formed of Members of this House, of notable lawyers, of surveyors of very high standing, and I should think it must have been a very great source of pleasure to the Prime Minister, when he received that Report and no
  2356
  doubt perused it, to find that in nearly every respect it endorsed and confirmed the arguments that he brought forward in 1909–10 to secure the passage of the Budget. Let me read one or two extracts from this Report. It begins by saying:
  "It has become notorious that for many years sums paid for property for public purposes in many cases have been excessive. If the object of the Courts was to prevent the owner getting more than he should they have not succeeded, and the extent to which excessive compensation has been pushed is well illustrated by the contrast between the value of land acquired for public purposes, and the value of the same land when estimated for the purpose of taxation."
  In the Report is given an illustration of what happened in regard to the Birken-head Waterworks. There was a piece of land there for which £9,000 was paid. A portion of it, valued at £5,500, was required for the purpose of constructing this waterworks. The sum claimed for that portion was £100,000. The sum awarded was £26,500.
  That illustration taken from this Report might almost appear to be an illustration used at Limehouse. However, there it is This Report concludes:
  "In many cases compensation has been given to the owner on the basis that he could blackmail the public authority."
  It appears to me that the Report of this Committee, composed of men of standing, which begins with the word "notorious" and ends with the word "blackmail," was a fitting report on which to base a great measure of land reform. I think that the feeling of the country in the measure that has been put before us to-day will be that the mountain in travail has produced a mouse. Something was said in Debate as to the effect which the Finance Act had had upon investment in land. Curiously enough it happened that just a day or two ago I received a copy of a paper which is to be read in my Constituency to-morrow night at a meeting of the Surveyors' Institute. It has been prepared by the agent of a considerable landowner in the North. The subject of that paper is: "The Increase in the Prices of Buildings and Land." I should like to read a short extract from this paper referring to 1914. This is what the land agent says:
  "We were just beginning, like Christians, to emerge from the Slough of Despond of the valuation served under the Finance Act. At any rate we are getting used to them. Even if we did not thoroughly grasp all their intricacies, we were getting to that stage when we thought they would not be like the poor, ever with US. We see the gradual revival of confidence, pos-

  2357
  sibly the confidence of ignorance. After some of the moral effects of the Finance Act had worn off, and people began to think with a bit of devil-may-care, that it was time to think of laying down bricks and mortar. It was like a breath of Spring."
  That is quite a good style. I do not think there is any Member of this House, even the hon. Member for Chelmsford, who could put the case against the Finance Act of 1909–10 in a more picturesque and poetical fashion than the gentleman from whose paper I just read the extract. But he is not only poetical; he is practical. He goes on to deal with the question of the Finance Act upon building. He gives as figures. He says:
  "In Newcastle, from 1905–9—the period prior to the Finance Act—there were 2,580 houses built, or 516 per annum. From 1910 to 1914 there were 810 and 162 per annum respectively."
  There is the whole case proved. How could it be clearer? Before your Finance Act is passed you get built 516 houses per annum! After it has passed the number falls to 162. It is perfectly clear that the effect of the Finance Act has been to stop building. The whole case is proved. Unfortunately for this gentleman he cannot let well alone. He goes on to give, besides these figures, the number of empty houses in Newcastle. These empty houses had increased from 429 in 1909 to 1,305 in 1913, just in the very period when houses were not being built owing to the action of the Finance Act. The number of empties was growing. The Finance Act so thoroughly weakened the confidence of the people of this country that they were not only afraid to build, and afraid to buy, but they were afraid to live in the houses which had been built or bought. As to the increase of empty houses, is it not the real fact that what happened at least in Newcastle was that the passing of the Finance Act synchronised with a period of depression, and of overbuilding? I am disposed to think that that was fairly general throughout the country. At all events that is a matter that can be very easily settled, and I think it would be of value to have the point settled. The President of the Local Government Board can very easily get the figures. If the figures were got, they would show, I think, that what really happened was—a curious coincidence it may be—but that in many districts the passing of the Act synchronised with a period of overbuilding. I was in Newcastle, and interested in the point, and I got the figures from the local authorities of the building which had
  2358
  taken place from 1866 onwards. I found there were regularly defined periods in which building rose to a peak and fell to-a trough. This was the synchronisation with periods of depression.
  With regard to the Bill itself I offer this, criticism: It does nothing to help procedure. The valuation Clauses are good, so far as they go, but they do not go so far as we wish to see them. The question of betterment, the question of injurious affection, have been raised. They are not covered by this Bill. I should like to show how betterment is defined in the Report to which I have referred:
  "The principle of betterment is the principle that persons whose property has clearly been increased in value by improvement shall specially contribute towards the cost of such improvement."
  I suggest that the idea of betterment with, regard to land in this country has taken on a very much larger and wider conception, than before the War. After all, when you. come to think of it, what has the whole war been but a great improvement in the state of Europe? It is reflected upon the value of property in this country. On this very principle alone there is reasonable ground for suggesting that the owners of real property in this country, who benefited so much by the increase of values, should make a special contribution towards the cost of the War. I want to make this further criticism: that in this Bill there is nothing to show that it is intended to take any advantage of the valuation machinery in existence—that the machinery of the Valuation Department is to be used in any shape or form. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether it is the deliberate intention of the Government to exclude the use of this machinery? I think there is some ground for asking that question, because the whole attitude of a number, at least, if not of the Government as a whole, of the great Departments of this country towards the machinery of the Valuation Department throughout the War has been one that has given ground for believing that it is possible that the absence of any reference to it in the Bill, is deliberate, and that it is intended to-exclude it from being used. With regard to that, I think that whatever opinion hon. Members may have as to the Finance Act of 1909–10, and to the value of the various taxes imposed under that measure, they must, as business men, realise that in the machinery of the Valuation Department

  2359
  there is at the disposal of the Government a very great instrument that they can use with profit in many directions.
  As far as my own experience has gone there have been several directions during the War in which it might have been used with very great advantage and effect, but in which it was not so used. Take the case of the War Office. At the outbreak of war the War Office was called on to commandeer a great number of buildings and a considerable amount of land. In 1914 the Valuation Department was very largely through with its work. It was completely organised, and it was established in every part of the country. The country was divided up into 120 districts, and in each district you had at least one man, and in some cases more, who knew every yard of that district, every building in that district, their conditions, and their value. The problem before the War Office was to get accommodation for the large number of troops that were being raised. The Defence of the Realm Act was passed, laying down the terms under which compensation was to be paid, and in the early stages the War Office did call in the assistance of a Valuation Department. In Newcastle I was a valuer and was put on the committee. My business was to give assistance to the military authorities, to acquire property for them, and to assess compensation for that property under the Defence of the Realm Act. I very soon found I was in the way: Things were being done there, property was being obtained, expenditure was being incurred, and compensation was desired to be paid under conditions which it was impossible for me to sanction under the terms laid down by the Defence of the Realm Act. That Act, it will be remembered, laid it down that compensation should be on the basis of actual and substantial monetary loss. The principle of the Act was that no owner of property should be in a better position because his property was taken under the Act than he would have been if it had not been so taken. What went on was that practically derelict buildings were put in repair by the force of engineers and that then rents were paid for them to their owners. Buildings from which no income at all had been derived in the past became a source of income owing to the repairs carried out by the authorities. When I raised objections to this sort of thing, I was told it was a
  2360
  mistake to put me on that committee. In a short period of time, so far as my own district was concerned, we ceased to be employed on this and the War Office ran a Department of its own. Men came into the district who had no knowledge and no means at their disposal of obtaining local information, and the War Office built up a Department which, I believe, is still in existence, and carried out this work. I have no hesitation in saying that if the Valuation Department had been systematically employed by the War Office throughout the War it would have saved to this country an amount far in excess of anything that that Valuation Department has cost. Another matter is in connection with the employment of the directors of auxiliary buildings.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edwin Cornwall): I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to keep to the essence of tire Bill itself.
  Major BARNES: I was criticising the exclusion of the Valuation Department, and I wish to show how much better it would be if it were included. I was giving actual illustrations from my own knowledge to show how the Department might have been used in measures of this sort.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is quite in order in giving an illustration, but his illustration was going on for about half an hour.
  Major BARNES: May I use one illustration which occurred in this House a little while ago, in the Debate on the works at Slough, which I think crystallises the whole case? The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Lieutenant-Colonel Weigall), speaking in that Debate and referring to the selection of a site there, used these words:
  "My last point is the question of the selection of a site. What the Government did was to take a sensible precaution. They laid down certain conditions as to locality, water supply, transport, and so forth. Sir Howard Frank and his staff spent three weeks scouring the country trying to satisfy those conditions."
  Shortly, my point is this. The problem there was to find a site. Now, they had got at their hand an instrument by which they could, within three days, have discovered what sites were available in this country. The Admiralty, who were seeking sites quite as large as that at Slough, were using the Department. What was the procedure? A letter to each of the 120 valuers; postage 15s. a day for each

  2361
  district valuer to make a report from his own personal knowledge; 15s. postage back. You get, on an expenditure of £3 and in a period of three days, a much more complete and extensive report would have been in the hands of the Government than could possibly be furnished by Sir Howard Frank and his staff scouring the country for three weeks. That is a simple illustration which should satisfy the House. Yet in any measure which the Government bring in, and in any transactions which have to be carried out in regard to land, they do not employ a resource which they had at their hand.
  In conclusion, I would simply say, that what I think the country has been looking for has been a constructive measure, a measure which should shorten indefinitely the procedure of acquiring this land. In our Colonies, it is stated in the Report, an authority can simply acquire land by giving notice in the "Gazette" that it is the intention to resume possession of the land. I cannot for the life of me see why, in this great period of wholesale reconstruction, we could not at least have had the land system in this country brought into line with that in our great Colonies. With regard to tribunals, I am happy that on this point I can agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford. It is of the utmost importance that the tribunals should be independent ones, and that the men who sit on them should be of the highest character, adequately paid, and secure in their position, so that they may gain the confidence of the country. So far as the basis of valuation is concerned, the main point there is to ensure that there should be no market at all of any public need It should be clear, in assessing the valuation, that the public authority coming into the market should not be regarded as a purchaser in the ordinary sense, but that the value to be obtained in the market should be the value to be obtained by the entry of a private purchaser and not of the public authority. I believe, so far as that particular point is concerned, that that is very largely secured in the Bill. The real measure of complaint, so far as the Bill goes, is that while I do think it helps us. once having got the land, to get it at a fairer rate than at present, it does little or nothing to help us to get the land.
  Sir DONALD MACLEAN: The Government have laid before this House at least three large and important measures of
  2362
  social reform, but of all the measures, which they have laid or are likely to lay this is the most important. It goes to the root of the whole matter, namely, the acquisition of the land which forms directly or indirectly the basis of all social progress. A great deal has been said in. this discussion, indeed it is always said, on these questions, as to why we should, differentiate in the way in which you deal with land and any other form of property. No amount of discussion will alter the fact: that the people of this country have got hold of the rooted fundamental idea. which has been the basis of all our land: laws from the very earliest time, and that is the implicit, if not expressed, principle that the ultimate owner of the land is the Crown, or the people, and that therefore any interest, however powerful or widespread, must be subordinated to the public needs and the public good. That is not the doctrine of the Socialist platform or the Radical agitator, but it is the very basis of our land laws.
  Proceeding from that, let us consider the scope of this measure. It deals and is fundamental to the vast and serious problem of housing. If the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act, the financial weight which it imposes upon the community owing to this Bill as it at present stands, is heavy, you will undoubtedly in the most serious manner hamper all public authorities and all private interests in attempting to deal with that most difficult problem. What has happened with regard to housing? There has been an immense amount of legislation upon this subject—the three Acts of 1870, 1890, and 1909. Everybody knows what lies at the root of the delay, and indeed not only the delay on the part of public authorities, but the refusal of public authorities to undertake it. I agree it is cumbrous machinery, but what is at the root of it all is the awful expense. This Bill, as it stands at present, affords no relief. It is true it provides a certain amount of machinery, but the real block to anything like progress is the cost of the land. We are taking up the question of soldiers' settlement. We have heard a good deal about what we are going to do in this respect for the brave men who have served us on land, on sea, and in the air. In all probability I believe the demand or what we are providing will not be very great, because the men will be more liable to slip back into the old groove and not take on new Jobs. Nevertheless, this is

  2363
  a real and pressing problem. What is it that has stopped progress in this matter in the past I It is not the desire of public Authorities, but it is the cost.
  Take the subject of afforestation. Our woods have been stripped and we shall have to take large and sweeping drastic measures to replant them. We shall have to deal with I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of acres. Who is going to deal with that problem? Some public authority must deal with it, and it must not be a public authority in London; therefore the only way to do it is through devoluted authorities throughout the country who will be able to handle the problem on the spot. But what will stop them? Why, the expense. This Bill does nothing to alter the present block, and the position will ultimately be worse than ever. Upon small holdings I speak with rather a special interest, for I had the honour of introducing into this House the Bill which afterwards became the Small Land-Holders Act for Scotland. What simply smashed that Act and made it a real "dud" on the Statute Book? Nothing but the decision of the Law Courts which gave a perfectly monstrous sum by way of compensation to the landlords. How is that going to help the Scottish people?
  I want to know from Scottish Radical Members what they think of this Bill in face of their knowledge of what has happened in Scotland. What action are they going to take with regard to it? Small holdings will just remain what they were, absolutely starved with no chance of any improvement. They may say, "That is all right; the State is going to bear the expense." But what is the State? Simply the taxpayer, and the sooner the people of this country, or at any rate Government Departments, realise that in the ultimate all these vast sums which are being poured out have to be met and paid by the taxpayer the better. When taxes fall upon the people like hail upon the land, what can the action of local authorities be while they are pressed down by heavy rates and by crushing taxation as well? How can we bear the interest on the National Debt? Is it realised what the position is with regard to the heavy burdens of the State? The interest on the National Debt will amount to thousands of millions. If you even double the cost of all your Services, civil and military, in this country you do not come anywhere
  2364
  near even the interest on your debt. You say that the State can bear it. You may start in that way, but two or three years after passing all these things if you do not face the facts you will be bankrupt. We shall have to face these things like honest individuals and get rid of this nonsense of what the Government can do. We have got to do it in the end, and the sooner we realise it the better for honesty and for the efficient and economical working of the State. What is the proposal of the Government? The machinery has been dealt with. I will deal simply with the Bill. Clause 2 is the Bill. It says:
  "The value of land shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to be the amount which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise."
  The market value, and the market value of to-day. It is no use talking about how things will settle themselves in the course of a year or two. These problems are instant, and, if you are going to do any good, you will have to start buying right off, or the country will want to know why. We may have another election, and the whole business all over again and nothing done. Here is a chance for the Government to redeem their pledges. If they have any idea of their responsibility and what they said and meant at the last election here is their chance, with the House or the great majority of the House behind them and keenly earnest on real social reform. What do they propose to do? They propose to give an inflated war value. Just see what must happen. Take a fairly large town. You have between the actual urban boundaries of the town and the really agricultural part a belt influenced by the high standard of the agricultural value, and the high standard of the urban value. What has raised the value of these tracts of agricultural land I Does anybody doubt that it is the War that has driven up the value of agricultural land? The whole thing is bloated and inflated by the War position and the Bill actually and solemly proposes that in these social questions, which are at the very root of our national existence, we shall hand over the results of the War as far as these values are concerned to the owners of the land. How has it been brought about? By the sacrifices of the whole community. Why therefore should the whole of the community be taxed—that is what it amounts to, a War tax—simply for the sake of those who have the good fortune to own the land? I say deliberately that

  2365
  the country will not have it. Unless this thing is radically altered and placed upon a basis which will appeal to the justice and fairness of the nation, then there will be much more said about it whatever we put on the Statute Book. The idea of the country is that the right and proper thing to do is to take the pre-war valuation. If we are to deal with this thing on the present market value, why, it reduces to a farce the whole of the Government's social programme. We have got down to this one question, and we see where we are. I do not for a moment deny the bona fides of the views of hon. Members, but this is a vital question, and, unless we get an assurance from the Government that this matter is going to be brought into line with the reasonable and fair demand of those who are pressing and insisting upon social reform for the country, we shall most certainly divide upon this Amendment. Lest anyone thinks that I am employing the language of an agitator, let me remind the House what the "Times" said the other day upon this question:
  "The current value of most agricultural land just now is probably not less than 25 per cent. higher than it was ten years ago. The taxpayer will have to bear the burden of the rise in the price if the Clause stands. The rise of 25 per cent. is a big rise, and the Clause confers upon the landowner a bonus from the taxpayer which he could not possibly have expected in the most favourable circumstances if there had been no war."
  Mr. L. SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman put the depreciation of money at less than 25 per cent?
  Sir D. MACLEAN: Everything has depreciated. I should think that the depreciation of money is greater than 25 per cent. I say that in the taking of land for this necessary public purpose there should be no unfair profits derived by those who hold the land, and I say that Clause 2 as it now stands gives them unfair profits. In one way or another all classes of trade have to pay the Excess Profits Tax. The basis of the Excess Profits Tax is that the great profits that have been caused by the War, and the Government therefore say, "Give us 80 per cent. and you can have 20 per cent." In this vital matter the whole thing is left to the open market and the willing seller. In housing, in land settlement, in afforestation, and in transport, because this is the land foundation of all those great schemes in the Transport Bill, who is going to come into the market? Why,
  2366
  every public authority in the land is going to come into the market. What effect will that have upon the price of land? There is nothing here to stop it; there are no safeguards at all. You may have the most independent men in the world as valuers, but they are bound by the words of the Act and they cannot do anything else. I say that we are fully justified in voting for the reasoned Amendment upon the Paper.
  Mr. D. HERBERT: After sitting silent in this House for two months, I have a natural trepidation in rising for the first time, but I want particularly to say a few words on one point which seems to me to be the chief question in this discussion, namely, the value at which the land is to be taken over by the State. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has treated us to a speech given with a greater amount of indignation and a freer use of adjectives than I have ever heard him use in this House before. What, after all, does it come to? He pities very much the poor taxpayer who is to find this money, and he is apparently desirous of relieving the taxpayer, which means every individual in the country bearing his or her fair share, at the expense of one unfortunate class which happens to hold one particular form of investment. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but after all this is the point which has been raised by several Members in different forms. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Sir R. Winfrey) spoke of the ups and downs in the values of real property, and deprecated that we should have to pay what is the market value at the present moment when the market value some years ago was less, and when, according to him, it will be less in years to come. This is a question of fairness at the moment. The hon. Member is a gentleman whose services at the present moment would be worth a considerable sum to anybody who happened to want to employ an expert in his particular line. Let us assume, for argument's sake, that it is putting it at a fair value to say that the market value of his services now would be £1,500 a year. They would not have been that when he was seventeen years of age, and possibly they will not be that in twenty years' time. But no body would suggest that he should receive now only what they were worth when he was seventeen, or what they will be worth in twenty years' time.

  2367
  The average Englishman has a sense of fairness and justice. I would appeal particularly to hon. Members on the Labour Benches in regard to the question of the present value of land that is required for national purposes. I would put to them an illustration of the hardship which would be effected by going back to the 1909–10 valuation — a hardship which would be brought about for many of those whom they profess to specially represent in this House. There is many a skilled artisan in some of our large or growing towns, a thrifty man and a man with some business sense in his head, who in the last few years has put his savings into the purchase of a small plot of land not far from where he lives, a plot of land which, when he bought it, had some prospective building value. Pie has bought it beyond its agricultural value, and cultivated it as an allotment, possibly with a view to having a house built there in future years, or at least of being able to sell it for a sum beyond that which he gave for it. We will assume—it is not an unfair assumption, as hon. Members will admit—that he has purchased the plot for 10, 15 or 20 per cent. above the amount of the 1909–10 valuation. Is that man to lose that, and to have that property taken from him at 10, 15 or 20 per cent. less than he paid for it, because that happens to be the value at the time of the 1909–10 valuation? The 1909–10 valuation was a valuation made at a time when the value of money was very different from what it is now. For that reason alone, if you are to give the owner of land what his land was worth in 1909–10, you have to give him certainly 50 per cent. and probably 100 per cent. above the valuation at that moment. There is one remarkable point in regard to that which I am rather surprised has not been mentioned here tonight. If the fair value between a willing seller and a willing buyer at the present moment is taken as the basis of the price to be paid, if mere is a profit on the 1909–10 valuation, there is an Increment Value Duty to be paid. Hon. Members seem to have forgotten that. That is one reason why the State may very fairly say, "If we purchase at a fair value at the present time, we are. purchasing, so far as we are concerned, in truth at something less than the real value, because we are getting a
  2368
  percentage of the increment which has. accrued since that valuation in Increment Value Duty."
  May I pass to one or two other points on the Bill, in particular to the question of access to Courts of law. I do not want to go into that very far, but as one who, at any rate many years ago, was a student of constitutional history, I venture to protest most strongly against any attempt to shut out individuals in this, country from access to the Courts of law to its fullest extent. Any idea of confining them to a decision of a Court of first instance seems to me contrary to the best traditions of the freedom of the subject, which have been such a great strength in the agitation we have had lately with regard to the question of the power of the people and of democratic government. There may be a great deal to be said for trying to simplify the procedure, and when you come to litigation against a Government Department there is a great deal to-be said for trying to reduce that litigation in the interests of individual subjects. Take, for example, those questions which so constantly arise between the individual and the Inland Revenue, where an individual may have a claim which he considers to be perfectly good in law and in equity. He knows, if he carries that case to the Courts, if it is one of general interest, that if he wins in the Court of first instance he is certain to be dragged right up to the House of Lords by a Government Department, to whom the expenditure of money in law costs is no hindrance. Here I would suggest a matter to which attention has been drawn by the legal profession several times, that if the Government wish to assist procedure and simplify litigation in these matters, they might adopt some self-denying-ordinance and at least preclude themselves from proceeding beyond the Court of first instance without undertaking the liability for costs in any event. I suggest seriously to the Attorney General to consider bringing some provision of that kind into this Bill coupled with the suggestion already made that the appeal should be allowed only with the consent of the Court of first instance.
  On the question of values under this Bill, surely the British sense of justice is against the price King decided by the nominee of one side. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) suggested that the only way in which this difficulty could be overcome was by ap-

  2369
  pointing valuers at a high salary with some such sort of independence as that which is enjoyed by our judges at the present time. I admit that that would be a pretty expensive procedure. But I suggest that the ordinary method of arbitration might be employed here to a very much greater extent than merely the permissive extent allowed by the Bill. I suggest, further, that estate agents of efficient standing should be put upon a panel of arbitrators by the Government, and that any estate agent upon that panel, who may be agreed upon between the two parties, should be accepted as the sole arbitrator, and, in the event of disagreement, each side should indicate an arbitrator, with a judge of the High Court or County Court judge as umpire, and third arbitrator. It seems if we had some system which might be described as compulsory arbitration on these lines, there would be very few cases indeed where the decision would not be made in a way which could not reasonably be complained of by either party to the proceedings.
  At the risk of being accused of trying to say something in the interests of my own profession, I am going to raise what may, perhaps, be a small point in the view of some hon. Members, but which carries a good deal of weight with me. It is the question of the right of the person whose land is to be acquired to be represented by counsel or solicitor before the valuation tribunal. May I say in passing I really have no personal interest in the matter, as it would not affect my own particular class of business in the slightest degree. But the reason why I do suggest very strongly indeed that owners of land who are called upon to give up their land should have the right of professional representation is not so much, or any more at any rate, in the interests of those individuals as in the interests of the scheme generally for the acquisition of these lands. Can the Attorney-General imagine himself in a much more unhappy position than having to decide a question as to the value of land, and having before him a garrulous old lady whom he cannot possibly stop talking, and who would be utterly incompetent of appreciating even his own lucid explanation as to how she ought to put her case forward? If I am not mistaken, this has been tried before, and it has always been felt by those who have any experience of inquiries that nothing hampers more the completion of the business than being obliged to hear
  2370
  the applicant in person. He is the most unsuitable person to put his or her case forward, being a person who talks twice or three times as long as would anyone who was trained in these matters. I am sure the hon. Member for the Exchange Division (Mr. Scott) will not quarrel with me if I say that there may be some reason, perhaps, for excluding counsel in some of these cases, without the special leave of the tribunal, and yet admitting solicitors. A solicitor is not a lawyer. It is no libel to say that he knows no law. He is generally a person who puts his case forward from a purely business point of view without the verbosity and exuberance of argument which comes from a real lawyer. I suggest most seriously that you will hamper the operation of this Act very considerably in acquiring the land which is so urgently needed for various purposes unless owners are allowed to have some form of professional assistance.
  Sir G. HEWART: This Debate has now occupied nearly six hours. It has ranged over a variety of topics, and I am certainly not going to say one word of complaint, either as to the tone or subject of discussion. The immediate question before the House is whether it should decline to proceed further with the consideration of this Bill. The reasons advanced appear to fall into two main classes. It is first of all said, and this was the main contention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Exchange Division, that this Bill is very disappointing in the sense that it is not what it ought to be—a great scheme of land reform. In other words, it is not a Bill which deals adequately with land reform. It is also said that the subject-matter of the Bill is altogether too limited. The second class of complaint indeed does in a way confine itself to the Bill. There are those on the one side who say that the Bill, even within the limits of its subject-matter, does not go far enough, while there are others who say that the Bill goes too far. May I say a word upon each of these points in turn? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division, who moved this Amendment, made it his chief ground of complaint that there were many topics suitable for a measure of land reform with which this Bill does not concern itself at all.
  10.0 P.M.
  He said, indeed, that even a list of these topics would astonish the House. I dare

  2371
  say that is quite true. There are many topics of land reform with which this Bill has no connection, but is that of necessity an evil? This Bill purports to deal with one topic only, and to deal with it for this obvious reason: Whatever else may be done, whatever else may be in contemplation, one thing is certain, that we must put ourselves in a position to acquire land at a fair price. So much, at any rate, must be an incident of any legislation upon land at all. The plan which has been observed is that of separating that particular matter from the rest and dealing with it by itself, and once that is understood and made plain, as I desire to make it most plain, that this Bill does not profess to be the whole code, that it is not intended to prejudice any other Bill, and, indeed, that legislation of a far-reaching character is under consideration. I trust I have met the main point of my hon. and learned Friend's argument. He founded a great part of his argument upon the two excellent Reports of his own Commission, and it was no small part of his criticism of the Bill that it had nothing to say to the sanctioning authority, which was the main recommendation of his first Report. It is true it is not dealing with the manner in which powers may be obtained to get land compulsorily. It is dealing with the mode in which the price is to be ascertained once those powers have been got.
  I should like to say a word, however, about the proposed sanctioning authority. I have had the advantage of reading and considering that Report. It is at present Tinder consideration. I cannot give any pledge. I neither encourage nor discourage the hope that that suggestion may be adopted. My hon. and learned Friend's proposal, whatever else it may be, is a very far-reaching proposal and one of an eminently disputable and controversial character. It gets rid at a swoop of our private Bill legislation. It gets rid of Provisional Orders. It gets rid of Departmental Orders. All these things may be quite desirable, but they are very large topics which are not necessarily related to the mode of determining the price of land which is to be compulsorily acquired. I desire my hon. and learned Friend to understand that the introduction of this Bill, and its passing, if it be passed, is
  2372
  not to prejudice the consideration of those larger questions, some, but only some, of which he enumerated.
  There were two speakers from the opposite side of the House, one above the Gangway and one below, who mentioned certain suspicions which had been excited in their minds by the limited scope of the Bill. It was said by one of them that it had obviously began by being something far more ambitious, and that in the process of examination at the hands of the Government or some of its Members it was being whittled away, because I think he said somebody had a horror of violating the sanctity of the Lands Clauses Acts. I should like to say with all proper respect that that suspicion is entirely grotesque. If the author of it knew the facts he would know that the truth is entirely the reverse. This Bill is designed to deal solely with the acquisition of land. I had a share in it from the start. It began by being something even more limited still, and the process which the hon. Member has permitted himself to imagine was not a process of progressive belittlement. It was a process of development, of growth, and it was suggested that someone, I know not who, entertained a horror at the defilement that was being done to the Lands Clauses Act. Why, the very point which we had constantly in view throughout was to get rid of the cumbrous, costly machinery of those Acts. On that matter there was never from the outset the faintest shadow of doubt. The other suspicion was that this Bill had been put forward in this limited form because of some political difficulties about the larger proposal. There is not the slightest foundation for that suggestion.
  I pass from that to deal with the particular criticisms upon the Bill. Whether they be criticisms in the sense that the Bill is too extreme, or in the sense that it is not sufficiently extreme, my general observation is that they are all matters that are worthy to be considered in Committee. Let me, in anticipation, say a word or two on the most important of those criticisms. It was said, for example, that it was a real grievance that the Bill in its present form proposes to dispense with the services of solicitors and counsel. My hon. and learned Friend who began the Debate, and the hon. Gentleman—I must not call him "learned"—both dwelt upon that point. I must observe, in the first place, that the Bill does not produce that

  2373
  result. The theory of the Bill is that the valuation of land as a rule is a matter, not for lawyers, but for valuers, and those who are expert in the valuation of land. Therefore the normal procedure which is contemplated is that there shall be skilled witnesses, but there will be many cases in which the services of solicitor or counsel will not be required. On the other hand, with the consent of the valuer, both solicitor and counsel may be employed. Is it to be supposed that, in a proper case, the valuer would refuse the services of solicitor and counsel? My hon. Friend who spoke a few moments ago drew a gloomy picture of the situation in which I might find myself in the presence, I think he said, of a garrulous old lady, if there is such a thing. If I did, indeed, find myself in that position, I have not the least doubt as to what I should do. I should say, "It is obviously a case for solicitor and counsel."
  But seriously it is of real importance in the minds of those who are responsible for this Bill to get rid of the waste of money upon legal charges. I rather gathered from one passage in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend that his notion of the tribunal was a place where you had six King's Counsel on a £10 claim in a County Court. Whatever may be the merits of that kind of proceeding it is not a proceeding which this Bill is. intended to encourage. On the other hand in proper cases there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the employment either of solicitor or of counsel. Then it was said that it was improper that whole-time valuers should be appointed. I observed that there was a little difference of opinion about that. My hon. Friend opposite was rather disposed to favour—I think his was the only voice raised to that effect, and I welcomed it—the appointment of the whole-time valuer as being a person who while he had not local knowledge, neither had he local interest, and that he would bring to bear an impartial mind. The whole-time valuer is, I suggest, the right man, and the volume of the work and the amount of the work quite justify the appointment of the whole-time valuer. It is said again, that he must be adequately paid, and I entirely agree. It was never in contemplation by anyone that he should be paid otherwise than adequately. And as for his independence, a good deal of the criticism has proceeded upon the assumption that he and his colleagues are to constitute a sort of Government
  2374
  Department, and that they are to be creatures and instruments of bureaucracy. Do the authors of this criticism reflect that these gentlemen are to be appointed, so far as England is concerned, by the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institution? Do they reflect that in Scotland and in Ireland similar arrangements, so far as they can be, are made?
  Mr. HERBERT: Will they be subject to dismissal only by the same tribunal?
  Sir G. HEWART: No, I do not think so.
  Mr. HERBERT: By whom?
  Sir G. HEWART: Let me probe this a little further, and see what this suggestion amounts to, because I do repudiate it. The suggestion appears to be this: that the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Surveyors' Institution, may appoint perfectly proper and competent persons, but their independence will be impaired and their powers as between the purchaser and the vendor will be diminished by the knowledge that their payment comes from the Treasury, and that they are not employed for the whole of their lives. I resent that imputation upon the men of the standard contemplated for the position of official valuers.
  Then it was said that we ought not to use the words "willing seller" without using the words "willing buyer." My right hon. Friend the Member for the Chelmsford Division (Mr. Pretyman) said, and I readily accept his statement, that in the Finance Act, 1910, although you find in Section 21 the term "willing seller" without "willing buyer," that in another Section of the Act you find the terms "willing seller" and "willing buyer." On the spur of the moment I assent to that view. Compulsion has arisen by reason of the phrase, and doubts have arisen as to what is meant when you import not only the one term but both. I adhere to the view that whatever may be the merits of that dispute, I rather gathered that the term "willing seller" has been the subject of judicial interpretation, a matter upon which I shall inform my mind in the leisure of the Easter vacation. Whatever it may be, that is a question which we can undoubtedly accommodate in Committee. It was further said that it was wholly wrong that there should be no appeal to the Courts of Law, and some

  2375
  rather strong words were employed about the iniquity of depriving the British subject of his right of recourse to the law. Is not that language a little exaggerated, when one looks at the provisions of the Bill? The House remembers what the problem is. The problem is to ascertain the fair price to be paid for a particular plot of land. Primarily that is a question of fact to be determined by a competent tribunal upon relevant evidence. On the question of fact that determination is final, but in the course of the hearing, or at the conclusion of it, it may be that a question of law will arise. What is the provision of the Bill? The provision is two-fold, and I cannot help thinking that some hon. Members who dwelt upon this matter have paid too little attention to the words of the Clause. The provision of the Bill is, not only if the official valuer desires the opinion of the High Court upon a question of law he may state at case for the opinion of the High Court, or at the request of the parties he may state a case for the opinion of the High Court, but if the High Court itself requires him to state a case, that is to say, upon an application which may be made to the High Court, then he must do so. The case stated in that way comes before two experienced judges of the King's Bench Division. [An HON. MEMBER: "Two? Special Paper!"] My hon. Friend says "Special Paper." I should think that it might be two or it might be three, or it is conceivable that it might be one. I hear one hon. Member say that it makes no difference. Such is the virtue of two judges in comparison with one. However that may be, there is provision that a case may be stated, and a case may be ordered to be stated. The point in this provision which excites the anger of our critics is, that that opinion of the High Court cannot be taken further, that is to say, to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords, and it is said that there ought to be the right to such further appeal, at any rate if the Court gives leave to appeal. Again I say, that is a matter for consideration.
  I think I have dealt—I have at least endeavoured to deal—with the individual criticisms upon the Bill in the sense that there are extreme provisions in it which are by way of being unfair to the vendor, but the criticisms do not end there: there is a different and a still more indignant
  2376
  line of criticism, which says that this Bill contemplates the payment of a wholly excessive sum. I have listened with attention to nearly the whole of this Debate and I waited a long time to hear what the suggested alternative was to be. My right hon. Friend opposite (Sir D. Maclean), in the vehemence of his eloquence, if he will allow me to say so, permitted himself to go this length. He said, "Not only does this Bill give no relief; it actually makes matters worse." The right hon. Gentleman ventures to say that of a Bill which gets rid of the 10 per cent. for compulsory sale, of a Bill which gets rid of the two arbitrators and umpire of the Lands Clauses Acts, of a Bill which revolutionises the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts with regard to costs, and of a Bill which makes the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2 excluding value upon special grounds. I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can seriously offer criticism to the House. But what is it, apart from words, of which he really complains? It is a particular—I agree an important, but a particular—portion of the second Clause. Let me read the offending words:
  "The value of land shall, subject as hereinafter prodded, be taken to be the amount which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise."
  And what shocks the right hon. Gentle-man? The wickedness of paying the amount which the land, if sold in the open market by a willing seller, might be expected to realise! There were others who, not in the same terms but to the same effect, took a similar point, but not one of them, so far as I heard, suggested an alternative. The right hon. Gentleman at the conclusion of his remarks did. He suggested that we ought to put in pre-war value. Does he observe the effect of that proposal, if it were adopted? This is not a Bill for the duration of the War, or for one year after the termination of the War. Are we to pass a Bill in this year which for all time would stereotype the price which is to be paid for land compulsorily acquired at its value in the year 1913, or up to the summer of 1914? I cannot think he seriously suggests that. But there was a further suggestion, that, as there is now a period of emergency, and it may be— though I think the figures were exaggerated; the right hon. Gentleman said there had been an increase in the value of 25 per cent., but I have had some figures shown to me which indicate that the increase, in fact, is much less.
  Mr. RAFFAN: For the good land which you are likely to buy under this Bill?
  Sir G. HEWART: The figures, which were handed to me this afternoon—
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: By the Land Union?
  Sir G. HEWART: No, by a Government Department. The figures, which were handed to me this afternoon, and which cover an enormous amount of material, gave a much less figure. I will not mention it now, because I would like, first, to examine the particulars on which it is founded. But let it be granted that in this period of emergency there is a considerable increase in the price which is payable for land. It is conceded, also, that there is a considerable diminution in the purchasing price of money, and the suggestion was made—if I may say so without presumption, an interesting suggestion— that some special arrangement might be made for this period of emergency, and that during this period we might have recourse, if not completely, at any rate, largely to a system of compulsory leases, to be followed. by acquisition out-and-out at a more convenient date. That also is a proposal well worth consideration. That is a proposal which deals with the particular provisions of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and that also shall be considered. I have dealt, according to my recollection, with all the points that have been raised.
  Mr. SCOTT: There are two more questions I should like to ask. One is, Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman hold out any prospect of private promoters being dealt with on the lines of this Bill, this Bill being limited to Government Departments and local authorities? The other question is, What is his view of the possibility of injurious affection and betterment being dealt with under this Bill, and, if outside this Bill, what prospect is there of the Government introducing other legislation to deal with it?
  Sir G. HEWART: I will endeavour to answer, as well as I can, both questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman. With regard to the first, it is quite true that in the Report of his Committee private promoters—at any rate, private promoters of a certain kind—are treated as being upon the same plane as Government Departments and local authorities. For ex-
  2378
  ample, under the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend's scheme there would be no distinction in method between an application from a Government Department and an application from a railway company; but I am expressing now, with all necessary reserve, a merely individual view. It does seem to me,' whatever my opinion may be worth, that there is a real difference between the acquisition of land by a Government Department or a public authority for public purposes, and the compulsory acquisition of land by a profit-making company. How far that difference should go is another matter, and I am not able to give any pledge or undertaking that those railway companies and similar corporations will be brought in upon the same footing. With regard to the second question, that was a question, if I followed my hon. and learned Friend—
  Mr. SCOTT: If I may ask the question again, it is, To what extent the subject of injurious affection and betterment can be dealt with by a valuer under this Bill, and, if they cannot be dealt with, will the Government introduce legislation so that they can be dealt with in another Bill?
  Sir G. HEWART: What was in my mind was injurious affection. My hon. and learned Friend asked a question about both of these matters. They are not quite upon the same footing. Injurious affection is an incident to the acquisition of land which sometimes applies to the property of the person from whom the land is acquired, and sometimes to the property of another owner. So far as injurious affection upon such a compulsory acquisition would establish compensation under the Lands Clauses Act, this Bill will not interfere. The valuer who values under this Act — unless I am mistaken — will also award suitable compensation. I am glad to find that one hon. Member is exhilarated by that proposition!
  Mr. RAFFAN: We are exhilarated because at last we understand what the Bill means.
  Sir G. HEWART: The question of injurious affection is one that will not be subject to compensation under this Bill. Betterment is a much larger and a much more difficult question. One thing is quite obvious about it, and that is that it is not a matter that can easily and conveniently be dealt with in a. Bill relating to the acquisition of land. It is

  2379
  one of those very things that together make what this Amendment desiderates— a great scheme of land reform. I am asked to indicate as precisely as I can when that topic is likely to be dealt with. Frankly, I am not prepared to give a date. But I hope my hon. and learned Friend does not think that the matter is being ignored; on the contrary, it is. one of those matters which is under consideration at the present time. I have dealt as far as I can—I hope frankly and fully—with the various criticisms offered. I come, back to the Amendment. An Amendment which in these circumstances invites this House to say that, notwithstanding these large measures of which the House to some extent has approved, notwithstanding the manifest needs and difficulties of the times and the undoubted fact that whatever else and further may be done, some scheme must be carried to provide for the purchase at a fair price of land compulsorily acquired—notwithstanding all this, this Amendment invites the House to say that it will not go further in the matter. I trust it will not be carried.
  Colonel WEDGWOOD: The strong point of our case, and the weak point in the Government's proposal, is that we both know that when this Bill is passed into law it will not give satisfaction. As my hon. and learned Friend opposite has pointed out the fact is that this Bill professes to get away from the old Land Clauses Act of 1846. It does modify that Act in certain directions as has been shown, but, on the whole, wherever there is any disputed question of compensation involved, we go back to the old Act of 1846. For instance, there is the question of injurious affection, of part of the property being sold to the State. I hope the House understands what enormous prices have been paid in the past to landowners both by railway companies and by public authorities under this head, and for severance. Injurious affection and severance are still in the Government Bill. The landlord is not to get merely the price in The open market between the willing buyer and the willing seller, he is to get the price for all these fancy claims that the lawyers have built up under the 1846 Act, and which, in the past, have robbed railway companies and, through them, the public of millions of money for the benefit of a very small class. Our difficulty is
  2380
  frankly this. People in all classes see the State indulging in an enormous expenditure. They see the taxes rising, the Income Tax 5s. last year, 6s. this year, perhaps 7s. 6d. next year. They see a prospect of an unlimited increase in taxation, of unlimited spoliation of the Exchequer, and consequently you have every vested interest in the country putting their heads together to see how they can get their share out of the public purse. To-day we have an example of how the landlords in the country propose to put their heads together to get their share—that is all they ask for—of the spoil, their share out of the public purse, and this Bill is brought in. We were told, two or three weeks ago, I think, in the public Press, that this Bill was the subject of an agitated and violent controversy, in the Cabinet and among the drafters of the measure, between those who were anxious for a Radical solution and those who were anxious for a Conservative solution. We were told that it was a question whether they should adopt the pre-war valuation or the post-war valuation. Undoubtedly it has been the Conservative Bill which has won the day and the Conservative Bill which is put before us to-day. It is a Bill which will give the maximum compensation to the landlords compatible with getting the Bill through even the most Conservative House of Commons. It is not only that this Bill retains in force the 1846 Act, with all its additional means of getting money out of the purchaser for the benefit of the landlord, but there is also the question whether we are justified in saying that the land shall be bought during the coming year, or during the two successive years, at the present inflated price. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that land had not risen by 25 per cent. I will not argue with him about figures. Suppose it has only risen 15 or 20 per cent., let him recollect that during the time that land has, risen 10, 15, or 20 per cent.—I should be putting it nearer if I said that in my part of the country some agricultural land has risen 50 per cent.—the value of money has been constantly depreciated, so that investments in Consols, or debenture shares has been sinking.
  That is an additional argument why we should not pay too much attention to the present inflated prices, even from the point of view of mere charity to a vested interest. But, when we consider to what this inflation is due; that it is due not solely to

  2381
  the War, but to the action of Government Departments in paying an inflated price for grain, for wheat and for oats, in order to induce the farmers to plant more; that it is due to the inflated price of those foodstuffs which come from the land, inflated, in order to encourage production, by a Government Department. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not true."] Then we see that it is even more iniquitous that the community should be asked to pay these inflated prices when they are purely the result of Government action. When the Corn Laws was taken off, in 1847, then indeed the price of land fell, the price of food fell, and the price of agricultural land throughout the country fell. But there was no question then of compensation to the landlords on account of the removal of those duties. In a few years time the Corn Production Act will expire and agricultural land will return to its normal level and foodstuffs will come back to their normal price. Then the whole value of agricultural land will sink certainly to its pre-war level and possibly lower. Then you will find the ex-soldiers and those who have been housed under these proposals will be saddled with debts based upon the high price of land and they will legitimately complain that they have been forced by the House to pay these high prices and put in an unfair position in their efforts to make a living out of the land. During this War we have seen a great number of factories springing up for the manufacture of munitions of war, and all around those factories there has been a demand for houses. A great deal of these new building schemes will show themselves by the springing up of new villages near those factories, and we have to consider a rise in the value of agricultural land to the building value of the land, which may go up from £20 an acre to a matter of £200 or even £400 an acre. Thus we are being asked to pay the landlord an increased value in the land created by the expenditure of State money in building those factories. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Scott) knows that his inquiry was one which did consider those points, and that is why he brings in this question of betterment. The Govern-
  ment omit all consideration of those points, and it is a fact that nearly all your new building schemes will be upon land that will rise from its agricultural value, and which has risen in value during the War, to as much as £200 or £400 per acre.
  I urge hon. Members to vote for this Amendment and against this Bill. It is possible that we shall not carry this proposal, but I shall be sorry for those who vote against it. The more hon. Members vote for it the stronger will be our case in Committee for amending the Bill in the direction I have indicated. It has been said that we have no suggestion to make as to the price at which land should be acquired. I think we have protested often enough, and we have a perfectly simple way of acquiring land at a price fixed by the landlord himself. All we ask is that the landlords themselves everywhere should fix the value of their land, and then that we should be allowed to put our rates and taxes on that value, and if afterwards we want to acquire the land we shall take it at the landlord's own valuation. I think that would give ample satisfaction to all the landlords, and it would give absolute justice to the community. It would also be absolute proof that we were not paying more than the full value of the land, because wherever that system has been adopted no landlords are likely to put too high a value on their property.
  Mr. L. SCOTT: In view of what the Attorney-General has said, and the assurance that he has given the House—of course, I completely accept it, not only according to the letter but according to the spirit which was involved in what he said—that the Cabinet is considering at the present time the larger measures of reform which, in my view, are so absolutely essential to the welfare of the country during these years of reconstruction, I do not think that it would be right to press this Motion to a Division, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw it. [HON. MEMBERS: No!]
  Question put "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 17.

  Division No. 26.]

  AYES.

  [10.47 p.m.

  Atkey, A. R.

  Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

  Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

  Birchall, Major J. D.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Barnett, Captain Richard W.

  Borwick, Major G. O.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Barnston, Major Harry

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith-

  Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

  Barrie. C. C.

  Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.

  Barker, Major R.

  Bell, James (Ormskirk)

  Breese, Major C. E.

  Britton, G. B.

  Jodrell, N. P.

  Reid, D. D.

  Broad, Thomas Tucker

  Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Remer, J. B.

  Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)

  King, Com. Douglas

  Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

  Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Richardson, R. (Houghton)

  Campion, Col. W. R.

  Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

  Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

  Cape, Tom

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)

  Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lanes.)

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)

  Rogers, Sir Hallewell

  Carr, W. T.

  Lloyd, George Butler

  Roundell, Lt.-Col. R. F.

  Casey, T. W.

  Locker-Lampson G. (Wood Green)

  Royce, William Stapleton

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lorden, John William

  Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund

  Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

  Lort-Williams, J.

  Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)

  Chilcott, Lieut.-Com. H. W. S.

  Loseby, Captain C. E.

  Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

  Clough, R.

  Lyle-Samuel, A. (Eye, E. Suffolk)

  Samuels, Rt. Hon. A.W (Dublin Univ)

  Conway, Sir W. Martin

  Lynn, R. J.

  Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

  Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

  M'Donald, D. H. (Bothwell, Lanark)

  Seager, Sir William

  Cory, J. H. (Cardiff)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Seddon, J. A.

  Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)

  M'Lean, Lt.-Col. C. W. W. (Brigg)

  Shaw, Tom (Preston)

  Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)

  Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Mallalieu, Frederick William

  Shortt, Rt. Hon. E.

  Curzon, Commander Viscount

  Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)

  Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)

  Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

  Smith, W. (Wellingborough)

  Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

  Mason, Robert

  Smithers, Alfred W.

  Davies, T. (Cirencester)

  Meysey-Thompson, Lt.-Col. E. C.

  Sprot, Col. Sir Alexander

  Dockrell, Sir M.

  Mitchell, William Lane-

  Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville

  Doyle, N. Grattan

  Moles, Thomas

  Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Edge, Captain William

  Molson, Major John Elsdale

  Stephenson, Col. H. K.

  Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

  Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.

  Sturrock, J. Leng-

  Eyres-Monsell, Com.

  Morden, Col. H. Grant

  Sutherland, Sir William

  Falcon, Captain M.

  Morison, T. B. (Inverness)

  Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

  Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

  Mosley, Oswald

  Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

  Gould, J. C.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Tryon, Major George Clement

  Green, A. (Derby)

  Murchison, C. K.

  Waddington, R.

  Green, J. F. (Leicester)

  Murray, John (Leeds, W.)

  Wallace, J.

  Greig, Col. James William

  Nail, Major Joseph

  Waring, Major Walter

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)

  Weston, Col. John W.

  Grundy, T. W.

  Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

  Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

  Guest, Major O. (Leices., Loughb'ro'.)

  O'Grady, James

  White, Col. G. D. (Southport)

  Guinness, Lt.-Col. Hon. W.E. (B. St. E.)

  Palmer, Major G. M.

  Whitla, Sir William

  Hacking, Captain D. H.

  Palmer, Brig.-Gon. G. (Westbury)

  Wigan, Brig.-General John Tyson

  Hanson, Sir Charles

  Parker, James

  Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

  Henderson, Major V. L.

  Peel, Lt.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)

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

  Herbert, Dennis (Hertford)

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.

  Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hilder, Lieut.-Col. F.

  Perring, William George

  Winfrey, Sir Richard

  Hood, Joseph

  Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray

  Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge and Hyde)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Pratt, John William

  Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)

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

  Prescott, Major W. H.

  Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

  Hopkins, J. W. W.

  Pulley, Charles Thornton

  Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)

  Howard, Major S. G.

  Rae, H. Norman

  Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

  Inskip, T. W. H.

  Ramsden, G. T.

  Jameson, Major J. G.

  Rankin, Capt. James S.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord E. Taibot and Captain Guest.

  Jephcott, A. R.

  Raw, Lt.-Col. Dr. N.

  Jesson, C.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Johnstone, J.

  Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)

  Arnold, Sydney

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)

  Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.

  Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)

  Morgan, Major D. Watts

  Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Newbould, A. E.

  Finney, Samuel

  Onions, Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hogge and Mr. G. Thorne

  France, Gerald Ashburner

  Rattan, Peter Wilson

  Hayward, Major Evan

  Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Bill read the third time, and passed.

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 4.—(Transfer of Powers and Duties to and from Board.)
(1) There shall be transferred to the Board—

(a) all the powers and duties of the Local Government Board for Scotland;

2384

(b) all the powers and duties of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners;

(c) all the powers of the Privy Council and of the Lord President of the Council under the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915;

(d) all the powers and duties of the Secretary for Scotland under the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act, 1906;

(e) all the powers and duties of the Secretary for Scotland under the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act, 1855;

(f) all the powers and duties of the Secretary for Scotland under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts, 1876 and 1893, Section

2385
fifty-five of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, and the Rivers Pollution Prevention (Border Councils) Act, 1898;

(g) all the powers and duties of the Secretary for Scotland under the Births, Deaths, and Marriages (Scotland) Acts, 1854 to 1910, the Marriage Notice (Scotland) Act, 1878, and the Vaccination (Scotland) Acts, 1863 to 1907;

(h) all the powers and duties of the Secretary for Scotland and the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Board under the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Grant Act, 1913:

Provided that in such matters of a judicial nature under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1918, as may be prescribed under those Acts, the powers and duties of the Scottish Insurance Commissioners by this Act transferred to the Board shall be exercised by the Board through a special body or special bodies of persons constituted in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) It shall be lawful for His Majesty from time to time by Order in Council to transfer to the Board—

(a) all or any of the powers and duties of the Scottish Education Department with respect to the medical inspection and treatment of children and young persons;

(b) any of the powers and duties of the Secretary for Scotland under the enactments relating to lunacy and mental deficiency;

(c) all or any of the powers and duties of the Minister of Pensions with respect to the health of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, so far as those powers and duties relate to Scotland;

(d) any other powers and duties in Scotland of any Government Department which appear to His Majesty to relate to matters affecting or incidental to the health of the people.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): "With reference to this Bill, I want to make a final appeal to my right hon. Friend to withdraw his objection to proceeding with it this evening. I would like to remind him of one or two considerations which seem to strengthen the case for going on with it to-night. The Bill was considered in the Scottish Grand Committee, and there it proved to be a really non-contentious measure. There were only two Divisions taken during the sitting of the Grand Committee, and both of these were upon Labour Amendments. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr. Adamson) has informed me that he has no objection whatever to the Bill being proceeded with tonight.
Mr. SPEAKER: I called upon the right hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment to Clause 4. I do not know to what he is speaking now.
Mr. MUNRO: I beg pardon. Then I beg to move in Sub-Section (1), to leave out the word "Provided" ["Provided-that in such matters"] and to insert instead thereof
"(i) All the powers and duties of the Scottish Education Department with respect to the medical inspection and treatment of children and young persons:
Provided that for the purpose of facilitating, the effective exercise and performance by the Board of the last-mentioned powers and duties the Board may make arrangements with the Scottish Education Department respecting the submission and approval of schemes of education authorities and the payment of grants to education authorities, so far as such schemes and payment relate to, or are in respect of, medical inspection and treatment
And provided also."
In supporting the Amendment I would like to express the hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw his opposition to proceeding with the Bill now. This Amendment is moved by me in accordance with a promise which I made in the Scottish Grand Committee, and it fully implements that promise. I think my Scottish colleagues who were present in the Committee will agree that it is a fulfilment, and an ample fulfilment, of the pledge which I gave.
Sir D. MACLEAN: In order to put myself strictly in order, I beg to move,
"That the Debate be now adjourned."
I do it not by way of obstructing the progress of this very excellent measure, but in order to secure adequate consideration of it on Report. When the new Rules were approved by this House, it was in. the contemplation of all of us that it was an essential part of the arrangement that, as there would not be, as in the old days, but one Committee sitting on Bills of minor importance, the other measures being dealt with here, but perhaps a large number of Committees sitting concurrently, dealing with Bills which, under the old order of things, would have been debated in a full House—there would be full opportunity of discussion on Report. In giving my support to that new arrangement, I always had it in mind that the Report stage would be an occasion on which a full and ample opportunity would be given for considering what had taken place in Committee, not only by those who were members of the Committee, but by others who, by reason of the new order of things, might not be able to attend the Committee.
I and certainly some of my colleagues are engaged constantly on the Transport

2387
Bill and could not possibly get there. What has happened in regard to this? They got the Second Reading after two or three hours' discussion. I do not think it was on the Whip. Anyhow, we did not expect it to come on. I did my best under rather difficult circumstances with other Members on this side of the House to persuade them to take the Second Reading of that Bill. It was done. The Bill went to Committee quite quickly. I was not at the Committee, and certainly some of my colleagues were not able to be there because of other things. The Bill went through Committee yesterday. The Bill might have been available at eight o'clock. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) got it at ten o'clock. That is the only opportunity we have had of considering what has happened upstairs. If my right hon. Friend and those who support him think that is a fair Parliamentary opportunity, the thing has become a farce. If my right hon. Friend says there is urgency and that something vital is going to happen in Scotland if he cannot get the Report and Third Reading within the next few days, that is a matter for consideration, but there is no such case as that made. It is a very natural desire of course to get all the business you possibly can in the shortest possible space of time, but could you have anything more unfair than to put this Bill just now into our hands and ask us to go on without an opportunity of setting down Amendments? Only those who had the good fortune to be at the Committee yesterday could put down Amendments. Is it to be supposed that that is playing the ordinary Parliamentary game of the old days?
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: We are playing the Scotch game.
Sir D. MACLEAN: I am endeavouring to do the same thing, to see that Scottish interests, apart from individual Members in this House, have a fair opportunity of communicating with us here to decide how this Bill shall be dealt with on Report. Scottish public bodies have a right to communicate with us here with regard to such an important measure.
Sir J. HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all Scottish public bodies have already communicated other views?
Sir D. MACLEAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman arrogates to himself the sole representation of Scotland. We know
2388
what his claim is anyhow. I shall not press the matter any further. By all means go on. Now we know where we are.
Sir H. CRAIK: I trust that the House will not agree to the Motion now made with such indignation by the right hon. Gentleman. Having shown the great power of the Opposition in the recent Division, I should have thought he would have been content with that, and have allowed us to get on with business, but the right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the Opposition has, of course, to observe meticulously the rule for the guidance of an opposition—always to oppose—even if the interests of Scotland are to suffer, as is shown by the indignation of his colleagues in the Scottish representation whose opinion is different from his, We had not the advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's presence in the Scottish Committee upstairs. We had not the advantage of the presence of one of the Whips of that powerful party, to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs, who is occupied, I believe, otherwise in the northern parts of the Kingdom. He now comes here without knowledge of the procedure of the Committee or of the explanation made by the Secretary for Scotland or of the fact that general agreement had been found on this or other points, and that the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing an Amendment which carries out the very liberal offer which he made in Committee upstairs to meet opposition and was ad vanced there. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is rather in opposition to the view that I myself and some of my Friends took, but I thought that as a considerable body of opinion in the Committee was opposed to my own view and that of some of my Friends, it was well to make certain concessions, and I agree that on the whole it was fair, and I am quite prepared to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend if it comes to a Division. In order to satisfy the claim of an opposition, we are asked to agree to an adjournment and to stand in the way of legislation that is demanded rapidly by Scotland, when we are asked to accept an Amendment which we have all carefully considered upstairs, which is in satisfaction of the arguments advanced upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman did not take an attitude of strong opposition to the proposals for more rapid procedure

2389
through the Standing Committees. I had a little doubt about it myself, but after all I am prepared to judge each case according to circumstances. Sometimes I believe that new proposals in Committee might be too rapid, hut nowhere could rapid procedure be more justified than in the present instance. I am quite certain that if the Leader of the Opposition; who has felt himself bound to make this Motion, had been present he would have come to the same conclusion. I trust that the Secretary for Scotland will not accept this Motion.
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I know that the House will not think that my right hon. Friend is in any sense hostile to this Bill. He says what is perfectly obvious, that when these new rules were made, with which many of us are in strong agreement, for the purpose of facilitating business, it was not contemplated that the only stage in which the House had no opportunity of examining the details should be a stage taken after a long debate with a suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule. I will give an instance of how hardly it works. Two Standing Committees were sitting during the last week, that on the Transport Bill and the Scottish Grand Committee. Several Scottish members, including myself, had quite an interest in the Transport Bill, and we were compelled to attend the Committee on that Bill, and therefore compelled to be absent from the Scottish Grand Committee. Therefore those Members should have had the opportunity to move Amendments on Report, but they had not the opportunity unless they were very rapid of putting Amendments on the Paper. Under those circumstances I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is reasonable to ask that we should not take the Report to-night and that it should be put down, if necessary, for Thursday next. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] Certainly I am prepared to remain until Thursday, and if an alternative is required that is the suggestion I make.
Sir H. DALZIEL: As a general rule I think I should have found myself in alliance with the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in agreeing that we should not take matters on Report concerning Scotland after eleven o'clock at night. But the circumstances on this occasion, I am bound to admit, are somewhat different. My hon. Friend (Captain Benn), whom we welcome as a brilliant
2390
acquisition to the Scottish representation, told us that he has been in a difficulty during the week because certain Scottish Members had not been able to attend the Scottish Grand Committee. That was a matter entirely for their own decision. We have had two meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. If my hon. Friend considered certain interests coming before the Transport Committee more important than the health of the Scottish community that was his affair.
Captain BENN: I was speaking from the point of view of my own Constituency. I had a duty to perform to them, and their interests were most vitally concerned in the Transport Bill.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I am quite sure he was able to put a good case for his constituency, and I have no doubt that he succeeded, but when Members belong to two Committees they must make a decision as to which Committee they are going to attend, and it must not be a reason for delaying legislation that they are unable, according to their own judgment, to attend a particular Committee. I have never seen a larger representation than we had, but for some reason or other we had not the advantage of the presence of either my right hon. Friend or hon. Friend opposite on that Committee, and therefore we had to proceed in their absence. When my hon. Friend says that we were going to attach importance to the Report stage under the new Regulations, permit me to say that when the Scottish Grand Committee was formed one of the great cases we made was that the decisions of the Scottish Grand Committee should stand and should not be reversed either by absent Members or by English or Irish Members when the question came back to this House, and that in the interests of the decision of the Scottish Grand Committee we should not encourage anything which means the revision of any decision at which they arrived. But the case for proceeding with this Bill to-night is that there has been no opposition to it. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh will agree, though there may be some points of difference. I moved an Amendment on an important point, but I took the decision of my Scottish colleagues and I had not the advantage of the support of my hon. Friend on that occasion, as no doubt I would have had if he had been present. When we discuss a matter in Scottish Grand

2391
Committee and thresh it out do not let us have the whole matter again discussed on the floor of the House. Many Scottish Members have made their arrangements to go to Scotland tomorrow. They will not be here in the beginning of the week. We have an opportunity now of getting this Bill, and the whole of Scotland is practically united in its favour. Nine-tenths of the Scottish Members are unanimously in favour of the Bill, and I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends opposite not to persevere with their opposition. Let us make a certainty of getting the Bill, and in that we shall satisfy the people of Scotland.
Mr. HOGGE: I am not going to complain that I was not present at the Committee. I was in Scotland, looking after the political health of Scotland, and I hope with very desirable results. But that is not the point of the objection to this Bill. Let me recall the circumstances under which my right hon. Friend got the Second Reading of the Bill. It was not down on the Order Paper as the Order to be taken, except in the sense that eight or ten Orders are put down. The Order for the day was the English Housing Bill, but the discussion on the Financial Resolution of the Ways and Communications Bill took up the bulk of the time, and, without notice to Scottish Members, three Scottish measures were taken—the Teachers' Superannuation Bill, the Intestate Husbands Bill, and. the present Bill. It was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that it was an admirable opportunity to get the Bill upstairs, and he got his Second Reading in much less time than the Second Reading of any large Scottish measure has ever been obtained. I agree that a Scottish Member must make his choice as to whether he will attend the Scottish Grand Committee or any other Committee. I was deprived by my own choice of the opportunity of being present at the Committee stage of the Bill, and my desire was to discuss some of its points. I went to the Vote Office in order to get a copy of the amended Bill, so that I could see what had been done in Committee, but I only obtained the Bill at ten o'clock to-night.
Mr. SPEAKER: I obtained my copy at quarter to three this afternoon.
Mr. MUNRO: A copy of the Bill as amended in the Scottish Grand Committee was available at ten o'clock this morning.
Mr. HOGGE: I readily accept the statement of Mr. Speaker that he got his copy this afternoon, and the statement of my right hon. Friend that the Bill as amended was available this morning. That may be so, but these facts are not public property. The proper way of intimating an amended Bill to the House is to deliver it with the Votes in the morning.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Is it not the duty of alert Whips to find these things out?
Mr. HOGGE: That is true, and in view of the fact that we have an addition of two Whips on this bench to-day I left it to them. The Bill ought to be delivered in the morning, and it is not fair to the House ii an amended Bill has to be applied for at the Vote Office. A great many interests in Scotland, including, for example, the Committee of the Insurance Associations in Scotland, have not had the opportunity of reviewing this Bill in its present state. What is to hinder my right hon. Friend putting this down on Monday? We shall not hold it up from this side. We will give him the Bill then if he will allow us the opportunity of looking over it in its amended form.
Mr. MACKINDER: Hon. Members who are not members of the Scottish Committee should know the circumstances which are now being debated. We have had the sittings of the Scottish Committee with an unparalleled attendance. I have been in this House since 1910, and I have never seen a larger attendance in the Scottish Grand Committee than during the Debates on this Bill. Unfortunately, we were deprived of the presence of three hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. It is a curious thing that one whole party should be absent, but if we are to have any efficiency in the conduct of these Standing Committees surely it must be with some management on the part of Whips of parties so that they secure the presence at the Standing Committees of at least one representative, one-third of their party, from Scotland in order to represent their point of view. Unless we are to have some efficient management on the part of representative hon. Members, such as the Whip of the party on that bench, I fail to see how we can conduct the business expeditiously for the nation at the present time. Our complaint from Scotland is that whereas Scottish Members come here from great distances and have made arrangements

2393
for going back to do their other business, and whereas we now have a completely accepted Bill, save for the three hon. and right hon. Gentlemen there, who have no chance of reversing anything that has been adopted, and can merely talk upon it and delay the House by talking, I suggest that we should not allow ourselves so to be impeded.
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), "leave out paragraph (a)."—[Mr. Munro.]

CLAUSE 9—(Short Title, Commencement, Extent, Repeal, Interpretation.)
(1) This Act may be cited as the Scottish Board of Health Act, 1919, and shall come into operation upon such day or days as may be appointed by Order in Council and different days may be appointed for different purposes and provisions of this Act
Provided that the latest day for the transfer of powers to the Minister under Sub-section (1) of Section four shall not be later than one year from the passing of this Act.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "Minister" ["powers to the Minister"], and insert instead thereof the word "Board."—[Mr. Munro.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. HOGGE: There are certain points I should like to have quite clear before we part with the Bill. I should have preferred an opportunity of discussing these points with my right hon. Friend. I do not complain, as I said before, that I had not that opportunity in Committee. That is my own fault, but I do think we are entitied to it on Report. This Bill sets up a Board of Health in Scotland, and Scottish Members who are interested in the administration of this Board are not very clear in their minds as to the relationship of the Board to the Scottish Office in London. The great difficulty in the administration of Scottish affairs has always been the circumlocution by which the institutions in Scotland have to get decisions through the Scottish Office. This Board which is to be created, and which will presumably sit in Edinburgh, may, or may not, be an effective Board
2394
for the purposes of this Bill just as, or as not, the Secretary for Scotland chooses to make it. It is not my desire at this time of the night, in view of the fact that the Committee desires, presumably, that there should be no more discussion, to make a speech on the subject, but I want to get from my right hon. Friend. some kind of assurance that the decisions of this Board will be rendered effective, that the Board when it has come to its decisions will not require to submit them to the permanent officials at Dover House, but will get directly the consent of my right hon. Friend, so that, whatever decisions they do come to, will be immediately promulgated in Scotland. I think, after all, even Scottish Members who objected to a discussion on the Report stage of this Bill will agree that we have not improved matters by creating a new Board. We have made Dover House even more congested than in the past. Scottish Members know how real that congestion has been. After the discussion which took place in Committee, which I could not even read, as it is not printed in any form, and so I have not had the advantage of seeing what the arguments were, I should like my right hon. Friend to say what his action is going to be as Secretary for Scotland with regard to the Board.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: I am very glad to be able to support the hon. Member in his proposal. This subject has already been debated on the Scottish Grand Committee, but I should like to join the hon. Member in again asking the Secretary for Scotland to give a complete assurance that this Board of Health shall be completely independent and under the control of the Under-Secretary for Health, and that everything will not be referred to Dover House for approval. I hope the Secretary for Soot-land will be able to give us that assurance, because I quite agree the Scottish people demand that this Board of Health shall be entirely independent, as far as possible, of all control from London except Parliamentary control as administered by the right hon. Gentleman himself or the Under-Secretary for Health, who will have a seat in Parliament.
Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend has put a question, which, if I may say so, he is fully entitled to put, and which I shall endeavour to answer to the best of my ability and as briefly as I can. The con-

2395
stitution of the Board, as my hon. Friend knows, is that the Secretary for Scotland is to be President of the Board, and it was also agreed in the Grand Committee that a new Parliamentary Secretary should be appointed, and that he should devote his energies entirely to health questions. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary will be Vice-President of the Board, and a very strong desire was expressed on the part of many members in the Scottish Grand Committee that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary should spend as much of his time as possible in Edinburgh, in direct contact with the Board. Of course, he cannot permanently be there. because he is to be a Member of this House, but it is hoped by many of my hon. Friends—and I do not differ from their view—that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary should take personal direction of the Board in Edinburgh as often as his Parliamentary duties enable him to go there.
With regard to the questions which came up to London and which came to the Secretary for Scotland through his permanent officials, I would like to assure my hon. Friend that these, so far as the Local Government Board is concerned, have been very limited in number, and I have no reason to believe that in future they will be greater in number. So far as I can recollect, during my tenure of office there have only been three types of question sent up to London from the Local Government Board in Scotland. First, those involving large questions of policy, and my hon. Friend will agree that it is right that those questions should come to London and should be determined personally by the Secretary for Scotland, who is answerable to this House on these questions of policy. Secondly, there are questions which have a Parliamentary bearing, and regarding which discussion in this House might naturally arise. Again, my hon. Friend will agree that such questions ought to be dealt with personally by the Secretary for Scotland, and they have been so dealt with in the past. The only other questions that have come up to London have been questions of finance, with regard to which the Treasury has definite control. There, again, my hon. Friend will agree that such questions could not be dealt with in Edinburgh, but must come to London for decision. I can assure my hon. Friend that in the decision of these questions there has
2396
been no avoidable delay, or I think I might say material delay, and I am sure my hon. Friend would not desire to deprive the Secretary for Scotland of advice on these important questions from the permanent officials who are in the Scottish Office. I can assure my hon. Friend that so far as I can compass it, decisions on these questions in the future will be taken with the greatest possible rapidity, and that no avoidable delay will occur in settling them. I hope my hon. Friend and my hon. and gallant Friend, whom I am very anxious to meet in these matters, will be satisfied with the explanation that I have given.

PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committee), Public Health (Medical Treatment of Children—Ireland) Bill, considered; read the third time, and passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND— SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
As amended (in the Standing Committtee), considered.
Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson)—in Clause 1, I after the word "teachers," to insert the words "attendance officers and janitors"—involves an additional charge, and is also beyond the scope of the Bill.

ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) [SALARIES].
Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of salaries or remuneration to official valuers appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law as to the Assessment of Compensation in respect of land acquired compulsorily for public purposes and the costs in proceedings thereon (King's Recommendation signified) — To - morrow.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

GOVERNMENT WORKS AT CIPPENHAM.
Ordered, That the Lords Message [8th April] relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Government Works at Cippenham be now considered.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Ordered, That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to inquire into the conditions under which the Government works at Cippenham are being carried out, the cost that is involved, and the responsibility for the advice on which the scheme was undertaken.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Mr. Britton, Sir Joseph Davies, Mr. Davison, Mr. Hogge, and Mr. Gershom Stewart nominated Members of the Select Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-four minutes before Twelve o'clock.

  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.
  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.
  ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (HOURS OF SALE).
  ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS (HOURS OF SALE).
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES.
  SOLDIERS' GRAVES.
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
  ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (BUILDING SCHEME).
  GOVERNMENT OFFICES (BUILDING SCHEME).
  PROPERTY (CROWN RIGHTS).
  PROPERTY (CROWN RIGHTS).
  CAPITAL ISSUES.
  CAPITAL ISSUES.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM (OFFICERS).
  ROYAL SCOTTISH MUSEUM (OFFICERS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  IRISH CATTLE.
  IRISH CATTLE.
  EASTER HOLIDAYS.
  EASTER HOLIDAYS.
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
  SCHOOL TEACHERS (PENSIONS).
IRELAND.
  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION (AREAS).
  PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION (AREAS).
  TORPEDOED FISHING BOATS (COMPENSATION).
  TORPEDOED FISHING BOATS (COMPENSATION).
  SHETLAND MAIL SERVICE.
  SHETLAND MAIL SERVICE.
  TORPEDOED TRAWLERS (COMPENSATION).
  TORPEDOED TRAWLERS (COMPENSATION).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (ENGINEER OFFICERS).
  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (ENGINEER OFFICERS).
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
  ALTERNATIVE PENSIONS.
  GRATUITIES.
  GRATUITIES.
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  SERVICE PENSIONS.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (BOUNTY).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE (BOUNTY).
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
DEMOBILISATION.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOR RELEASE.
  FIRST ARMY (SIGNALLERS).
  FIRST ARMY (SIGNALLERS).
  L SIGNAL BATTALION.
  L SIGNAL BATTALION.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (SERGEANT-MAJOR DAVIES).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (SERGEANT-MAJOR DAVIES).
  MILITARY CAMPS.
  MILITARY CAMPS.
  CROYDON SCHOOLS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  CROYDON SCHOOLS (MILITARY OCCUPATION).
  SURPLUS ARMY HORSES (DISPOSAL).
  SURPLUS ARMY HORSES (DISPOSAL).
  MILITARY SERVICE (ALIENS).
  MILITARY SERVICE (ALIENS).
  ¼TH NORTHAMPTON REGIMENT (C. MORSON).
  ¼TH NORTHAMPTON REGIMENT (C. MORSON).
  MISSING SOLDIERS (SEARCH).
  MISSING SOLDIERS (SEARCH).
  CIRCULARS FOR TROOPS, COLOGNE.
  CIRCULARS FOR TROOPS, COLOGNE.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SIGNALLERS).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (SIGNALLERS).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (PAY).
  ARMY OF OCCUPATION (PAY).
  ARMY NURSES DEMOBILISED.
  ARMY NURSES DEMOBILISED.
  PRISONERS-OF-WAR CAMPS (INTERPRETERS).
  PRISONERS-OF-WAR CAMPS (INTERPRETERS).
  REQUISITIONED HOTELS.
  REQUISITIONED HOTELS.
  MEMORIAL SERVICE, ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL.
  MEMORIAL SERVICE, ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL.
  SOLDIERS' EFFECTS.
  SOLDIERS' EFFECTS.
  ARMY NURSES (PAY).
  ARMY NURSES (PAY).
  GERMAN PRISONERS, BEACHLEY (EMPLOYMENT).
  GERMAN PRISONERS, BEACHLEY (EMPLOYMENT).
INDIA.
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (RETIRED OFFICERS).
  ROYAL ENGINEERS (RETIRED OFFICERS).
  INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, BOMBAY.
  INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, BOMBAY.
  CRIMES BILL.
  CRIMES BILL.
  RETIRED POLICE OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  RETIRED POLICE OFFICERS (PENSIONS).
  JUVENILE CRIME.
  JUVENILE CRIME.
HOUSING.
  COUNTY COUNCIL EMPLOYES.
  COUNTY COUNCIL EMPLOYES.
  WOODWORK.
  WOODWORK.
  SCHEMES SUBMITTED AND APPROVED.
  SCHEMES SUBMITTED AND APPROVED.
  FLATS (TENANTS' RIGHTS).
  FLATS (TENANTS' RIGHTS).
  REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (REMUNERATION).
  REGISTRARS OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS (REMUNERATION).
  POOR LAW MENTAL CASES.
  POOR LAW MENTAL CASES.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (DISTRICT NURSES).
  PUBLIC HEALTH (DISTRICT NURSES).
  PAPER RESTRICTION (PROHIBITION OF RETURNS) ORDER.
  PAPER RESTRICTION (PROHIBITION OF RETURNS) ORDER.
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT).
  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (APPOINTMENTS DEPARTMENT).
  ORKNEY MAIL ROUTE.
  ORKNEY MAIL ROUTE.
  SKILLED TELEGRAPHISTS.
  SKILLED TELEGRAPHISTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  KEW GARDENS (EMPLOYES' HOURS).
  KEW GARDENS (EMPLOYES' HOURS).
  AGRICULTURAL TRAINING (SERVICE MEN).
  AGRICULTURAL TRAINING (SERVICE MEN).
  CHINA (GERMANS).
  CHINA (GERMANS).
  PRINCE KROPOTKIN.
  PRINCE KROPOTKIN.
  PROBATE REGISTRY (PERSONAL APPLICATION DEPARTMENT).
  PROBATE REGISTRY (PERSONAL APPLICATION DEPARTMENT).
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BECCLES WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he can now tell your Lordships what business he proposes to submit to us for the remainder of these sittings; when he proposes that your Lordships' House should adjourn for the Easter recess and for how long? I should like to ask, if I may—and this is really a matter of great importance—whether he could tell us what business is likely to be taken during the first few days on the reassembling of the House after the holidays.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): I will endeavour to give my noble friend the information for which he asks. First, as regards the measures which we shall ask your Lordships to deal with before we separate for the Easter recess, it is essential that the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill, already before the House; the Army (Annual) Bill, in the same position; and the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill should receive the Royal Assent before we adjourn. I hope that it may be possible to move the adjournment of your Lordships' House for the recess on Tuesday, April 15. That, of course, is dependent on what happens in another place. The House of Commons, I believe, hope to adjourn on that date. I share the hope; but if they are unable to do so and have to sit on Wednesday, there would be a sitting of your Lordships' House on the same day.
252
The third of the Bills to which I alluded—namely, the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill—will be read a first time in this House to-night; and the Bill being, for reasons which I could easily explain, one of urgent importance, I propose to ask your Lordships to suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX on Tuesday for the purpose of passing it into law. In that case it would not be necessary to meet on Monday next, April 14. As regards the other Bills that will come up to this House before we adjourn, I hope to get from your Lordships the First Reading of the Ministry of Health Bill before the recess, and to take the Second Reading on Tuesday, April 29—the day of the re-assembling of both Houses of Parliament. There is also another small category of measures of which I hope to get the First Reading before we adjourn—namely, the War Charities (Scotland) Bill, the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Bill, the Scottish Board of Health Bill, and the City of London Police Bill.
The noble Marquess then asked as to the business to be taken after the Easter recess, and in the interval between Easter and Whitsuntide. I have already mentioned that the first business upon our return will, I hope, be the Second Reading of the Ministry of Health Bill, and this I trust will be followed in the period of which I am speaking by the Ministry of Ways and Communications Bill, which should reach us about three weeks after the House re-assembles, and the Aliens Restriction Bill. The Housing Bill, a measure of course of the first importance, which will take some time in another place, will probably not reach us before Whitsuntide. That will be the main item in the bill of fare after that date. I think I have given the noble Marquess the information for which he asked.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am much obliged to my noble friend for his very full statement. I do not know, but I think it would be worth his consideration, whether the Ministry of Health Bill would not be better taken on the Thursday rather than the Tuesday after we reassemble. I think he will find, considering the importance of the Bill, that we are more likely to have a full attendance on the Thursday than on the Tuesday.
The only other matter which I would ask the noble Earl to reconsider is a very small

253
one relatively, but important in principle, and that is his suggestion that the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Bill should be taken through in one day. I do not think there can be any such pressure of necessity for that Bill, to justify carrying it through in one day. It really, if I may say so, is a mistake to suspend the Standing Orders except for really urgent matters—at any rate, to suspend them to the extent of driving a Bill through in one day. For my own part I do not know that the Bill is really urgent. It would not be proper to discuss the character of the Bill. I can quite conceive that the case for justice under the Bill could be made out in a most overwhelming manner, but that it should be necessary to pass it very rapidly into law I do not understand. However that may be, I venture to think that it would be better to have a sitting on Monday rather than that your Lordships should be asked to pass the Bill through all its stages on Tuesday. If we sat on Monday we could take the Second Reading then and the other stages on Tuesday. Certainly so far as I am concerned, I could not be taken to consent to all the stages of the Bill being gone through on Tuesday, unless it is of a very urgent character.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, generally speaking I agree with the principle laid down by the noble Marquess, and I think he will bear me out in saying that I show no small reluctance in moving the suspension of the Standing Order unless I am compelled to do so. With reference to the Bill in question, he admits, from such knowledge as he has of the matter, the justice of the Bill, but the only question which he is concerned to dispute is the urgency.
The case presented to me by those responsible for the measure is this. The Bill arises out of these circumstances: There have been within quite a recent period several murderous attacks upon police in Ireland. Four have been assassinated; several others have been wounded; Mr. Milling, a resident magistrate at Westport, was shot dead; an active campaign of assassination propaganda is being secretly circulated throughout the country, and the police authorities have pressed upon His Majesty's Government the immediate and urgent necessity of the Bill. We sometimes hear rumours of very considerable unrest among the Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police Force, and
254
it is not unnatural in the circumstances of the case, exposed to this sort of attack, that they look to Parliament to give that protection which Parliament alone can afford. These are the circumstances in which the Bill is brought before Parliament. The matter was before the Lord Lieutenant and the Executive Council in Dublin Castle a few days ago, and they strongly represented to His Majesty's Government the desirability, if possible, of passing the Bill into law before Parliament rises. That is the case for urgency, and I think your Lordships will agree that it is a sufficient one.
The rearrangement suggested by the noble Marquess is really a matter of-detail. Given the First Reading of the measure to-day, I should have thought—viewing the case that I have made out for urgency and the extreme unlikelihood that your Lordships would wish to devote any considerable time to discussion—that it was more for your Lordships' convenience to deal with the measure in a single day on Tuesday, with the chance, if another place does not rise on Tuesday, of having another day, rather than meeting on Monday. If, however, strong representation is made to me that that course does not meet with your Lordships' approval, and you desire to meet on Monday, I will reconsider the matter.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Earl that the scope of the Bill may not be quite as extended as members of the House may desire to see it. A great deal of pressure had to be exerted upon the Government from these benches in order to induce them to take up this question at all. The course proposed is really asking your Lordships to pass whatever measure is brought forward blindfold, because it is obvious that there can be no adequate consideration of the measure on Tuesday. It is for this reason that we wish to meet on Monday.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That will be a point which I will bear in mind in considering the suggestion with regard to meeting on Monday. I will, perhaps, make an announcement before the close of our proceedings.

CRIMINAL INJURIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (DOMINION TROOPS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order for the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BIRKENHEAD): My Lords, this is a war measure which requires, I think, no detailed explanation, but in respect of which it is convenient and proper that your Lordships should be generally apprised of its object and scope. Your Lordships may be aware that large numbers of marriages have taken place between members of His Majesty's Forces domiciled outside the United Kingdom and English women. In these circumstances, in case divorce proceedings become necessary, the law is that the proceedings must be taken in the country of the domicile, and, according to our law, the domicile is the domicile of the husband—in the particular case now under consideration it is the domicile of the soldier belonging to the Oversea Dominion.
Very strong representations were made to the authorities on behalf of the Australian Government and the New Zealand Government, which takes the same view, that a great miscarriage and even denial of justice is likely to follow in the wholly abnormal condition prevailing to-day in the application of the strict rule, and it is proposed in the present Bill to enable the appropriate Courts in the United Kingdom to entertain matrimonial proceedings in cases of marriages contracted during the war by members of His Majesty's Forces with women of this country, even although the husbands in those cases were domiciled outside the United Kingdom.
I need hardly point out that in nearly all these cases, though not in every case, the obligation that the matter shall be decided by the Court of the husband's domicile is one which, having regard to the means of the parties, would make it quite impossible that the matter should ever be investigated in Court at all. The witnesses are very often in this country and they could not be made available (without an expenditure which the parties would be wholly unable to provide) in the country of the husband's domicile. I may perhaps add that this Bill, if it becomes law, will
256
not become operative in the self-governing Dominions until it has been adopted by the Legislatures of the Dominions, nor in a Crown Colony until it has been made effective by the appropriate Constitutional method. My noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore, who has great knowledge of these matters, has been good enough to draw my attention to one or two points in respect of which, as a matter of first impression, I think he is probably right. and one or two Amendments may be required in Committee. I hope, between this stage and the Committee stage, to have the opportunity of discussing his suggestions with my noble and learned friend, and, if necessary, your Lordships will be troubled with them at that stage. I do not think it is necessary to say more. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, there is a small point on this Bill which may possibly be covered by the points which the noble and learned Lord mentioned as having been raised by Lord Phillimore. I do not know what the points are. It did occur to me, on looking at the Bill, whether it has been considered sufficiently—no doubt the Law Officers have considered it—as to whether it effects satisfactorily that which it is desired to effect. The object, I think, is quite clear. It is to give a convenient tribunal, and that is obtained in the Bill by making it the tribunal of that part of the United Kingdom where the marriage takes place. I take it that that is not exclusive necessarily of the tribunal of the matrimonial home, apart from the question of legal domicile—the tribunal where the matrimonial home is situated—and the reason I take that is that the last clause of the Bill states that—
"Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the jurisdiction of any Court with respect to matrimonial proceedings, other than that conferred by this Act."
I am not quite sure whether that clause refers to other matrimonial proceedings or to other Courts, but it seems to me that the effect may not be what is desired.
Let me give the noble and learned Lord an example to make clear what I mean. Suppose a New Zealander was married in Ireland while quartered there, and suppose he was removed to England, that his wife has a home in England and that is where

257
he remains for some time, will the proceedings be able to be taken either in Ireland or in England? If so, I think that would be the object desired, but if not I think the Bill would rather inflict a hardship than remedy one. It might not be more convenient to go ither to Ireland or Scotland because that was where the marriage took place and where the matrimonial home is. I think I am right in saying that the law has now been settled so far as this country is concerned—I do not profess to know that of Scotland or Ireland—that proceedings can be taken where the matrimonial home is, even if there is not a legal domicile. This Bill, I take it, would not do away with that right, but I think it would be worth while to consider that point before the Committee stage if it, has not been fully considered.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, the object of the Bill is quite sound, but it strikes me as having been not very carefully considered. No doubt, since your Lordships' House and the decision in the case of Casdagli v. Casdagli made it quite clear that the only competent matrimonial Court is the Court of the domicile and since it is recognised that the domicile is that of the man, it would follow—were this Bill or some Bill like it not passed—that if a New Zealander, or Australian, or Canadian had married an English, Irish, or Scottish girl, the proceedings, if they came to a quarrel, would have to be heard by the Australian, New Zealand, or Canadian Court, notwithstanding that both parties were still in England, Scotland, or Ireland.
But the Bill goes a good deal further, I think, than is necessary. Supposing, for instance, that a Canadian or Australian marries an English girl and that they are living happily together, and go back to Canada, where they live for three or four years and then quarrel. Under this Bill, as I read it, it would be open to either of them—probably to the English woman—to come back to this country and institute a suit in this country and bring the Canadian husband back here to meet it. That is not the only part of the mischief. The law preserves the natural tribunal, which is the tribunal of the domicile, and the Canadian husband might counter her action by bringing his suit in the Court in Canada, while she was bringing her suit in the Court in England. As we know, the
258
law about marriage varies very considerably, the law of Canada, for instance, not granting divorce and some of the other countries granting divorce for other causes than those which are effective in England. It is probable that each party would refer the Court of that country which gave him or her the best remedy or the best defence.
There are other illustrations which I could put before your Lordships, and I venture to suggest, for the consideration of those who have the Bill in charge, that the whole object would be met if it was confined to people while they were resident in this kingdom. if the words "or residence" in line 10 on page 1 were struck out, and if after the word "shall" in the same line there were inserted "if the parties are at the time of the institution of the suit resident within the territorial ambit of its jurisdiction," then I think all that is wanted would be accomplished. That is to say—where a Colonial soldier had married an English girl—while they were still here, and had, unfortunately, matrimonial differences, it should be competent to try them in the Court of this country. If they go away to the home of the soldier, then they ought to settle their differences in that country. The Lord Chancellor has been good enough to say that he will take these matters into consideration. As I have said, the Bill seems to be sound in principle but not sufficiently carefully thought out, and no doubt these matters will be remedied in Committee.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, my noble and learned friend has pointed out certain difficulties in the way of this measure which I fully appreciate. I rise simply to draw attention to the practical effect of it. I quite recognise the practical consideration which has made this Bill almost a necessity for the time, but what I do not like about it is that it has no time limit. If it had been a Bill for saying that a soldier, for instance an Australian, who had made a war marriage here could find this sort of remedy within a period of, say, twelve months from the passing of the Act, I should not complain. But as the Bill stands the man may live for years, he may have separated from his wife here, and she may begin proceedings here—not in the Court of his domicile—with the result that he may find himself involved in matrimonial litigation in the Courts here which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been quite incompetent. The principle has been

259
accepted throughout the Empire, wherever our divorce laws apply, of the domicile being the criterion, and I think i is a little awkward that for the next half century that principle should be abrogated so far as the cases to which the Bill applies are concerned. It will introduce, I thing, some difficulties in the way of the administration of the law. I quite see the utility of the measure and its fairness, but I should be glad if the Lord Chancellor would consider whether the question of a time limit might not be applied to the operation of the Bill so that we may not abrogate a great principle of law which has now become a second part of our jurisprudence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The very helpful and suggestive observations which have been made by your Lordships will certainly receive all the attention which they deserve between the present stage and the Committee stage. The matter is by no means free from difficulty. The question of a time limit was considered, and I am by no means sure that the view for which Lord Haldane has contended to-day is not the better one. It may content your Lordships if I say that between now and the Committee stage I will carefully discuss all the suggestions that have been made, and the difficulties that have been raised.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NAVAL, MILITARY, AND AIR FORCE SERVICE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to prolong period of naval, military, or air force service.
1.—(1) If the competent authority is of opinion that, as respects any men to whom this section applies or any class of such men. they cannot consistently with the public interest he released from actual service at the time when in pursuance of the terms of their service they would be entitled to be discharged, any such man may be retained and his service may be prolonged for such further period, not extending beyond the
260
thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and twenty, as the competent authority may order, but at the expiration of that period, or at any earlier date at which the competent authority considers that he can be released, he shall be discharged with all convenient speed, but in no case later than three months after the thirtieth day of April nineteen hundred and twenty.
(2) The men to whom this section applies are men (not being soldiers of the regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation) who at the termination of the present war are in actual service in the naval, military, or air forces of His Majesty and whose term of actual service expires at the termination of the present war or before the said thirtieth day of April.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved to omit from subsection (2) the words in parentheses—namely, "not being soldiers of the regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation"
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that when the noble Viscount introduced this Bill last Tuesday he explained that it was in order to retain in the Army men who would otherwise be discharged when the ratifications of the Peace Conference were exchanged, and he pointed out that the Bill would not refer to soldiers of the Regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation. I should like to read what he said—
"The question has been raised why these Regular soldiers should obtain this measure of exemption, while civilians who had been taken from their civilian occupation and have served as long as two or three years with the Colours are retained."
Then he made an eloquent reference to the services rendered by the Regular soldiers, and went on to say—
"I hope your Lordships will feel that they have 'done their bit,' and have earned their release."
I ventured to suggest to your Lordships that members of the Territorial Force had also deserved well of their country, and that those who were serving in the Territorial Force at the outbreak of war should also obtain their release. The noble Viscount, when he answered me, said that "they would be released under the Army Order of January 29." He said—
"It is clear that all those who joined up till 1916 are to be demobilised, and are now being rapidly demobilised under the Army Order; consequently no Amendment is necessary."
That Army Order refers to soldiers of the Regular forces every bit as much as to soldiers of the Territorial Force, and there-for if it is necessary in the one case to exclude soldiers of the Regular Army from the operations of this Bill it is equally neces-

261
sary, if you wish to save the men of the Territorial Force from the operation of the Bill, to exclude them also.
What I propose is that we should leave out the words "not being soldiers of the Regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation," and insert at the end of subsection (2) the words which appear on the Paper. I would like to alter them a little so that the words should run: "Provided that before an Order under this section is made applicable to soldiers," and so on. I should like to emphasise this point. It seems a long time ago, but I remember taking part in a march of the Home Counties Division from the south of Aldershot to Salisbury Plain. We arrived there on the Saturday and Sunday before the outbreak of war—on what is known as "Black Sunday." These men were sent straight back home by train, and when they arrived they found telegrams waiting for them announcing that they had been re-mobilised and had to go to their war stations forthwith. Many of these battalions, amongst them the battalion to which I belonged, were sent out to India early in 1914—in September or October—and they have been there ever since, and are there now The Territorials went to camp expecting to be away for a fortnight. Practically none of them expected an outbreak of war between this country and Germany. They had a few hours at home, and were then sent to their war stations, and afterwards to distant parts of the Empire, without any chance whatever of winding up their own affairs in civil life. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a considerable case of hardship. I therefore suggest that these men of the Territorial Force who joined before the commencement of the war should now be excluded from the operations of this Bill.
I have two further points to make. The Army Order is worded it, this way: if the competent military authority is of opinion, they "are to be demobilised as soon as the exigencies of the service permit." That is a very wide phrase. I know a case, which was brought to my notice only yesterday, of a man serving in France, with over four years service and forty-three years of age, who should be demobilised under the terms of the Army Order—and I have no doubt he will be. But at the present moment the competent authority, in the shape of his commanding officer, informs him that he is required for demobilisation purposes, and
262
cannot go. He is a driver in the motor transport section, and if there is one man who I should have thought was not necessary for demobilisation purposes it would be a driver in the motor transport section. I give that as an illustration of the wide I power which is open to the authorities to retain men in the Army in spite of the general terms of the Army Order.
The other point is this. Your Lordships will see that in my Amendment I speak of men who were in the Army prior to August 4, 1914. The wording, as it appears in the Bill—" serving on a pre-war attestation"—applies, I understand, to any man who joined the Army under the ordinary terms of service—that is to say, either seven years with the Colours and five years with the Reserve, or any of the ordinary terms of enlistment which were in existence in the Army before the war. Amongst other terms of enlistment that this phrase will cover is the system of enlistment for the Brigade of Guards, which happens to be in many cases three years with the Colours and nine years with the Reserve. Therefore you will get men who joined the Army at the end of 1915 being demobilised under this Bill, but you will get men who joined the Territorial Force before the outbreak of war and have served with the Army since the outbreak of war being held wider this Bill. I suggest, therefore, that perhaps my wording is preferable to that in the Bill. If the noble Viscount opposite is prepared to exclude from the operation of this Bill those who joined the Army at a later date than August 4, 1914, I shall be only too glad to do so. Why I have only made such a small exception to the Bill is because I did not want to see a large number of men excluded from its operation and the authorities having then to come down and say, "It is necessary to have an Order to retain them in the Army." I want the exceptions to the Bill to be few enough for us to make quite certain that those exceptions shall be made effective.
The only argument that I can see against these Amendments—because the two must be really considered together—is that peace may be ratified, say, this summer, and it will not then be possible to get men back from India, because the troop season will not have begun owing to the weather being too hot in the Red Sea and elsewhere. I think that I have covered that point by my Amendment, because where the autho-

263
rities can show that there is reasonable cause they have only to place an Order on the Table of both Houses, and no doubt neither House would object to that Order being made effective. It is most unlikely, particularly in view of the very large amount of work that has been put before us by the Leader of the House, that this House will not be sitting throughout the whole of the summer, and probably well into the autumn. Therefore there can be no difficulty that this House will not be sitting, and that ten days could not be got during which the Order should remain on the Table of the House. I beg to move the first Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, lines 18 to 20, leave out ("not being soldiers of the regular forces serving on a pre-war attestation").—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: Before the noble Viscount replies I should like to draw his attention to the very great hardships of this case. I think that there is a great deal in what the noble Earl has said. I know what the difficulties of the War Office must be—they must be very great—in finding troops; but after all, the Regulars enlisted on a professional basis and the Army was their profession. The Territorials did not enlist for service abroad at all. There was an honourable understanding among them—it was very widely spread—that they would agree to go abroad. It was supposed that they might have to extend the Expeditionary Force, and therefore, after that Expeditionary Force was called into action, they were proud to say as an obligation of honour that they would go abroad. But they were not professional soldiers, and the reason why they have gone so far is due to one cause, a very honourable one—their response to Lord Kitchener.
The magnetism of Lord Kitchener's personality was very great, and very early in the war he made an appeal to the Territorials. He did not think that they were fit to go and fight in France straight off, and so he persuaded India and Egypt to give back Regular battalions and batteries and to take Territorial battalions and batteries in their place. It was a great feat of personality to be able to do so much, and I do not think that anybody but Lord Kitchener could have persuaded the
264
Territorial Force to do it. But they did it, and the result was that Territorials went abroad to take the place of Regular battalions which were in India, in Egypt, and various parts of the world. They did this without grumbling and without complaint, but it is obvious that the hardship upon them was very much greater than on the Regulars, whose profession it was to serve in those parts of the world.
But the unfortunate Territorials have had no release. The very reason for which they were selected, which was that they were to take the place of long-service soldiers in these distant places, has magnified the hardships under which they are at the present time. Now that peace is at any rate in sight, the obvious course is to replace Territorial regiments at a distance by Regular units. That may be difficult. I know too much about the difficulties to wish to press the matter to an extreme; still it is the proper course, and I do not think that we ought here to leave out of sight the enormity of the hardship which is inflicted upon the Territorials by keeping them in very distant places, which are wholly outside their legal obligation, for this very prolonged period, and I think therefore that the noble Earl was justified in moving the Amendment if only upon that ground.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I should like to say a word to enforce and press upon the noble Viscount the argument which has just fallen from the noble and learned Viscount behind me. I believe, if the noble Viscount should decide to carry this Bill in the form in which it stands at this moment, he will have done the very worst service towards the future recruitment of Territorials that could possibly be performed by any Minister of the Crown. Look at the position as it stands at the present moment. You have several brigades of Territorials moved from England who were serving on a pre-war engagement. They were moved -to India in October and November, 1914. They included battalions from the county to which I belong, which were moved on to Mesopotamia in March and April and May, 1915, and have been, I believe I am right in saying, in one of the most trying climates, if not the most trying, in the world for four years. Others have been on garrison duty in the plains of India for a similar period. Most of these men left England four and a half

265
years ago. To say, "I am unable to bring you away because I have not the transport," is an argument which every one must listen to with respect. But to say to them what you virtually do say in the terms of this Bill is to inflict upon them a great hardship.
At this moment I could tell the noble Viscount of a particular regiment which, having been out for the whole of this period, was due to come home, and was at Basra awaiting shipment, and nearly 300 men were taken out of that regiment at almost the last moment and put into another regiment which has not been so long in Mesopotamia and will have to remain there. Of course, the feelings of these men are most acute. I will not suggest that it is a breach of faith by the Government, nor do I suggest that the Government have ignored in any way their liabilities to these men. What I do say is that it ought not to be at the option of the Government to decide whether these men should be transferred from one regiment to another and kept there, without making an absolute case before Parliament for doing so. I appeal to the noble Viscount to give these men the same rights as the Regular Army, and I think we may assure him that Parliament will listen with the greatest regard to any changes, by Order in Council or otherwise, which may be necessary in order to enable the public service to be carried on.
LORD ST. LEVAN: I should like to acid my support to the proposal made by the noble Earl. At the beginning of the war, I was serving with the Wessex Territorial Division. In October they sent out a complete division to India, and in December we were again asked to send out a division. The brigadiers and commanding officers were sent for to London and received a message from Lord Kitchener asking if they would send out another division, and undertook to do so. These men, except those who have been transferred from India to Mesopotamia and Palestine, have been out ever since. At the time I remember very well it was distinctly stated that they would be brought home at the first opportunity. They have done their duty well, and I think they have a claim to the consideration of the country. And I think we must consider their relations and families at home as well, who have been deprived of them for all that time and are most anxious
266
to see them back. There are numbers of people in the West country who have had to do without their relations all that time, and while I know that these men are perfectly willing to do all they can for their country if the necessities of the country demand it, I think they do expect, after what they have done, that the Government will take the first opportunity to extend to them the consideration which is offered by the Amendment of my noble friend.
VISCOUNT PEEL: From many quarters of the House and from those most competent to speak on behalf of the Territorial Force very strong appeals have come to me, as representing the War Office in this matter, to do what is possible for the Territorials, I think the discussion has mainly turned on the question of the Territorials in India.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: And Mesopotamia.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I used the word "India" because there has been a good deal of interchange between Mesopotamia and India, and I think there are no Territorials who have had the full term in Mesopotamia, apart from India. But the two cases are really very largely parallel. I expressed a very strong opinion and made a strong statement on behalf of the Army Council the other day when this question was raised by my noble friend Lord Harris, that the Army Council fully recognised the unfortunate fact that the Territorials had had to be kept for so long a period in India. It recognised their great patriotism in coming forward so early in the war, and the great services rendered by them to the country by allowing the Regular soldiers to be set free from those garrisons, thereby strengthening our Army in France and other parts of the world.
The Army Council has the very greatest sympathy with the general view that has been expressed by noble Lords this evening. But we are not dealing now with this general question but with a specific Amendment. I will deal with the details in a moment, but at present I make this statement, that, if this Amendment were

267
passed, not one single Territorial more would be brought back to this country than would be brought hack without it. It can have no effect whatever on the Territorials in India or in Mesopotamia, because these Territorials are not kept there because they are being treated less well than Regulars. They are all, under the administrative order, freed for demobilisation. The Army Council wants to demobilise them, and there is only one reason why they cannot be demobilised, and that is that during the hot weather it is impossible to bring these troops home, and before the hot weather there was no Army which could take their place. Therefore if this Amendment were passed (quite apart from the difficulties) it would be completely inoperative and would do no good whatever to the Territorials.
Let me deal with the specific proposal of my noble friend, and then, if necessary, I can return to the general point that I have now made. My noble friend first suggested that I have been guilty of some inconsistency. That is a matter of complete unimportance, but I think I ought to justify what I said, because there is no inconsistency in what I did say. My noble friend is making a confusion between two classes of men. In the opening statement I made I was comparing the case of the Regular soldier with the case of the man who was called up since 1916, and I was arguing whether or not there was possibly a case for retaining the Regular as against the post-1916 man. The subsequent statement quoted by my noble friend was made with regard to the pre-1916 man, who is in a totally different category, and whom the Army Council is doing its best to demobilise as fast as possible.
I think I ought to say also that Army Order 55 does not deal with the Regular soldiers, because they are on a special active station, and it does not affect them. What does my noble friend want to do? First of all, the Regulars are exempted from the provisions of the. Bill. The Army Council does not want to retain those Regulars. There is a good deal of criticism on the size of the Army which is retained, hut my noble friend wants to put those Regulars into the Bill. He wants deliberately to put back under the operation of this Bill the men whom the Army Council and the Government have decided are not wanted, who can be allowed to go to the Reserve in order to build up a
268
Reserve for the people. He is trying to establish some sort of parity or disparity between the Territorials and the Regulars, as if there were some kind of unfairness of treatment as between the two. All the difference that there is is due merely to the fact that the engagements are different, that the one is for seven and five years and the other is for four years.
How would this be applied to the Regulars I take those who enlisted in different years. Those who enlisted in 1913 would clearly not be affected, because their regular period for serving would not have elapsed during the currency of this Bill. Therefore we are driven back really to the 1911 men, because, of course, my noble friend knows well that, quite apart front this Act, it is possible to retain these men for the other year—the eighth year. And therefore, before you reach a class which will be affected by the changes which my noble friend suggests you have to go back to men who enlisted as far back as 1911.
EARL STANHOPE: It is only true of the men who enlisted for seven or nine years service.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is broadly true that you have to go back to the men who enlisted as far aback as 1911, and who exhypothesi have been right through the war. The application therefore of the Amendment, even if it put We Regulars back in the Bill, would have very little effect; and, again, would not apply to those who enlisted at, such a period that their time of service did not elapse until subsequent to the date of this Bill. It is not that my noble friend is anxious to bring these Regulars back into the Bill but that he really wants to deal with the Territorials. I think I am right in saying that is his object. What then would be the effect? The noble Earl's Amendment is to provide that before an Order is made applicable to soldiers of the Regular or Territorial Forces, the draft shall be laid upon the Table of Parliament for fourteen days before it has any application. As I have said, under an administrative Order all these men are demobilisable—that is to say, those whom my noble friend wishes to affect. Everybody who enlisted before 1914, and, indeed, even those who enlisted during 1914 and 1915, the Army Council is trying to demobilise as fast as possible; and the only reason why they are not being

269
brought back home is because it is impossible to bring them back.
My noble friend suggests that the draft Order should lay upon the Table of Parliament before any period is fixed for which the men should be retained. It is clear that the draft could not be laid after the peace because it would have no effect until fourteen Parliamentary days had elapsed. That means more than a month—if we are sitting only three days a week in this House—whatever may be the necessities, whatever may be the military situation at the time. If it is done, of course, after the peace is signed it would be too late. You will have to make the Order at once; because as the peace might come within three or four weeks it would be necessary immediately the Bill is passed at once to make the Order retaining these troops. But that is clone by the Act. As there would be no discipline amongst the troops concerned if the Amendment is carried it is incredible that your Lordships should agree to it. There is a further danger. Supposing this Order were made to con tinge for three or four months. The Orders must be made when Parliament is sitting. Your Lordships are not sitting as a rule in August and September; therefore what the Amendment contemplates is that Parliament should be called together for the sole purpose of agreeing to or disagreeing with an Order about Territorials which would have no effect whatever, because what is required could be done very easily under the Bill.
Great as is the sympathy everyone must feel with the Territorials, I strongly urge your Lordships not to press an Amendment of this kind. I should like to repeat what I have already stated about the Territorials and what has been stated also by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War—namely, that the. Army Council regard it as an absolute duty at the first opportunity to remove these Territorials from India and to replace them with men of the New Army. When the hot weather comes to an end those Territorials will be withdrawn at the first opportunity from India and Mesopotamia. Does not that entirely cover their case? If you want to put in an Order of this kind which is to be done administratively you will have to fill up your Bill with administrative Orders. Take the Army Order under which these men are demobilised—men over thirty
270
seven, men with so many wound stripes, and so on, this is done not under an Act of Parliament but, under Orders issued by the Arm Council; and if you are going to make a selection in favour of one particular administration Order you will have to put the whole of them into the Act of Parliament. I urge your Lordships not to do such a thing, or to cumber the Bill with an unnecessary Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry that the noble Viscount has not received this Amendment more favourably. I think he is quite wrong. He did not seem, to appreciate the real spirit in which this Amendment has been moved. Upon the face of the drafting of this Amendment there is a distinction drawn between the Regular Forces and the Territorials. I am sure that my noble friend must admit that that is very offensive to the Territorials. With his customary courtesy and feeling for the susceptibilities of the Territorials he has said a great deal to show what view the Government take; but upon its face it is not right that there should be this distinction drawn between the treatment of the Regular Army and the treatment of Territorials.
It is not merely that it requires a great deal of explanation to show that they should be differently treated in the Bill, but because it will be profoundly misunderstood by the Territorial Forces them-selves. That is one of the points which the noble Viscount does not seem to have taken account of at all. The particular Territorials of whom we are thinking have been placed in a position of very great hardship indeed—such hardship as was testified to in your Lordships' House on a recent occasion, at which time the Government expressed every kind of sympathy with them. But when it comes to action apart from words, when we come to the actual drafting of a Bill, the first thing the Territorials find is that, so far from there being any sympathy with them, they are going to be treated expressly in a harsher way than the Regular Forces. I want the Government to realise the impression that produces.
On the Second Reading the noble Viscount said that, after all, the Regulars contemplated in this clause—the pre-war Regular Army—had gone through the terrible fighting of the early part of the war. Yes they did, and all honour to

271
them; but the Territorials also took part in the early fighting—a Territorial battalion of my own county was in the fighting in France in the early days—and besides that you have to consider the difference of the conditions under which they enlisted. That point was very strongly put by my noble friend who moved the Amendment. The noble Viscount seems to think that there really is on the face of it no greater hardship in a Territorial enlisted before the war having to go on serving, than there is in the case of a Regular soldier.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I never contended that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, he did not, but the contention of my noble friend who moved the Amendment was that it is the business of the Regular soldier to fight, and the fact that he has to go on longer is relatively less a hardship. The Territorial is a civilian primarily, driven on by a great patriotism, and he stands in a position to be released rather sooner than later as compared with the regular soldier, and therefore I am sorry that the noble Viscount did not accept the Amendment. Let me deal with his argument. He said, "Your Amendment will have no effect because we have issued an Army Order, and it is the intention of the Army Council…" He seems to think that an expression of intention on the part of the Government has the same effect as an Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said an Army Order had been issued.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: An Army Order can be altered at any moment by the Secretary of State and the Army Council. An Act of Parliament depends for its sanction upon the assent of both Houses of Parliament.
VISCOUNT PEEL: An Act of Parliament cannot bring a man back from India in the hot weather.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am going to deal with that in a moment. The noble Viscount seems to think there is no distinction between an Act of Parliament and an intention of the Government.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I never said so.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I said he seemed to think so. If I had wanted to say that he said a thing I should say so. There is every distinction in the world. He thinks an engagement on the part of the Government is quite certain to be fulfilled. Is he quite sure? Have all the engagements of the Government always been fulfilled? Have they never changed their minds? Why, my Lords, it is not that we bring any charge of breach of faith on the part of the Government, but they are always being put in circumstances of difficulty, and then pressure is put upon them, all sorts of representations are made to them by military officers, and they give way. It is a different thing with an Act of Parliament. An Act of Parliament cannot be varied except by the consent of both Houses. Then you have something like security, and the thing is entirely different. Therefore I do not think I can accept at all his answer to my noble friend's argument—namely, that the Army Council have expressed a wish, and put it into an Army Order, that these Territorials shall be demobilised as soon as possible.
Then my noble friend says that they cannot be demobilised during the hot weather. There is going to be no ratification of the Treaty of Peace before the hot weather, and therefore we need not trouble about the hot weather. He said that peace might come with something like the rapidity of a thunderstorm. Peace does not seem to me to be moving with the rapidity of a thunderstorm. After the signature of peace there will, of course, be a very long interval between that and ratification, and the end of the war does not come till ratification. If after peace is signed it appears that the ratification is likely to take place before the end of the hot weather, then he will be in a position to lay an Order before both Houses, as is provided in the Amendment. It is perfectly simple. He will be able to say: "Peace is signed, it is clear the ratification will take place, and I do not know when the hot weather will end, and therefore we must have a little time and we will lay the Order before both Houses." If, on the other hand, there is no such chance and ratification is going to be after the hot weather then he will have no excuse for keeping these troops in India, and he does not want this clause, and there is no reason why he should not accept at once that the moment the cool weather comes, these men should come home like Regulars.

273
Therefore if the ratification is going to take place later there will be no difficulty whatever. If it takes place when Parliament is not sitting it will be in the cold weather, and the troops ought to come home, in all the spirit of equity. Therefore I think it is only fair that the. Amendment should be accepted. I do not mean to say that a little modification of dates may be necessary. My noble friend (Viscount Peel) made a great deal of play about that, but if he wants to alter the number of clays let him say so. But taking the Amendment broadly as it stands it seems fair, and I see no reason why your Lordships should not assent to it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There are only two points to which I think it necessary to give an answer. I do not know what I seemed to suggest at all, but of course I never intended to, and I rather doubt if I did, suggest that an Act of Parliament is on the same basis as an Army Order. I was saying that an Act of Parliament could not do impossibilities, and that it was no
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The proposed proviso, I take it, is consequential?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 1, line 24, after subsection (2) insert:
"Provided that, before an order under this section is made applicable to soldiers of the
use putting into an Act of Parliament, provisions which would be entirely inoperative, and that therefore it was much better to deal with the Army Order as it stood. Of course, if my noble friend's rather gloomy anticipation is true, and there is to be no ratification of the peace treaty till after the hot weather, then of course I agree that so far as the Territorials in India are concerned, not only the Amendment but this Bill will be unnecessary, because of course until such ratification these troops are kept under the Compulsory Service Acts, and this Bill only comes into operation at the ratification. Therefore if the hypothesis on which he rested his argument be true, then neither the Amendment nor the Bill is necessary and these men will be brought back before this Bill comes into effect or becomes an Act of Parliament.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided—Contents, 27; Not-Contents,32.

CONTENTS.

Birkenhead, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Sandhurst, V.(L. Chamberlain.)

Grimthorpe, L.

Peel, V.

Hylton, L.

Argyll, D.

Lawrence, L,

Annesley, L.

Newton, L.

Bradford, E.

Armaghdale, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Atkinson, L.

Rothschild, L.

Eldon, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Saltoun, L.

Howe, E.

Colebrooke, L.

Somerleyton, L.[Teller.]

Jersey, E.

Ernle, L.

Stanmore, L.[Teller.]

Russell, E.

Gisborough, L.

Wigan, L.(E. Crawford.)

NOT-CONTENTS.

Northumberland, D.

Strafford, E.

Denman, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Erskine, L.[Teller.]

Crewe, M.

Harris, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Finlay, V.

Hindlip, L.

Salisbury, M.

Haldane, V.

Ludlow, L.

Harcourt, V.

Manners, L.

Brassey, E.

Hardinge, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Harewood, E.

Knollys, V.

Roe, L.

Lindsey, E.

St. Levan, L.

Onslow, E.

Balfour, L.

Sydenham, L.

Selborne, E.

Brodrick, L.(V. Midleton.)

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Stanhope, E. [Teller.]

Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)

Wynford, L.

regular or territorial forces of the Crown who had enlisted prior to the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than fourteen days, during which that House is sitting, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those fourteen days presents an Address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new draft order."—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Continuation of certain provisions relating to terms of service.
2.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in section one of the Army (Transfer) Act, 1915, a soldier who in pursuance of that section has been transferred from one corps to another shall not until the said thirtieth day of April be entitled to be retransferred to the corps in which he was serving at the time when he was so transferred.
(2) Sections fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen of the Military Service Act, 1916 (Session 2), which relate to the transfer of officers and men of the territorial force, the constitution of corps of that force, and the liability of officers and men of that force to serve outside the United Kingdom, shall continue in force until the said thirtieth day of April.
The Army (Suspension of Sentences) Acts, 1915 and 1916, both as originally enacted and as applied to the Air Force, shall, from the passing of this Act and until the said thirtieth day of April, apply to soldiers and airmen whether employed on active service or not, and whether employed beyond the seas or not, and shall have effect as if references to imprisonment and prison included references to detention and detention barracks.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, at the end of subsection (1), the insertion of the following proviso: "Provided that, where a soldier's retransfer is delayed under this section, he shall not by reason thereof be deprived of any pay or allowances of which he is in receipt."
The noble Earl said: This is a small point. Under the Army (Transfer) Act, 1915, power is taken to transfer a man from one corps to another, and when he is transferred from a corps which is more highly paid to one which receives lower pay, his higher pay is retained by him. But in the Army (Transfer) Act there are the words "where, for the purposes of the present war," a man is transferred, and so on. The Act gives the power of transfer and it gives the soldier the pay which he received in a more highly paid corps. This Bill enables a man to be retained in the corps to which he has been transferred and prevents him from being retransferred to the corps which he originally joined. It is not quite clear whether the man might not have time higher pay taken away from him under the Army (Transfer) Act, 1915, owing to the words "where, for the purposes of the present war." Therefore, I propose in my Amendment to make the case clear and to say that, where the soldier's retransfer is delayed by this Bill, he shall not be deprived of his higher pay. I am sure your Lordships will agree with
276
this Amendment. I think it might be necessary. In any case it merely makes assurance doubly sure, and those who have to deal with the financial Regulations of the War Office are only too anxious to get those Regulations made, safe.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 6, after ("transferred") insert ("Provided that, where a soldier's re-transfer is delayed under this section, he shall not by reason thereof be deprived of any pay or allowances of which he is in receipt").—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: My noble friend has raised a point as to the pay of the soldier on retransfer—that is to say, that he should retain on retransfer the higher pay or emoluments, or whatever it was, which he received when in his original corps. He suggests that there is some doubt whether the soldier, if he is retained and not re-transferred as the result of this measure, may still receive his higher emolument.
EARL STANHOPE: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have been advised on this point, and I am advised that it will have no affect—I mean that the fact of a man being still transferred will not affect his position and that he will still net his emoluments. If that were not so it would be, I think, beyond the competence of this House, because it would be proposing that the man should get a higher emolument than that to which he was otherwise entitled, and it would constitute a breach of the privileges of another place. But I am told that is not so and I do not think the Amendment is necessary. I have very grave doubts as to whether it is in order.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If my noble friend says it is not necessary, that is quite sufficient, and I hope my noble friend will not press it. But if the noble Viscount says it is out of order I venture to say, with great respect, that it would be wiser if members of the Government would use language which is more apt. It is not out of order, even if it is a breach of privilege. It may be unconstitutional, but that is a totally different thing. It is not out of order for your Lordships to break any privileges of the House of Commons, although I hope your Lordships will not do it. The question of privilege, so far as your Lordships are concerned, ought to be closely

277
scrutinised. It is not right that we should admit they are breaches of privilege which are only inferentially so. When we lay a direct charge on the taxpayer, that, no doubt, is a breach of privilege, and one which your Lordships never desire to commit But where in vindicating a general principle of justice an increased charge falls upon the taxpayer it is always a question of doubt whether it is a breach of privilege or not, and the noble Viscount knows very well that the House of Commons have power to waive their privileges. I hope they will waive their privileges on suitable occasions. As your Lordships know, there is a recent occasion when they would have done far better to have waived their privilege. The only result of what they did was to injure their own Bill. I only say this because I think it would be a great mistake if it became known in your Lordships' House that passing Amendments of this kind is in any degree out of order, and even if it were a breach of privilege it follows that the House of Commons would not agree to them. If my noble friend says the Amendment is unnecessary, that is quite sufficient.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I should be extremely glad, after the advice of the noble Marquess, to substitute the word "unconstitutional," for "out of order."
EARL STANHOPE: If the noble Viscount says the Amendment is not necessary, I do not wish to press it. I wanted to be quite certain on the point, because I have suffered more than once by thinking things were right as to the financial regulations of the Army, which, after all, was not the case.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I have taken the best advice open to me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (2), after the words "territorial force," to insert, "within the corps to which they belong." The noble Earl said: This Amendment opens up the question of transfers. Under the Army Transfer Act power has been taken to transfer men from one corps to another, and in this particular case there is a reference to the Military Service Act; of 1916 in regard to the Territorial Force, What I propose by my Amendment is that men in the Territorial Force may be transferred to any battalion
278
in the same regiment, but that power should not be kept to transfer men from one regiment to another. For instance, a man might be in the Hampshire Territorial battalion; under my Amendment the War Office would be able to transfer him to the Hampshire Regular battalion, but they would not be able to transfer him to the Sussex regiment, or to the King's Liverpool.
I said nearly everything that is necessary to be said on this question on the Second Reading of the Bill. The point really is that the unpopularity of transfers in the Army is very considerable and cannot be overrated. I am convinced that nothing is a greater block to satisfactory voluntary recruiting than the power to transfer a man from the unit he chooses to enter. That operates throughout the whole Army, and I am quite certain the feeling against it is very strong. I know that the authorities at the War Office are anxious to retain the power to transfer men from one regiment to another. It is much simpler, of course, to have a perfectly "fluid" Army, and when one regiment gets below establishment to build up from men who belong to an entirely different part of the Army. It is rather the system on which a certain number of country clergymen manage their parish accounts. It is not business-like nor satisfactory, and it certainly is not satisfactory from the Army man's point of view. I hope your Lordships will agree to this and the following Amendment.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Which is the following Amendment?
EARL STANHOPE: The new subsection (3).
VISCOUNT PEEL: They are totally different subjects, and I hope the noble Earl will not take them together.
EARL STANHOPE: Certainly, I will keep them separate. This Amendment merely points out that a man in the Territorials should only be transferred within his own regiment, and not transferred to anything outside. If you really want to keep comradship and good feeling, and maintain the spirit of the battalion and the spirit of the county regiments, you must put a stop to the transfers which at present you wish to legalise under this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 9, after ("force") insert ("within the corps to which they belong").—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: No one will contest, I think, the general statement of my noble friend, that transfers are unpopular, more especially from one corps to another, and particularly from arm to arm. He knows quite well that during the war this necessity did arise, and that it was absolutely essential to build up certain units from other corps and from other arms. We are not, however, dealing with that general question. The other Amendment of the noble Earl comes later, and I do not want these subjects, which stand on rather a different footing, to be treated together.
I understand quite clearly the point of my noble friend, but I really am unable to understand his Amendment. He proposes to insert, after the word "force," the words "within the corps to which they belong." The Amendment would not have the effect he desires. Let me read the subsection—
"Sections fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen of the Military Service Act, 1916, which relate to the transfer of officers and men of the territorial force, the constitution of the corps of that force,… shall continue in force until the said thirtieth day of April."
The words, therefore, are merely reciting what is in that Act; merely saying that they "shall continue in force until the said 30th day of April." My noble friend would say: "Sections 14, 15, and 16… which relate to the transfer of officers and men of the territorial force, within the corps to which they belong…" The only effect of the Amendment is to make a misstatement about what is said in Sections 14, 15, and 16 of the Military Service Act. This Amendment would really have no effect except to insert a recitation in an Act of Parliament which is a false recitation, and which mis-describes what is stated in a previous Act.
EARL STANHOPE: Surely that is not the case. The point of my Amendment is this. Parts of Sections 14, 15, and 16 which relate to the subjects appearing in Clause 2, will be retained until April 30; but other subjects, which are not referred to, will not be retained until April 30. Why I put in this particular Amendment is that you will be allowed, under this Amendment, to transfer men in the Territorial Force within the corps to which they belong.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am afraid that would not have the effect my noble friend thinks, because I do not believe that he can bisect in that particular way a particular section. This subsection only really recited Sections 14, 15, and 16, and says that they shall continue in force until April 30. I am afraid that what he suggests would not be valid.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I agree that the noble Viscount has pointed out a fault in the drafting, but that could be amended if we knew what the Government's opinion was on the substance. As far as drafting is concerned, I think that it would read all right if after the words "so far as they relate to officers and men of the Territorial Force," there came the words of my noble friend. If we knew the Government's opinion on the substance there would be, no difficulty in regard to drafting. It is the word "which" that makes it wrong. The question really is the substance, and to that matter the noble Viscount did not reply.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I should be glad to reply on that point, though it is a little difficult to do so on this specific matter, because, though connected with the other, it is separate. Let me put it in this way. The fact that demobilisation has taken place not by units, as my noble friend knows, but by men who have seemed to come under specific categories, makes it very difficult. Men have been withdrawn not because they belonged to any particular unit, but because they belonged to some industrial category. It is obvious that you have to fill up the broken gaps that are left in the different units.
But the case is even more difficult when you come to demobilisation under the Service system. Then you withdraw from all these units the men who were serving before 1916. Men are drawn from these particular units according to length of service, and therefore in the reconstitution of the Army of Occupation it is absolutely essential to have this power of transfer. It would be wholly uneconomical if you did not have it. If you did not have it, you would have certain units with perhaps only thirty or forty men. That would be an impossible way of conducting your military business.
It is even worse than that, because some arms of the service are so depleted that they would not have a sufficient estab-

281
lishment to carry on the work for the rest of the Army. Therefore we must transfer very often men from the Infantry to the Army Service Corps or the Medical Corps in order to produce some balance between the different arms. On the general principle, therefore, I am afraid the Government are averse to the suggestion of my noble friend, because it would involve very great difficulties in the reorganisation of the Army. I suppose that it is no good my saying that the Army Council do no desire to do this further than is necessary, because I should then be told by my noble friend Lord Salisbury that this is a statement which can be altered the next day and is of very little value. Therefore I abstain from making it, though it is actually the fact.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am in great sympathy with the object that my noble friend opposite has in view. I can bear witness to the feeling that there is in regard to these transfers. I recall at this moment one case of the transfer of 300 or more men from a county regiment with which I had some connection to an Irish battalion. That caused an immense amount of feeling not only amongst the men transferred. Nevertheless, I cannot close my eyes to the fact that there is a very great danger in tying the hands of the military authorities too tightly. On the particular occasion to which I have referred I expostulated with the late Lord Kitchener, and I remember his argument very well. He said, "I entirely sympathise with you, but I have to beat the Germans, and that must come before everything else." That is an argument difficult to resist. I myself should be inclined to be content with an assurance which I am sure the noble Viscount will give, that this power of transfer will be exercised as fairly as possible, and only when the urgent necessity of the case justifies it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am quite prepared to give that assurance.
EARL STANHOPE: I suggest that the noble Viscount might go a little further. I fully appreciate what he has said as to the difficulty in the reorganisation of the Rhine Army, and the Armies elsewhere. But I suggest that we should have some definite limit in regard to how long these transfers should go on. After all, de-
282
mobilisation on a general scale will shortly come to an end, and we should then be able to reorganise our Army on a proper Territorial or county basis, whichever you prefer to describe it. Then these transfers should cease.
The difficulty has been throughout the whole war that once the Army Transfer Act came into operation it has been the first thing that was used and not the last. I have in mind a case at this moment in which a brigade had very serious casualties and a very large draft of men was sent up to it. There were four battalions in the brigade, and it happened that the reinforcements consisted mostly of four regiments, and they were told they should go so many to this regiment and so many to that. What actually happened was this. I do not remember the name of the regiments, but it worked out something like this: 200 men say of the Gordon Highlanders were sent up to join a battalion of the Suffolk Regiment, and 200 men of the Suffolk Regiment were sent up to join a battalion of the Gordon Highlanders. The Brigadier, being a very strong supporter of the regimental system of esprit de corps, quite rightly kept the men in their own regiments. The Gordon Highlanders went to the Gordon Highlanders, and the Suffolk men went to the Suffolks. But that is what was happening over and over again. I suggest that any esprit de corps under these conditions is really almost impossible.
If you go to a man in hospital or any-where else and ask him what regiment he belongs to he will say, "I belong to so-and-so." But you say, "It is not the badge of that regiment you are wearing." "Oh," he will say, "I was transferred somewhere else." But he will al ways claim to belong to the regiment to which he was first attached. That is a curious coincidence, and it is one which I cannot explain. Men were not long at their depots yet they got there enough esprit de corps to make them feel that they had a sort of connection with the regiment to which they were first attached, and that connection was one which they personally retained throughout the whole war. In many ways I am not very strong about this Amendment. Like the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, I am a supporter of compulsory service. This deals with voluntary enlistment, and I am quite sure that if you do not stop these transfers at an early date you can whistle for your volunteers, because they simply

283
will not come. I suggest to the noble Viscount opposite that perhaps at a later stage of the Bill, even if he cannot accept this and the next Amendment, he should accept some Amendment laying down a definite date at which transfer from one corps to another should come to an end.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think, after what has been said, that probably enough has been put before your Lordships to impress the Government with the very strong feeling which exists in the House against these transfers. All of us who have served at all know how very unpopular they are. The Government, I know, are fully alive to the fact that we shall have to rely very shortly no longer upon a compulsory system but upon a voluntary system. The success of that voluntary system largely turns upon the attitude which the military authorities take during these last few months. If the military authorities show themselves sympathetic to the susceptibilities of the soldiers and the Territorials then they may get their volunteers, but, if an impression gets abroad that they are likely to treat them without regard to their feelings, then they will not get them, or not so many of them. Therefore, it is very important in the interests of the country that a sympathetic attitude should be adopted, and these transfers are profoundly unpopular.
I agree with the noble Viscount opposite that it would make it difficult for the Government at the present moment to prevent any sort of adjustment which he suggested might be necessary. What he said about the difficulties of demobilisation seems to me quite true. And therefore I am glad to think that my noble friend is not going to press the Amendment for the moment, but it would be a good thing before the Bill passes into law to tell us whether they think that these transfers will come to an end as soon as demobilisation is over, and whether they can assure the country that there will not be any more transfers and that they will go back to the old system under which a man enlists in a particular corps and remains in that corps. If some such assurance could be given before your Lordships part with the Bill I think it would probably do some good.
VISCOUNT PEEL: There is no doubt that the Army Council thoroughly appre
284
ciates the unpopularity of transfers. But, as my noble friend Lord Stanhope knows, it is rather difficult to fix a specific date. Demobilisation goes on, and these regiments are telescoped together and reformed, and I suggest to him that it might be rather unwise to tie the hands of the Army authorities by giving them a fixed date after which no more transfers could be made. It might militate against the redistribution of men. I take the case of the Army Service Corps: there happens at the present moment to be a shortage of men there. It might be rather difficult if there were a specific date.
As regards the desire of the Army Council to preserve the regimental and territorial systems, which are connected together, perhaps I might refer again to a point which I mentioned in my opening statement, that these ten divisions which form the Army of Occupation on the Rhine have been organised after really great effort on the territorial basis, so far at least as the infantry is concerned. The noble Marquess understands the great difficulty of organising the more technical arms on the territorial basis. But that is a valid proof in fact of the great anxiety which the Army Council have to preserve the regimental and territorial system.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to

ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Peel.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, may I ask a question which I put to the noble Viscount when he moved the Second Reading—namely, whether the impressment of carriages also covered the case of motor-cars and motor-tractors. I am quite convinced that we shall require both in the Army in the future, and therefore it is necessary that whenever carriages and horses are referred to motor-cars and tractors should equally be included. I should like to mention to your Lordships that this Army (Annual) Bill contains

285
some extremely important clauses on this occasion
The noble Viscount in moving the Second Reading, I think quite rightly, confined himself to formally moving, because the House was a very empty one, and I am afraid was getting tired. But there are some extremely important clauses in the Bill, and I am quite convinced that perhaps not more than half a dozen of your Lordships have the least idea what they are. For instance, there is a clause which enables officers to be dealt with summarily, and a General Officer is now entitled to punish an officer by forfeiture of seniority or with a severe reprimand. Personally, I think it is a very good alteration, but it is an extremely important one, and I think it is one which the House should know. Then there is another clause which is more open to doubt, dealing with the question of unauthorised decorations. Any one who wears an unauthorised decoration is liable to a fine of £20, or to three months' imprisonment. But the clause also provides that any one who, without lawful authority or excuse, supplies or offers to supply such decorations to an individual who is not authorised to wear them, shall also be punishable. In other words, if an individual goes into a shop and asks for a medal or a chevron or anything of that kind and the shopkeeper sells him that particular thing, and the man is not entitled to wear it, the shopkeeper is liable to be fined or imprisoned. Of course that raises rather a big point, and I am very doubtful whether it is a sound or right one. I think that the penalty should be on the man who wears rather than on the man who sells. Under this Bill it is proposed to place it on both.
I think I have mentioned all that is of great importance, but I suggest to the Government that a Bill like this, which has to become law by April 30, should be introduced into this House at au earlier date than the middle of that same month, particularly when we are going into recess almost immediately afterwards. I think it is unfair on your Lordships. The very last thing we should wish to do would be to hold up any Bill of this character, but it might be necessary to move Amendments to a Bill of this kind, and then we should be in a very awkward predicament indeed.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I daresay my noble friend will not expect me to reply to the question as to when the Bill is to be brought
286
into this House, because he knows that that is rather beyond my scope. There was a question which my noble friend raised. I think on Tuesday, and which he has raised again to-day, the question of the registration of motor cars, and I should like to reply upon that, because I have had some opportunity of looking into it.
Motor cars and tractors are liable to be impressed under Section 115 of the Army Act, and that is the procedure which has taken place during the war. Before the war a list of load-carrying vehicles was kept by the inspectors of subsidised transport appointed in various areas in the United Kingdom. At the present time there is no census of cars or tractors kept by the War Office; but in the event of rapid mobilisation which might require the impressment of a large number of cars and tractors recourse would be had to the Police registers which provide an accurate account of every car and its ownership. In view of the enormously increased supplies of mechanical transport available for the Army it is hardly likely that any extensive impressment or requisitioning would be necessary. I think the very large number of cars and tractors in the possession of the Army was brought before your Lordships' notice when the Cippenham question was debated a short time ago. My noble friend will see that anyhow in the present year there is no real necessity for adopting the very interesting suggestion he has made.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not suppose that my noble friend intends to trouble your Lordships by moving Amendments in Committee as he did not foreshadow such a course; therefore it would have been easier if the noble Viscount had replied on the other substantial points made by the noble Earl. Lord Stanhope made two other points. The first was as regards summary jurisdiction in the case of officers. I myself entirely approve of that change in the law. It appears to be an appropriate one. As a matter of fact, something of the kind already exists, and it is really only extending a power used by General Officers now. The other point was with regard to the liability of the seller of ribbons. That is a more difficult point, and perhaps the noble Viscount, by leave of the House, will tell us why the seller is made liable. The sooner, of course, the wearer of a ribbon to

287
which he is not entitled is punished the better.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The reason I did not reply to the points of my noble friend was that I understood him to express his full approbation with regard to them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Viscount misunderstood my noble friend with regard to the seller of ribbons.
VISCOUNT PEEL: The necessity for that is the outcome of the curious situation that has now arisen. One of the duties cast upon the Army Council is that of deciding to whom all these medals clasps and ribbons shall apply; who shall obtain them; who fought in this or that battle; and who came within a certain area of operations at a particular time. That is a task of enormous complexity. I have no figures in my head at the moment because I did not know that this point would arise, but I should be afraid to say the number of factories engaged on the manufacture of the millions of yards of ribbon required for the large Forces concerned. Whether the quantity of ribbon goes once or twice round the earth I should not like to say at the moment. Cases have arisen already where shopkeepers have been selling portions of ribbon which have not yet been authorised by the Army Council. I believe they were soiled bits of ribbon cast aside until the correct article was produced, and the people have declared that they were put there for ornament and not for the purposes of sale. It is obvious that there must be some control of the authorisation of these ribbons. The ribbons are widely spread enough already, and it is suggested that their value is decreased by a large distribution; therefore if the whole of the population is open to buy them from any shop I am afraid the value of the ribbons would be still further watered down. I think the noble Marquess will see that there is some necessity for this provision.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Hear, hear.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Bill reported without amendment.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (SOLDIERS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment.

SUMMER PRICE OF MILK.
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government if any decision has been arrived at as to the price, wholesale and retail, for the sale of milk for the summer months, commencing on 1st May.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Question on the Paper of your Lordships' House for one day last week. At the request of the Ministry of Food I postponed it until to-day, but I was again requested at a late hour yesterday afternoon, to postpone it until next week. In these circumstances I do not propose to press the Question this afternoon but to put it down for next Tuesday.
I would like, however, to enter as strong a protest as I can against the delay occasioned by the Ministry of Food in not announcing milk prices. Such a course upsets all markets and all kinds of trade in milk and milk products, besides the trade in cows and other cattle. I have no doubt that the Ministry of Food will say that they have appointed a Commission, and that, owing to the time that body has taken in getting evidence and coming to a conclusion, they have not been able to decide the prices. That is no excuse at all. The Commission ought to have been appointed two months earlier than it was. We shall also be told no doubt that it is possibly the fault of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture; but as the Ministry of Food are always trying to put the blame on the Board I am sure that argument will carry no weight here, and I trust that the Ministry of Food will really not attempt to use that argument.
I have a very shrewd suspicion that something, about which we do not know, lies behind this. I am very suspicious of the delay in announcing prices, and I think that when your Lordships' House meets again we shall have to try to extract a little more information from the Ministry of Food as to why this delay has taken place.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE): My Lords. I have been asked by the Ministry of Food to answer this Question. The noble Lord has correctly stated that the first postponement of it was due to the fact that a travelling commission on milk had been appointed in January, and that it had not at the time reported. The second postponement is due practically to the same cause. That commission met for the first time, I believe, on January 16. It held twenty meetings in different parts of the country and it sent in its report on April 8. Under the system which the Food Controller adopts the question of fixing the minimum price has to be submitted to a Committee. Their recommendations go to a Consumers' Council, and then I believe as a rule they are referred to an Agricultural Advisory Committee. That takes time, and as the Report was only received on April 8, and as the Minister of Food and his officials have hardly yet had time to make up their minds upon the recommendations made by that Committee, this second postponement is asked for and the Minister of Food desires me to say that he hopes to be able to announce a decision on Tuesday next.
The question is one of very considerable complexity. It involves fixing a maximum price in the first place, it involves a question whether that price should be graded to meet the different periods of the year for which it is effective, and also questions whether there should be differential rates according to the localities, whether if those differential rates are adopted there exists the machinery to make them effective, or whether that machinery can be improvised. There is the still further and in my opinion the most important question of all, whether there should be in addition to a maximum price a parity price fixed for cheese. Therefore it is no easy problem, and I have only to give the official explanation of the delay.

FOREIGN HOPS.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE VISCOUNT HARDINGE rose to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture—
1. How many consignments of foreign hops, and of how many hundredweights each consignment consisted, have been stopped at British ports since the prohibition of the im-
290
portation of foreign hops, and have been put into bond under Government direction. Who were the consignors and who were the consignees of each such consignment. Have any consignments arrived recently, and, if so, to whom they were consigned and have they been landed. If they have been landed, where are they now stored, and subject to what conditions.
2. If any foreign hops have lately been shipped to British ports consigned to any person or persons who were aware of the prohibition of foreign hops being imported. If so, can the contravention of the Proclamation be other than wilful, and therefore liable to seizure; and if so, will these hops be seized.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my reason for addressing the two Questions which stand in my name to the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture is the fact that during the previous debate on hops he, in the opinion of the hop-growers of Kent, evaded the question altogether. With your Lordships' permission I will read the question again. I asked—
"If any foreign hops have recently been shipped to any British port or ports, although the importation of such hops is prohibited; if so, have they been landed, and what has become of them."
The reply of the noble Lord was—
"The prohibition is against the importation of any hops, and that stands."
He then proceeded to describe how the Controller dealt with the brewers and the growers. I trust he will forgive me for saying that that was hardly an answer to my question—a question which is regarded as of infinite importance to the hop industry—for this reason, that they have been led to understand, and I believe rightly, that on the first few days of the prohibition a consignment of hops was seized and put into bond with the undertaking that these hops would not be released except on their going back to their place of origin. Ultimately the hops were released, and landed I believe on these shores, and if he can tell us who bad those hops it would be very good information for the importers in this country.
During the recent debate the noble Lord told us that he considered that the Hop Controller had handled this hop

291
question in a very admirable manner. I can assure the noble Lord that the growers have the greatest confidence in the Hop Controller, and find it difficult, therefore, to understand how it was that he recommended the importation of hops to brewers who held reserves before the acreage of hops had been reconstructed up to that of 1914. If, however, the noble Lord can assure us that that assumption was not justified, but that it is the intention of the Government to grant licences under certain conditions, then I repeat what I said on another occasion—namely, that it will be grossly unfair to the hop-growers of this country, and must inevitably spell disaster to this greatest of all agricultural industries, the hop industry, while on the other hand a distinct victory will have been gained by the foreign growers, more especially those emanating from the Pacific Coast.
Some of your Lordships may ask what are the views and wishes of the brewers on this question. I believe I am right in saying that they are keenly interested in seeing the 1914 hop acreage reinstated. In fact, I have been informed that the Brewers Society passed a resolution insisting that restrictions shall be imposed upon the import of hops till all the English growers have had a fair opportunity of reconstruction. I would like to draw attention to another point which in the recent debate was brought forward and which the hop-growers of Kent regard as a real danger spot disclosed by the noble Lord's speech. It was in answer to my noble friend Lord Harris, who asked who were the brewers who were to be allowed to import hops. The answer was this—
"Only those brewers who are short will be allowed to import; and those brewers who have stocks will be allowed to import provided they do not add to their quantity in reserve or in stock."
I sincerely trust, my Lords, that that decision will not be regarded as final, because as long as there are sufficient hops for producing the quota of beer allowed by the Government I fail to understand why there should be any licence to import hops at all. If, however, brewers have a genuine fear of any shortage, I would suggest this—let the brewers who have ample supplies supply either hops or beer to those who have a shortage. This levelling of stocks would be the only honest policy as between the brewer and the grower. To issue permits for individual requirements would be grossly unfair to the home growers.
Let us look upon this question from another point of view. I would like to ask the noble Lord, if there is really a shortage of hops, Why should we deal with the Americans? Why should not we deal with our own Colonies, such as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia? We have been told during the last General Election that there was to be Imperial Preference. Well, my Lords, if we can produce as much beer as is required within our Empire why go outside our borders? We were told, too, during the last Election, that we were to protect key industries. I fail to understand what key industries are, but it appears to me that if there is one which wants protection it is the key industry—namely, agriculture. In conclusion I trust that the noble Lord will reply to these Questions and thereby relieve a great deal of suspicion which now exists, and I am sure he will be the first to realise that the growers are entitled to some definite assurance.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I should like to supplement what has been said as regards an omission in the previous reply which the noble Lord gave a little time ago to my question as to the permission to brewers to import hops, provided, as I understand, they do not acquire by that process stocks larger than they originally had. Perhaps when the noble Lord replies he will explain to your Lordships whether brewers are in any way limited with regards to the proportion of beer that they may brew. That is to say, may a brewer who has sufficient hops use the whole of his stock of hops, if there is a sufficient demand for his beer? Is he unlimited as to the amount of beer he may put out, if he has a sufficient stock of hops? If so, it seems to me rather unfair to the smaller brewers, who have not got a sufficient stock of hops, that the others should be allowed to import and that the stock of hops should not first of all be distributed where it is wanted in this country. I quite understand the reason why it is necessary to import some hops this year, because, as my noble friend must know, we cannot get back to the 1914 acreage until, I suppose, 1920 or even 1921. They have to be planted this year even if the setts are ready, but I do not understand, I confess, why this large importation (as it may be) of foreign hops should be allowed this year in the case of brewers who have already got large stocks and

293
who may use them up, and who, therefore, will be able to replace thorn with very considerable stocks against future use when English hops might be coming in.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, I am afraid my difficulty lies in the fact that I do not represent the Board of Trade, which is really concerned with the question of importation to which the noble Viscount alluded, and I do not control, as President of the Board of Agriculture, the amount of beer which is allowed in this country; so that, though I answered on the last occasion as President of the Board, I was unable to answer that part of the noble Viscount's Question which asked whether certain imports have been made. If I may be allowed I should like to say that the principle we have adopted is this. Brewers who have not sufficient hops to brew their apportionment of beer between now and next year's crop will be allowed, on proving their shortage, to import sufficient to brew their beer up to that time, and not more. The governing words of my answer to the noble Lord who spoke last are these—
"Only those brewers who are short will be allowed to import."
But there are different kinds of shortness. A man may have a considerable quantity of old hops in stock but he may want to import a sufficient quantity of fresh hops in order to be able to use up a portion of those old hops. That is the meaning of my answer, which I confess, when I read it, was open to misconstruction. The governing words are: "Only those brewers who are short will be allowed to import. "That, I think, ought to reassure the growers in Kent and elsewhere.
Then, if I may pass on to the other point that was raised—and I am answering for the Board of Trade over this particular point—since the importation of hops was prohibited there have been two cases in which foreign hops have reached this country. In the one case, which was the case of a consignment of 200 bales, the consignment to this country was in transit to France, and that consignment has since proceeded on its way to France and it is no longer in this country. The other case is one in which foreign hops were consigned to this country. That consignment consisted of about 821 bales, weighing 70 tons, and came from the United States. That consignment was at once seized. It is held in bond to the Department of Import
294
Restrictions at St. Katharine's docks and cannot be released from bond except with the consent of the Department of Import Restrictions and after consultation with the Hop Controller.
Therefore, though these hops are in this country they are in bond held there to the Department of Import Restrictions, subject, as to removal, to the consent of that Department, and that consent is only given after consultation with the Hop Controller. The second part of the Question refers to the question whether there was a wilful contravention of the Proclamation. Clearly, I think, those who consigned the hops to this country were aware of the prohibition. Therefore, the contravention of the Proclamation could be nothing else but wilful, and the hops are liable to seizure and they have, in fact, been seized. I do not know whether that answer is completely satisfactory to the noble Viscount, but if I can in any way amplify it I shall be very glad to do so.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: I should like to ask the noble Lord if there is any firm to whom these hops have been consigned and if they have received them?
LORD ERNLE: No firm has received them. They have never passed out of the hands of the Import Restrictions Department at St. Katharine's docks.
VISCOUNT HARDINGE: That is quite satisfactory.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE.
The SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to consider proposals for an improvement in the Procedure of the House presented the following Report—
ORDERED TO REPORT,
1. That on Wednesdays, on which day there is no judicial sitting, the House shall sit at 3.45 p.m., when prayers will be read and private business taken; and that public business shall commence at 4 p.m.
2. That the same rule shall apply to all days, and not Wednesdays alone, after the judicial sittings of the House have terminated in the latter part of the session.
3. That the introduction of Peers, and private business, shall, as far as is practicable, be taken on Wednesdays,

295
in order to enable public business to commence as early as possible on the remaining days of the week. That publicity be given in the Orders of the Day to the intention of a Peer to take his seat in the above circumstances, with a view to the general convenience.
4. That on every day other than Wednesday (subject to the condition named in 2) the House shall meet as now at 4.15, but that, in the event of there being no private business, public business shall commence at that hour.
5. That, in the event of a Debate being adjourned until a subsequent day, it is desirable, as a general rule, that the adjournment shall not be moved until 8 p.m.
6. That, in the event of a 'Debate being adjourned over dinner, an interval of 1¼ hours shall be allowed for the purpose.
7. That it shall be in the power of any Peer who asks a question for the purpose of information only, and not with a view to making a speech or to raising a debate, to indicate his intention by prefixing an asterisk to his question when he hands it in to the Clerk at the Table. Such action on his part will not deprive the House of any of its existing privileges, but will be for the general convenience in the arrangement of business.
8. That the House be invited to exercise a stricter vigilance in the enforcement of its own Standing Orders, notably Standing Order No. XXVII., which prohibits any Lord from speaking twice to any question or proposition except the mover of a Motion in reply, unless it be to explain himself in some material point of his former speech (no new matter being introduced), and then only after first obtaining the leave of the House.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL Of DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, the Report of the Select Committee appointed to consider the Procedure of your Lordships' House has been printed and is before your Lordships. I beg to move that it be now considered and adopted.
Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee be now received and adopted.—
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise to move the adjournment of the debate. I do not think it is worth while going on with this. It seems to me to be tinkering with an important subject and not making any real change or doing anything that will be of the slightest good to the House. The first suggestion is that we should meet a quarter of an hour earlier on two clays of the week and a little more on Wednesday. By that arrangement you will save about one and a half hours in the week. It is not worth while doing that. If we want more time, why have we given up the idea of sitting on four days of the week? We used always to sit on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. For the last three or four months Monday sittings have been given up entirely. I do not know the reason. The result is that there is only one day in the week for Notices apart from Bills; and Wednesdays are always taken up long in advance and are often very much crowded.
What, really, is the meaning of this suggestion that a Peer who asks a Question for the purpose of information only, and not with a view of making a speech or raising a debate, is to indicate his intention by prefixing an asterisk to his Question? He need not make a. speech unless he wants to, whether he puts an asterisk or not; and by the reading of the Report, although the Peer who asks the Question places an asterisk beside it, apparently it does not bind and is not intended to bind other Peers, who reserve all their rights to say what they desire to say. I do not want to say anything rude, but I cannot conceive any one putting a Question in this House without reserving his right to make a few words of explanation. If you put a Question you get a Government answer. It is handed in writing to the noble Lord who answers the Question. We have had here to-day two intelligent answers by the President of the Board of Agriculture, but nine times out of ten if we ask a Question we get a written reply and it is impossible to cross-examine the noble Lord who replies. If you do, you get no answer, because the noble Lord who has had the answer handed to him is not aware of the facts of the case.
If we are going to make a change we should make a much larger change. If your Lordships want more time you should sit much earlier, and I am confident that

297
some arrangement could be made for the Court of Appeal to sit elsewhere. If you are going to begin tinkering with these things you will have to go much further. I simply move that the debate be adjourned. I know that the noble Earl is much engaged, but. I think, on a matter of this kind, we ought to have the attendance of the Leader of the House when we are tinkering with our procedure.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I certainly do not want to raise any objection to the proposal of my noble friend to adjourn this debate, if that be the pleasure of the House. There is rather a small attendance to discuss a matter which is of general interest to most of us. I think my noble friend is a little unduly severe in his criticism of the proposals of the Committee. He objects to what he calls "tinkering" with this important subject. These proposals are not, I agree, of first-rate importance, but they are framed with the object of introducing certain appreciable improvements in the procedure of the House. The first clauses are an attempt to save time. I think, under present arrangemtent, a good deal of time is wasted. Something will be gained, even if the total gain of time measured in half hours or quarters of an hour does not amount to a very large total.
Then my noble friend was extraordinarily critical over the proposal, contained I think in the seventh clause, under which it is suggested that members of your Lordships' House should mark with an asterisk Questions with regard to which the Peer who puts the Question only desires information on some particular point. I think that is an improvement. I quite understand that any attempt to curtail the liberties of the House should be resented, but this proposal does not hurt anybody at all. It certainly will not hurt the Peer who desires to put the Question down, because it is left entirely to his option whether he will "star" his Question or not. Will it hurt your Lordships? I do not think it will. It is expressly stipulated that the House is not to be deprived of any of its existing privileges, and if it should be the pleasure of the House, in spite of the fact that the Question has been marked with a "star," to prolong the discussion, there is nothing on earth in this proposal to prevent the discussion being prolonged as long as any
298
member of your Lordships' House desires to prolong it. This proposal is defended as being for general convenience in the arrangement of business. I think it will be to the general convenience. It will be for the convenience of the Minister concerned that he should know whether he is to be asked a simple categorical question, to be replied to by a categorical answer in regard to certain matters of fact, or whether he is expected to take part, as sometimes happens, in an extended debate upon the whole subject of the Question, and perhaps a number of others connected with them well. It will also be for the convenience of the House that when your Lordships see the Notice Paper you should know whether a particular Question is intended to elicit information as to matters of fact, or whether it is the desire of the questioner and his friends to raise a general discussion. Upon the whole I must say these proposals are perfectly justifiable, and they scarcely deserve the extremely severe condemnation which my noble friend showers upon them.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess is quite right in raising no objection to the suggestion of the noble Lord that the debate should be adjourned. It is clear that we ought not to proceed with this matter in the absence of the noble Earl the Lord President. I have no doubt he would have desired to be here and is prevented by some imperative duties elsewhere. In those circumstances I do not think it would be worth my while to say anything of the subject-matter of the proposals. The noble Marquess has stated, and I entirely agree with him, that the strictures of Lord Balfour of Burleigh were somewhat unduly severe. The propositions are, no doubt, small, and. in some cases I doubt whether they would be very effective; but I am sure the noble Earl the Leader of the House will be able to show that in no sense are they damaging to the conduct of debate in your Lordships' House or do they derogate from the privileges of private members. These, after all, are two important principles, and if the noble Earl is able to sustain them I think the proposals may well be accepted.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to intervene except to ask whether, before the discussion is resumed, the noble Earl will have special regard to the proposal for "starred" Questions which should be incapable of debate at all.

299
I happen to approach this subject from a different standpoint from any of my noble friends who have spoken, as I have sat in the House of Commons. I think it would be of the greatest advantage to this House, in regard to time and information, if we could have a certain number of Questions "starred," upon which there would only be the question and the answer. Any noble Lord who desired to develop a debate would have an opportunity on a subsequent occasion of putting down a more general Motion. Many Questions are not asked by noble Lords because they are afraid of creating a discussion which may be inconvenient to the Government. I should be very glad if we could have a free discussion of the practice of this House in that respect.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD): My Lords, I do not desire to develop my views upon the point mentioned by my noble friend as to starred Questions, but I will observe that in paragraph 7 of the Report it is specifically laid down that there shall be no derogation of existing rights of members of the House. Bearing in mind that declaration, which I take it is in accord with the general desire of the House, you have to consider how far it would be possible for a Peer to put down a starred Question and by starring it prevent any other member of your Lordships' House from taking part in any debate, or any reply to a Minister's statement which might be thought desirable. However, I do not desire to develop my views upon that interesting and really very important subject.
I merely rise to say that I readily consent to postpone further discussion on this point, probably until after Easter; at any rate, I will put it down nominally for one day next week, and it can be taken again at a date convenient to your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Curzon desired to hear your Lordships' views and to reply to the debate. He has been here twice, if not three times, from the Foreign Office this afternoon already, and I believe he is on his way here from the Foreign Office again. It so happens that he has had to go to and from the Foreign Office to keep a succession of engagements, and it appears that his last engagement has prevented his getting here ten minutes or a quarter of an hour earlier and hearing your Lordship's observations.
300
On these grounds I agree to the Motion of Lord Balfour and I suggest that the matter be put down again for Tuesday next.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

HOUSING.
LORD ST. LEVAN LORD ST. LEVAN rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government expect any assistance in providing working-class houses from private enterprise.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, yesterday the noble Earl, Lord Northbrook, asked a question in relation to the housing of the working classes in which allusion was made to the part that private enterprise would take in providing such houses. While the large schemes which are at present in contemplation throughout the country must for the most part, necessarily I think, be undertaken by public bodies, who will be assisted financially by public moneys, I think it may be assumed that any assistance towards providing the houses which are so urgently required would be welcomed. In the debate on the Housing Bill in another place last Monday the Minister in charge of the Bill agreed that it was the intention of the Government to encourage private enterprise in this matter. In the same debate it was stated by an hon. Member that public enterprise with regard to providing houses for the working classes was dead, having been killed. There is a great deal of truth in that statement, and it is quite obvious that if private enterprise has been killed it cannot, while it is defunct, furnish any assistance at all in the desired direction.
Therefore I think that it would be most useful if the Government could give some indication of the nature of the encouragement which, according to the Minister's statement, the Government contemplate giving to private enterprise. It must be borne in mind that private enterprise means not only the owners of the land which is to be built upon, but also a large class of persons, such as builders and those concerned in the building trade, who have been up to recent years employed in the industry of providing houses as they were required. I think, therefore, if we could have some indication of the nature of the assistance which the Government intend to give, it would enable private enterprise, represented by those persons and classes of whom I have spoken, to know where

301
they stand, and whether there is any prospect of their being able to resume operations.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON had the following Question on the Paper on the same subject—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether any special facilities for obtaining building materials will be given to individuals desirous of building working-class dwellings at their own expense; and whether such facilities will be equal to those to be afforded to local authorities.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might perhaps be convenient to the noble Lord, as I have a similar Question on the Paper to that of the noble Lord, Lord St. Levan, that I should ask it at the same time. My Question relates rather to the equipment of farms with buildings, and of houses, the number of which have fallen in arrear in consequence of the war and for other reasons. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that private enterprise is not to be discouraged. The Local Government Board circular of November last contemplated that the duties of public authorities as regards building may be reduced by private enterprise. In regard to materials the Local Government Board has issued a circular this year stating that certain articles of building material are to be standardised. Local authorities are to be furnished with their description, and there is to be a production of doors, window frames, and bricks suited to the needs of localities, and in fact the insurance of adequate supplies of bricks.
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that there are hopes for private enterprise from this store; and in saying that may I be allowed to add that I do not think there would be much difficulty to Government Departments in dealing with applications from private individuals for these materials. My own County Council, and I believe other County Councils, have been engaged in coordinating the needs of District Councils with regard to building materials so as to bring the needs of the whole county in so to speak one schedule. It will not be difficult for private individuals who require materials for this purpose to put their needs in with those of the District Council, and though I can hardly hope that the noble Lord will be able to consider such a sug-
302
gestion it may be that he might be able to convey it to the Department, and if they are, as they have said, in favour of private enterprise, they may be able to give the suggestion consideration when they come to deal with the matter.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord who spoke first that the Government would welcome any assistance of the kind that he suggested, but in what has been called the abnormal period after the war such an effort would be more of the nature of a philanthropic effort than one that could be made a commercial proposition owing to the very high prices that prevail at the present moment. Every Committee which has considered the housing of the working classes after the war has come to the conclusion that private enterprise cannot be relied upon, except to a very limited extent, in the period immediately after the war.
The noble Marquess opposite will remember that he was Chairman of a Committee which considered this subject, and I find in the Report of that Committee this sentence—
"A direct subsidy from the State to the private builder appears impossible; such a subsidy would be regarded as a dole to the speculative builder or the ground landlord and as an encouragement to one only out of many equally important industries. It could, in any case, only be given if coupled with restrictions as to rent and selling price, which, in the case of the speculative builder at least, would defeat its object."
The cost of building at the present time is admitted on all hands to be abnormally high. It is further anticipated by those who have made a study of the subject that present prices will fall, not indeed to the level of pre-war prices, but substantially below the present prices. In these circumstances private enterprise would naturally wait till prices have fallen, but the need for houses is such that we cannot afford to wait; therefore His Majesty's Government are looking to the local authorities and public utility societies to build in the present emergency.
Having said that in regard to the discouragement which was feared by both noble Lords I should like to say this. At the same time the Government hope that private enterprise, which in the past has been responsible for some 95 per cent. of working-class houses, will re-enter the field when prices have reached the post-war normal level—I think that was suggested

303
to be seven years—and it will be their policy to secure that such rents are paid for the houses built, during the abnormal period, as will make a return to economic conditions in the building trade possible at the end of that period. This is a policy which has been strongly advocated by all the Committees which have considered this problem. I think I may include in that the Royal Commission on Scottish Housing and also what is known as the Hunter Report.
In the meantime the fact that private enterprise cannot be relied upon for any large contribution does not mean that private building firms will have no share in the work. On the contrary, the whole forces of the building industry must be mobilised if the problem is to be adequately dealt with, and, while circumstances may restrict the operations of private firms as speculative builders, their assistance will certainly be needed as contractors to the local authorities, and every encouragement will be given to them to come in in that capacity. The following extract on the subject by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill, may be quoted in this connection—
"I believe there has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding with regard to private building. We do not contemplate that all the 1,800 local authorities will set up a staff of builders, carpenters, architects, and surveyors. We shall ask the local authorities to use the present builders. We want to use all the present builders and their staff. We do not want them to come in as speculative builders, but as contractors. We want to use every builder we can."
Then in regard to the Question of my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton, I have to say that the primary object of the Government's policy in placing orders for bricks and other building materials has been to stimulate production and to provide employment. But the impression which appears to obtain in some quarters, that the Government have requisitioned building materials to such an extent as to render it impossible for private orders to be placed, is entirely incorrect. It is regrettable that this impression should still prevail in spite of official statements to the contrary which have been made from time to time. In an answer given by the President of the Local Government Board to a question in the House of Commons on February 18 last, it was definitely stated that the intention of the Government was that a proportion of the output of the brick
304
fields should be available to supply the demands of the building industry for works outside the Government housing programme, and, further, that until the materials are required for the Government housing programme they should be available to meet the demands of the ordinary building industry.
In an official statement issued in March it was made clear that the Government were anxious not only to do nothing to hamper the building industry, but to encourage it as much as possible. The orders which have been placed by the Government with brickmakers throughout the kingdom do not by any means exhaust the total capacities of the yards. In a good many cases the Government have, it is true, bought the total output of the yards, but this has been clone to keep the makers in funds and not to earmark the bricks for the housing schemes. Permission is given freely to the makers enabling them to dispose of Government stocks for all purposes. What applies to bricks applies also to other building material. It is hoped that the effect of the impetus given to the various industries by Government action will be that material which they could not otherwise have obtained will become available. If any other noble Lord interested in this question who is desirous of building cottages at his own expense and has difficulty in getting materials will be good enough to inform me, I will do my utmost to see that his efforts are forwarded.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: Further than that, if any noble Lord, being an intending buyer of material, finds that on application he has been refused sale, will let me know, the matter shall be fully investigated.
As Lord Monk Bretton mentioned bricks and other material which are used for building purposes, such as window frames and so on, perhaps it would interest him to know what the Government have done towards stimulating production in the building trade. Measures are being taken to provide 3,000,000,000 bricks this year, which should include a fair margin for ordinary building purposes. Measures are also being taken, by improving methods of production, to increase the output to 5,000,000,000 next year. Such articles as baths, coppers, sanitary ware, ranges,

305
and so on, are being standardised, so that they may be obtained from the manufacturers at the lowest possible prices. Private builders will get the benefit of the reduction of prices which standardisation should secure.
Before I read that short summary I endeavoured to give a reply to the two questions of my noble friends, but it is quite possible that I may have fallen short in one or two points, because the noble Lord opposite rather developed his Question beyond the actual matter on the Paper. If I have been a little obscure owing to only getting the Question very late this afternoon and he will be good enough to communicate with me, I shall be very glad to put myself at his disposal.
LORD ST. LEVAN: I am much obliged to my noble friend. My Question was in the nature of what may hereafter be termed an Asterisk Question; I wanted to get information from him. As a matter of fact I was not thinking so much of rural housing as of the development of land in the neighbourhood of towns. I understand that in the opinion of the Government the conditions will be such that there will not be an opportunity for private enterprise to take part in development in that direction for some seven years, but that after that time they hope that conditions will become more or less normal. I am much obliged to my noble friend. I think the information he has given will go a long way towards clearing the air and making all concerned aware of the actual position of affairs.

LOCAL ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.
Amendment reported (according to Order).

A MONDAY SITTING.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving the adjournment of the House I suggest that your Lordships should meet on Monday next, and I beg to give notice that upon that day the Lord President will put down a Motion to suspend Standing Order No. XXXIX in respect of the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Bill.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for judicial business, until Monday next.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[From Minutes of April 9.]

WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION.
Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of West Hartlepool under their Corporate Seal praying for leave to bring in a Bill to empower the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of West Hartlepool to construct tramroads, a tramway and street works, and to provide and work omnibuses within and beyond the borough, and for other purposes; together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto; read, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty minutes after seven o'clock