Sitting of 25 November 1919

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

    AUSTRIAN PRISONERS IN SIBERIA.
    l. Lieut-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there were still about 200,000 Austrian prisoners in Siberia; if their camps had been visited by British representatives; whether Admiral Koltchak was taking any steps to repatriate these men; and whether every facility would be given him to do this by the Allies?
    Sir HAMAR GREENWOOD (Additional Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): The answer to the first part of the question is that there are about 140,000 Austrian prisoners in Siberia at the present time. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of the camps having been visited by British representatives. The answer to the third and fourth parts of the question is in the negative, but the Supreme Economic Council are dealing with the matter, and steps are being taken to repatriate enemy prisoners of war in Siberia, as soon as the Allied forces have been evacuated.
    Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether British representatives have been instructed to visit these camps, and whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware of the very grave anxiety among the relatives of these prisoners as to the great death-rate reported in these camps?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: A detailed question like that must be put down.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible to do something to stop these people dying at the rate at which they are dying now? Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman seen the official account of
    1594
    thousands of people dying of starvation in these camps, and the suggestion that they should be removed to Vladivostok?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: The last part of my answer covered the ground so far as the Supreme Council are connected with the matter.

    GENERAL YUDENITCH.
    Mr. SWANasked the Under-Secre tary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he had any official information showing that General Yudenitch had handed over the command of his forces to the Esthonian, General Laidoner; and, if so, whether it had been done under pressure of the Allied Governments in order to save General Yudenitch's forces from Intern ment by the Esthonians?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked to reply. According to the latest information, it appears that the Esthonian, General Tonnison, has taken command of the Russian North-West Army. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are these people being disarmed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I must have notice of that.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War whether any British subjects suffered casualties in the recent fighting between General Yudenitch and the Soviet Army; and, if so, what were these casualties?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: So far as can be as certained no British subjects have suffered casualties in the recent fighting between General Yudenitch and the Bolsheviks.

    ALLEGED BOLSHEVIST MURDERS.
    Mr. LYLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government had any information to the effect that the Bolshevists, having discovered the names of the officers who went over to Yudenitch, were murdering or had murdered the wives of 500 of these officers?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: We have no in formation to that effect.

    CONFERENCE OF ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister which States

    1595
    and which de facto Governments will be invited to attend the proposed Inter national Conference on the Russian situation; who will be the British representatives at the Conference; and where and when it is proposed to hold the Conference?
    Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): As was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Thursday last, this is to be a Conference of the Allied and Associated Powers, but I cannot make any further statement on the subject at present.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask for an answer to the second part of the question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The representatives will be from among those nations who were represented at the Peace Conference.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: As regards the third part of the question, has it been decided yet where this Conference is to be held, and when?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; neither place nor date has been definitely settled.
    Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say definitely that it has not been decided by the British Government to invite two representatives of the Soviet Government to attend?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am ready to state it. It has been stated very often already.

  EGYPT.

    ALLEGED OUTRAGES.
    Mr. SWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was aware that affidavits presented to the Peace Conference at Paris by the Egyptian delegation, alleging outrages upon the Egyptian people, had been circulated throughout America; whether his attention had been called to an interview with Mr. Kyriakos Mikhail, formerly Coptic representative in this country, appearing in the "Labour Leader" of 13th November, 1919, in which quotations from the American Press were given stating, among other things, that on Sunday, 30th March, 1919, at the village of Chobak, soldiers had buried alive to
    1596
    their waists the following five persons and then shot them: Sheikh Abdel Ghani Ibrahim Tolba; his brother, Abdel Return Ibrahim Tolba; his son, Said Abdel Ghani Tolba; and two others, Khafgi Marzouk and Abdel Samad el Okbi; and whether he would cause an immediate investigation to be made into this assertion as well as the similar specific allegations which have been reproduced in the "Egyptian Circular," edited by Mr. Mikhail, of 15th November, 1919?
    Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am aware that allegations of outrages committed by British troops have been circulated by the Egyptian Nationalists both in America and in this country. These allegations have already been the subject of thorough investigation in Egypt, and have received the personal attention of the Commander-in-Chief. In no case do the facts correspond with those set forth in such publications as the "Egyptian Circular."

    BELGIAN TRAWLERS, MILFORD HAVEN.
    Sir EVAN JONESasked the Under secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the fact that on the 19th instant two Belgian trawlers that were at Milford Haven during the War came to that port to land their cargoes; that the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union officials there refused to allow them to land, stating that the fishermen, who were all members of their union, would strike: that after a consultation between trawler owners, fish merchants, and the Labourers' Union (the latter having agreed to support the National Sailors'and Firomoivs Union), it was agreed to allow the two ships to land As well as thirteen other ships that were due to arrive at the port, but that after landing they would only be supplied with ice and coal, and would not again be allowed to land fish at that port; that a committee had been appointed to confer on the matter with a view to the same action being taken at all ports; and, as international considerations were involved, what action His Majesty's Government proposed to take in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY Of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have been asked to reply to this question. Inquiries are being made into the matter. Meanwhile, I understand

    1597
    that the executive of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union are in communication with their local representatives on the subject.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    CRIMEAN AND MUTINY VETERANS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether any arrangements would now be made to give help to the old Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans, now all over eighty years of age, some of them ninety years of age, by granting them an increase to their pension of Is. 1d. a day?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): All such veterans, unless disqualified by means, are entitled to old age pension and to the benefit of the special campaign pensions granted under Article 1,170 of the Pay Warrant. I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find that the very least income so provided is 12s. 9d. a week. As I have stated on former occasions, it has been decided not to alter the scale of campaign pensions.

    MEN UNDER TREATMENT (FARES).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the Pensions Minister it' he is now in a position to announce that half-fare vouchers will be issued to discharged men undergoing treatment to enable them to return home on leave?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir J. Craig): This matter is still under consideration.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (PARENTS' PENSION).
    Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEYasked the Pensions Minister if he will have inquiry made into the claim of Mrs. Williams, of 44, Kingsway, Waterloo, Liverpool, the widowed mother of the late Flight-Cadet H. W. Williams, Royal Air Force, to parent's pension; whether this man was killed in August, 1918, and that an application for parents' pension was made by the local committee in December of last year; and if he will have inquiry made into the reason for this delay, and make strong representations to the proper quarters?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I have to express great regret that there has been such delay in this case. It is being expedited. Difficulty has been experienced in obtaining the necessary evidence. An interim award of 5s. a week has now been made, with arrears from the date of cessation of separation allowance, and this award will be increased when the inquiry is completed, if the circumstances are found to justify it.
    Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: Was this due to any delay on the part of the Air Ministry?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I do not think any good purpose would be served by trying to apportion the blame. I have expressed great regret that there has been delay, and I am trying to get it settled as soon as possible.

    PENSION SUB-COMMITTEES (LONDON AREA).
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Pensions Minister if he will take steps to see that proper waiting-room accommodation is provided for the men attending the offices of the local pensions sub-committee, Lambeth (B), situated at 121, Kennington Road; if he is aware that the Office of Works has recently provided a tent to be used as a waiting-room without any heating whatever; and whether, considering that a number of the applicants are suffering from wounds or other illness, he can take immediate action to secure proper heating?
    Sir J. CRAIG: The provision of accommodation for the sub-committees in the London area has been undertaken by His Majesty's Office of Works. The tent in the garden of 121, Kennington Road is provided by that Department purely as a temporary measure to supplement the present accommodation of the sub-committee Additional premises have already been secured and are in course of preparation. Two stoves have now been provided to warm the tent.

    DISABILITY PENSIONS (FORFEITURE).
    Colonel ASHLEYasked the prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that disability pensions are similar in nature to payments made under the Workmen's Compensation Act; the Government proposes to take stops to free such pensions

    1599
    from liability to forfeiture on the recipient being convicted of a serious offence?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I have been asked to reply to this question. Under the For feiture for Felony Act, 1870, a disability pension ceases to be payable in cases of treason or felony if the pensioner is sentenced to penal servitude or to imprisonment for a period exceeding twelve months or with hard labour An Amendment of the Act is not contemplated. I would, however, remind my hon. and gallant Friend that by the joint effect of the Pensions and Yeomanry Pay Act, 1884, and Article 1214 of the Pay Warrant of 1914, a soldier's disability pension, although forfeited under the Act of 1870, may be subsequently restored.
    Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask why the civilian is favoured as compared with the ex-Service man, in view of the fact that a civilian, if he is convicted of a felony, continues to receive payment under the Work men's Compensation Act, spread over a period, whereas a soldier, if he is convicted of a felony, loses his disability pension under law, and it is only a matter of favour if he gets it?
    Sir J. CRAIG: As a matter of fact, this is a very old Regulation under the Act of 1870; it is not a new draft in connection with the Royal Warrants. I cannot under stand how there is any differentiation between the Workmen's Compensation Act and our practice, but on the other hand we are granting a renewal of the pension when we are satisfied that the pensioner has shown himself to be of good behaviour.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is he aware that the ex-Service man thinks it a great grievance that there should be this differentiation?
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he will not represent to the Government that a man, having been sentenced, has paid the penalty of his crime, and that to forfeit his pension, which is not part of his sentence, is a grave act of injustice?
    Sir J. CRAIG: I am quite prepared to mention the matter to my right hon. Friend. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will understand that this raises a matter of policy. My right hon. Friend is laid up unfortunately, at the moment but as soon as he returns to duty I will bring this matter before him, to see if something can be done.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    SCOTS GREYS (FOREIGN SERVICE).
    Captain BROWNasked the Secretary of State for War why the Scots Greys had been excused foreign service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Owing to a reduction in the number of British Cavalry regiments required for the garrison of India, a reduction which may be of a temporary nature only, it was necessary to cancel the orders for the dispatch of the Royal Scots Greys to India. I may say that, apart from ordinary considerations governing the movement of Cavalry regiments, I have to attach certain weight to the fact that the Scots Greys are the only Scots Cavalry regiment which in any way resembles a regiment of guards Cavalry in Scotland.
    Captain BROWN: Has the position of the Scots Greys been altered on the roster for foreign service?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It has not been altered yet. It is under consideration to treat this regiment as a home service regiment in the same way as the Household Cavalry are treated.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Are they to be constantly stationed at Edinburgh?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot say that. I think it would be a disadvantage if they were permanently in one situation, but it is obvious that their grey horses would disappear if they went on foreign service, and one of the most historic regiments of the whole of the British Army would lose its essential characteristic.
    Captain BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Cavalry regiment which does nothing but stay at home costs a great deal of money? Would it not be as well to disband the regiment?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that would be very foolish. A certain amount of Cavalry have to remain in this country, and it might be possible so to arrange the disposition of the various regiments as to give satisfaction to national sentiment

    MACHINE GUN CORPS.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the opinion of the militay advisers of all the Allied Governments, the value attaching to the use of heavy machine guns in modern war

    1601
    had been amply established; whether the specialist training and recruitment of the Machine Gun Corps when first formed was welcomed by all British commanders in the field; whether, at the conclusion of hostilities, the discipline, morale, and efficiency of the Machine Gun Corps stood very high; whether the opinion of the General Staff Committee that had this matter under consideration was in favour of its definite retention under peace conditions; whether it had now been decided that the Machine Gun Corps would cease to exist early next year; and whether, if this decision had been come to, steps would be taken to consider whether the Machine Gun Corps would become incorporated in two British Infantry regiments specially qualified by history and recruiting conditions to assume this new role?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not in a position to speak as regards our Allies, but, so far as the British Army is concerned, I may say that for a war of the magnitude of the last one the value of heavy machine guns was amply established. The answers to the second and third parts of the question are also in the affirmative. With regard to the remainder of the question, no decision has yet been reached, and my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that there is no danger of the value of the machine gun being lost sight of in the reorganisation now being considered. All the points he raises have already been discussed, and will be fully considered before a final decision is taken.
    Major GLYN: May it be assumed that no decision will be taken until a joint General Staff has been formed capable of forming an opinion as to the best means of practising economy?
    Mr. CHURCHUL: If I were to take up the position that no decision about the future organisation of the Army is to be taken until some organisation of a joint General Staff is completed, the Army Council not yet having approved of its being called into being, it would obviously preclude any advance being made towards settling the Estimates of next year.
    Major GLYN: Will the opinion of the General Staff be carried out by the Army Council before this important branch of the Service, the Machine Gun Corps, is abolished?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter must be settled by the Army Council, the supreme
    1602
    authority dealing with the Army. They will have before them the advice of the joint General Staff and any other military opinions they wish. It will be settled on their initiative with my approval

    COMPULSORY TRANSFERS.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether men of the l/5th Battalion Suffolk Regiment had recently been transferred to the Regular New Army; whether the authority for the transfer stated that they were compulsorily transferred and that the transfers were permanent; what was the meaning of compulsory permanent transfers to the Regular New Army; and whether, in order to re move tile misunderstanding that had arisen in this case, he would issue instructions to make it clear that no man who had not volunteered for the Regular Now Army could be kept in the Army after the lapse of the Naval, Military, and Air Force Service Act?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any such transfers. If the hon. and gallant Member has a particular case in mind and will furnish particulars, I shall be happy to have further inquiries made.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I sent him particulars over a month ago, giving him the names of live men who have been compulsorily transferred, and that this question is put down as a result?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In that event I must apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend. Perhaps he will discuss it with me after wards. I was not connecting this particular answer with the question he now puts. I will have the matter looked up.

    MEN UNDER TWENTY.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether a statement was made on behalf of the War Office that no men under twenty years of age should be sent further than the Rhine; and had he nevertheless been sending boys of eighteen and nineteen to Memel and Dantzig?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No undertaking of the nature suggested by my hon. Friend has been given. As I stated on Wednesday last, in reply to the hon. and gailant Member for Bury St. Edmunds, no moves of units have yet actually taken place.

    WARWICKSHIRE REGIMENT (PRIVATE H. W. DAVIS).
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War where Private H. W. Davis, No. 56028, 52nd Battalion, Royal Warwickshire Regiment, British Army of the Rhine, a boy of nineteen, now was?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that Private Davis was admitted to No. 36 Casualty Clearing Station, Cologne, on the 4th November. The battalion is among the troops to be moved to Upper Silesia, but Private Davis will not accompany the battalion unless he is considered medically fit by the competent medical authority.

    QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIARY CORPS.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he was aware that many members of the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps, who had served in France for considerable periods were being paid the sum of £2 to cover the whole of their expenses during the period of twenty-eight days' demobilisation furlough; whether such a payment was adequate in the special circumstances of to day; whether he would cause this matter to be reviewed?
    (2) whether he was aware that the women in the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps alleged that great delay occurred in the payment of the balance of pay due on demobilisation, and that as much as three months' delay was occur ring; and whether he would take immediate steps to remove such a ground for complaint?
    Mr. FORSTER: The £2 to which the hon. Member refers is of course only an advance, and it has been customary for members to receive payments in excess of their normal pay prior to their departure from overseas, which has the effect of reducing the amounts due to them on final discharge. I do not think there is ground for the suggestion that delay in the payment of balances of pay due on demobilisation is general, but if the hon. Member has information of any particular cases to the contrary, and would let me have details, I shall be glad to have them investigated.
    Mr. F. ROBERTSasked the Secretary of State for War what are the reasons which prompted the authorities to differentiate between the men and women in the matter of the bonus for retention of machinery of demobilisation for the Army
    1604
    of Occupation; and whether, in view of the important work on which the women telegraphists attached to the Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps are engaged, he will consider the payment of a bonus of 10s. 6d. weekly?
    Mr. FORSTER: The great majority of the men concerned were soldiers compulsorily retained with the Colours while other soldiers doing similar duties were released. There was nothing in any way similar to this in the case of any of the women, and I am afraid I can hold out no hope of any further bonus for them.

    SIR DERRICK JULIUS WERNHBR.
    Mr. BOTTOM LEYasked the Secretary of State for war 0n what grounds the conviction of Captain Sir Derrick Julius Wernher upon a charge of conspiracy to allow goods to be carried on Government lorries to be sold for the benefit of himself and a civilian was quashed?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The accused was found guilty on both of two charges which were in substance alternative, one of which alleged that he was interested in the profits of the sale of the goods which were carried, while the other contained no such allegation. The Court acquitted the accused on another charge which alleged that he had actually received certain sums in respect of the carriage of these goods. As apart from the alleged receipt of these sums there was no evidence that the accused was interested in the profits of the sale of the goods, it was considered that the conviction on that charge alone should be allowed to stand which did not allege such an interest. Before the conviction on the one charge was quashed the Attorney-General as well as the Judge Advocate-General were consulted, who both concurred in advising to the above effect.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I will call attention to this matter on a future occasion.

    TERRITORIAL FORCK (REGULAR COMMISSIONS).
    Lieut.-Colonel CAMPIONasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at in regard to the proposal to grant Regular commissions to selected officers of the Territorial Force and the New Army who have served overseas; and, if so, how many commissions will be granted?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The policy of the Army Council in this matter was very fully explained in reply to questions asked by the hon. and gallant Members for Abingdon and Dulwich on the 23rd October and 11th November respectively. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to those replies.

    OFFICERS (RETIRED PAY).
    Mr. BENNETTasked the Secretary of State for War if the Army Order No. 324 of 13th September, 1919, retired pay of officers, is to apply to those officers who, owing to the age limit laid down in Article 495, Royal Warrant, namely, sixty-five years, or to feeble health, were prevented from serving in the War; and if, considering that there are many officers on retired pay who are in considerable want owing to the cost of living, the Order in question can be made to apply to all officers on retired pay?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. I am afraid ray hon. Friend's suggestion cannot be adopted.

    MILITARY MISSIONS (COST).
    Mr. SWANasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the approximte cost per month of the British Military Missions in Russia, Siberia, Finland, Poland, and the Baltic States?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The approximate cost per month of these Military Missions at the present time is as follows:

    South Russia (including Royal Air Force)

    £44,000

    Siberia

    13,000

    Poland

    1,000

    Baltic States (including Finland)

    3,800

    £61,800

    LANDS BRANCH (SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. LYLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any adequate reason why officers and civilians of the lands branch should not participate in the increased rates of subsistence allowances now given to other officers; and whether the nature of the work involves more travelling than falls to the lot of ordinary officers?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question is under consideration.

    MEMEL, DANTZIG AND SILESIA.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War what is the estimated period for which the British troops will be required at Memel, Dantzig, and Silesia, respectively; whether the conscript troops will be relieved by volunteers, and, if so, when; whether it is intended to relieve the young soldiers under the ages of nineteen and twenty, respectively; and whether other Allied troops are being sent on this service or only British troops?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not possible to give with any accuracy the period for which the troops will be needed as it depends on the time required to organise local forces for the maintenance of order in Dantzig and Memel, and to settle the question of government after the declaration of the Plebiscite in the case of Silesia. It has, I understand, been suggested at the Supreme Council in Paris that twelve months will suffice for Memel and Dantzig and anything from eight to twenty months for Silesia. All conscript troops will be relieved by volunteers in sufficient time to admit of their dispatch homo for release in accordance with the programme laid down in Army Order 365 of October last. Young soldiers under the ages of nineteen and twenty who are conscript troops are included among those who will be relieved by volunteers. As I have already stated, Allied troops are being sent as well as British.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the retirement of the German delegates from Paris will postpone the arrival at and the sending of British troops to these places if they have not already gone?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: How should I know?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have they left for Memel and Dantzig?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have already stated that no troops have actually started.

    GRATUITIES (OFFICER-INTERPRETERS).
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOAREasked the Secretary of State for War what decision has now been arrived at with reference to the payment of gratuities to officer-interpreters?
    Mr. FORSTER: It has been decided to grant a gratuity to these gentlemen. An Army Order announcing the full conditions is in course of being issued.

    PROMOTION.
    Captain LOSE BYasked the Secretary of State for War if he contemplates in the near future any reform whereby promotion from the ranks of the Army to commissioned rank is facilitated and accelerated?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The matter is receiving careful consideration, and schemes are being prepared. I would, however, remind my hon. and gallant Friend that at the present time there is an excess of Regular officers, so that the number of vacancies to be filled through this channel must, at the outset, be somewhat limited.
    Captain LOSEBY: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to consider a Memorandum prepared by the party of which I am a member, and will he receive a deputation on this subject?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I shall be very glad to receive the Memorandum, and, having studied it, I will inform my hon. Friend whether there will be any immediate advantage in receiving a deputation.
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Secretary of State for War if he contemplates in the near future any material reform in the method of Army promotion, and more particularly of the regimental system of promotion by seniority rather than by merit?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply which was given to a similar question asked by the hon. and gallant Member on the 20th May last, explaining the present system of promotion, which it is not considered advisable to change.
    Major NALL: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that there is a considerable number of officers who have been reported on adversely and sent home from overseas and who are still in the Army blocking promotion?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: There may be some cases, and I certainly consider that they deserve to be reconsidered by the Board of Selection, but at the present time there is great pressure on behalf of officers of most distinguished record in the front line who, owing to not receiving permanent
    1608
    commissions, are being forced, in many cases much against their will, to return to civil life.
    Major NALL: Will they be considered solely on war records, and not on any new records which they have created at home?
    Colonel L. WARD: Is it not the fact that promotion by merit in peace time usually leads in the long run to promotion by influence?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think that could be better discussed on the Vote than by question and answer. I think it will be found in the long run that a system of promotion by seniority, tempered by rejection in individual cases, must form the basis of a Regular Army in times of peace.

    VOLUNTARY AID HOSPITALS (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS' REMUNERATION).
    Mr. WATERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that on 16th June, 1915, a circular letter was issued to all General Officers, Commanding - in - Chief, Home Forces, Reference No. 24/, General No. /3952 (F2), and sent out granting: payment to medical practitioners at Voluntary Aid Detachment hospitals at a certain amount per diem per patient under treatment, and that at the close of this circular it was stated that the authority was not published far general in formation; and whether he will explain why, although payment would be made if asked for, doctors who were rendering service, sometimes at financial loss to themselves, were not to be informed of the provisions of this Order?
    Mr. FORSTER: This question, now more than four years old, has been fully-dealt with in the House some two and a half years ago; but I may say, briefly, that the circular did not grant payment for services generally, but only instructed the local military authorities as to the limits within which they might remunerate doctors who were no longer prepared to tend the sick and wounded in Voluntary Aid Hospitals without payment. I gladly recognise the fact that the majority of members of the medical profession other than those called upon to give whole-time service, did not ask for payment.
    Mr. WATERSON: Arising out of that unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice, with your permission. Sir, that I will draw the attention of the House to this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

    3RD LANCASHIRE FUSILIERS (RELEASE APPLICATION).
    Captain AINSWORTHasked the Secretary of State for War if he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to the early release of Private S. Waywell, No. 68082, 3rd Lancashire Fusiliers, stationed at Marne Barracks, Blackdown, Aldershot, who enlisted on the 10th February, 1919, at the age of seventeen years and four months, and for whose release the parents have applied; whether he is aware that his birth certificate was for warded on request to his commanding officer in April, who, it is stated, promised his release in a few days early in June; and whether he can see his way to ordering the immediate release of this soldier?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of this case, but inquiries are being made and I will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result in due course. I would, however, remind him that the discharge of a soldier who is over seventeen years of age is only authorised as a concession under certain circumstances.

    CIVIL AVIATION.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Government contemplate assisting the industry engaged in civil aviation by any of the suggested methods contained in Section III. of the Air Ministry's Synopsis of Progress of Work in the Department of Civil Aviation (Cmd. 418)?
    Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): Indirect assistance by the provision of key aerodrome and shed accommodation, the collation and issue of information and the provision of communications is being afforded to civil aviation. The question whether any further action is necessary is under consideration.

    NATIONAL DEFENCE.
    Major GLYNasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is still the intention of the Government to set up a joint staff representative of the Navy, Army, and Air Force to consider and advise upon all questions of defence and the organisation, establishment, etc., of
    1610
    the armed forces of the Crown; and whether all such questions will be subject to review by such a staff on its formation?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to a similar question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fareham on the 27th October.

  TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

    RAILWAY WAGONS.
    Sir ARTHUR FELLasked the Secretary of State for War how many railway trucks belonging to this country are still in France; at what rate per week are they being shipped back; if the Rich-borough ferry is being employed to its maximum capacity; and if ships are also employed to transport these trucks which are so urgently needed in this country?
    Mr. FORSTER: There are at present in France nearly 19,000 wagons which were lent to the War Department by British railway companies. Until the railway strike the train ferries were used to their full capacity upon the transport of railway trucks from France, and an average of 520 trucks were carried weekly. Owing to the strike preference was given to motor transport, but preference has now again been given to railway trucks, and 486 were returned last week. I understand that arrangements are being made to in crease the number as far as possible. No other ships art: employed to transport these trucks.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is one of these ferries at Southampton and that it has been six months rotting there and has never been used?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that is a point which is being considered.
    Mr. BILLING: Would the right hon. Gentleman see that the officer who is responsible for leaving that thing there use less for the past six or eight months makes a report and explains why?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will certainly ask for a report.
    Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this ferry at Southampton would carry fifty trucks on one journey?
    Mr. FORSTER: Certainly.
    Commander Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether these ferries come under the War Office or the Admiralty?
    Mr. FORSTER: They have been under the War Office.

    UNITED SERVICES FUND.
    Mr. CAPEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the constitution of the executive committee of the United Services Fund has now been decided, and whether representatives of the three ex-Service men's organisations are to be included?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The constitution of the Committee of this organisation is at present the subject of consideration with a view to the restriction of its responsibilities to care for the interests of the ex-Service officers and other ranks and their dependants, the Army Council and Air Council administering such portions of the fund as may be earmarked for the benefit of the serving soldiers and airmen respectively. This involves withdrawal from the Committee of the members still serving in the Army and Air Force.
    General Lord Byng has worked throughout in close touch with the bodies named by the hon. and gallant Member, which have been from the first represented on the Committee, and will continue to be after the changes now under consideration. The Committee is to be incorporated by Royal Charter which is being drafted and will shortly be made public.
    The Navy has not been represented, as it does not at present belong to the Fund.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does that mean that that portion of the Fund which is devoted to ex-Service men shall not be reviewed in any form on any Estimate of the War Office?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not proposed to put it under the War Office. It is not finally settled how it is to go, but a very strong desire, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, has been expressed by the ex-soldiers to be free from War Office control altogether; and the idea is at present to give this fund over to a body administered under Royal Charter, and to have it answered for in this House, either by someone representing the Prime Minister, or, if he should so decide, some other neutral Department of the State.
    Mr. HOGGE: So we may take it that there will be some method by which this House can, from time to time, either ask questions or control the administration of the Fund?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The maintenance of effective Parliamentary responsibility is indispensable.

    VOLUNTARY SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL REGISTER).
    Mr. J. JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the position in the public service occupied by Sir Basil Thompson; what is the work upon which Sir Basil Thompson is engaged; what is the staff at present employed in the branch of which Sir Basil Thompson is the head; and how many of the persons receiving payments from or through this branch are persons other than full-time employés of the Crown?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Sir Basil Thompson is one of the Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police. His staff consists of 136 police officers of various ranks, and a certain number of temporary officers engaged for the most part in clerical duties. These are all full-time employés. I can give no information about persons who occasionally assist the police by furnishing information.
    Mr. J. JONESasked the Home Secretary whether his Department or any ad ministrative authority under his control, including the police force, is engaged, or has been engaged, in the compilation of a register of persons willing to carry on industries and services voluntarily in the case of a strike; and, if so, under what authority and by what methods is this work being done?
    Mr. SHORTT: The Home Office has taken its share in the arrangements made by the Government some months ago for the purpose of maintaining during a strike the supplies of food and other things essential to life. The police force were not used for this purpose. The authority is the primary duty of the Government to preserve the life of the community by all means in its power. These arrangements are still being maintained so far as possible.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are they going to maintain the coal supplies of the country, in view of a strike, by voluntary service in the mines?
    Mr. SHORTT: I said arrangements are being maintained as far as possible.

    TRADE UNIONISM.
    Mr. SWANasked the Home Secretary whether his Department or any administrative authority under his control, including the police force, is engaged in the collection of information concerning the position of trade unionism in this country or abroad; what is the purpose of collecting such information; and what use is being made, or is intended to be made, of it?
    Mr. SHORTT: The answer to the first question is in the negative, and the other questions, therefore, do not arise.

  ALIENS.

    UNDESIRABLE RUSSIANS.
    Mr. PRESTONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that certain Russians who refused to fight for this country in the War and who left this country during the War have now returned to this country; whether these men have received any permission from the Home Office to return here; whether any of these men have been brought before a magistrate for landing without a permit, and have been fined and allowed to remain here; and whether he will take immediate steps to deport all such persons?
    Mr. SHORTT: I am aware that a few Russians of the kind mentioned in the question have succeeded in evading the rule against their return to this country. The number is small. No Home Office permits have teen given to such persons. Any such person who is discovered is prosecuted, but there is difficulty in regard to deportation due to the lack of shipping facilities.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Will he see that these men are sent back by the ships that bring them here to the port from which they came?
    Mr. SHORTT: That is not always possible; where it is possible it is done.
    Sir J. BUTCHER: Are not the shipping companies which brought them here responsible for taking them back?
    Mr. SHORTT: Possibly, but it is not always possible to get shipping facilities for Russia.

    INTERNED ENEMIES (REPATRIATION).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Home Secretary whether there is any in formation, official or semi-official, in his Department showing that interned enemy aliens during the War procured or facilitated their repatriation or attempted to do so by means of money payments?
    Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir; I have no such information.

    Miss LILIAN SCOTT TROY.
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Homo Secretary whether he can state the enemy aliens with whom Miss Lillian Scott Troy was alleged to be in close association; whether they were at liberty during the period of war or in internment camps; and whether he can state the reason she was permitted to remain at liberty in this country until five months after the Armistice, when she was deported?
    Mr. SHORTT: I regret that I am not prepared to add anything to the answers which I have already given the hon. Member in this case.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell this House why it is that an American citizen who has been described as an undesirable alien has been allowed to remain in the country during the whole period of the War and for five months after the War, and then you make out that she is so undesirable and dangerous that you must deport her?
    Mr. SHORTT: I have already told the House, and the hon. Member, that it was her association with dangerous aliens that necessitated her deportation.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, was not her association with these aliens during the whole period of the War and the five months after the War during which she was allowed to remain in this country only permitted by permits from the Home Office?
    Mr. SHORTT: No.

    AGRICULTURAL ORGANISATION SOCIETY.
    Major BARNESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the use of public funds by the Agricultural Organisation Society promoting a private trading concern, as indicated in No. 3 of the Guides to Smallholders issued by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the methods of that organisation in order to ascertain how far the moneys voted by Parliament are being devoted to the purposes for which they were granted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answers which I gave yesterday both to himself and to the hon. Members for the Hamilton Division of Lanark and the Spenny Moor Division of Durham. The methods of the Agricultural Organisation Society and its expenditure of the moneys granted to it from public funds are kept under close review by the Board. It is not proposed to institute any special inquiry.

    SHOP STEWARDS.
    Mr. ALFRED DAVIESasked the Prime Minister if he will state what was the number of shop stewards who during the War received payment directly or in directly from any Government Department, and what was the total amount of disbursement under this head; how many shop stewards are receiving such payment at the present time; and whether he will give an estimate of the expenditure contemplated during the present financial year upon this head?
    The DEPUTY MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to answer this question. So far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned, neither during the War nor at present have any shop stewards been employed in any capacity other than that of employés of the works to which they are attached.

  IRISH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

    REFUSAL TO TAKE SEATS.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that owing
    1616
    to the refusal of certain Irish Members of Parliament to take their seats a large number of Irish electors are deprived of any opportunity of having their grievances voiced in Parliament, whilst many Irish electors are without Parliamentary representation; and what steps, if any, the Government proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject.
    Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider a suggestion I made some time ago that ho should move for a count of the House, in order that recalcitrant Members may be brought up, in accordance with Parliamentary law, in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot see any prospect of gain either to the nation or the Government by such a process.
    Mr. SWAN: Is it not a fact that these people have voted deliberately for these Members because of the indifference of the Government to put into force the Home Rule Act now on the Statute Book?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think so.

    EX-KAISER (TRIAL).
    Mr. LYLEasked the Prime Minister whether he can now give the House some definite information regarding the extradition of the Kaiser from Holland in order that he may stand his trial; and whether the Allied Council is satisfied that adequate steps are being taken to prevent his escape?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the answers already given on this subject.
    Mr. LYLE: May I have a reply to the last part of my question? In view of the fact that there is great danger of what is everybody's business being nobody's business, is there not considerable risk of the Kaiser adopting a scuttling policy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That has been answered in previous questions. It has not been overlooked.
    Mr. DONALD: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of

    1617
    clothing him in the garb of the Royal Irish Constabulary and sending him to Ireland?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: It would not be the first German who has gone there.

    IMPERIAL WAR EXHIBITION, CRYSTAL PALACE.
    Lieut.-Colonel PINKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether the Government is making itself in any way responsible for the War Exhibition at the Crystal Palace; whether any Government Department is taking part in the preparations for the proposed exhibition; if so, which Department or Departments; whether any public money is being spent directly or indirectly on the exhibition; and, if so, what amount, who authorised such expenditure, and under what Vote will it come before the House?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): It has been arranged to house the exhibits of the Imperial War Museum, which has been formed by the Government during the War as a permanent record of the War, in the Crystal Palace. My Department, according to the usual practice, is responsible for providing the accommodation, and, with Treasury approval, a tenancy agreement was entered into for four years from the 1st April next, at a rent of £25,000 per annum, inclusive of the cost of repairs, heating, lighting, attendance, and police. The exhibits are being arranged by the Museum staff. The expenditure for the current year has been voted under Supplementary Estimates, Class I., Vote 10, and Class IV., Vote 7.

  HOUSING

    IRELAND.
    Major O'NEILLasked the Prime Minister whether the new housing proposals will apply to Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The best method of dealing with the matter in Ireland is now under consideration.
    Major O'NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether an early decision will be announced?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland will be able to make an announcement very shortly.

    LEWIS (DWELLING HOUSES FOR DISTRICT NUHSES).
    Dr. MURRAYasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware of the need for dwelling houses for district nurses in the island of Lewis; and whether the Scottish Board of Health have made any progress in the direction of providing these houses?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I am aware of the need for dwelling houses for district nurses in Lewis, and the Scottish Board of Health are at present in communication with the Lewis District Committee on the subject. The Board are prepared to give assistance where required from the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Fund towards the provision of nurses' houses.
    Dr. MURRAY: What amount of assistance?
    Mr. MUNRO: I must ask for notice of that question. I will tell my hon. Friend that the Board are in communication with the district committee, and have offered to send representatives to Lewis to confer with them upon the subject.
    Dr. MURRAY: They have been doing so for two years.

    DEBT TO UNITED STATES.
    Major HAYWARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the arrangement made with the United States Government with reference to the postponed payment of interest on the debt due to that Government?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): Final arrangements have not yet been arrived at, but the British and United States Governments are engaged in discussion of the details of a plan under which interest on the advances made by the British and United States Governments to the Allied Governments during the War (including advances made by the United States Government to the British Government) would be postponed for a period of three years.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: When the right hon. Gentleman was drawing up the balance-sheet for the normal year, did he take into account the interest payable to the United States?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the White Paper, he will see that the interest pay able on our debt to America, and the interest receivable by us on the Allied debt to us, were excluded from the figures. That was set out in a footnote.

    WHISKY (MAXIMUM PRICE).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the decision of the Government to allow the unrestricted sale of whisky, they intend to abolish the present maximum price or to reduce it?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. Mc-Curdy): I have been asked to reply. It is not considered desirable to alter or abolish the existing maximum prices at present. The removal of restrictions will, however, in due course lead to competition between individual traders, which should result in lower prices. This will, it is expected, in turn render the maintenance of controlled prices unnecessary.
    Mr. BILLING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present whisky being sold is thirty under proof? Can he do anything for that?

    EXCESS PEOFITS DUTY.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether a number of armament companies have not yet paid Excess Profits Tax in respect of the years up to 1918 owing to delay in adjusting accounts; if so, what is the estimated amount so outstanding in respect of these armament companies;
    (2) what is the estimated total amount outstanding of unpaid Excess Profits Tax for the years preceding 1918; whether interest is charged on the Excess Profits Tax which has not been paid promptly owing to the difficulties of adjusting accounts; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisabiblity of charging interest on un paid Excess Profits Tax, from the continued possession of which certain companies derive considerable profit?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The estimated amount of Excess Profits Duty and Munitions Levy in assessment, but unpaid, in respect of accounting periods ending prior to the 1st January, 1918, is £58,000,000. Payment of a considerable portion of this amount is, however, suspended pending the settlement of appeals arid other questions which cannot yet be determined, and it may be anticipated that upon the final adjustment of liabilities the total figure in assessment will be substantially reduced. A separate figure for armament firms is not available. Interest is not chargeable upon Excese Profits Duty in arrear, but in this connection I would refer to my statement in the course of the-Debate on the financial position on the 29th October.

    INCOME TAX (TRANSFER OF PROPERTY).
    Captain LOSEBYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the fact that transfers of property designed to defeat the objects of the graduated Income Tax are largely on the increase; and if he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation calculated to defeat this method of defrauding the Exchequer?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The matter referred to has been brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax, whose Report is expected to be issued early next year.

    DISTURBANCE OF FRENCH SOIL (COMPENSATION).
    Commander Viscount CURZONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if compensation was paid to the French Government by His Majesty's Government for all disturbance of the soil in France; if so, at what rate; and what was the total amount so paid?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is the negative; the other parts do not arise.

    NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
    Mr. DONALDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Con-

    1621
    troiler if he will state the number of ship building berths completed at the Beachley and Chepstow national shipyards; the number of berths partly completed; the number of keels laid down at present; how much material and plant is at present in these yards that could be used for ship construction; is material still coming in; how many cantilever cranes are erected complete; how many are in course of erection; how many workmen's dwelling-houses are erected complete; how many are in course of erection; how many officials and workmen are at present employed in these yards; what are they employed at at present; what is the total cost of these yards up to the present time; and what is the future policy of the Government with regard to these shipyards?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY I to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel I Wilson): There are two berths completed with launching ways and two berths completed without launching ways at Beach-leyy, and four berths completed at Chep-stow. Two berths are partly completed at Beachley, and two partly completed at Chepstow. Four keels are laid down at Chepstow, and three in Finch's yard. There is sufficient material and plant to euip Chepstow and Beachley, as self-contained yards. Ship's material is still coining in, and a small amount of shipyard machinery. Eight cantilever cranes are completed, and five are partly erected. Two hundred and nine cottages are completed, and two hundred and fifty-three are in course of erection. There are 1,328, including administrative and industrial staff, employed on shipbuilding, and 1,985, including administrative and industrial staff, employed on house construction, clearing site, and stacking materials ready for disposal, and also on maintenance. The expenditure on the construction of the yards, including the property of the Standard Shipbuilding Company, housing, plant, machinery, stores, etc., is approximately £5,000,000. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my previous statements on this subject.

    S. S. "ACQUITANIA" GOVERNMENT PAYMENT.
    Mr. A. SHORTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller if the ss. "Acquitania," of the
    1622
    Cunard Steamship Company, recently ran ashore; if so, whether he can state the volume and nature of the damage caused;
    (2). whether he can state if the ss. "Acquitania," of the Cunard Steamship Company, is now considered seaworthy; whether the customary certificate has been issued;
    (3). whether the Government have made any payment to the Cunard Steamship Company for the reconditioning of the steamship "Acquitania"; whether such sum includes the payment to meet the repairs of the damage the ship recently suffered in running ashore; and. If , what was the amount paid?
    Colonel WILSON: So far as I can ascertain, the steamship "Acquitania" has not recently been ashore. She is now being reconditioned in Liverpool, and her passenger certificate, which is a matter for the Board of Trade, will presumably not be issued until the work is completed. A payment in respect of the reconditioning has been agreed upon between the Ministry of Shipping and the Cunard Company.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the amount that has been paid?
    Colonel WILSON: Yes, Sir. A lump sum was accepted by the Cunard Company which the Treasury think entirely satisfactory. The actual sum is £87,500, plus five and a half mouths' hire.

    REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT (REGISTER).
    Mr. N. MACLEANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether political agents are supplied with a free copy of the prepared list of electors; whether he is aware that the registration officer for Glasgow refuses to supply political agents with a free copy of the complete register; and whether he will state if the political agents of candidates for Parliament are entitled, under the Representation of the People Act, to receive such free copies; and, if so, will he issue instructions to the registration officer to supply such copies if re quested?
    Mr. MUNRO: With the concurrence of the Treasury, registration officers have been authorised to supply political agents with a certain number of free copies of the electors' lists. This course was taken to enable these agents to assist registration

    1623
    officers to make the registers as complete and accurate as possible. The arrangement does not extend to the supply of free copies of the register, and the registration officer for Glasgow is, therefore, entitled to refuse to supply such free copies.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he gives free copies of the register when it is being made up and incomplete, and not the complete register to the political agents of the candidates?
    Mr. MUNRO: I think my answer covered that point. I have said that a free copy of the electors' lists is given to enable the register to be made up as complete as possible. So far as the full register is concerned there is no very good reason for doing it.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Would it not facilitate the preparation of the next register if political agents were supplied with copies of the existing register?
    Mr. MUNRO: I will consider that point of view, but I really do not think it is necessary. The arrangement I have suggested is an economical arrangement, and the House desires economy!
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it has been the custom hitherto in publishing the lists of voters in Glasgow to state the occupation of the elector; whether in the forms sent to electors they are asked to state their occupation; whether he is aware that the registration officer for Glasgow has issued the autumn register without this statement of occupation despite the protests of several political agents; and whether he will give instructions that the custom be pursued in the issue of future registers to publish the occupation of electors, and thereby secure their proper identification?
    Mr. MUNRO: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part I have recently had under consideration the whole question of the retention of the occupation column. The column is not required by Statute, and is not in use in England and Wales, and urgent representations were made to me by the Stationery Office and the Treasury that in the interests of economy it should be omitted. After careful consideration, and notwithstanding the arguments advanced on the other side, I came to the conclusion that I could
    1624
    not justifiably resist the proposal that the occupation column should be omitted, and I have now issued instructions to registration officers accordingly.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is not this a departure from use and wont to the make-up of the Scottish registers? Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether it is due to this economy panic that is going over the country; and how much is the saving owing to the deletion of the "occupation" column from the registers?
    Mr. MUNRO: I think I am right in saying that something like £6,000 per annum will be saved in this way, and I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to support not only economy in the abstract, but ill those concrete cases in which the Government endeavour to do it.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it necessary to put forward a saving of £6,000 over the whole of Scotland as a saving that is likely to bring this country out of its financial difficulties? Can the right hon. Gentleman not see his way to have the "occupation" column put back again on the registers? [Hon. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—I am asking the right hon. Gentleman—[HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—whether ho can see his way to have the "occupation" column put back for the purpose of the identification of the electors in the various constituencies?
    Mr. MUNRO: I have already stated that there is no statutory obligation to have this column, and that it is not used in England and Wales, and that I cannot, there fore, believe it is necessary in Scotland.
    Mr. WATERSON: For what purpose, then, was it used previously?
    Mr. MUNRO: For a certain purpose. The question now is whether it has served its purpose to such an extent as to justify this expenditure, I think it has not.

    BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether any changes are contemplated in the personnel of the Board of Agriculture?
    Mr. MUNRO: I regret that I am not in a position at present to make any statement in regard to this matter.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    CONDEMNED MEAT (PAYMENT).
    Major HOWARDasked the Food Controller whether he is aware that butchers are being pressed by local distributors for payments for meat which has been condemned as unfit for human food and destroyed; and what steps are being taken to punish those responsible for the distribution of bad meat?
    Mr. McCURDY: The Ministry of Food does not require payment for any meat which may be condemned within forty-eight hours of delivery to the retailer, but it does not and cannot be expected to accept liability for meat condemned after longer periods. All meat is subject to careful inspection and only meat fit for human consumption is issued; although it occasionally happens that delay in transport or other causes lead to deterioration before delivery. There is no ground for the hon. and gallant Member's implication that the Ministry's agents are responsible for the distribution of unsound meat.
    Mr. McGUFFIN: When does the forty-eight hours count from— from the time it leaves London or the time it arrives at the local station?
    Mr. McCURDY: The forty-eight hours counts from the time the meat is delivered to the retailer.

    CONTROLLED PRICES.
    Sir ALFRED YEOasked the Food Controller if he will consider the advisability of a special investigation into the question of controlled prices of all food stuffs, including milk, in consequence of the grave misunderstanding that is constantly arising?
    Mr. A. T. DAVIESasked whether it is proposed to appoint a Committee of the House to draw up a policy with the object of lowering the prices of essential foodstuffs?
    Mr. McCURDY: A Committee representative of local authorities is already sitting in order to investigate the figures upon which the winter milk prices were fixed. As regards foodstuffs generally prices are mainly governed by economic conditions prevailing not only in this country, but in all countries, and the Food Controller does not consider that any useful purpose would be served at the
    1626
    present time by the appointment of such a Committee or the commencement of such an investigation as is suggested. I would remind hon. Members that the Government has already appointed a Committee to inquire into high prices and-profits. The Committee has not yet reported.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Would it not be wise to abolish all controlled prices except in rationed articles?
    Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman state how it came about that a Committee was appointed to investigate this matter after prices had been fixed— I refer to milk?
    Mr. McCURDY: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clynes), the milk prices were fixed after, in the first case, exhaustive inquiries by a travelling Commission, which examined the costs of production in all parts of the country. Therefore the implication in the question of the right hon. Gentleman that prices were fixed before the inquiry was held is not warranted. Inquiry was held both before and after.
    Mr. CLYNES: Then what is the reason for further investigation?
    Mr. McCURDY: The reason for further investigation is that the cost of milk has caused inconvenience and discontent in different parts of the country, and in consequence of this discontent a large number of representations have been made to the Food Controller. With a view of meeting those representations, he has consented to lay the whole of the evidence available before representatives of the local food committees, chosen from all parts of the country. In reply to the question of the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), I cannot assent to his suggestion, in view of the unquestionable! fact that as regards most foodstuffs there will unquestionably be an excess of effective demand over world supplies in the course of next year.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman note that the quality of the milk has materially decreased, and is in many cases being watered, and what is his Department doing to protect the children of this country having to drink watered milk?

    SUGAR.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether large consignments of sugar are being exported from this country?
    Mr. McCURDY: Sugar which has been imported by private traders my be re-exported to other countries. It is not considered that the quantities so exported are likely to be large; they will, however, be shown in due course in the Monthly Trade Returns.

    HAY.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that the War Office purchased 26 tons of hay of the 1918 crop on 7th December, 1918, at Hatfield, Hereford; that this hay was transferred on 16th December to Civil Supplies, Hereford, by the War Office, and on 14th June, 1919, was allotted by Mr. Charles Franklin, the secretary, to Messrs. Franklin, Barnes and Company, of Hereford; whether he is aware that the purchase of this hay has not been completed and the hay has not been removed; and what steps the Board of Agriculture will take to see that the farmer will be compensated for loss of interest and loss of bulk?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am aware that in some cases delivery of hay purchased by the Army has not yet been taken. In such cases interest on the amount of the purchase price outstanding is paid to the farmer.
    Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the 1018 crop of hay was bought under the Defence of the Realm Act at £8 per ton; and whether such hay, if the purchase is not completed and if the stacks are not removed, may be restored to the seller?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to answer this question. The 1918 hay crop was purchased under the powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm Regulations, the maximum price being £8 per ton. All hay purchased for the Army is required, and I regret, therefore, that the suggestion in the last part of the question is not practicable.
    Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not the fact that the interest granted on this money is very small indeed compared with what the farmer, in the normal course of business could turn over if he were allowed to dispose of the hay?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me a supplementary question in regard to the rate of interest. I have looked into the matter, and find that I understated it very substantially.

    CATTLE FOOD (PRICES).
    Major WHELERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that a ton of milling offals from wheat for cattle feeding costs, at the present time, about £18 10s., whereas a ton of wheat costs about £17; and what steps he proposes to take to enable farmers to obtain such offals at a cheaper price?
    Mr. McCURDY: I have been asked to reply. A ton of home-grown wheat costs about £17; but the price, ex-mill, of coarse and fine offals is £12 10s. and £14 10s. per ton, respectively.
    Major WHELER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he realises that such prices are very detrimental as regards the production of cattle at the present time, and will he see if they can be materially reduced?
    Mr. RATCLIFFE: Is the hon. Gentle man aware that the farmer, having sold his wheat at £17 per ton, when he requires to buy feeding cakes, for the production of both milk and meat, has to give £25 per ton to the various seed-crushing companies, who are making enormous profits; and will he see if it is not possible to re duce the prices of feeding cakes while still leaving them a good profit on their work?
    Mr. McCURDY: I will convey those suggestions to my right hon. Friend.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    LAND SETTLEMENT.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture how many ex-members of His Majesty's Forces have applied for land, under the Land Settlement Act or otherwise, in the United Kingdom; how many acres have been purchased for this purpose; and how many of the applicants have been provided with land?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The total number of ex-Service men who have applied for

    1629
    land in England and Wales is 25,305; and, according to the latest Returns received, the number of ex-Service applicants approved is 12,447. The area actually acquired is 161,698 acres, the additional area under consideration is 72,000 acres, and the number of ex-Service men actually in occupation of their holdings is 2,614. This last figure will be largely increased as soon as the present abnormal difficulties of providing buildings and other equipment have been overcome. For in formation regarding Scotland and Ireland I would refer the hon. Member to the Secretary for Scotland and the Secretary for Ireland respectively.
    Mr. RAFFAN: May I ask whether those figures apply entirely to the small holdings colonies under the Board of Agriculture, and have no reference to the work done under the county councils?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The figures apply both to the work of the county councils and to the work of the Board on the colonies.
    Colonel J. WARD: Does not the hon. Gentleman think the fact that only 2,600 men have secured land, out of 25,000 applications, shows that some additional powers are required, if this matter is not to be delayed beyond the time when any useful purpose will be served?
    Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No, Sir; I think that, considering that we were not allowed to buy any land until last January, and that there has been this very great difficulty in equipping the small-holdings the progress made has been more or less satisfactory.

  COAL PRODUCTION.

    COAL MINES DEPARTMENT, WREXHAM OFFICE.
    Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. Samuel Jones has bean dismissed from the Wrexham office of the household fuel and lighting branch of the Coal Mines Department in order to make room for an ex-Service man, but that the position has been filled by a Mr. John, an inspector of Cardiff, who is not an ex-Service man, and who was removed from Cardiff owing to differences between him self and the divisional officer at Cardiff; and whether he will take immediate steps to remove Mr. John and fill the position at Wrexham by an ex-Service man?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I think my hon. Friend must have been misinformed. The post to be vacated by Mr. Samuel Jones at the end of this month will be filled by an ex-Service man and not by Mr. John.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is it not the fact that Mr. John is already in the office at Wrexham?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure about that, but I will inquire. At any rate, I think I am right in saying that he is not filling the post vacated by Mr. Jones.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentle-man accept my statement that Mr. John, is in the Wrexham office, and is not an ex Service man; and will he see that an ex Service man is appointed to the post?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite ready to accept the hon. Baronet's statement it' he will accept my statement that Mr. John is not filling the past which Mr. Samuel Jones vacated.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Will the hon. Gentleman give his promise that this post shall be filled by an ex-Service man?
    Mr. BRIDGE MAM: I cannot do that.
    HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

    COAL CONTROLLER'S DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. GOULDasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the actual number of officials, experts and staff, employed in the Department of the Coal Controller and the cost of the Department for the ten months ending 31st October last; the number of fuel inspectors arid other officials employed throughout the country whose salaries are paid either wholly or in part by local bodies; the aggregate amount of salaries so paid and any other maintenance charges, whether borne by the Department of the Coal Controller or any local authority; the cost to the nation of the Coal Controller's Department per ton of coal produced during the period 1st January, 1919, to 31st October, in 1919; and the cost to the State of the statistical branch of the Coal Controller's Department?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: In reply to the first part of the question, the actual number of officials, experts and staff employed in the Coal Mines Department on the 31st October was 859, and the cost for the ten months ending 31st October was £121,900.

    1631
    With regard to the second and third parts of the question, I cannot add to the information which I gave to the hon. Member for the South-Eastern Division of St. Pan-cras on Monday last week. The cost of the Department per ton of coal produced for the period in question was approximately one halfpenny. The expenditure incurred on the statistical work of the Department is at the rate of £13,200 per annum.
    Mr. BRACE: May I ask the Leader of the House if, in face of the grave dissatisfaction which exists, both in this House and in the country, in connection with the entire working of the Coal Control Department, he is now prepared to grant a Select Committee of this House to investigate and report, upon the widest terms of reference, so that we may really know what is the state of affairs in connection with this Coal Control Department and how its work is done?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not prepared to accede to the request of my right hon. Friend. As the House knows, an accountant is now at work on the question of figures, and I am sure that that part of the subject can much better be dealt with in that way than by any Committee. On the other hand, I have received notice from my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Adam-son) asking for a discussion of the coal question on Friday. Perhaps I may answer his question in advance, and say that I am prepared to give it, in view of the very evident misunderstanding of the whole position, and I think it would be better to wait for that discussion before pressing the matter further.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Do I understand that the discussion will be on Friday?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes. I am sorry to anticipate my right hon. Friend's question, which was whether we could give a day for discussion immediately. I am satisfied that there is so much misapprehension as to what the statement of my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Geddes) yesterday meant, that it will be a decided advantage to have a discussion on Friday.
    Mr. ADAMSON: The whole day on Friday?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.
    Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS. May I ask whether it is possible, for the purpose of the discussion on Friday, that this House may be supplied with the Financial State-
    1632
    ment and Report which, according to the Coal Agreement Continuation Act, 1917–18, ought to be prepared as up to the 31st March last, but which has not yet seen the light of day?
    Brigadier-General PAGE CROFT: Will it be competent for hon. Members to discuss the question of limited profits in the same Debate?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think not.
    Mr. BILLING: May I ask what course the Debate will take? Will there be a statement by the Government, or a Motion for Adjournment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think the easiest way would be on the Motion for Adjournment. Whether the Government will begin, or will wait for some criticism, is a matter for consideration. As regards the question of the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Edwards), it will not, I hope, be discussed then, because a suitable time for discussing it will be on the Bill.
    Mr. BRACE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could not arrange for the Debate to take a different form, rather than that it should be on the Motion for Adjournment? I would much prefer, and I am certain my colleagues would prefer, that we should have a clean-cut Motion, which, if the reply of the Government is not satisfactory, would enable us to divide the House.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could it not be on a Motion to appoint a Select Committee, such as was suggested by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Brace)?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not so simple. That would really be a Vote of Censure on the Government. If my right hon. Friend wishes that form, I am, of course, willing to have it.
    Mr. BRACE: I think we ought to have an opportunity of dividing the House if we are not satisfied.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: You can divide on the Adjournment.
    Mr. BRACE: That is very unsatisfactory.
    Mr. EDWARDS: May I ask for a reply to my supplementary question?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No such statement of that kind is available.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: When will the accountant's statement be ready?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As my Noble Friend knows, he is now at work, but I cannot say whether he will take days or weeks.
    Lord H. CECIL: It will not be ready before Friday?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, not before Friday.
    Mr. EDWARDS: When may Parliament expect that statement and that Report, which it is provided by Statute is to be prepared up to the end of the financial year, which ended on 31st of March last?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Clearly neither I nor my right hon. Friend can give an answer to that question without notice, but if it is put down, an answer will be given.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.
  MR. STEWART (by Private Notice)asked the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the delay in cables to India, which has the effect of making it impossible for those who have connections with India to receive replies to their messages on the Government of India Bill, and whether, taking this into account, in addition to the very short time which has elapsed since the Report of the Select Committee was published, the Government cannot see their way to postpone the consideration of this Bill?
  Sir E. CARSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether, having regard to the great importance of this Bill and to the necessity of everybody approaching the consideration of it in a friendly and sympathetic spirit, it would not be well to grant a few days' delay in order to meet the wishes of a large number of the Members of this House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Since I gave the reply to my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yale) last week I have received very many representations urging that there should be delay, and I have also ascertained that what my hon. Friend (Mr. Stewart) has said about the cables is ac curate. I have been in a difficulty about it, because this is clearly a case where, if the Bill is to be passed at all it is of the greatest important that there should be no delay, and especially that it should have gone through both Houses, if that be possible, before the big meeting in India on
  1634
  26th December. For that reason, I desired to press it. I have felt, however, in view of these representations, that even from the point of view of feeling in India nothing would be worse than that we should begin the discussion of this subject with a feeling of grievance on a question of detail. I have, therefore, decided to postpone the consideration of this Bill until Wednesday next week.
  Colonel YATE: If on Wednesday of next week we find that there is still cause for further delay, will the right hon. Gentle man keep an open mind on the subject?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have given my hon. and gallant Friend the reason which made it difficult for me to meet him before. I feel sure that I shall have the sympathy of the House in saying that we must go on then.
  Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that it is the intention of the Government to see that this Government of India Bill is placed upon the Statute Book by Christmas?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If that is within our power, it is our intention. In my belief this is one of the cases where a few weeks' delay might really do infinite harm.
  Mr. ADAMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us what business will be taken on Thursday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Thursday we propose to take the Agricultural (Councils, etc.) Bill, the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Amendment) Bill, the Unemployment Benefit Bill, the Irish Railway (Confirmation of Agreement) Bill, and the Ferries (Acquisition by County Councils) Bill.
  Mr. A. SHAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Imports and Exports Bill will be taken?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will make a statement about that on Thursday.
  Captain REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the text of the Irish Railways Bill is not yet available, and, that being so, is it fair to take this Bill at such short notice?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understood that it would be available either this afternoon or to-morrow, and I am informed that it is not contentious. If my hon. and gallant Friend takes another view when he sees it, I will reconsider it.
  Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If the Electricity Supply Bill is concluded to-day, what business will be taken to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Third Reading of that Bill and some other Bills, including the Lords Amendments to the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Bill.
  Captain R ED MON D: Is the Irish Education Bill to be taken this Session?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope so.
  Captain REDMOND: At what time?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot name the time.

  BILL PRESENTED.
  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT BILL,— "to in crease the rate of Unemployment Benefit payable under the National Insurance (Unemployment) Acts, 1911 to 1918, and to make certain consequential Amendments in those Acts," presented by Sir ROBERT HORNE; supported by Mr. Wardle; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed.

  BLIND (EDUCATION, EMPLOY MENT, AND MAINTENANCE).
  Mr. S. WALSH: I beg to move,
  "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to provide for the tecanical education, employment, and maintenance of the Blind."
  In asking the House to grant me leave to introduce this Bill, I am sure that I can at once bespeak the sympathy of every Member of this House, and practically of all the constituents which they represent outside. There is no more pathetic sight with which hon. Members are acquainted than that of the indigent blind begging for charity at street corners, or living upon the charity of their friends, and altogether at the mercy of circum stances over which they themselves have no control. There is really no more pathetic sight and no greater infliction which can befall humanity than the loss of sight. In introducing this Bill, which is entirely non-controversial, and for which we bespeak the support of all parties, there is not the slightest intention of casting any reflections upon those admirable institutions which already exist for dealing with the conditions of the blind. Many of them will occur to the minds of
  1636
  Members. Nothing is more admirable than the work which they are doing. There are, however, a vast number of organisations that really do not come within that description, and which, in stead of doing their very best for the blind, too often utilise the blind, exploit them, and make a very good living out of their necessities and out of the charity of the wealthy. It is really wonderful how long the country has delayed setting the law right on this mater. While we do not in any sense depreciate the admirable work that is done by these institutions, we say that this is a matter for which the State should undertake a definite responsibility. The condition of the blind, the necessity for their better education, the necessity for their maintenance, the payment of proper wages, and the helping of the institutions, many of them most trust worthy, are matters which ought not any longer to be left to private charity. Wonderful institutions do exist, but they exist under conditions that must really take the hope out of the hearts of those responsible for their management, and it is time, and more than time, that the State recognised its responsibility.
  4.0 P.M.
  It is an amazing reality to what extent the blind help themselves. Very surprising is the very praiseworthy versatility they show; many of them, after a comparatively short time of technical training, are able to earn quite substantial wages. In many cases they are able to maintain themselves and their families; in other cases they are able to earn a very substantial contribution towards the cost of their maintenance. But we ought to recognise that this kind of training should not be left to private initiative. The State itself ought to recognise its full responsibility. The Bill I have the honour to introduce this afternoon recognises the extremely good work that many exiting institutions are performing, but it will provide for the State, through the municipalities, coming to their assistance on definite lines. It will also provide for the technical training of those capable of receiving training for a period not exceeding five years. There comes a time in the life of every man or woman when probably the hand has lost much of its cunning, and the Bill therefore provides that no persons exceeding the age of fifty years shall be placed under training, as it is probable that at that age they have lost the faculty of receiving such instruction as would

  1637
  enable them to become effective wage earners. These institutions properly approved by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State will have substantial grants made to them by the municipalities which, in turn, will receive the amount from the State. The Bill directs attention to the fact that blind persons cannot of themselves provide adequate training or find employment. It will, therefore, be the duty of the elected authority, acting through the State, to find employment for these people when they have had real effective training. That duty ought not any longer to be left to the almost hope less initiative of the blind person himself; there ought to be some authority on whom the obligation should devolve. The institutions now existent are insufficient to provide technical training and employment. Here, again, we say that good as the work is that is being done by many of them, they really could do much more and exceedingly better work if they were backed up by the resources of the State upon which they really have a claim, because of the work they have hitherto performed.
  The third point the Bill points out is that many persons, consequent on their blindness, cannot earn wages adequate for their maintenance. Every Member of this House will agree it is desirable that their powers should be utilised to the full, and under proper conditions, so that they should not become, as they often do, objects of charity. We, ourselves, acting on behalf of the nation, should, therefore, recognise our real obligation to these people, and make them self-respecting as far as can be done, so that they themselves may take an interest in their work. If we go on these lines we shall do a great deal towards removing from ourselves that reproach which we have too long borne. Then I come to the case of those who can not earn anything at all. Of those over fifty years of age, many have lost their sight after they have been working for the greater portion of their lives, and have been good citizens—and I am aware that my Friends the miners' agents, Members of this House, know many folk who really have been very good citizens, have worked in the mines, and have brought up their families, but yet in their later years have lost their sight. Such cases as these bespeak the deepest human sympathy. These people have lost the faculty of be coming wage earners in any avocation
  1638
  other than that to which they have been accustomed for the greater portion of their lives, and we believe the time has arrived when not the small paltry pittance these poor blind people can earn should be their portion, but that the State should say, "We must keep these folk from the work house, where they will cost very much more to maintain. We want to prevent them losing their faculties. We desire to prevent them losing hope, becoming a burden, having no joys in life, and there fore we think it would be very much better for the State to step in and enable them to become self-respecting citizens and keep within themselves the highest possible degree of self-respect. We will, therefore, help these institutions which have been doing such excellent work and we will destroy those institutions that have simply been exploiting these people."We recognise that there is a definite State responsibility, and although everybody realises that in these days one must examine every penny that is spent, let us remember there are not more than, per haps, 30,000 of these unfortunate people in the whole Kingdom. Certainly not more than one-third of that number are employed at all, and the chances are that no more than about one-tenth of them are beneficially employed, so that is the extent of the reproach under which the nation lies at present. We are agreed, I am sure, that the State should recognise its direct re sponsibilities. We may in the past have disagreed as to whether the State should come in to help adults capable of helping themselves. I remember long debates in this House as to whether the hours of workpeople should be interfered with by the State at all. But in our hearts there is no single man but will agree that in these cases where people are entirely unable to help themselves, and where they are suffering from an affliction the most patriotic man can labour under, there, in deed, the State should come to there aid. I therefore hope the House will give this Bill the First Reading to-night.
  Sir E. CARSON: Does this Bill apply to Ireland?
  Mr. WALSH: Yes; it applies to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephen Walsh, Mr. Adamson, Mr. Clynes, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Frederick

  1639
  Roberts, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Sugden, Sir William Seager, and Sir Montague Barlow.
  BLIND (EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND MAINTENANCE) BILL, — "to provide for the technical education, employment, and maintainence of the Blind," presented ac cordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 9th December, and to be printed. [Bill 218.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT [MONEY].
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of money to be provided by Parliament, of any additional sums which may become payable under Section 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to increase the rate of Unemployment Benefit payable under the National In surance (Unemployment) Acts, 1911 to 1918, and to make certain consequential Amendments in those Acts— (King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[SirRobert Home.]

  STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIR MEN'S PANEL).
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Mount to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill).
  That they had appointed Mr. T. P. O'Connor to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the Nurses Registration (No. 2) Bill).
  That they had appointed Mr. William Nicholson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates, 1919–20, Unclassified Services, Miscellaneous War Services (Foreign Office).
  Report to he upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Greenock Improvement." [Greenock Improvement Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituld, "An Act to empower the Shropshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire, Electric Power Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill[Lords.]

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Greenock Improvement Order Confirmation Bill [Lords,]—read the firsttime, and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 217.]
  Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Stafford shire Electric Power Bill [Lords,]—read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COM MITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE B.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Baird, Major Barnes, Mr. Bridgeman, Mr. Donnelly, Major Ent-wistle, Sir Eric Geddes, Mr. William Graham, Viscount Elveden, Sir Evan Jones, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Manville, Mr. Marriott, Colonel Pinkham, Mr. Rafian, Mr. Seddon, Mr. Alfred Short, Mr. Secretary Shortt, Mr. Stevens, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Vickcrs, Mr. Waterson, Colonel Sir Rhys Williams, and Sir Kingsley Wood.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Members to Standing Committee B (for the consideration of the Nurses Registration (No. 2) Bill): Dr. Addison, Captain Barnett, Sir Watson Cheyne, Captain Elliott, Colonel Greig, Mr. Grundy, Mr. Hayday, Sir Philip Magnus, Sir Philip Pilditch, Coloncl Raw, Mr. Robert Richardson, Mr. Trevelyan Thormson, Sir William Whitla, and Colonel Penry Williams.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee B the following Fifteen Members (in respect of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Bill: Lieutenant - Colonel Allen, Mr.

  1641
  Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Finney, Captain Loseby, Mr. Lynn, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Moles, Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Murray, Mr. Newbould, Major O'Neill, Mr. Royce, Mr. Walter Smith, Mr. Sturrock, and Lieutenant-Commander Williams.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  SIR SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C at the conclusion of the War Emergency Laws (Continuance) Bill: Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Major Baird, Mr. Forster, Dr. Macnamara, Mr. George Roberts, and Mr. Solicitor-General.
  Sir SAMUEL ROBEETS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee C the following Ten Members in respect of the Civil Ser vices (Supplementary Estimates, 1919–20) Unclassified Services, Miscellaneous War Services (Foreign Office): Major Beckett, Mr. Briant, Captain Coote, Sir Davison Dalziel, Major David Davies, Sir Park Goff, Mr. Thomas Griffiths, Mr. Cecil Harmsworth, Sir Robert Home, and Mr. Sitch.
  Reports to he upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Subsidiary Powers of District Electricity Boards.)
    (1) The Board of Trade, on the representation of the Electricity Commissioners, may by Order authorise any district electricity board or any authorised undertakers to abstract water from any river, stream, canal, inland navigation or other source, and to do all such acts as may be necessary for tlie purpose of enabling the district electricity board or authorised undertakers to utilise and return the water so abstracted, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Order, but the board shall not in any case make such an Order until notice of their intention to make the Order has been given by advertisement or otherwise as the board may direct and an opportunity has been given to any person who appears to the board to be affected of stating any objections he may have thereto, and such Order may provide for the recovery of penalties for infringement of the Order:
    Provided that—

    (a)where the source from which the water is to be abstracted is a canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour regulated by Act of Parliament, or where any existing rights of riparian owners will be affected by the abstraction of the water, the Order authorising the abstraction shall be a special Order, and shall provide that the water not consumed shall be returned at a level not lower than that at which it was abstracted; and

    (b)the Order shall require that all water not consumed (and in no case less than ninety-live per cent. of the water abstracted) shall be returned in a condition not less pure than when it was abstracted and at. a temperature not higher than such us may be specified in the Order (which temperature shall be fixed at such a degree as appears to the board necessary to avoid injury to public health or to fisheries, if any), or in the case of a canal or inland navigation to the works thereof, or to vessels using the same, or to the trade or busness carried on by any person using the same for the purposes of or in connection with his trade or business.

    (2) A district electricity board and any local authority, company, or person may, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, enter into arrangements for the utilisation, for the purposes of the board, of water-power, waste heat, or other form of energy which the local authority, company, or person may be able to dispose of, or for the supply by the board of any form of energy other than electricity, and where such an arrangement has been made the district electricity board may be authorised by Order to, exercise such powers (including the
    1670
    power to break up roads, railways and tramways) as may be necessary for the purpose of conveying such energy.
    (3) A district electricity board may with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners dispose of any generating station, land or other works or property which appears to them to be no longer required for the purposes of their undertaking, subject as respects any land which is subject to any right of pre-emption to that right:
    Provided that where the generating station contains plant which is the property of the former owners of the generating station, the Electricity Commissioners shall, as a condition of granting their consent to the disposal of the generating station, require such provision to be made by the district electricity board as the Commissioners consider necessary to safeguard the rights of such former owners.
    (4) The purposes for which a district electricity board may be authorised to acquire compulsorily or use land under Section one of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, shall include the development of water-power for the generation of electricity.
    (5) A district electricity board may, with the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, erect, maintain, alter, improve, and renew by-product plant with all necessary machinery and apparatus, and do all such acts as may be proper for working up and converting the residual products arising directly or indirectly from the production of electricity:
    Provided that where it appears to the Electricity Commissioners that the establishment of any such by-product plant could properly be undertaken by any existing company, authority, or person, a district electricity board shall not establish such plant without first giving to such company, authority, or person an opportunity of so doing.
    Amendment moved [24th November,] in Sub-section (1) after paragraph (b), insert the words
    "and (c) no Order shall be made authorising the abstraction of water from any dock regulated by Act of Parliament or from the Man chester Ship Canal except with the consent of the owners thereof und subject to such terms and conditions as may be agreed."—[Lieut,-Colonel Sir F. Hall.]
    Question again proposed, "That' those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Major NALL: Reference was made by several speakers last night to the case of the Manchester Ship Canal, and in view of the attitude of the Government towards this question I think it necessary to add to what has already been stated. The efficiency of the Port of Manchester through out the War, and since the Armistice, has demonstrated what can be done by a properly constituted body of men. Other ports have been hopelessly congested, but Manchester alone has been able to efficiently handle the vast traffic passing through her docks. Is this position to con tinue? If it is. so far as Manchester is concerned, and if that efficiency is to be maintained, Manchester, as a port, must

    1671
    be left unfettered. Its management must be left in Manchester, and not removed to Whitehall. The canal and its equipment up to date has cost upwards of £18,000,000, and not one part of that great enterprise is due to any help from Whitehall; on the contrary, Whitehall has always been in the way when any further extension has been contemplated. It has been suggested that the Ship Canal is a proprietary company, and therefore in a different position to the large independent docks throughout the country. That may be technically correct, but it must not be allowed to convey a wrong impression. Dividends long postponed are now being paid, but only on a very low basis—3½ per cent, on £4,000,000 of Preference Stock and l½ per cent, on £4,000,000 of Ordinary Stock. The directors of the company have always kept in the forefront the development of the port as their primary objective. That was their policy in 1894, and that is their policy to-day. The canal, from the entrance at Eastham on the Mersey, is thirty-six and a half miles long to Manchester. The whole canal constitutes the Port of Manchester. Vessels of from 10,000 to 12,000 tons now navigate it and pass each other in the course of navigation. It is, there fore, of vital importance to navigation that no element should be introduced which in any degree might be thought likely to create or intensify fog. During the winter months, particularly in November, December and January, the prevalence of natural fogs all along the canal has been a matter of considerable anxiety to the canal authority.
    In addition to that, it is important that any arrangement made for the return of water taken out of the canal for industrial purposes should be made with every safe guard against the creation of cross currents in the canal. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. L. Scott) dealt with that point last night, and for the benefit of hon. Members who were not present then it may be well to refer to what he said. This appears in column 1588 of the OFFICIAL REPOKT—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Speeches may be quoted from other Debates, but I think it would be violating the Rule against repetition if the hon. and gallant Member were to repeat a speech already made in this Debate.
    Major NALL: I accept your ruling, Sir. I did not propose to read the whole of the.
    1672
    speech, but to re-emphasise the danger of fogs and to refer to the fact that the hon. and learned Member had personal ex perience in dealing with cases arising from collisions in the canal. Immediately prior to the outbreak of war the directors entertained a proposal made by the Corporation of Manchester that, as regards the large electrical station which the corporation had obtained powers to erect, the corporation might be permitted to take from the canal and return to it water in connection with the condensing plant. The canal company took expert advice on that matter, and, after great consideration, they felt that the preservation of clear navigation should outweigh their desire to assist the corporation in connection with the use of water for the pro posed electrical station. There the matter rested until about twelve months ago, when the directors were again approached by the Manchester Corporation. The present position is that the corporation, by agreement with the canal company, have now obtained Parliamentary powers to lay pipes with the consent of the company, and to take water from the canal and return it to the canal. As soon as the corporation are ready, arrangements are made to admit of their taking and returning this water in a manner which will not prejudice the navigation by ocean-going vessels along the canal. A similar case exists with regard to the Mersey Power Company. There the Canal Company entered into private arrangements with the Power Company that they, like the Manchester Corporation at Barton, should take and return water from the canal for use in a large electrical station. That is an additional station which they are building at an estimated cost of some £500,000. The arrangements between the Mersey Power Company at Runcorn and the Canal Company were made as long ago as June, 1909.
    It will be seen from this that the Canal Company has already anticipated by agreement the exercise of the powers which this Bill would compulsorily place in the hands of the Electricity Commissioners when appointed. The point which emerges is whether the Port of Manchester is to remain in the control of the directors, of whom a majority—eleven out of twenty-one—are appointed by the corporation, and whether they are to continue to be the responsible authority to look after the ports.

    1673
    The Home Secretary in his speech on this matter said that the canal is no different from any other canal, and that canals are provided for in the Bill, and what we have to understand is that the Manchester Canal is no different from any other. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) referred to that statement. Really it is a most misleading statement if it were allowed to go unchallenged. The Manchester Canal is absolutely different from any other in this country, even from the Caledonian Canal. All the others are small, or at any rate for the most part unimportant. It should be noticed that although the Ship Canal Company, who are so concerned about this particular measure, require this particular provision in respect of the Ship Canal which is a dock for seagoing vessels, they do not ask for any special provision in respect of the Bridgwater Canal, which also belongs to them and which they acquired at a cost of a little under £2,000,000. For that reason we feel it is essential that the principle which was accepted during the passage of the Transport Bill should be maintained in this Bill. That principle was that the Manchester Ship Canal should be specially provided for, as it is an enterprise which stands alone in the ports of the Kingdom. We ask the Home Secretary to simply carry on that principle. We do not ask for anything new. We do not ask for anything unusual; we simply ask that the principle adopted in the Transport Bill of making special provision for the Port of Manchester to enable the authority which is at present responsible for the navigation of that port to continue as the supreme authority in charge of the navigation. With that object, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late hour, will accede to the request and accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Before the Question is put, may I make an appeal to the Home Secretary? If he is not pre pared to accept the whole of the Amendment, will he give us that portion of it which relates to the docks? If the words referring to the Manchester Ship Canal are taken out, would the right hon. Gentle man be prepared to accept the Amendment?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I told my hon. and gallant Friend last night
    1674
    that if he would eliminate the words "or from the Manchester Ship Canal" I was perfectly willing to accept the Amendment with regard to docks. Docks are a very small matter. The Manchester Ship Canal is a very different matter. I told my hon. and gallant Friend I certainly could not agree to having the Manchester Ship Canal dragged in at the tail of the docks. If he will take out the words with regard to the Manchester Ship Canal, I am quite willing to accept the rest of the Amendment.
    Sir F. HALL: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will move the Amendment omitting the words "or from the Man chester Ship Canal." In doing so I need hardly say that I am extremely sorry my right hon. Friend is not in a position to accept the whole of the Amendment.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Before the Amendment is withdrawn I should like to say a word, as I seconded it. In my view it is essential that the Manchester Ship Canal should be given a larger discretion than any special order under the special order procedure proposed in the Bill would allow. I do not propose here to object to the withdrawal of the Amendment and its being moved in the amended form, but I do ask the Government to reconsider this matter between the Bill leaving this House and its being dealt with in Committee in another place. It is possible that some compromise arrangement between the absolute refusal of the Home Secretary at the present moment and the Amendment, as drafted, might be arrived at there. Subject to that, and in order that there should be no misunderstanding on the part of the Government as to the attitude of those who speak on behalf of the Manchester Ship Canal authorities to-day, I would agree to the course proposed.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: At the end of Sub section (1), insert the words
    "(c) no Order shall be made authorising the abstraction of water from any dock regulated by Act of Parliament except with the consent of the owners thereof and subject to such terms and conditions as may bo agreed."—[Sir F. Hall.]
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add
    (d) any water-power, arising either from navigable rivers, streams, reservoirs, or other water supplies on public or private property, capable of generating electrical or other power and not used previously to the passing of this Act for any such purpose, shall be available without compensation for the purposes of this

    1675
    Act, and may be so utilised by any district electricity board acting under a special Order of the Electricity Commissioners."
    It is not clear from the Bill at present whether we have to pay compensation for the use of water-power for these electric lighting undertakings. Under Sub-section (4) of this Clause—
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: On a point of Order. I should like to ask your ruling, Sir, whether this Amendment is not out of order, as being outside the scope of the Bill? The Bill, according to its Title, is a Bill—
    "To amend the Law with respect to the supply of electricity."
    I notice that the Amendment has, as one of its leading characteristics, the use of water-power described as being
    "capable of generating electrical or other power."
    I submit that that portion of the Amendment is outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Would not this Bill also require, if these words were inserted, to go before the Standing Orders Committee, because it would be a Hybrid Bill. Notices would have to be given to the persons owning the water supply. You cannot take their rights away from them without notice.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are not taking a man's private property away, we are merely using the water and returning it to the stream again. There is no question of taking a man's private property. It is merely a question of using the water supply which has never been known to be private property so long as the owner of that property is not deprived of it. The whole point of the Amendment is that there should not be a Fresh claim set up on behalf of private property, that, al though the water is returned, a charge shall remain on the community for the use of that water. It has been recognised in the past—not rightly, but wrongly—that if you use water you have to pay the riparian owners for the use of that water, but that was when the water was not re turned. In the case of electricity all the water is returned. In this case the water is merely passed through generators and returned to the stream, and we claim that the public should not be mulcted by the vested interest of the land lord, and that the landlord should not construct a new claim for the utilisation of public property.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is outside this Bill. It would require to be dealt with by a separate Bill.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: We are already dealing with the same question so far as the dock companies are concerned. The water from the Ship Canal is being taken, and I submit that what is good enough for the Ship Canal is good enough for other private owners. Unless we put this pro vision in here we shall have a fresh series of charges made against the public, and the least we can do is to enter a protest against this new form of grant. This is all being dealt with in the Clause subsequently, but in a different manner. Sub section (4) states quite clearly,
    "The purposes for which a district electricity board may be authorised to acquire compulsorily or use land under the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, shall include the development of water-power for the generation of electricity."
    It uses the words "development of water power." and not "use of water power." I take it that the use of the word "development" there acts as a safeguard in the public interest, as a sort of plea that the water power is not being taken, but merely being developed. If the Sub-section passes as it stands, even the development of water power may be charged for just as the land is charged for upon which a generating station is built. Under the Electric Lighting Act of 1909, for the purposes of the acquisition of land authorised to be taken compulsorily, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act, which relates to the purchase and taking of land otherwise than by agreement, shall be adopted. That means that for the use of water, not for the deprivation of the owner's water, but merely for the use of it, we shall have to pay compensation as arranged for under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1846.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: Why not?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Under the legislation passed this year in connection with the acquisition of land we have got rid of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, because land is vital to the public, and there fore we have adopted a better and cheaper system of acquiring land compulsorily. But the case of water is much stronger. It is not even being taken away from the owner and that he can put in claims for injurious affection or for destruction of amenities or for indirect damage due to the use of the water, and on top of that 10 per cent, compensation for compulsory acquisition seems perfectly monstrous. When we

    1677
    are starting to deal with electricity we are going back to this old bad Act of 1846 and hampering the use of water which is essential to every electrical enterprise in great quantities, by exactly the same shackles that we riveted upon the railway companies in the old days, and which we are suffering from at present in the increased charges which have to be levied for all railway transport. The party for which I speak, and which put down this Amendment, has a strong case in urging that the 1846 Act should not be the basis for the acquisition and the use of water, and that we should have instead a simpler and cheaper way. We would say that where the water is returned to the stream from which it was taken no compensation should be payable. In the case of oil we have taken exactly the same line. We have said that oil below the ground shall be acquirable without paying royalties, and in the same way we believe that the natural supply of water should be not a subject for private property, but should be there for the use of all men as the country may think fit.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I believe it is being rapidly accepted now by the rank and file of the party to which I belong that what has been placed there by God shall be national property, and what has been placed there or developed by man shall be private property. If you are to pay compensation for the use of water in streams, you might just as well pay compensation for the use of the wind which blows over a man's land to turn a windmill for pumping water for generating electricity. With the present ideas in every country in Europe with regard to natural resources, I think this Amendment is only in accordance with what is being recognised as the people's need in every country which has reached our stage of civilisation or anywhere near it.
    Mr. SHORTT: This Amendment, I now gather, has been moved owing to a total misapprehension of what the Bill provides. There is no question of the Bill reintroducing any form of compensation under the Lands Clauses Act. Sub-section (4) says the purposes for which land may be compulsorily acquired shall include the purpose of development of water-power, but it does not incorporate in this Act any of the provisions of Section I of the Act of 1899 dealing with compensation.
    1678
    There is no connection with that at all. It simply says there is power under that Act to acquire land to build a generating station, and there shall also be power to acquire land to develop water-power. But for the purposes of the Act any necessary payment is decided by the Bill itself. The provisions of the Bill are that an Order shall be made—"subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Order." That means that if any real harm is done to the owner of the water by taking it out and putting it back again he will be properly compensated. If it does no harm at all, of course he will obtain nothing.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: He would make his claim on the Lands Clauses Act, presumably.
    Mr. SHORTT: Of course, he would do nothing whatever of the sort. He would enter his objections or demand certain conditions to the Order being made. He will be asked, "What harm does it do to you?" It may be proved that he is £100 out of pocket by the taking of the water. He would get that £100. If he could not show that it hurt him, the water would be taken and he would have nothing.
    Mr. SPENCER: I think the right hon. Gentleman's reply is the best indication of the necessity for this Amendment. If it is going to be left to the owners to say whether they have suffered damage and have any claims to compensation, it will naturally follow that there will be an abundance of claims and a Commission will have to be set up to examine them. This is an attempt to safeguard the rights of public property as against the rights of private individuals. The purpose of the Amendment is to give a free right to the public without any compensation for use. The right hon. Gentleman's reply has not given us any assurance whatever that for the use of that water there shall be no charge made upon the public purse. Rather he has held out hopes to the private interests that they may claim compensation merely for the use of water, and if it is merely a question of setting up a plea that damage has been done, I am convinced that any amount of pleas will be put for ward for the purpose of claiming compensation.
    Dr. MURRAY: I think the Bill will largely affect water power in the Highlands, where we have some considerable waterfalls and where a good deal of elec-

    1679
    tricity is being generated. I do not object, for the time being, to landlords having rights over the water for the purpose of fishing. It would be easy to prove, if any power was taken from the falls and employed for the purpose of generating electricity, that that would diminish the rent he would obtain from the fisheries; but this Government has done enough already in the way of providing compensation for the sporting rights of landlords in Scotland in connection with deer forests in the Land Settlement Act, the Land Acquisition Act, and every other Land Act which Parliament has passed. In fact, anyone coming into the House when a Land Bill was on would think he was coming into a meeting of the Land Union. I think these advantages to the landlord should not be extended to water power in any part of the country, at any rate not in Scotland. Nature has provided us with tremendous sources of electrical energy, and that should be regarded as the property of the people of the Highlands or of the country as a whole. I do not think, even if it could be alleged in some way that damage was done to the rights of landlords by the use of water, it should be assessed to the advantage of the landlord. I think the great natural water power of the country should belong to the country, and not to any private individual.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think there is a confusion of ideas. The intention of the Clause is not connected so much, if at all, with the generation of electrical energy as with the getting of water for condensation purposes, which is absolutely essential to the erection of large generating plant. My recollection of the matter is that there are comparatively few rivers or lochs or lakes large enough for some of these large stations. I think we were told that there were only some half a dozen rivers in England that supplied enough water for what has been described as a super-station.
    You will crib, cabin, and confine the whole undertaking if you do not provide in your Bill adequate water for condensation purposes for these new stations. The Amendment is out of all reason. It would never do at all. Conceive for a moment the case of a reservoir in the Lancashire Hills used for the benefit of cotton factories. It is proposed that these district boards shall be entitled to claim that the water shall be available for the purposes of this Bill, irrespective of the fact that they drain the reservoir and leave no water for the cotton manufacturer. The thing is perfectly preposterous, it would not work for a moment, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment. It is quite impracticable as it stands. There is nothing in this Amendment about returning the water except at the point it is taken. If it is going to be used for electric power it cannot be re turned, but if it is used for condensation purposes by means of pumps you can re turn it at the point where it is taken. That is in the Bill. There is nothing in this Clause connected with the generation of power from water. It only relates to water for condensation purposes.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: I endorse every word that the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I am sure the lion. Members who have moved this Amendment are labouring under a complete misapprehension. It is quite impossible under the Clause as it stands for any hydro-electric development to take place. It is only possible to use the water for condensation purposes, and the Clause compels them to return the water at the same level from which it is extracted. You can generate no power by passing water on the same level. This Amendment is not necessary for the objects of the Bill.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 47; Noes, 236.

    Division No. 136.]

    AYES.

    [4.50 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Grundy, T. W.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)

    Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Richardson, R. (Houghtom)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hallias, E.

    Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Hartshorn, V.

    Robertson, J.

    Cape, Tom

    Mayday, A.

    Rose, Frank H.

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Sir Samuel J. G.

    Short, A. (Wednesbury)

    Davison, J. E. (Smettiwick)

    Hogge, J. M.

    Simm. M. T.

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Irving, Dan

    Spencer, George A.

    Galiraith, Samuel

    Lunn, William

    Swan. J. E. C.

    Glanville, Harold James

    Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

    Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Thorne, W. (Plaistow)

    Toatill, Robert

    Wignall, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Col.

    Walsh, S. (Ince, Lanes.)

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Wedgwood and Lieut-Commander

    Watorson, A. E.

    Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)

    Kenworthy

    White, Charles F. (Derby, W.)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    NOES.

    Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)

    Murray, Hon. G. (St, Rollox)

    Aug-Garduer, Sir James Tynte

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Murray, William (Dumfries)

    Armitage, Robert

    Glyn, Major R.

    Nail, Major Joseph

    Ashley, Col. Wilfred W.

    Goff, Sir R. Park

    Neal, Arthur

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Gould, J. C.

    Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'clclx.)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Greame, Major p. Lloyd

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

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Green J. F. (Leicester)

    Nitnoll, Com. Sir Edward

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar

    Nicholson, R. (Doncaster)

    Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

    Greer, Harry

    Nicholson, W. (Petersfield)

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Barnston, Major H.

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Norton-Griffiths, Lt.-Col. Sir J.

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Grlggs, Sir Peter

    Oman, C. W. C.

    Bell, Lt.-col. W. C. H. (Devizes)

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')

    O'Neill, Captain Hon. Robert W. H.

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Gwynne, R. S

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Bennett, T. J.

    Hacking, Captain D. H.

    Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

    Betterton, H. B.

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

    Palmer, Brig.-Gerieral G. (Westbury)

    Bigland, Alfred

    Harnbro, Angus Valdemar

    Parker, James

    Birchall, Major J. D.

    Haslam, Lewis

    Pearce, Sir William

    Bird, Alfred

    Honnessy, Major G.

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Perring, William George

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur Griffith

    Hickman, Brig. -General Thomas E.

    Philipps, Sir O. C. (Chester)

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Hilder, Lieut-Colonel F.

    Pinkham, Lt. -Colonel Charles

    Bnwyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Hinds, John

    Pownall, Lt. -Colonel Assheton

    Boyer-Carpenter, Major A.

    Hope, John Deans (Berwick)

    Pratt, John William

    Bramsden, Sir T.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Prescott, Major W. H.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Hopkinson, Austin (Mossley)

    Purchase, H. G.

    Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

    Homo, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

    Raeburn, Sir William

    Buckley, Lt. -Colonel A.

    Houston, Robert paterson

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstaple)

    Burn, T. H. (Belfast)

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Remnant, Colonel Sir James

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Hurd, P. A.

    Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

    Carr, W. T.

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Jesson, C.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Carter, R. A. D, (Manchester)

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

    Casey, T. W.

    Johnstone, J.

    Rowlands, James

    Cautiey, Henry Strother

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Satnuel, A. M. (Farnham, Surrey)

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Samuel, Right Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm, W)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Kelly, Major Fred (Rotherham)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip, A. G. D.

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Kidd, James

    Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    King, Commander Douglas

    Seddon, James

    Clough, R.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Seely, Maj.-Gcneral Rt. Hon. John

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Law, A. J. (Rochdale)

    Shaw, Hon. A. (Kilmarnock)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

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

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Fortar)

    Colvin, Brig. -General R. B.

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

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)

    Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan)

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

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. [Preston]

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

    Lindsay, William Arthur

    Stanton, Charles Butt

    Craig, Captain Charles C. (Antrim)

    Lloyd, George Butler

    1 Starkey, Captain John Ralph

    Curzon, Commander Viscount

    Lonsdale, James R.

    Steel, Major S. strang

    Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)

    Lorden, John William

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Dav/es, Si; Joseph (Crewe)

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Stewart, Gershom

    Oavies, T. (Cirencester)

    Lowe, Sir F. W

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

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

    Lyle, C. E. Leonard (Strattord)

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

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

    Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    Lynn, R. J.

    Terrell, G. (Chippenham, Wilts)

    Dewhurst, Lieut-Commander H.

    M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)

    Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford)

    Donald, T.

    Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Stirling)

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Doyle, N. G rattan

    M'Gufiin, Samuel

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    M'Laren, R. (Lanark, N.)

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    McMicking, Major Gilbert

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    McNeill. Ronald (Canterbury)

    Waddington, R.

    Edwards. J. H. (Glam., Neath)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Wallace, J.

    Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

    Mallalieu. Frederick William

    Ward. Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Eyres-Monsell, Commander

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Wardle, George J.

    Falcon, Captain M.

    Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.

    Waring, Major Walter

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

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

    Farquharson, Major A. C.

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz

    Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

    Whitla, Sir William

    fltzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Wigan, Brig. -General Sir Tyson

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)

    Forrest, W.

    Mosley, Oswald

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

    Foxcroft, Captain C.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Gange, E. S.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    Murchison, C. K.

    Wilson-Fox, Henry

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

    Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Winfrey, Sir Richard

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

    Wood, Major Hon. E. (Ripon)

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

    Wood, Major S, Hill- (High Peak)

    Young, Sir F. W. (Swindon)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Lord E.

    Woolcock. W. J. U.

    Talbot and Captain Guest.

    Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add
    "(d) The Order shall provide for the inspection by an officer, duly appointed for the purpose by the county council, of any apparatus for abstracting water from and returning water to any such river or stream in the area of the county council, and such county council are hereby empowered to recover such penalties as are provided for in the Order with respect to such river or stream;
    (e) Before making any Order the Board of Trade shall consider any representations made to them by the county council or by the Fishery Board with respect to any river or stream referred to in the proposed Order."
    5.0 P.M.
    I am quite aware that the Home Secretary has not looked with any favour upon this proposal hitherto, on the ground, I understand, that it would not work well in practice. I have hopes, however, that on reconsideration he will see that there is not only no harm in this proposal but considerable benefit, and that with the sweet reasonableness which characterises him he will adopt this proposal. The proposal is not an innovation. It has been adopted and incorporated in many Bills, which have in their operation circumstances such as will arise from the present Bill. I need only mention one instance, namely, an Act obtained by the North-Eastern Railway Company in 1905 for the extraction of water from certain streams. This pro vision was incorporated in that Act.I believe that they are working: very well in practice, and I see no reason why, if incorporated in this Bill, they should not work equally well in this case. There is another point as to penalties. Under the Clause, penalties may be imposed for infringement of the Order, and the Order specifies that at least 95 per cent, of the water abstracted shall be returned to the stream is a not less put condition. If penalties are to be attached for the infringement of the Order there should be some provision whereby action can be taken so that the penalties can be imposed. I do not see any provision in the Bill for anyone to seek to recover these penaltes. It would be an advantage to the working of the Bill if it were stated specifically that county councils intrested in the abstraction and return of the water from and to the streams should be empowered to pursue the matter and recover the penalties.
    Mr. CLOUGH: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. The Act pro vides that the electricity board or the authorised undertaker may use the water under an Order made by the Board of Trade, and, of course, the Ministry of Transport, on the recommendation of the Electricity Commissioner. The Electricity Commissioners are responsible for supplying the whole of the electricity, and will, therefore, be responsible for super vising the carrying out of any conditions of the Order. In addition to that, the Board of Trade, which will make the Order, are the proper persons to see the Order carried out and that those conditions are per formed, and that any penalties which may be incurred under the infringement of the Order should be properly enforced, and it would be most inconvenient, indeed, almost without parallel, that the county council should be the people to step in, though they may not be the persons only concerned in the matter—in some cases, they might be and in others they might not—over the heads of the Board of Trade, and do the duty of inspecting and enforcing the penalties which the Board of Trade should perform. This would lead to con siderable friction and a general lack of smoothness in the working. With regard to the next Amendment (d) of course the Board of Trade will always consider any representations that are made. No Order can be made without duo notice and parties being given a chance of representation. Therefore, I suggest that neither of these Amendments is in the least necessary, and that the first might do consider able injury.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: Before moving the Amendment which stands in my name, I would ask your ruling whether the words which I propose to leave out are not entirely out of order as being outside the scope of the Bill. The Bill has for its object to amend the law with respect to the supply of electricity. These words would grant authority for the supply of gas, high pressure water, steam heat, or any other form of energy.
    Mr. SPEAKER: These words have been passed by the Committee, and I cannot overrule their decision.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: I beg to move to leave out the words
    "or for the supply by the board of any form of energy other than electricity."
    I move this Amendment formally, but I understand from the Home Secretary that the next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham, is to be accepted. If that is so, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If these words re main in the Bill will it not be necessary to alter the title of the Bill, because they are in absolute contradiction to the Title? Is it not a fact that if the Committee insert something which is outside the scope of the Bill, then the title of the Bill must be altered?
    Mr. BALFOUR: This matter was raised by myself in Committee and these arguments were advanced. It is quite true that the words were passed by the Committee, but they seem contrary to the title of the Bill.
    Mr. SPEAKER: What was the ruling of the Chairman of the Committee?
    Mr. BALFOUR: The point did not come up for ruling as to whether it was within the scope of the Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Captain BOWYER: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (2), to insert the words
    "Provided always that such district electricity board, local authority, company, or person shall in no case have the power to enter into arrangements for the supply by the board of any form of energy, other than electricity, in any area or district within which any undertakers may be authorised by Parliament to supply such form of energy unless and until such undertakers consent thereto and then, only upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon with such undertakers."
    The same point comes in here as was raised just now on the point of Order, namely, as to the scope of these words. Provided the Electricity Commissioners see fit to give their approval, the words are so wide that they would give the district electricity board the right to provide any form of energy other than electricity. I am sure that the intention of the Bill, especially when one reads Clause 6, is quite manifest—that is, the provision of a cheap and abundant supply
    1686
    Of electricity. But there was a passage in Committee, of which I was a member, which renders it important that some such words as this Amendment should be put in. The hon. Member for Hampstead said,
    "I certainly do not wish these electricity boards to enter into all sorts of business enterprises which are not contemplated in the Bill. If the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament could you not enter into some other enterprise totally different from the supply of electricity?
    Mr. Shortt: Not without the consent of the Commissioners.
    Mr. Balfour: But is it contemplated to bring it within the scope of the duties of the Electricity Commissioners?
    Mr. Shortt: I have said that it is subject to the Order of the Commissioners."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT.]
    In the circumstances some words such as those now proposed are necessary.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. May I call attention to what was said, by Sir Erskine May in the Twelfth Edition of his Book, page 381:
    "When notice has been taken on Report that a Clause which is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill has been introduced in the Committee, the Bill has been recommitted in respect of that Clause."
    I was not on the Committee. Therefore I do not know whether this Clause was introduced in Committee.
    Mr. BALFOUR: No.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Then I submit that if it was introduced in the original Bill, attention having been called to it now, if it is irrelevant to the title of the Bill either the Bill should be dropped or the words that are irrelevant should be omitted.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The fact that that House of Commons read the Bill a second time with those words in it shows that the House of Commons considered them and accepted them. I have no power to reject words which are sent up by a Committee
    Mr. SHORTT: I accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Sub section (5), to leave out the word "production," and to insert instead thereof the word "generation."
    Sir W. PEARCE: Will the Home Secretary agree to the insertion of the words "by them" after "electricity"? Unless

    1687
    that is done the electricity board may, for instance, manufacture things like sulphate of ammonia in enormous quantities from the raw material they get from other places, which is a result that was not intended.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That point can be raised when we have disposed of this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir W. PEARCE: I beg to move, in Sub section (5), after the word "electricity" ["production of electricity"], to insert the words "by them."
    Mr. SHORTT: I am quite unable to accept these words. Without consideration, I have not the slightest idea as to what their effect would be. I will consider the matter now, for the purpose, if necessary, of dealing with it in another place, but the Amendment may have a far-reaching effect, and must be considered.
    Sir W. PEARCE: If my right hon. Friend will consider it I must be content. All I am asking the Home Secretary to do is to confine this business to the by products actually produced by the company themselves, and not so that they may not be able to get together by products all through the country and set up enormous establishments for the manufacture of certain articles. It is a point of some moment, and I hope that before the Bill is finished the Home Secretary will be able to define the matter, so that there can be no dispute as to the real intentions of the Bill that these people shall be allowed to operate only on their own by-products, and not purchase by-products all over the country and manufacture all sorts of substances.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Compensation for Deprivation of Employment.)
    If after the eighth of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen, and within five years from the date when under this Act a transfer of the whole or any part of an undertaking (including the transfer of a generating station and main transmission lines) has been effected, or a scheme for the improvement of the supply of electricity in any district has come into operation, or an agreement or arrangement between various authorised under takers for the rendering of mutual assistance to one another has been entered into, any officer or servant who has before that date been regularly employed in or about the undertaking or any of the undertakings concerned proves to the satisfaction of a referee or a board of
    1688
    referees appointed by the Minister of Labour that in consequence thereof he has suffered loss of employment, or diminution of salary, wages or emoluments, otherwise than on grounds of misconduct, incapacity, or superannuation, or has relinquished his employment in consequence of being required to perform duties such as were not analogous or were an unreasonable addition to those which before the said date he had been required to perform, or has been placed in any worse position in respect to the conditions of his service (including tenure of office, remuneration, gratuities, pension, superannuation, sick fund, or any benefits or allowances, whether obtaining legally or by customary practice), and the body to which the undertaking or part there of was transferred, or, as the case may be, the authorised undertakers who are affected by the scheme or are parties to an agreement or arrangement, do not show to the satisfaction of the referee or board of referees that equivalent employment on the like conditions as those obtaining with respect to him before the said date was available, there shall be paid to him by that body or those undertakers, or such of them as the referee or board of referees may think just, such compensation as the referee or board of referees may award, including any expenses which the officer or servant necessarily incurs in removing to another locality:
    Provided that such compensation shall (unless otherwise agreed previously to the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen) in the case of an officer employed on an annual salary be based on but not exceed the amount which would have been payable to a person on abolition of office under the Acts and Rules relating to His Majesty's Civil Service in force at the date of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, but in computing the period of service of any officer, service under any authorised under takers shall be reckoned as service under the authorised undertaker in whose employment he is at the time that he suffers such loss or diminution as is mentioned in this Section: Providing also that every officer or servant as afore said shall be entitled to count any temporary absences caused by exigencies of war as regular employment within the meaning of this Section.
    Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "and within five years from" ["nineteen, and within five years from the date"], and to insert in stead thereof the words "or after."
    This Clause is the one that provides for compensation, if necessary, to the staffs of various undertakings that may be affected by the Bill. As it is at present worded it merely protects the employés who were employed at a date from the introduction of the Act until five years from the time when any undertaking may be transferred. The purpose of the Amendment is to remove the restricting and limiting words "within five years," so that they may have application to any injury that may take place, whether within the five years or during a later period. I submit that the Amendment would put the Bill on exactly the same plane as Clause 7 of the

    1689
    Ministry of Transport Act, where a similar provision is made for any of the staff who may be affected. If the Bill remains as it stands serious hardship may be done, particularly to the older employés. You might have an employé who was with one of these undertakings and subsequently transferred. He would be taken over by the undertaking; his experience may be used for remodelling the plant and works under new circum stances; his brains would, as it were, be sucked, and at the end of five years he might be thrown on the scrap heap and have no redress. The Amendment does not say that he must have compensation, but that he may. We have spent consider able time in this House in safeguarding the interests of the various undertakers and the shareholders, and I am sure the Home Secretary is prepared to give the same consideration to the staff who may suffer any loss through this Act of Parliament.
    Mr. SHORTT: I think the words it is proposed to leave out are infinitely preferable to those of the Amendment. The five years dates from the date of the transfer. The Clause does not deal with the unreasonable or improper action of employers after the whole effect of the Act had gone. It deals with compensation for that which is caused by the Act in the new circumstances which the Act sots up. Five years from the date of the transfer is ample time in which to discover whether a person is injured or not, whether that injury is due to loss of wages or emoluments, or whether due to the offer of work which is not analogous to what he had hitherto done or which it is unreasonable to ask him to do. All these things are open to him as grounds for claims if the injury is caused in consequence of the passing of this Act. If you extend the period beyond five years the only claimant would be a person with a claim that ought to have been brought against the employer rather than against those responsible for carrying out this Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "that date" ["who has before that date been regularly employed"], and insert instead thereof the words "the said eighth day of May."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. THOMSON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "the" ["in or about the undertaking or any"], and to insert in stead thereof the words "an authorised."
    1690
    The Clause as it stands is not quite water-tight, because it excludes one or two cases which I believe it was the intention of the Home Secretary and of the Committee to be covered by the Clause. Take the case of a man who is employed with a company "A" at the time of the Act coming into force. Before the undertaking is transferred to a district board he may have transferred his services to another company, "B" That company "B" is subsequently taken over by the district board. As the Clause is worded, because he had made this move in the meantime and because he was not employed by company "B" when the Act come into force, he would be debarred from the right to-compensation. I have two other Amendments on the Paper following this. The second is consequential and the third is of the same kind, where you may have some one who suffers deprivation because of some action which is anticipated or caused by the Act, although it is not mentioned in this particular Clause. The Clause provides for three cases where a man may claim compensation. They are, where the concern is transferred, where someone is affected by the scheme, and where a concern is party to any scheme under the Act. In addition to those, you might have a fourth case of an undertaking which is not transferred, which is not directly affected by the scheme itself and yet affected by the Bill, or is not party to any undertaking provided by the district board.
    Mr. SHORTT: My hon. Friend is quite right. I think this is a case which ought to be met. I cannot accept the second Amendment at all. The first, which I do accept, provides for a case where there has been what you might call continuous service in the same profession. We have accepted that position for the purpose of counting time of service. The proper way to meet that would be to leave out the word "the" and let it read, "in or about the undertaking or any authorised under taking proves to the satisfaction." If the hon. Member will move it in some such way, I shall be quite willing to accept it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: Leave out the words "or any of the undertakings concerned"["undertaking or any of the undertakings concerned proves to the"], and insert in stead thereof the words "or any authorised undertaking."—[Mr. T. Thomson.]
    Mr. THOMSON: I beg to move, after the word "thereof" ["in consequence thereof he has suffered"], to insert the words "or in anticipation of the passing of this Act."
    As the Clause is now framed it would exclude from the purview of the protection of this Act the case where an employé may be dismissed through the passing of this Act and yet his case is not covered. He has to show, according to the Act, that the undertaking either was transferred to the district board or joint authority, or that the undertaking was affected by this scheme, or they were parties to some agreement about price or supply of electricity, as the case may be. There is a fourth case, I submit, where an employé may be affected, which does not come within those three particular classes, and it is the case where an employé engaged on an undertaking before the passing of the Act finds his services dispensed with because that undertaking is unable to continue some developments which may have been in hand, but which, owing to the operation of this Act in the surrounding districts, makes it unnecessary for this particular undertaking to carry out these enlargements of its plan. In that particular case he would lose his work because of the general effect of the Act, and not because the undertaking was transferred or directly affected in the meaning of the Clause, or a party to any terms arranged under the Clause. As the Bill is framed the man would be deprived of any benefit, and I submit he should have the right to make a claim before, the proper authorities.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: The speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved does not in the least support the words of his Amendment. I cannot imagine any case which would not come in under the words "in consequence thereof," and of any harm happens to him he would receive some sort of pecuniary compensation. That is quite different from this position which might arise. Some people might say, "Here is an Act coming, and we will dismiss all you men, and you will all be able to get some compensation." They might do that deliberately, or equally on the supposition that the Act would do them some injury, and their action might prove to be wholly unnecessary. The words "in anticipation
    1692
    of the passing of this Act" might give rise to all kinds of operations and transactions for which it would certainly be most unfair to ask the industrial community to pay through the district boards or Electricity Commissioners. The position seems to me to be covered, as far as it is justifiable, by the words as they stand.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "date" ["date he had been required"], and insert instead thereof the words "eighth day of May."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. THOMSON: I beg to move, to leave out the words "before the said date" ["date was available"].
    The insertion of the words "eighth day of May" has altered the reading of the whole Clause. As I understand, the purpose of the original Clause was that a man should be offered similar work to that in which he was employed when the transfer of the undertaking took place. Supposing an undertaking was transferred four years after the passing of the Act, then by the words "eighth day of May" the man would only be entitled to claim to have the same class of employment as he had on the eighth day of May, four years prior to the transfer. He might, in the meantime, have improved his position considerably, and if the intention is to give him an offer of alternative employment similar to that in which he was employed when the transfer took place, I submit these words will not do that.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: "We took the position upstairs that you ought to protect the men who were in employment at the introduction of the Bill when people's suspicions and misgivings might have been aroused. But if you merely protected the right of compensation to the date of the transfer that would be doing an injustice to a large number of men. The object of putting in the words "eighth of May" was to protect people in that position. For instance, a man before the eighth of May might be in a position which carried £500 per year, and by the time of the transfer he might have improved his position to £750. The fact of his being employed before the 8th May, 1919, in the service of an authorised under taker in the kind of employment that led to promotion would qualify him to get what he lost. If the Clause does not cover

    1693
    cases of that kind, I am willing to consider the matter, and have it dealt with in another place.
    Mr. THOMSON: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. If the Clause covers what he suggests it does I do not wish to persist, and as he is pre pared to further consider the matter, I ask leave to withdraw.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "date" ["date was available"], and insert instead thereof the words "eighth day of May."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. NEAL: I beg to move to leave out the words "previously to the eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and nineteen."
    This is part of the proviso which deals with the way in which the compensation referred to in an earlier part of the Clause is to be assessed. The proviso in its general terms applies what is generally known as the Civil Service scale. I can not understand exactly what is the meaning of these words which I propose to omit. The scheme of the Clause is to compensate for some injury done in consequence of the passing of this Act. The man loses his employment or he is put to some disadvantage thereby. The proviso says that he shall be compensated for that in a particular method, unless previous to the presentation of the Bill he has made some other agreement. How can he have made some other agreement unless he had some prophetic instinct, which is altogether unlikely. I do suggest that these words are confusing, and that they should be left out. If my argument is sound, perhaps the Home Secretary would prefer that the whole words should come out, and if not I would respectfully ask that where the parties had come to an agreement it would have to be sanctioned by the Commissioners and some other scale of compensation than the usual Civil Service scale might apply. Suppose, for instance, an officer entered into a bargain with some authority to remain in their employment, and that he should retire on attaining the age of sixty and be entitled to a pension on some proportion of his salary, then why should not that agreement be allowed to stand with the approval of the authority concerned and of the Electricity Commissioners? I suggest that that would be a proper thing to do.
    Mr. KILEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: It might be that a great many special agreements with special compensation might have been made after the Bill was brought in, and no special claim of that description would of course be taken into account. The agreement might be one which would give the person considerably more compensation than he would get under the rules of the Civil Service. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about these words I have no objection to their omission.
    Mr. NEAL: I propose to accept what is offered to me.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. KILEY: I beg to move, after the word "not" ["salary be based on but not exceed"], to insert the words "except with the consent of the referee, or board of referees."
    The object of the Amendment is to give power to the referee or board of referees to consider exceptional cases, such as border line cases. You might find the instance of a person who had been in the electrical profession all the days of his life, but only a limited number of years in a particular undertaking coming under the provisions of this Clause, and, therefore, he will only have a brief period of service for compensation, but, on account of his advanced age, it would be very difficult for him to resume other employment. I have in my mind the case of an individual who has served something like twenty years in the North of England, and who came up to London in June, and he will find himself in a very peculiar position if under this Clause he is deprived of his situation. It is to meet a number of cases on the border line that I move this Amendment.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: These words would give far too wide a discretion to the board of referees, for they would mean that the board could at any time and for any reason they chose depart from the scale which has been laid down by Parliament. The board of referees must stick to the scale. There is hardly any case that is not properly met by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, and, therefore, I would ask that this Amendment should not be pressed.
    Mr. KILEY: In the Civil Service a person has a number of years to his credit, but in the case of an undertaking under this Clause, although a person may have been in the profession for a number of years, he may have only a very few years to his credit in the particular undertaking affected. If my words are too vague, I hope the Home Secretary will undertake to consider some limitation of the power.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, to leave out the words
    "Providing also that every officer or servant as aforesaid shall be entitled to count any temporary absences caused by exigencies of war as regular employment within the meaning of this Section,"
    and to insert instead thereof the words
    "and where any such officer or servant was temporarily absent from his employment whilst serving in of with His Majesty's Forces or the Forces of the Allied or Associated Powers during the present War, such service shall be reckoned as service under the authorised undertakers in whose employment he was immediately before and after such temporary absence."
    Mr. KILEY: Will the Home Secretary explain how he proposes to deal with people who have rendered national service, say, with the Ministry of Munitions, but who, strictly speaking, have not been in His Majesty's Forces?
    Mr. SHORTT: I think the word "with," in the sentence "whilst serving in or with His Majesty's Forces," would cover that case. These words would, I think, cover anyone who has done war service; at any rate, they are so intended.
    Mr. KILEY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider that point?
    Mr. SHORTT: It shall certainly be re considered. It ought to be covered.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir C. COBB: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words
    "Provided also that this Section shall extend and apply for the protection of electric inspectors and also officers and servants employed in connection with tramway undertakings affected under this Act in all respects as if such in spectors, officers, or servants had been employed in connection with an electric supply undertaking."
    The object of this Amendment is that it may be quite clear that certain employés of undertakings taken over by a district electricity board shall be included in the benefits of compensation, or other-
    1696
    wise shall be taken over. In London, for instance, there are certain inspectors of electric mains and meters who ought to be covered. In the event of the generating station at Greenwich, for instance, being taken over by the district board, these inspectors, and also certain tramway employés, such as those employed by the council in connection with the Greenwich generating station, might or might not be taken over by the board. If they were not, I submit that they ought to be compensated for the loss of their position, just as other people who are employed about the undertaking regularly.
    Major GRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: These words are quite unnecessary. If the electrical inspectors are county council inspectors, they are not affected. If they are servants of any undertaking that is taken over, they are covered by the Act, and they are entitled to compensation unless the authority can show that they are able to offer them as good work as they would have had if there had been no Act at all. With regard to the tramway employés, if the undertaking is taken over and they are injured in consequence of what is done under the Act, they are covered also.
    Sir F. HALL: What I expect my hon. Friend has in his mind are employés or officers of the county council who are not what you might call exactly electrical officers, and are not entirely employed on purposes connected with electrical undertakings. My right hon. Friend knows that the London County Council have a very large generating station at Greenwich, and there are some of these officers who are overlooking work in connection with it for the bulk of their time, but are not employed at Greenwich or specially in connection with Greenwich. If my right hon. Friend gives an assurance that they are all included, I have no doubt my hon. Friend will be perfectly satisfied
    Mr. SHORTT: May I point out that the persons covered are those who are employed in or about the undertaking, not in the generating station in particular, but in, or about the undertaking as a whole.
    Sir C. COBB: If it is perfectly plain that these people are included, I am willing to withdraw my Amendment.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: If these words were introduced it would be utterly wrong, because it would, for the first time, be introducing into this Bill a confusion as to the protection of the employés of the consumers of the electricity in addition to the protection of the employés in the power stations taken over. In regard to the tramways, if the inspector is a man who, in the ordinary course, has been employed as a tramway employé, and has had no duties in connection with the generating or supply of electricity, he would not fall within the scope of protection under the Bill, as he would be a consumers' employé, and not an employé controlled by the power station people. I think it would be a great mistake, therefore, to have this Amendment inserted.
    Amendment negatived.
    Captain BOWYER: I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words "the word 'officer' shall be deemed to include 'director' for the purposes of this Section."
    We have not had much luck on this question. Upstairs, I moved Amendments on these lines, and I was told by the Home Secretary, with absolute truth, of course, that a new Clause was going to be inserted which would deal with the matter. That eventually took place, but—
    Mr. SHORTT: No, I said that a new Clause was put down to discuss the matter, and the matter would be better discussed then.
    Captain BOWYER: I did not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, and I did not put his words any higher than saying that a new Clause, dealing with compensation to directors, was coming on. When the new Clause did come on for discussion, I think it was the Secretary to the Board of Trade, who was in charge of the Bill at the time, and he did not see his way to agree to the Clause. It is perfectly true that there is no compulsion under Clauses 12 and 13 to purchase, and it is also true that under the Electric Lighting Act of 1888 there is no provision for the compensation of directors. It is also true that a power-company under its terms of purchase, namely, fair market value, would be able to deal with the question of compensation to directors, and very likely this question would not arise, but I submit that the question does not, and will not only arise on Clauses 12 and 13, but that it will equally arise on Clause 7, where, if a company loses its
    1698
    generating station, it may make a large difference in the personnel. There the company has no choice in the matter, and I therefore submit that these words should be inserted. Many directors of electricity supply companies are men of technical and commercial experience, who render services to their companies comparable in character to those rendered by executive officers, and the fees they receive may be appreciable parts of their professional income.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    There are precedents for regarding directors as the servants of a company. When the Metropolitan Water Board was formed, the directors of the various water companies, whose duties were abolished, were compensated under the Act, and in the case of the gas companies, where the duties and emoluments of the directors have been destroyed on account of amalgamation and otherwise, this House has, under private Bill legislation, authorised the compensation of such directors upon scales of varying degrees of generosity. The principle has been established both in public Acts and in private Bill legislation, and I hope, as regards the mere abstract justice of the case, and as regards the precedents I have mentioned, my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment, unless, indeed, he is able to point to something in the Bill elsewhere which will produce the same effect. I do not suggest an addition, but perhaps it may be possible to add the words so that "the word 'officer' shall be deemed to include director or trustee for the purposes of this Section." That would be a necessary change in order to give proper justice to men whose offices may be destroyed, because debenture holders are nearly always represented by trustees. Their duties are just as important as the duties of directors, and if their fees are abolished in consequence of this Bill be coming an Act, I think, on the ground of abstract justice as well as precedents, the Section ought equally to include them.
    Sir F. HALL: I should like to support this Amendment. This matter was broached in Committee, but although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not promise that it should be included, I think the Committee were led to believe that, at all events, he would give it his favourable consideration. The question

    1699
    was gone into when the new Clauses came up, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said:
    "There is no compulsion to purchase in this Bill, and under the Electric Lighting Act of 1888 there is no provision for the compensation of directors. If the power companies should be transferred under Clause 13, then it would be on the terms of the district board paying the fair market value as a going concern, and it would be for the company to make their own arrangements for the compensating the directors, if any of them required compensating."
    The position is this: Many of these people have been carrying out duties, and, after all, the great bulk of directors of these electric undertakings are well versed in the subject of electricity. They are not, if I may use the word without being offensive, what is ordinarily recognised as guinea pigs. They are not that class of men.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Sucking pigs then!
    Sir F. HALL: I do not happen to be a director of any, but I say that many of these people have given the whole of their lives to the study of questions concerning electrical undertakings. Many of them have served in the shops and worked up from lower grades, entering the managerial department, and eventually being recommended for places on the board. In the ordinary course of events, if an amalgamation takes place with regard to any big undertakings, the first thing that is considered is what is going to be paid to the officers and the employés in compensation, and what is going to be paid to the directors. It has always been looked upon as a reasonable and proper way of dealing with them, and if you are going to say this compensation is not going to be paid to directors, I think it would be detrimental to a good many undertakings, because persons, possibly, would not feel inclined to become directors of these concerns, if they were under the impression that, as soon as they got them into a paying way and everything was plain sailing, they were likely to be jockeyed out by amalgamation. I think the principle has been an excellent one, and I do hope my right hon. Friend may be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I think really the answer to this Amendment was given by the Mover himself, when he explained what probably would be said against it. There is no class of undertakings which has directors which are taken over com-
    1700
    pulsorily. As has been pointed out over and over again, the whole of the profit-earning portion of the concern will be there, having regard to the provisions of Clause 5, and clearly, if you are going to give the directors any kind of compensation for any loss of their fees, you are doing that which Parliament refused to do in 1888. With regard to the power companies, they are not bound to be taken over at all, but, when they are taken over, the provision is that they should be taken over as a going concern, and that ought to include compensation to whoever is employed by them when taken over. That ought to cover not only compensation for directors, but anyone in their employ at the time. Transfers under Clauses 12 and 13 would not entitle officers to compensation under this Clause of necessity at all, and therefore it is the duty of the company to make their terms and look after their directors and every one else who happens to remain in their employ. There is nothing else to affect directors, and therefore I am afraid I must oppose this Amendment.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether there is any Clause in the Act of 1888 dealing with officers and employés? I am not sure, and I have not got the Act here. My recollection is that they are not dealt with. In the meantime, may I point out that the argument, so far as I can follow it, of the Home Secretary, is that when you take power stations over, directors will be left, and in all probability their fees will remain? If that is so, of course they are not entitled to anything further, but, if this provision is put in, surely it would not apply in the event of the directors not losing any fees. It would only apply in the case of the directors losing their employment as directors With all deference to my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, I think directors fill a very useful position.
    Sir F. HALL: I hope my right hon. Friend did not misunderstand me. I have always looked upon them in the very way to which my right hon. Friend has referred.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am glad to hear we are in accord in that, as we are in many other things. Directors are a very useful body of men. In many cases an undertaking could not go on at all without a good chairman and a good body of directors. I know cases where under takings in a bad way have been pulled

    1701
    round entirely by the directors. It is not an uncommon thing. Under those circumstances, why should officers or employés, who are, after all, only wage earners, be compensated and the really moving spirits in the concern be left out? As the Home Secretary has looked through the Act of 1888, I gather that I am right in my recollection that there was no compensation given under that Act, but in those days the compensation was, apparently, as the Parliamentary Secretary stated upstairs, always given out of the lump sum which was paid to the companies. There was no question then of Parliament putting in provisions dealing with the compensation of employés. Under those circumstances, as opinion on those matters has altered during the last thirty years, surely the directors ought to be put in, and compensation given to them just in the same way as to any other officers or servants of a company! There can be no harm in putting this Amendment in if the matter is as the Home Secretary says, because if a director does not lose anything he will not get any compensation. I am sure the Mover of the Amendment would be glad to make it clear that compensation is not required to be paid to anyone for some thing he has not lost. If that is not clear, might I suggest to the Home Secretary that he should modify the Amendment so as to make it clear? I do earnestly hope he will not reject this Amendment, but reconsider the position he has taken up, for, if I may venture very humbly to say so, I think it will be in his own interest in the long run.
    Mr. THOMSON: I hope the Home Secretary will maintain the position he took up in Committee, and, with all due respect to what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet, I respectfully submit there is no analogy between the employé and the director. The director, I take it, is a trustee, and a trustee for the capital that is invested very often. When he is a managing director, that is a different matter altogether, and I think a managing director, being an officer and employé of the company, will have the right to claim compensation. He gets compensation if he is a paid officer of the company. The other directors, who meet occasionally and draw their fees, are there, I submit, as trustees for the money which is invested in the company. Under this Bill, if the companies are taken over, they will have their capital and their
    1702
    money refunded to them. They get their fees as trustees, as guardians, or whatever you like to call them; and if their money is handed back to them they can reinvest it in other companies and draw their fees as before. I submit there is no analogy between the employment of an employé who loses his work, and is rightly entitled to compensation, and a director.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Can the hon. Gentle man tell me where it is that the money can be moved about and reinvested in the way he describes, and a man get director's fees?
    Mr. THOMSON: With all all respect to the hon. Baronet, who has much more experience in finance than I have had, I have some slight idea that there are people who have large sums to invest who get on to boards of directors and do get fees for their work. I may be labouring under a misapprehension, but this sort of thing obtains, I think, in the North of England, if it does not in the City of London. I therefore submit that there is no analogy between a director and an employé, and I trust the Home Secretary will resist the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Power of Board of Trade to Construct Interim Works.)
    (1) It shall be lawful for the Board of Trade, after consultation with the Electricity Commissioners, at any time before the establishment of a district electricity board or joint electricity authority for any district, and for two years after the establishment of any such board or authority, with the consent of such board or authority, to construct any generating station, main transmission line, or other works, and exercise any other powers which a district electricity board or joint electricity authority can or can be authorised to exercise under this Act, but nothing in this provision shall be construed as vesting in the Board of Trade any generating station or main transmission line which under this Act becomes vested in a district electricity board.
    (2) The Treasury may issue to the Board of Trade out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof, any sums not exceeding in the aggregate twenty million pounds, required for the construction of any such works or the acquisition of land for that purpose, or required for providing working capital for such works, on such terms and conditions as to interest, repayment, and otherwise as the Treasury may think fit.
    The Treasury may, if they think fi, at any time for the purpose of providing for the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Find under this Section or for the repayment to that fund of all or any part of the sums so issued, or for the paying off of any security so issued under this Sub-section so far as that payment is not otherwise provided for, borrow money by means

    1703
    of the issue of Exchequer Bonds, and all sums so borrowed shall be paid into the Exchequer.
    Any sums received on account of the payment of principal of interest en the advance made to the Board of Trade shall be paid into the Exchequer, but any part of sums so paid which represents the repayment of principal shall be transferred to the National Debt Commissioners and applied by them as and when they think fit in purchasing or paying off as any occasion requires any securities issued under this Subsection, and sums so applied shall be invested and accumulated by the Commissioners.
    The principal of and interest on any Exchequer Bonds issued under this Sub-section shall be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof.
    (3) At the expiration of two years after the establishment of a district electricity board or joint electricity authority for any district, or at any earlier time which may be agreed on between the Board of Trade and the district electricity board or joint electricity authority, any generating station, main transmission lines and other works, and any land acquired for the purpose thereof by the Board of Trade under this Section which are situate within the electricity district, shall vest in that board or authority, subject to the payment by the district electricity board or joint electricity authority to the Board of Trade of such sum as may be certified by the Treasury to be sufficient to repay the advances made by them to the Board of Trade (including the cost of redeeming any of the securities issued under the preceding Sub-section) in respect of the construction of and provision of working capital for such works, and the acquisition of such lands, and any interest thereon which may be outstanding, after deducting the amount applied or applicable towards the repayment of the sums issued to the Board of Trade, for defraying that cost; and the payment of such sum as aforesaid shall be a purpose for which the district electricity board may borrow under this Act.
    (4) The prices fixed by the Board of Trade for electricity supplied by them from generating stations established under this Section, shall be such that their receipts therefrom will be sufficient to cover their expenditure on income account (including interest and sinking fund charges in respect of such advances as aforesaid) with such margin as the Board may think fit:
    Provided that in fixing such prices the Board of Trade shall have regard to the existing scale of charges of the authorised distributors in the district, and that the provisions of Sub-section (5) of the Section of this Act, whereof the marginal note is "Acquisition of generating stations," shall extend and apply to the Board of Trade in the same manner and to the same extent as such provisions apply to a district electricity board.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (l), to insert the words,
    "In the event of it appearing to the Electricity Commissioners in manner provided by the Section of this Act, the marginal note of which is 'Constitution of district electricity boards,' that no satisfactory scheme can be formulated for any electricity district other than that of constituting a district electricity board for that district."
    1704
    Later I have an Amendment to an Amendment which stands in the name of the Home Secretary, and it may be convenient to the House if I say most of what I have to say relating to the subsequent Amendment at this stage. The words in Clause 5, Sub-section (4) are almost identical, if not in words in substance, with the Amendment which I have put on the Paper, the sole purpose of which is to prevent the erection of a generating station by the Board of Trade prior to the constitution of any regular authority. In Committee upstairs Clause 5 was originally presented in a totally different form to that in which it now stands in the Bill. As Clause 5 originally stood, Clause 19 was quite inoffensive. Owing, however, to Amendments in Clause 5, there has been a great change, which, instead of directly setting up district electricity boards provides, firstly, for the delimitation of areas, and secondly, for the constitution, voluntarily, of joint electricity authorities, and only in the last resort for the constitution of district electricity boards. That great change having been made, in Clause 19, I think, requires this Amendment to give effect to the original objects of the Bill.
    If the Home Secretary is prepared to accept my Amendment to his subsequent Amendment, I will not proceed further with my present Amendment I see the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Therefore, perhaps I may go on to call attention to something which was said by the Home Secretary when speaking in Committee upstairs on an Amendment which was, I think, proposed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson). That Amendment was to give effect to very much the same idea expressed in the Amendment before us now. Speaking on that Amendment the Home Secretary concluded his remarks by saying,
    "I am willing to put forward a proviso to say what I thought nobody doubted—that an inquiry under Sub-section (2) of Clause 5 will be held."
    In the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in the name of the Home Secretary there is a colourable imitation to that effect as to Sub-section (2) of Clause 5, but it certainly does not give effect to what he said. My Amendment simply imposes upon the Board of Trade the obligation that there shall first be an inquiry held under the terms of Clause 5, and that the £20,000,000 shall only be spent if it has been satisfactorily proved

    1705
    that there is no other alternative—that is, that no voluntary combination can be brought about, and if there is a necessity for a district board. Unless these conditions are satisfied, the money shall not be spent. I do urge that these words are necessary. If I felt inclined to say I should have to press anything to a Division, I should certainly feel inclined to say it on this occasion. I quite, however, realise the purposelessness of such a statement. It would be useless to press such a Division as usually takes place. I do not propose to do it, but I do rely upon the careful attention of the Home Secretary to the real intent and meaning of the words I propose. I ask him very carefully to consider if there is any real objection to these words. Is it not the fact that the maximum objection urged to these words is possibly the additional delay before the Board of Trade can start to spend this £20,000,000, an additional six weeks or two months, or at the outset, three months, until an inquiry under Clause 5 is properly held, instead of, as suggested in the Home Secretary's Amendment, there is consultation with county councils, etc., and other people interested? I urge this Amendment upon the attention of the Home Secretary, and I trust he will see his way to accept it.
    Sir M. CONWAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: The whole object of this Clause is to provide that in an area which requires a board assistance should not be unduly delayed. The whole object of giving the Board of Trade power to spend this £20,000,000 is that they may spend it as may be thought wisely before the establishment of a district electricity board or of a joint electricity authority for any district. The whole object is that when there is some unavoidable delay in forming a district board or a joint electricity authority the central authority, the Board of Trade, should be able to step in and ensure that the necessary work is carried out without a delay of perhaps, twelve or eighteen months. It was urged in the Committee that it was quite possible that you might have the Electricity Commissioners approaching the Board of Trade and asking them to build a, generating station before they had properly considered whether the site was or was not desirable, or whether their proposals were such as fitted in adequately with any scheme that might
    1706
    thereafter be set up, and that it was essential that provision should be made that this money should not be spent without due investigation and discussion.
    These objections, of course, I saw at once, and I think I have succeeded in meeting them by the Amendments I have set down. As opposed to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, I have suggested that the first provision should be the provision for the district, and also arranging the whole area, the amalgamation, the joining together of various authorities and various authorised undertakings in that area, and the area adjacent, so that it can best and most efficiently be supplied with electricity. In order to ensure that the choice of area should be the right one, and also that the site chosen for the generating station should be the right one, I am further proposing that the Board of Trade, before it constructs a station, should consult with practically everybody concerned—with the county councils, the local councils, and the authorised undertakers, all people who would form the district board—if it be a district board; or constitute the greater part of the joint electricity authority—if that is the scheme which is eventually approved.
    That seems to me to ensure that the money will not be spent without due consideration and discussion. Equally, I think, it would ensure that there is no undue delay. If what my hon. Friend suggests were put into this Bill, it. would mean inevitably that before the Board of Trade could go to the assistance of any district, before it could help in the development of any district, there would have to be delay necessary to decide upon the scheme and to get the people to agree, or, if they did not agree, for the Electricity Commissioners themselves to set up their own board. May I remind the House that these provisions are not for the purpose of helping those districts which are well able to help themselves. They are not to assist those districts which will rapidly be able to decide as to the best scheme for them to carry into execution. It is for coming to the rescue of those very districts where there are difficulties, where perhaps they cannot agree, and where inevitably there will be delay in forming a scheme and carrying proposals into execution. For that reason I hope the House will reject the Amendment of my hon. Friend and accept those in its place which I have put on the Paper.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Are we to assume, in finding the exact way the £20,000,000 is to be spent, that it will take eighteen months before any improvements take place in various parts of the country in the electricity supply? Is not the time, under the circumstances, likely to be two and a half or three years?
    Mr. SHORTT: That is exactly what my hon. Friend has not to believe. What I said was that the £20,000,000 was to meet those cases—I hope there will not be many—where, owing to some local or special circumstances, nothing can be done. None of the £20,000,000 will be used in the majority of districts where they will be able to get to work at once. But there are bound to be some areas which require help, or otherwise would be deprived of this power. The £20,000,000 of money is provided to meet these exceptional cases.
    Captain BOWYER: The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead fills me with amazement. I cannot quite understand how it is that he, who knows so much about electricity, should bring it forward. As I understand it, and as the Home Secretary has said, the whole value of Clause 19 will go if this Amendment is passed. Surely the value of Clause 19 is to act as a connecting link between what can be done now and what can be done when the districts are formed, and the district board, or the joint electricity authority gets into its stride? It might well be that those who, at the Board of Trade, have this matter in hand, even now, before the Bill has passed, have very good ideas as to what should be done and what can be done in this country to develop electricity. I trust the House will not pass this Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "time" ["at any time before the establishment of a district electricity board"], insert the words "after an electricity district has been provisionally determined and."
    Leave out the word "any" ["electricity authority for any district"], and insert instead thereof the word "the."
    At end of Sub-section (1), insert the words
    "Provided that, where the Board of Trade propose to construct a generating station before the establishment of a district electricity board or joint electricity authority for any district, they shall consult with the county councils, local
    1708
    authorities, and authorised undertakers any part of whose county, district, or area of supply is within the electricity district, as to the site of the proposed station."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. THOMSON: On behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes), I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words
    "Provided that—

    (i) no such works shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete them has been approved by the Treasury;

    (ii) if such estimate as in the preceding paragraph in connection with the establishment of such works is likely to involve a total capital expenditure exceeding half a million pounds the Minister shall not exercise his powers unless authorised to do so by Order in Council a draft whereof has been approved by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament."

    The purpose of this Amendment is not in any way to hamper the work of the Electricity Commissioners, but to provide some check on the possibility of extravagant expenditure by requiring that the Treasury shall be consulted before these moneys are spent, and to provide also that, if the moneys intended to be spent exceed £500,000, an Order from ths House shall first be required. I feel sure that the Home Secretary will accept these provisions, because they are taken almost word for word from the Transport Bill, where similar provisions were inserted. Whatever may have been the case when this Bill was before the Committee, and was presumed to be going to the Board of Trade, now that the Government have decided that it shall go to the Minister of Transport, they surely cannot resist the contention that a provision which was put into the Transport Bill, which is under the Minister of Transport, should likewise be put into an Electricity Bill which is going to the care of the same right hon. Gentle man. The House will agree that in these times, no matter how desirable it is to develop the electricity powers of the country with as little delay as possible, it is equally necessary that we should have some check on the finance of such an undertaking. We are putting probably greater powers into the hands of the Electricity Commissioners than have ever before been given to any public body — powers which will involve the expenditure of many millions of money. It is highly desirable, especially at a time like this, when economy is preached from the Treasury Bench, that the Treasury should

    1709
    have a voice in the matter, and that this House should be in a position to pass an opinion when it comes to a question of expending £500,000 or £1,000,000. The particular wording of the Amendment is not material, and if the Home Secretary would prefer that the sum should be £1,000,000 instead of £500,000, I am quite certain that the hon. and gallant Member whose Amendment I am moving would be agreeable to make that alteration. But it is desired that the principle should be acknowledged, firstly, that the Treasury should have the right of sanction, and, secondly, that this House should have the right to a final voice in determining the expenditure of such sums as £500,000 or £1,000,000 of money. The House is willingly granting £20,000,000 for the purpose, but we say that a further check is necessary in matters of this kind.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: This sum of £20,000,000 was definitely voted by Parliament for the purpose of carrying out certain descriptions of work. It is provided in the Bill that it has to be done by the Minister of Transport on the requisition of the Electricity Commissioners, and, having regard to the Amendments which have just been adopted by the House, after properly defining the area and after due consultation with those who are most intimately concerned with the whole matter. If these proposed words were inserted, the question of delay would again arise. This is not a case where public money is concerned in the ordinary sense of the word at all. This sum of £20,000,000 is for the purpose of advances. The State will not lose it, but the industry itself, through the district boards, will pay the whole amount which is expended out of that twenty millions. The district boards, as provided by Sub-clause (3) of Clause 19, will eventually have the generating stations vested in them, and they will be liable to pay for them, and therefore provision is made in order that they may pay such charges as may be imposed upon them. It is not a case in the ordinary sense where public money is going to be spent which will eventually be a charge upon the taxpayers of the country. The money has already been advanced to those bodies, and they are responsible for spending it. The industry for whom they are concerned are the people who will have to pay, through the district boards
    1710
    and through the Electricity Commissioners. Therefore, I would ask my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. It really is not necessary. The case is on quite a different footing from one in which money is going to be spent for which the public will eventually be responsible. The public, as the public, and the taxpayer, as the taxpayer, have no concern in this. Their only concern is that, as consumers of electricity, they should see that the money is spent to the best advantage. That is not a matter for the Treasury at all; it is a matter for the Minister in charge and the Electricity Commissioners. It would cause undue hampering and undue delay, and, by undue delay at any rate, would partially defeat the very object of this Clause.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I must say I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite who has moved this Amendment, and I am sorry to say that I am not convinced by the arguments of the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary brings forward two arguments. One is that this amount of £20,000,000 will eventually be repaid to the Treasury or the taxpayer, and it is to be repaid by the profits made by the Electricity Commissioners. But one of the things that we are told, and, as far as I know, the only reason for supporting this Bill, is that the public are going to have cheap electricity. Now, if I may use a sporting phrase, it is 1,000 to I that the public will find in two or three years' time that they have not cheap electricity, but very dear electricity, and the first thing that will be said will be that money must not be put by to repay this twenty millions. It will be said that the electricity is not cheap and that the money must not be put by. That is the answer to one of the reasons advanced by the Home Secretary. With regard to the other, it is the same argument which was advanced, only with a great deal more reason, during the War. It was said that we must have all these time and line contracts, that we must go to all sorts of extravagances, because there was a hurry, and because we were at war. I do not see that it makes any difference at all whether we wait for two, or three, or four months for the electricity plans, provided we are sure that the money is properly spent. Speaking as Chairman of the Select Committee on National Expenditure—and I believe all the members of that Committee agree with me—we found that, while in the case of the old Departments

    1711
    economy is generally observed, in the case of the new Departments there is no such thing as economy. All they say is, "Let us get what we were set up to do done as quickly as possible," and cost is a secondary consideration. We are going to set up a new Department, and we are told that it is very necessary that we should hurry or the object will be defeated. I hardly like to venture an opinion, but I should think it would be at least three or four years before we see anything done under this Bill. Therefore, as I have said, hurry does not very much matter.
    What will these people do, especially after the bad example set them by the Home Secretary, who tells them to hurry on irrespective of cost? They will go to a contractor, and he will say. "You want this work done at once; I must have my time and line contract; I cannot have a contract for a lump sum." This time and line contract will be carried out, and it will be found that twenty millions is not enough, that they have not carried out anything like what they intended, and that the whole scheme is more or less a failure. Then, if the present Government is in office, they will certainly come down with an amended Bill for another twenty millions. I think that is what is very likely to happen, and I think the Treasury are the proper body to see that these people do get a proper estimate, because after all that is what it amounts to. It does not say that the Treasury are not to allow it; all it says is that the Treasury are to see that the estimate is a proper one, made out in a proper manner. Why not? That is one of the reasons why the directors very often come in in a company. Why should not, the Treasury be placed in the position of directors, and see that the estimate is a reasonable one and made out in a businesslike manner? The Electricity Commissioners and district boards have nothing to fear if they are businesslike, but if they are not businesslike, I maintain that the influence of the Treasury will be good.
    Then we come to the other part of the Amendment, which says that, where a sum exceeding half a million is going to be spent, the House must be consulted. Under the circumstances, as we have already voted the twenty millions, I am not quite sure that we could very well put that in, and I rather think that perhaps it ought to be abandoned, but I quite agree with the other part. I have
    1712
    not seen the terms of the Financial Resolution, and I do not know whether we are committed to the whole twenty millions, or whether it speaks of a sum not exceeding twenty millions. If the latter is the case, I think the proposed words could be brought in, but I do not see how they could be if we are committed to the whole twenty millions. In any case I think the Government would be well advised to accept the first part of the Amendment, and give the Treasury the power to see, not that the money is not spent, but that it is spent in a proper manner.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: I regret that this Amendment has not met with a more favourable reception by the Minister in charge of the Bill. The arguments adduced by my hon. Friend who moved it have, as is usually the case in these matters, been admirably supplemented by my right hon. Friend on the other side of the House (Sir F. Banbury), and what he says I respectfully support. There is no doubt at all that an estimate submitted to the Treasury would be a most effective safeguard, in the public interest, in regard to the expenditure of public money by an entirely new body, which is in the main unused to the expenditure of public money in accordance with the custom and practice of old-established Departments. Such a new Department undoubtedly will set to work with very little of the traditions of the older Departments. It will be staffed with new men, with the new ideas of expenditure which have come into practice since the War began and which are being continued after the War has been concluded. I urge upon my right hon. Friend that he might very well accept the first part of the Amendment. I dare say that the second part is open to some objection. The money has been granted by the Financial Resolution, and I would point out to my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) that it does say "not exceeding in the aggregate £20,000,000." I am not stressing that so much, because I hope to get something out of my right hon. Friend. I really do think that a very great deal of argument extraordinarily difficult to meat can be advanced in support of the first-part of this Amendment, and I hope what has been said will convince my right hon. Friend that he will be doing a wise thing in the interests of public economy, and. in deed, in the interests of the efficiency of this new Department, if he accepts it.
    Mr. SHORTT: This Amendment was only put down this morning, and I have not had time to make inquiries, but, so far as I know, the Treasury have no machinery for going into estimates for the setting up of a generating station. Probably, the only effect of accepting the Amendment would be that the Treasury would employ the very same experts to advise them as the Minister of Transport himself would employ, and that would not give Treasury control in the way the House desires. I am bound to say that I shall have to fight, the second part of the Amendment, but, with regard to the first part, if I find that the Treasury have been accustomed to do this work, and have the machinery to do it, I will certainly consider whether something cannot be put in when the Bill reaches another place to meet the object which this Amendment is intended to attain. The Treasury would not have to decide whether the works were necessary, whether they were in a desirable position, whether the site was the right one, or whether a cheaper site could be obtained in another place. That would be no part of what the Treasury would have to do. That would make the thing impossible. They would simply go into the estimates and approve of the expenditure. If they have the machinery to do it, I agree to this being put in when the Bill gets to another place, because I quite appreciate that some control, especially over the estimates of a new Department, may be very valuable indeed, so long as that control does not curb the expert opinion or cause any undue delay. So long us those two things are excluded, then I quite agree that some kind of proper control over the estimates would be a good thing. I do not think, however, as at present advised, that the Treasury are the best body to do it, but, if this Amendment be withdrawn, I will certainly consider whether something can be put in when the Bill gets to another place to meet the object which it is intended to attain.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: If I am not mistaken, the Estimates for the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service do come before the Treasury, and they have all that tradition and experience behind them which all those who have had anything to do with the Departments know is a very valuable check. The Treasury do not go into policy in these matters, but I am confident that the existing machinery could be well brought to bear upon these Estimates with very great advantage.
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: I think the fear of the right hon. Gentleman that there will be any difficulty in the Treasury going into these estimates is quite unfounded. An overhauling estimate would be submitted to the Treasury, so that they would be able to see that the amount to be expended would be a certain sum. They would not need to go into the cost of the machinery or of the site. The Minister of Transport himself would have to be satisfied with regard to those matters. It seems right and proper that such an estimate should be submitted to the Treasury and be approved by the Treasury, so that, we may not in the first instance be told that the station is to cost £2,000,000 and then ultimately find that £4,000,000 has to be paid. I entirely endorse the view that the second part of the Amendment would hamper the Minister of Transport, but I trust that the Home Secretary will see his way to accept the first part, and, if he docs not do so, I hope that my hon. Friend will divide the House upon it.
    Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: The Home Secretary has suggested that my hon. Friend should withdraw this Amendment and trust to him to get some form of words inserted in another place to carry out the object which he desires. I want to suggest that it would be more satisfactory to the House if the reverse course were taken and it the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment, or, at any rate, the first part of it, and then see what alterations, if any, were necesssay when, the Bill got to another place. The great majority of the House are agreed (hat some form of Treasury control is necessary, and we should all feel very much happier in our minds ii the Bill left this House with that control inserted in it, rather than that it should leave this House without it and we should trust to another place to insert it.
    Major GREAME: I do not think that anyone will take very much exception to something in the form of the first part of the Amendment, but it is important to realise that if you insert it you are not going to get anything of very great value. It has been suggested that a general estimate will be put in and will be approved by the Treasury. The only way of testing the estimate is to do so by exports, and presumably there will only be experts in the Department which deals with the matter. There is rather a danger in this proposal. I am as keen as the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) to get proper

    1715
    effective, Parliamentary control, but there is nothing worse for control over expenditure than to suggest to the spending Departments that they can rely upon Treasury control. The only way to get proper control over expenditure is for the head of each Department to realise that he is responsible for the economical administration of his Department. If we rely too much upon Treasury control, it simply means that the Department shirks its work and puts it on to the Treasury, which has not the staff to do it. Time and time again it has been put to Treasury witnesses who have appeared before Committees, "Do not you think that it would be a good thing if the Treasury were to have further power?" They have answered perfectly frankly, "No; you cannot turn the Treasury on to do the work which it is the duty of the other Departments to do". The work is either done twice or it is not done properly at all. I trust, therefore, that the House, if it puts these words in, will not think that they will be a valuable safeguard. The real safeguard is the efficient administration within the Department itself. I hope the Home Secretary will not accept the second part of the Amendment. One is always a little suspicious when one finds the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and the Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Thomson) in collusion over anything. I am not quite sure what is the motive of the Mover, but I am quite clear what is the motive of the right hon. Baronet. It is that as little as possible should be done under this Act within the next five years. If you put in this limit of £500,000, the work which this Act is intended to do cannot possibly be accomplished.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I said that I was doubtful about the advisability of accepting the second part of the Amendment, and I was the first to say so.
    Major GREAME: The right hon. Baronet has not shown any great disposition to assist the Government in carrying out this work. There surely is no need to insert any such provision. You have almost identically the same provision with regard to advances made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, but it has never been suggested that every one of those advances should be brought up for approval by Parliament.
    Mr. THOMSON: In response to the suggestion thrown out by the Home Secretary, I am quite willing to withdraw the second part of the Amendment if he can see his way to accept the first part. Under Clause 16 of the Transport Bill the consent of the Treasury has to be given for works of construction, such as railways, bridges, harbours, and docks. Surely the same experts would be able to advise the Treasury with regard to this Electricity Bill.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. THOMSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "fit" ["otherwise as the Treasury may think fit"], to insert the words
    "Provided that—
    (i) no such works shall be established by the Ministry until an estimate of the capital expenditure required to complete them has been approved by the Treasury."
    Mr. SHORTT: I cannot accept these words. Everything that I have heard shows me that it is difficult to distinguish between what is the financial control which this House desires and control of policy. Everything that has been said shows that control of transport policy would be the effect, whatever the motive, and I really cannot accept any words without more careful thought. I am willing, however, to consider the whole position between now and the Bill reaching another place, but further than that I cannot go.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand that if we do not divide on this Amendment he will insert in another place some words which will more or less carry out what the majority of the House desire?
    Mr. SHORTT: I did not promise to insert words. I said that I would consider the question with those who are interested in the matter between now and the Bill reaching another place, and see if anything be necessary, and. if so, what?
    7.0 P.M.
    Colonel GRETTON: I have listened carefully to tins Debate, and I am afraid that the undertaking given by the Home Secretary is no undertaking at all. It is for this House to decide whether some safeguard should not be inserted, and that is the sole question we have to deal with now. We have had Departments embarking on extravagant expenditure which certainly, in ordinary times of Treasury control, would not have been permitted.

    1717
    The House itself appears to have parted with its control over works undertaken by new Ministers, and the only control now possible apparently is Treasury control. I certainly hope my hon. Friend will not withdraw the Amendment, but will take the opinion of the House whether these words be inserted, and thereby maintain the principle, notwithstanding that other words may have to be devised in order to meet the case.
    Sir W. PEARCE: Will the Home Secretary allow these words to be put in without making himself responsible for them, and reserving to himself power to modify them if necessary in another place? I feel the right hon. Gentleman has a good deal of reason in suggesting that he requires further information, and surely if the words are put in now there will be an opportunity to alter them later on?
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Let the House consider what is the object of this Clause. It is to cover what otherwise would be a hiatus. At the present moment all development is practically paralysed pending the passage of this Bill, and the constitution of every district board or electricity authority is held up. First of all, districts have to be suggested and discussed, and afterwards it has to be decided whether there is to be a scheme for an electricity authority or for a district board. Those conversant with the public know all this will take a considerable amount of time. There is overwhelming evidence of a clamant demand in the country for these electric powers to be supplied at as early a date as possible, and the only way in which that can be done is for the Board of Trade to provide what is urgently needed without waiting for the formation of every electricity authority or district board. In the first instance, the district will have to be sketched out, and the local authorities in the district will have to be consulted before that can be done. Then there is provided in the Bill a purely temporary power. It is not whether a new authority shall be set up, but whether a generating station shall be established without Treasury control. That, however, is not what we are discussing here. As I understand the Bill, after the electricity board is set up, there is another proposal that it should go to the Treasury for sanction to set up a generating station. The
    1718
    House of Commons does not regard that as at all necessary when it comes to the temporary setting up of a generating station to meet an urgent demand. Not only are the Board of Trade and the Electricity Commissioners and the local authorities to be consulted, but now it is proposed you should go to the Treasury, which knows nothing about local needs, and beyond that it seems to be suggested you are to come to this House and have the same procedure, all of which will involve further delay. I think this is totally unnecessary. It is urged because of a misconception of what we are now dealing with. We are dealing with a temporary matter. We are strictly limited in this Clause to two years for the establishment of the authority, so that the whole thing is of a temporary character. If you are going to provide for reference to the Treasury with regard to the erection of a temporary generating station, then it should be equally necessary to go to the Treasury for power for the electricity board to set up a new station.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: What delay is there going to be? One would imagine it is to be a question of a month or six weeks or even more. But as a matter of fact it will be nothing of the kind. All the Amendment asks is that before the Treasury shall give their authority for these payments business estimates of the expenditure shall be submitted. There is nothing more asked for.
    Mr. SHORTT: Submitted and approved.
    Sir D. MACLEAN: They will only have to look at it in the same way as they deal with other estimates. It will not involve any question of policy. What have we come to? Here is this House, which is the financial guardian of the country, having it solemnly suggested to it that this matter should be passed over to the House of Lords to be dealt with!
    Sir F. BANBURY: Going back to old Tory principles.
    Lieut-Commander WILLIAMS: I am perfectly astonished at some of the statements made by the Home Secretary. After all the object of this Amendment is to curb the experts when they are expending money. As far as I can understand, in connection with the Army and Navy and Civil Service the Treasury is used to

    1719
    curb expenditure, if it is bad or if it is extravagant, it is done in the interests of the taxpayers as a whole, and I would like to urge upon the Home Secretary to agree to put these words in here, so that this House may have some definite power
    and some opportunity of exercising its control through the Treasury over tins expenditure.
    Question put, "That those words be-there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 182.

    Division No. 137.]

    AYES.

    [7.10 p.m.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Gretton, Colonel John

    Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Griffiths, T. (Pontypool)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Gritten, W. G. Howard

    Palmer, Major G. M. (Jarrow)

    Bell, James (Ormskirk)

    Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)

    Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)

    Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

    Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

    Perring, William George

    Bowles, Colonel H. F.

    Hallas, E.

    Rees, Captain J. Tudor (Barnstapic)

    Brace, Rt. Hon. William

    Hartshorn, V.

    Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)

    Bramsden, Sir T.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur

    Robertson, J.

    Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F.

    Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)

    Hogge, J. M.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone)

    Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

    Holmes, J. Stanley

    Steel, Major S. Strang

    Coob, Sir Cyril

    Hood, Joseph

    Swan, J. E. C.

    Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

    Johnstone, J.

    Thomas-Stanford Charles

    Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)

    Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Walsh, S. (Ince, Lancs.)

    Duncannon, Viscount

    Lort-Williams, J.

    White, Charies F. (Derby, W.)

    Du Pre, Colonel W. B.

    Lunn, William

    Wilkie, Alexander

    Edgar, Clifford

    Lyon, L.

    Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavlstock)

    Finney, Samuel

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Galbraith, Samuel

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

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

    Glanville, Harold James

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Gray, Major E.

    Molson, Major John Elsdale

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Greer, Harry

    Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)

    Mr T. Thomson and Mr. Raffan.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Doyle, N. Grattan

    Jodrell, N. P.

    Astoury, Lieut. -Com. F. W.

    Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)

    Johnson, L. S.

    Bagley, Captain E. A.

    Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)

    Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvi')

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)

    Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)

    Banner, Sir J. S. Harmood-

    Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Barlow, Sir Montague (Salford, S.)

    Entwistle, Major C. F.

    Kidd, James

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Eyres-Monsell. Commander

    Kiley, James Daniel

    Barnston, Major H.

    Falcon, Captain M.

    King. Commander Douglas

    Barrand, A. R.

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Kinloch-Cookc, Sir Clement

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Farquharson. Major A. C.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A Bonar

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

    Fell, Sir Arthur

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

    Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

    Lloyd, George Butler

    Bird, Alfred

    FitzRoy, Captain Hon. Edward A.

    Lorden, John William

    Blair, Major Reginald

    Foxcroft, Captain C,

    Loseby, Captain C. E.

    Borwick, Major G. O.

    Fraser, Major Sir Keith

    Lowe, Sir F. W.

    Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.

    Gange, E. S.

    M'Laren. R. (Lanark, N.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

    Ganzoni, Captain F. C.

    McMicking, Majo" Gilbert

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)

    McNeill. Ronald (Canterbury)

    Britton, G. B.

    Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)

    Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir E. A.

    Maitland, Sir A. D. Steel

    Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.

    Greame, Major p. Lloyd

    Mallalieu, Frederick William

    Campbell, J. G. D.

    Green, J. F. (Leicester)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Cape, Tom

    Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar

    Mitchell, William Lane

    Carr, W. T.

    Griggs, Sir Peter

    Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

    Carter, R. A. D. (Manchester)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Moore-Brabazon, Lieut. -Col. J. T. C

    Carter, W. (Mansfield)

    Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')

    Morden, Colonel H. Grant

    Casey, T. W.

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

    Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Hanson, Sir Charles

    Murchison, C. K.

    Cayzer, Major H. R.

    Hayday, A.

    Murray, Maj. C. D. (Edinburgh, S.)

    Cheyne, Sir William Watson

    Henderson, Maj. V. L. (Tradeston. Glas)

    Murray. William (Dumfries)

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Hennessy, Major G.

    Nall, Major Joseph

    Clough, R.

    Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)

    Neal. Arthur

    Coates, Major Sir Edward F.

    Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.

    Newbould, A. E.

    Coats, Sir Stuart

    Hilder, Lieut-Colonel F.

    Newman, Major J. (Finchley, M'ddx.)

    Colvin, Brig. -General R. B.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Parker, James

    Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University)

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Pearce, Sir William

    Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)

    Horne, Sir Robert (Hillhead)

    Pinkham. Lt. -Colonel Charles

    Craig, Col. Sir James (Down, Mid.)

    Howard, Major S. G.

    Pollock. Sir Ernest Murray

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Hume-Williams. Sir Wm. Ellis

    Pratt, John William

    Davies, T. (Cirencester)

    Hunter, Gen. Sir A. (Lancaster)

    Prescott. Major W. H.

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

    Hunter-Weston, Lieut. -Gen. Sir A. G.

    Raeburn, Sir William,

    Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)

    Hurd, P. A.

    Ramsden. G. T.

    Denison-Pender, John C.

    Jophcott, A. R.

    Ratcliffe, Henry Butler

    Dewhurst, Lieut. -Commander H.

    Jesson, C.

    Reid, D. D.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton)

    Sturrock, J. Leng-

    Weston, Colonel John W.

    Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Sykes, Col. Sir A. J. (Knutsford)

    Wheler, Colonel Granville C. H.

    Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Sykes, Sir C. (Huddersfield)

    Whitla. Sir William

    Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.)

    Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)

    Wigan, Brig.-General Sir Tyson

    Rowlands, James

    Thomas, Sir R. (Wrexham, Denb.)

    Wignall, James

    Royce, William Stapleton

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

    Wild, Sir Ernest Edward

    Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)

    Thorne, W. (Plaistow)

    Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald

    Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur

    Townley, Maximilian G.

    Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.

    Tryon, Major George Clement

    Wood, Major S. Hill- (High Peak)

    Seddon, James

    Waddington, R.

    Woolcock, W. J, U.

    Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

    Wallace, J.

    Yale, Colonel Charles Edward

    Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N 'castle-on -T., W.)

    Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.

    Young, William (Perth and Kinross)

    Simm. M. T

    Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)

    Younger, Sir George

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    wardle, George J.

    Spencer, George A.

    Waring, Major Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)

    Waterson, A. E.

    Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.

    Stephenson, Colonel H. K.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Amendment made: At the end of Subsection (3) add,
    "Provided that the date of vesting under this Sub-section shall not, be later than the date fixed for the vesting in the district electricity board or joint electricity authority of any geuerating station of any authorised undertakers within the district."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. G. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "(including interest and sinking fund charges in respect of such advances as aforesaid)."
    The provision made for fixing the costs in this Sub-section is for the temporary period while the power stations are operated by the Board of Trade before a district electricity board is set up. Under Clause 31, which deals to some extent with the price to be charged after the district electricity board is set up, there is a specific provision to spread over a term of years the interest and sinking fund charges. I understand that this Bill is supposed to provide a cheap and abundant supply of electricity. If these words are left in and the price to be fixed is to include what the generating station costs and all other charges, including the interest and sinking fund charges and the energy which is delivered from that power station is to be delivered to an extent of perhaps only one-third or one-fourth of the total output of the power station, how can that one-third or one fourth possibly meet the total interest and sinking fund charges? In fact, the interest and sinking fund charges may be higher than the total generating cost. What are the charges a consumer would have to pay if the interest and sinking fund charges are included in; this temporary period? There is the cost j of generating the electricity at the power station operated by the Board of Trade, the cost of the administration of that power station and interest and sinking
    1722
    fund on the loans for the new generating station which has been erected by the Board of Trade and which may not be fully loaded for many years to come. He is to take the burden of paying interest and sinking fund charges in connection with that station. Probably the only consumer is going to be a person whose power station has been shut down in order that he should be able to get a supply from the Board of Trade power station. He also has to pay interest and sinking fund charges appertaining to his own generating station, which has been shut, down. If he has all these charges compulsorily thrust upon him it will mean such a price as to make it an impossible proposition. I am entirely in accord with the view that so far as is consistent with the object of this Bill, namely, giving a reasonably cheap and abundant supply of electricity, the purchaser of that electricity should bear all the costs of generation, administration and interest and sinking fund within the limits of giving him what it is proposed to give him by this Bill. But I think there should be sufficient flexibility to include either the whole or a portion of these charges during the transition period which is the only matter with which we are concerned on this Clause. If these words were left out, the words which follow—
    "with such margin as the Board may think fit."
    will do all that is necessary. I trust I have made out a case for the deletion of these words.
    Sir F. HALL: I beg to second the Amendemnt.
    Mr. SHORTT: Whether the words in this Sub-section are wise or unwise, I am afraid they are part of the arrangement under which the £20,000,000 was granted by the Treasury. The Treasury gave permission to the House being asked to allow the £20,000,000 being advanced. If hon.

    1723
    Members will look at Sub-section (2) they will see that the £20,000,000 is to be advanced
    "on such terms and conditions as to interest, repayment, and otherwise as the Treasury may think fit."
    In order to carry that out it is absolutely necessary, as a part of the agreed terms, that there should be included a provision for paying the interest and sinking fund charges to meet such conditions as to the payment of interest, repayment and otherwise as the Treasury may think fit. Having regard to the fact that the whole Clause is an agreed Clause with the Treasury, I am bound to oppose the Amendment.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman give any information to the House as to how it is possible, in. answer to the argument I have advanced, to give a cheap and abundant supply if the interest and sinking fund and all other charges are to be planted on the small output in the first instance?
    Mr. SHORTT: The various advances as they come from the Treasury are subject to such conditions as the Treasury may think fit in regard to interest, repayment and otherwise. If the circumstances are such that a sufficient charge cannot be made in order to provide for interest and sinking fund, the Treasury would no doubt make conditions which would meet these circumstances.
    Mr. BALFOUR: That is waive the interest?
    Mr. SHORTT: It is as the Treasury think fit.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Power of Authorised Undertakers to Render Mutual Assistance to One Another.)
    (1) During the period between the passing of this Act and the establishment of a district electricity board or joint electricity authority for any district, any two or more of the authorised undertakers within the locality may, with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and if so required by the Electricity Commissioners shall, enter into and carry into effect arrangements for mutual assistance of the one by the other, with regard to all or any of the following purposes:

    (2) Where such an arrangement his been made any authorised undertakers who are parties to the arrangement may be authorised by special Order to exercise such powers (including the power to break up roads, railways, and tramways) as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying the arrangement into effect.

    Captain BOWYER: May I move the Amendment standing in the name of Mr. MARNOTT: In Sub-section (1), after the word "and" ["and if so required"], to insert the words "for the purpose (a) hereinafter mentioned"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think we must make a little more rapid progress with the Bill.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "special" ["authorised by special Order."]—[Mr. Shortt.]

    CLAUSE 23. — (Wayleaves.)
    (1) A district electricity board or any authorised undertakers may place any electric line below ground across any land, and above ground across any land other than land laid out as building land or land so situate or used for such purpose that the placing of lines above ground would affect the amenity thereof or of any building or structure thereon in cases where the placing of such lines above ground is otherwise lawful, and where any line has been so placed across any land the board or undertakers may enter on the land for the purpose of repairing or altering the line:
    Provided that before placing any such line across any land the board or undertakers shall serve on the owner and occupier of the land notice of their intention, together with a description of the nature and position of the lines proposed to be so placed; and if, within twenty-one days after the service of the notice, the owner and occupier fail to give their consent or attach to their consent any terms or conditions or stipulations to which the board or the undertakers object, it shall not be lawful to place the line across that land without the consent of the Board of Trade; and the Board of Trade may, if after giving all parties concerned an opportunity of being heard they think it just, give their consent either unconditionally or subject to such terms, conditions, and stipulations as they think just.
    (2) The power of placing lines across land conferred by this Section shall include the power of placing a line across or along any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock or hrbour, subject to the rights of the owners thereof and to the following conditions:
    (c) In respect of any electric lines paced or proposed to be placed over or upon or under any line of railway along its course, the following condition shall apply:

    (i) Failing agreement between the district electricity board or authorised undertakers proposing to place such electric lines and the railway company, the railway company may apply to the Railway and Canal Commission, and that Commission may, after an inquiry in the manner provided by Section two, Sub-section (5), of the Telegraph Act, 1892, make an Order for the placing of the electric lines, subject to such pecuniary terms as the Commission think just, or refusing to allow such lines to be placed;

    (ii) The district electricity board or authorised undertaker shall. upon receiving notice in writing from the railway company, remove or alter within a reasonable time, and to the reasonable satisfaction of

    1725
    the railway company, any such electric lines which shall interfere with the existing or any proposed works of the railway company or the traffic thereon: Provided that if within twenty-one days after receipt of such notice the district electricity board or authorised undertakers object to the removal or alteration required by such notice, a difference shall be deemed to have arisen, which shall be referred to and determined by the Railway and Canal Commission;

    (d) In respect of any electric lines placed or proposed to be placed over or upon or under any canal or inland navigation along its course, the following conditions shall apply:

    (i) The provisions; of paragraph (c) (i) and (c) (ii) of this Sub-section shall apply as in the case of railways;

    (ii) Save as herein provided, sections fifteen, sixteen, and seventy-seven of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, shall, without prejudice to any protection given to the canal owners by the Electric Lighting Acts and this Act, apply as though the said electric lines were placed in accordance with powers contained in a special Order as defined in the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899:

    (f) In respect of any electric lines placed or proposed to be placed across any dock or harbour, whether by being carried above ground or below ground. Sections fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, shall apply as though the said electric lines were placed in accordance with powers contained in a special Order as defined in the said Act, and as if the expressions "canal" and "owners of a canal" therein included a dock or harbour and the authority owning or managing the same.
    (3) For the purposes of this Section any company or body or person entitled by virtue of any Act of Parliament to receive tolls or dues in respect of the navigation on or use of any canal or inland navigation shall be deemed to be occupiers of such canal or inland navigation.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (1) leave out the words "laid out as building land or land so situate or used for such purpose that the placing of lines above ground would effect the amenity thereof or of any building or structure thereon," and insert instead thereof the, words "covered by buildings or used as a garden or pleasure ground."— [Mr. Shortt.]
    Sir C. COBB: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "that" ["provided that before placing any such line"] to insert the words
    "in the exercise of the powers under this Section the board or undertakings shall make full compensation to all bodies and persons interested for all damage sustained by them by reason or in consequence of the exercise of such powers, and that."
    1726
    I move this Amendment in order to obtain some information from the Home Secretary as to the exact meaning of this Clause. I want to know whether, in the event of a district electricity board or the authorised undertakers coming to au arrangement with the owner of any land, through whose land the district electricity board wishes to put this line, it is possible for the owner of the land and the district electricity board to agree together as to what compensation should be given, to the owner of the land; or whether it is necessary for them, in every case, to go to the Board of Trade to find out what that compensation ought to be, and in order to have defined what are the terms, conditions, or stipulations which are necessary in order to make things straight as between the owner of the land and the district electricity board. I also want to know whether the words "terms or conditions or stipulations" would include, as I suppose they would, what is generally known as compensation. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether, in the event of an arrangement having been made, either with or without the Board of Trade's consent, as to what the compensation is to be, supposing the district electricity board six months afterwards wanted to make some alteration to what had been done, on the owner's land, it would be necessary again for the owner and the district electricity board to go to the Board of Trade to find out what that further compensation should be, or whether it would be possible for the parties to arrange that between themselves.
    Major GRAY: I beg to second the Amendment. May I express the hope that Members of the House who had the privilege of serving on the Committee upstairs will be a little indulgent to those who did not have that privilege, as it is extremely difficult to follow a technical Bill of this; character and even more difficult to ascertain from its terms what are the intentions of the Government with regard to this Bill. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment that it is necessary we should have this doubt completely removed. It is a doubt felt, not merely by ourselves but one expressed and strongly felt by the expert advisers of the London County Council, who fear that under the Clause as drafted compensation may not be payable to road authorities in the London area who may have their roads disturbed not once but

    1727
    frequently by the electricity undertakers. One of our greatest difficulties in London is that our streets are constantly being destroyed, or the surface being impaired by first one company and then another taking up a portion of a street for the purposes of alterations or repairs. We are anxious to know whether in the event of a line being carried along a London street—it applies equally outside London, but it occurs frequently in this great city —the electricity supply people can by private arrangement come to an agreement as to the compensation without going to the Board of Trade? That is the first question. The second is this. I have still greater doubt whether in the event of it being necessary to undertake alterations or repairs then also compensation will be payable for disturbance. Probably the electrical company would not be in a position to make good the damage, but it ought to be compelled to meet the cost of enabling the proper authority to make good the damage. In order that we may get this thoroughly cleared up I am anxious to support the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: Of course, the provision is that lines can be laid by consent, and terms can be, of course, arranged by consent, and the provision with regard to the Board of Trade deciding can only come in where the consent has not been given or where the terms which were asked by the owners of the land have not been accepted. Equally in that case there would be compensation paid for any damage which was done. The terms, of course, include the payment of compensation, and I have an Amendment a little lower down dealing with that. As far as possible it is intended that compensation should be paid and that as little damage should be done as possible. That is to say, the Board of Trade would have regard to the destruction of amenities which might not in themselves have very great value, but whoso destruction might be a very great hardship. Equally, where the value is seriously injured regard will be had to that. But, at the same time, of course, they would have to consider the necessities of the public, and, if they have to put anyone to hardship or loss, to make it good to them as far as money can do so. That is the intention, and I think the Clause will carry it out if the Amendment In my name is carried. I would ask my hon. Friends to withdraw their Amendment in place of the one which stands in my name.
    Major GRAY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question whether compensation would be payable in the event of damage being occasioned by entering in to alter and repair. The power is given to enter in to alter and repair in the earlier portion of the Clause before any reference is made to settling conditions and terms. It is as though a full and free hand were given to enter in and alter and repair without terms and conditions. Will compensation be payable in such a case?
    Mr. SHORTT: You could not have a provision for payment every time a servant entered to repair the lines, but where the right to enter involves this keeping of an open space which might otherwise be built on, or anything of that kind, that will all be provided for in the terms, because than would affect the value of the land. The usual course in cases of this kind is to ascertain whether the right to go upon a man's land to repair lines causes any damage to the property. If it does, it would be compensated for. If it does not, it would not. I am afraid I cannot carry the matter any further.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: At end of Subsection (1), insert the words
    "and in deciding whether to give or withhold their consent, or to impose any terms, conditions, or stipulations (including the carrying of any portion of the line Underground) the Board shall, among other considerations, have regard to the effect, if any, on the amenities or value of the land of the placing of the line in the manner proposed."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Subsection (2, c), after the word "course" ["under any line of railway along its course"], to insert the words "the provisions contained in the proviso to Subsection (1) of this Section shall not apply arid in lieu thereof."
    The reason for this is that the proposals with regard to lines placed upon railways are dealt with differently from lines placed elsewhere, and these words are necessary in order to make that clear.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Sub section (2, c, i,)to leave out the words "the railway company may apply" and to insert instead thereof the words
    "the district electricity board or authorised undertakers may apply to the Board of Trade who may decide either that the line shall not be so laid or may refer the question."

    1729
    The object of that is that, in the case of railways, the people who desire to lay the lines should go to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade would have power to refuse, but if the Board of Trade thought it was a proper case to give their consent, instead of consenting themselves they would then refer the matter to the tribunal which has been chosen.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, in Sub section (2, c, i), to leave out the words "in the manner provided by Section 2, Subsection (5), of the Telegraph Act, 1892."
    That Act has been repealed, and I propose in a, later Amendment to reinstate the words in the repealed Act.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: At the end of Sub-section (2, c, i) insert the words
    "and any such inquiry may be held by any one or more of the members of the Commission or by an officer appointed by the Commission for the purpose, and Parts I. and IV. of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (except the Sections relating to appeals), shall apply as far as applicable to any such inquiry, and any officer appointed to hold the inquiry shall have power to administer an oath."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    In Sub-section (2, d, ii), after the word "sixteen" ["Sections fifteen, sixteen, and seventy-seven"], insert the word "nineteen."—[Sir F. Hall.]
    At the end of Sub-section (2, d, ii) insert the words "and as if the expression 'canal' therein included inland navigation."—[Mr. Shortt]
    In Sub-section (2, f) leave out the words "dock or harbour" ["placed across any dock or harbour"], and insert instead thereof the words "lands or works forming part of any dock or harbour undertaking regulated by Acts of Parliament."
    Leave out the words. "and seventeen" ["Sections fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen"], and insert the words "seventeen, nineteen, and twenty-seven."
    After the word "if" ["and as if the expressions"] insert the words
    "in the said Sections fifteen, sixteen, and seventy-seven, the expression 'street' included any such lands or works, and 'the persons liable to repair a street' included the authority owning or managing the undertaking, and in the said Section nineteen."
    Leave out the word "therein" ["the expressions 'canal' and 'owners of a canal' therein"].—[Sir F. Hall.]
    In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "or inland navigation" ["any canal or inland navigation"], and insert instead thereof the words "inland navigation, dock or harbour."
    Leave out the words "or inland navigation" ["such canal or inland navigation"], and insert instead thereof the words "inland navigation, dock or harbour."—[Mr. Shortt.]

    CLAUSE 24.—(Supply of Apparatus.)
    (1) A district electricity board and any local authority authorised by special Act or by Order to supply electricity may provide, let for hire, and in respect there of may connect, repair, maintain and remove (but shall not, unless expressly authorised to do so by the special Act, manufacture or sell) electric lines, fittings, apparatus and appliances for lighting, heating and motive power and for all other purposes for which electricity can, or may be used, and with respect thereto may demand and take such remuneration or rents and charges, and make such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon.

    (2) Any electric lines, fittings, apparatus, and appliances provided by or on behalf of any authorised distributors on consumers premise either before or after the passing of this Act, and any lauds, buildings, or works held by them in connection therewith shall be deemed to form part of the undertaking authorised by the Acts or Provisional Orders relating to such authorised distributors.

    Mr. THOMSON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "provide" ["may provide"], and to insert instead thereof the word "sell."
    This Clause authorises district boards to provide apparatus and fittings necessary for the sale of their electric power arid electric light, but as it stands at present it is somewhat incomplete, and possibly somewhat illogical, because, although it provides that they shall "provide," it expressly excludes the power to sell. They may let for hire but they may not sell. One of the objects of the Bill is to encourage the sale and use of electric light and power throughout the country, and when local authorities have established salerooms where they could demonstrate to their customers the uses and advantages of the various apparatus such as electric fires, or lighting, cooking apparatus, electric baths, or machinery worked by electricity for various purposes, it seems very absurd that they have to say to their customers, "We can supply you with the power for this apparatus; we can let the apparatus for hire, but we may not sell." That seems a most extraordinary distinction to draw. In Committee the argument was used that it was undesirable to inter-

    1731
    fere with the private trader. But if you are allowed to interfere with the private trader in so far that you may hire out this apparatus, it is rather splitting hairs to make a distinction and say that you may not sell. It was urged upstairs that it would not be safe to give power to local authorities, because of the fear that it might become a burden on the rates through unfair competition with the private trader. Such objection cannot apply in this case, because these district electricity boards have no call upon the rates whatever; they are self-supporting. They are like an ordinary trading community. Therefore the bogey of drawing from the rates has gone. If we really desire to develop electric power and electric light we must give every facility for its extension. If customers go to a particular place and find they are unable to purchase the apparatus necessary for the use of electricity, you are injuring and not helping the use of electricity. This Amendment is in favour of free trade in electrical development, as opposed to the protection which is sought to be set up in the interest of the private trader. I hope the bogey of the private trader will not be allowed to stand in the way of this popular development.
    Mr. KILEY: I beg to second the Amendment, in order to give the Home Secretary an opportunity of explaining on what grounds he is taking away from the Metropolitan borough of Stepney a power which they already possess. They have an electric power station and electric supply installation, and they have the right, which they are at present exercising, of supplying any of the inhabitants with any motors or electric appliances which they need. This has been in force for many years, and it has answered successfully. There is no question of any loss on the rates, because most of these articles are sold at a fixed tariff, and there is no competition in the sense of underselling. I see no reason for that power being taken away because of some private arrangement or some deal that has been made with some private companies. It is not the desire of the electric suppliers of the borough of Stepney to put out the private trader—they are on perfectly friendly terms, and there is no ground for the undue interference which is proposed in this Bill.
    Mr. SHORTT: I am very glad to be able to relieve the mind of my hon. Friend (Mr.
    1732
    Kiley), and I am sure he will support me when I have explained the matter. Nothing in this Bill will interfere with the rights of the borough of Stepney. They can go on doing exactly what they have been doing in the past, so long as they have power to do it. I gather that they are authorised by their Acts to do it, and nothing in this Clause will interfere with that. Therefore, the hon. a. Member can be as happy as he likes. With regard to the other suggestion, I would remind the House that we are setting up quite new and very considerable public bodies, the district board or joint authority. They will have very considerable new powers, of a very far-reaching character, and it is rather too much to ask this House, who are not all fanatical for municipal trading, to give these new local bodies the right to come into competition with men whose business it is to make electrical appliances. I am not concerned with the argument as to whether the local authorities should or should not trade, but I ask my hon. Friend to recollect that in a great Bill of this kind, brought in at a period like this, there must be a little give-and-take. No doubt many people are stretching their views in order to meet the setting up of these great central bodies, and of this control. Therefore, we might meet them to the extent of not allowing the private traders to be interfered with in this respect.
    Amendment negatived.
    The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. KILEY:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "hire" ["let for hire"], insert the words "or hire-purchase for a period of not less than one year."
    Mr. KILEY: In view of what the Home Secretary has said, that this Clause will not interfere with what the Metropolitan borough of Stepney are doing I do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "Acts or Provisional Orders," and insert instead thereof the words "special Act or Order."—[Mr. Shortt.]

    CLAUSE 25.—(Limitation of Prices end Profits.)
    (1) The prices charged by a district electricity board for electricity shall be fixed by the board subject to the approval of the Electricity Commissioners.

    (2) In addition to any provisions contained in any special Act or Order limiting the prices to

    1733
    be charged by authorised undertakers in respect of the supply of electricity, the Electricity Commissioners, may regulate such prices with a view to securing that the benefit of any reduction in the cost of electricity or in the capital employed in the production thereof attributable to the provisions of this Act shall ensure to consumers.

    Sir C. COBB: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
    "and shall be such that so far as reasonably practicable the receipts derived by the board therefrom will be sufficient to cover their expenditure on income account (including interest and sinking fund charges)."
    I should like, to know the reason why the treatment of a district electricity board in this matter differs from the treatment of the Board of Trade under Section 19, Subsection (4), which provides—
    "The prices fixed by the Board of Trade for electricity supplied by them from generating stations established under this Section, shall be such that their receipts therefrom will be sufficient to cover their expenditure on income account (including interest and sinking fund charges in respect of such advances as aforesaid with such margin as the Board may think fit"
    I do not understand why there is a difference between the Board of Trade and district electricity board. The electricity board cannot make a levy upon the rates. Does the Home Secretary contemplate that the deficiency will come out of taxation?
    Major GRAY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I gathered from the remarks of the Home Secretary earlier that in the event of a deficiency the Treasury would step in. If so, a very important principle is involved, namely, whether the consumer is to pay the full cost of the commodity he receives or whether he should pay part of it under certain conditions and the remainder shall be provided by the taxpayer. I should like to hear what the Home Secretary has to say.
    Mr. SHORTT: I tried to explain to the House when it was dealing with Clause 19 that the reason why I had to insist, as far as possible, on fighting for those words, and asking the House to accept them, was that it was part of an arrangement with the Treasury. It was a purely temporary matter, only lasting for a period of two years after the establishment of the board. That being the arrangement with the Treasury, I was bound to ask the House to abide by it. The words in the present instance were actually in the Bill when it went to Committee, but,
    1734
    after discussion on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hampstead, who pointed out how impracticable the words were, the Committee decided to reject them. For that reason we have not sought to reinstate them. With regard to the question of payment of any loss, that cannot possibly fall upon the taxpayer. In no case could it fall upon the taxpayer. It must eventually be spread over the industry as a whole, but if you insist upon the charges for any one year meeting all the necessary expenditure, including sinking fund, interest, charges, and so on, you remove that elasticity which exists under the Bill as it, stands, because there will be a suspensory account, and they will be able to put on to future years any unavoidable loss in one year which ought not fairly to fall upon that year. That is the reason why I felt bound to ask the House to keep in the words in Clause 19, and why it is not right that the House should be asked to insist upon their being included in this Clause.
    Sir C. COBB: I thank the Home Secretary for his explanation. This is only another illustration of the disadvantage which we who were not members of the Committee upstairs suffer from. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the word "may" ["may regulate"], and to insert the word "shall."
    Surely it is the duty of the board to regulate prices with a view to any benefit going to the consumer and not to private individuals or companies!. This Subsection is permissive. I trust the Home Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. This matter was discussed in Committee. It would be tying the hands of the Electricity Commissioners if the Amendment were adopted. There is sufficient power for them to act where it is necessary, but if they are bound to take certain steps it would tie their hands and it would deprive them of that discretion which really is essential for the successful carrying out of this great scheme.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "that," to insert the words, "a fair proportion of."
    8.0 P.M.
    The House will recognise that it is only fair that the distributor should have theopportunity of getting some —I am not asking for all—of the benefit of any reduction in the cost of electricity. The authorised distributors could by statute charge up to 8d. per unit. In pre-war days that was gradually brought down to 4½d.—I am speaking particularly of the London companies—which proved that as far as the authorised undertakers were concerned they were not desirous of charging more to the consumers than would give a reasonable return of the money expended. If the Clause were to pass as it is it will give no interest to the undertakers to do all they can to reduce the cost of electricity to the consumers. They are to be asked to give increased facilities, which mean naturally increased capital, and if they have to find that additional capital then they should be entitled to some at all events of the extra profit that may accrue. In addition it seems to me that the provision that a reduction in cost must enure entirely to the consumers is obviously unjust. A limitation of this kind would leave the industry no interest whatever in trying to reduce the cost or increase the production or undertake productive development work. I quite agree that under the Bill the undertakers can obtain as much electricity as they generated before at a not higher cost, but there is no undertaking, and there could not be, that any increase in the quantity that was to be generated must be given at the same price as the other. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept this Amendment, but if He requires further protection I will be quite satisfied that the "fair proportion" should be decided by the electricity commissioners.
    Viscount ELVEDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. SHORTT: May I remind the House that the whole provisions of this Sub-clause (2) apply only to those improvements which are attributable to the provisions of this Act. They do not touch the case where the undertakers themselves, by better management or greater energy, or by extending their area of distribution, make geater profits. This only applies to what is attributable to the provisions of the Act, for which the undertakers qua
    1736
    undertakers, are in no way responsible, and it is only any benefit resulting in this way that is to enure to the public. That is perfectly fair. If such benefit, due simply to the Act of Parliament, were to be given to the undertakers it would amount to unearned increment on the part of the undertaker.
    Mr. BALFOUR: While I am in sympathy with the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend, yet, after careful study of the whole of the provisions of this Bill, I think it improbable that any benefit is going to enure from this Act, so that my hon. and gallant Friend may relieve his mind of any fears as to what should be done under this Clause.
    Sir F. HALL: Of course the electricity board or the joint board, will be in the position of wholesalers, and the authorised distributors will be in the position of retailers. Though the hon. Member for Hampstead says that there is not going to be any benefit to the consumer, I sincerely trust that there will be. It is because I am afraid that there may not be any reduction, and that there may be an increase, that I am desirous of putting this in. If the retailers are not going to get any benefit out of it, if there is a higher price, then I am afraid that it is not going to assist the distributors who are not necessarily as business men going to give the assistance which my right hon. Friend so much desires, and which we all hope for.
    Amendment negatived.
    Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert
    "(3) The Electricity Commissioners shall have power, on application of any authorised undertaker, by Order to authorise any authorised undertaker to charge for the supply of electricity by any method which the Electricity Commissioners may consider just, notwithstanding anything in the Electric Lighting Acts and the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, or in any; agreement with any local authority, whether com firmed by Parliament or otherwise."
    I put this down as far as possible to assist the Government. I notice that my hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgeman) smiles, but it is my object to assist the Government. This has always been my object, and several of my suggstions have been accepted. At the present time you cannot collect the money due for electricity except on the basis of the number of units actually consumed. The Water Board, when it came into operation, altered the conditionu in which the assessments were made, and I

    1737
    think that the Government would be wise at all events to consider whether they should not take advantage of this Amendment, because it would give them the power, if at any time they deemed it advisable, to change the method of making charges on the consumer. Under the Amendment they would be able to do the same as the Water Board has done—to charge on the valuation. Personally, I do not mind whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts this or not. It is no advantage to the authorised undertakers, but in a Bill of this magnitude, which we hope is going to be of advantage all round, the Government should consider whether it is not wise to take power to charge the price according to assessment. If my hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment now, perhaps he will consider it before it comes to another place.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not think that I was rude in smiling. I quite recognise that the interchange of views between him and the Government has been very advantageous to us, and I am grateful for the help which he has given, but I do not think that he can have realised that the power asked for in the first part of the Amendment already exists in Clause 31 of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting Clauses Act. With regard to the last part of the Amendment the proposal appears to me to confer upon the Electricity Commissioners the power on the application of authorised undertakers to vary agreements already made with local authorities. That I could not accept. I hope that, in view of the safeguards which already exist, the hon. and gallant Member will feel assured that the position he desires to meet is already adequately protected.
    Sir F. HALL: After that explanation I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Alteration of Type of Current, etc.)
    The Electricity Commissioners may require any authorised undertakers to amend or altar the type of current, frequency or pressure employed by them in their undertaking, and the execution of the works necessary to comply with such an Order shall be a purpose for which a local authority may borrow under the Electric
    1738
    Lighting Acts: Provided that this Section shall not apply to electricity generated at a railway generating station.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words
    "existing at the passing of this Act, and that if on appeal by any authorised undertakers the Board of Trade are satisfied that compliance with the Order would entail unreasonable expense, the Board of Trade may direct that the Order shall not apply to those undertakers, of apply only subject to such conditions as the Board of Trade may prescribe."
    Mr. BALFOUR: May I ask a ruling—as to whether this rules out an Amendment in my name, which, though in the same sense, is in different words from that moved by the Parliamentary Secretary?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better make his speech on this Amendment
    Mr. BALFOUR: I wish to draw attention to the very strong feeling apparently held throughout the country, not; only by authorised undertakers, but also by the consumers. I have been approached not only by many people representing various interests—the consumers' interests, the local authorities and companies—but by many Members of this House, in connection with the Amendment which stands in my name, and I have been asked to press it, owing to the grave injustice which will be done if the Clause stands as it is. The Clause states that the Electricity Commissioners may require authorised undertakers to amend or alter the type of current, etc. Let us see exactly what that means. Take any large or very large electrical undertaking, whether a municipality or a company it matters not. That undertaking has been developed, presumably, according to the best practice in force at the date at which that undertaking was instituted. They have, on the advice of their experts, selected a certain type of current and frequency. The time comes when they are to be taken over arbitrarily under the terms of this Bill. They are called upon to alter the whole of their electrical installation, to change, let us say, the frequency. The alteration of the frequency means that the electric generator turning out the whole of the electricity from the power station will have to be altered completely. It means that in most cases, if not all, the transformers which transform the electricity coming in from the main cables of the supply company to the consumer's premises, will all have to be altered. It

    1739
    means that every motor on the consumer's premises will have to be altered, also that every meter to measure the current will have to be altered. Assuming that this is arbitrarily imposed on the undertakers and the consumers, you have this condition—a decree with no power to enforce. The undertaker, municipality or company, as the case may be, simply states, "I have no means of raising funds for these purposes; I am not making a- sufficiently large profit." It is true that in the Clause as it stands this is overshadowed, because so far as the local authority is concerned it shall be deemed to be a matter for which they can properly raise loans, proving that this is not an expense which can properly be met out of the revenues of the concern, and that the local authority shall be allowed to borrow money for it. But the local authority, having borrowed money, will not be in a position to make an added net revenue, in order to redeem that loan, because the change in type or frequency will not in the slightest degree improve capacity to earn more money.
    On all counts I cannot see a single redeeming feature in the Clause as it stands, and I see very little assistance in the Amendment now proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary. I should like him to make out a very clear case indeed as to why any expense should be imposed on any of the classes of the community I have mentioned. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment which stands in my name in substitution for that which he has moved. His Amendment endeavours to do something along the lines of my Amendment, but a remedy cannot be effected until the persons injured, municipality or local authority, come almost as criminals and plead to be let off this expense. That is not ordinary British justice.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I bog to support the hon. Member's (Mr. G. Balfour) Amendment. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that he is going to inflict a very heavy burden on the borough of West Ham. I have received from our Electrical Engineer a letter, part of which I will read—
    "The reason for this is that any alteration, such as that referred to in the Clause, cannot possibly be of any benefit to an individual undertaking, but only beneficial to the scheme as a whole, in order that such individual undertaking will fit in with the national scheme. Take the case of West Ham, for instance; there are many
    1740
    others like it. The system is at present a two-phase one and is entirely satisfactory in every way. The system proposed to be adopted for the national scheme is a three-phase one, and therefore in order that West Ham may be able to take a supply from the national scheme, a very heavy expense would have to be enta led certainly not less than £50,000, hut without any corresponding bene t. This expense will be a continually increasing one, as every additional consumer connected will need to have his supply converted from the three-phase to the two-phase system."
    I am ready to admit that there is nothing in the Clause to say what system we are to adopt. If were assured that it would be a two-phase system we should be all right in West Ham, but, vice versa, other districts would be affected. An alteration would mean to the Borough of West Ham a rate of 9d. in the £. A penny raises £5,500, and our present rates are 15s. 6d. in the £. So far as the Labour party is concerned, we have backed up the Government in every way possible in connection with this Bill, but this particular Clause will inflict an injustice on local authorities. Therefore I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give due consideration to this matter, because it means that thousands and thousands of pounds will otherwise be involved and terrible hardships will be imposed on many of the local authorities. I quite admit that the Amendment does something, but I submit it does not go as far as it should, it limits the expense, but why should not the Electricity Commissioners be called on to pay the whole expense in consequence of the altered system?
    Mr. R. McLAREN: I desire to support the Amendment. Speaking from practical knowledge, I can say that to convert from one system to another means a large amount of expense. It involves the scrapping of a good deal of plant. What has been said on behalf of some districts shows that there ought to be a great deal of care exercised in dealing with the various districts in connection with the operations of this Bill, because the adoption of a particular system may mean the alteration of a great deal of plant, I have myself seen changes from one system to another where the whole plant had to be scrapped at very great expense. The question, therefore, is whether there ought not to be some consideration given to those districts which are placed in that position. No doubt the time would come when the plants now in existence would require to be scrapped, but in the meantime some-

    1741
    thing ought certainly to be done to meet the position, caused by the requirements of the Bill.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I quite recognise the importance of what has been said by the hon. Members who have moved and supported this Amendment, but I think they have not fully studied the Amendment which I have moved. There is no intention whatever of doing any hardship to anybody. The object of this Bill is to provide cheaper electricity not only for West Ham but for many other districts. Our Amendment provides that if the Board of Trade on appeal are satisfied that compliance with the Order would entail unreasonable expense, they may direct that the order shall not apply, or subject to such conditions as the Board may prescribe. I venture to think that my hon. Friends have not realised the full beauty of this Amendment, which I think really does everything in the direction for which they have contended.
    Mr. BALFOUR: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether his Amendment deals with the position of consumers who may have their supply affected and may be involved in thousands of pounds of expense?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Commissioners have no funds out of which they could pay those costs.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Am I not correct in stating that this Amendment gives no protection to the actual consumer who has got to change his whole plant?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If they were going to suffer, no doubt there would be an appeal, and that appeal would be heard by the Board of Trade or the Electricity Commissioners, and the Amendment provides that the Order may not apply to those undertakers, or apply only subject to such conditions as the Board of Trade may require, and those conditions will protect the undertaker against any injustice. I really think hon. Gentlemen on this subject have exaggerated the evils which they think may arise out of this. I honestly say I consider that this Amendment covers every danger and every risk which they have anticipated in their speeches.
    Mr. BALFOUR: May I make a suggestion? Would he agree to the Amendment being modified by leaving out the words "on appeal by any authorised undertakers
    1742
    the Board of Trade are satisfied"? It would not then be a compulsory appeal, and if it were borne out in evidence that compliance would entail unreasonable expense action could be taken, and I think that would go a long way towards meeting my point.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not quite know what my hon. Friend's objection to an appeal is. He seems to think it derogatory to an undertaker to make any appeal at all, but I cannot see why. He also said just now that the consumers have no means of getting their case heard; but it really only amounts to this, that an appeal should be made, and my hon. Friends must really, I think, see that there is nothing very degrading in making an appeal to the Ministry of Transport.
    Mr. BALFOUR: With your permission, Sir, I would like to put one other point.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): It is the permission of the House that is required.
    Mr. BALFOUR: With the House's permission, then, I think there is nothing derogatory in making an appeal; but if these words were left out there would be present in the mind of the people who are going to make the Order in the first instance that this would be an unreasonable expense to put, on these people, and therefore they would not ask them to make this change. As suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary, the other way about, they would first decrce that it was to be done, and then you would have to appeal and prove that it would be an unreasonable expense.
    Viscount ELVEDEN: I feel that the user of the electricity wants some protection. Assuming a factory has to scrap all its plant, can it recover anything from anyone? Would they know until after the order had been made that they would have to alter the whole of the plant in their factory? It seems to me that this is the great difficulty in carrying out the whole of the Bill, that somebody has got to be offered up, and there is no general fund out of which to alleviate those who are sacrificed. This Bill is appalling in its complications, and perhaps I have forgotten some Clause whereby there would be sufficient notice of a contemplated alteration, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell me what the position is.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I very much deprecate the notion that has been conveyed that some sacrifice of somebody is going to be entailed. There is no sacrifice of anybody. The simple idea is to do justice, and if there is any idea that injustice is being done, the only obvious course is to represent to the Ministry of Transport that injustice is likely to be done, and they are perfectly certain to listen to any appeal so made.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: The question raised is one of very great importance, not only to London boroughs, but to many other parts of the country. I know of a case in Lancashire. The Stalybridge joint authority work their electrical undertaking on one system, and if they have to convert it to what is considered to be the standard system it will mean an expenditure to that authority of £250,000, according to the engineer of the authority. You are not going to get cheap electricity if, merely to secure a uniform system throughout the country, you are going to entail an expenditure on different districts, involving such huge amounts. While it is difficult to suggest what could be done to meet the circumstances, may I offer the suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary that some form of inquiry should be made necessary under the Bill, some notification to the various undertakers and to the consumers generally that this alteration is to be effected, so that the proper representations could be made by those affected? The difficulties are very great with the consumers. It is not just a question of altering the particular generating plant of the electricity station, but when you have altered that you have altered every motor and everything there is in every consumer's premises. Those motors will be quite unsuitable for the different periodicity which you are going to instal, and this question is of the very greatest importance to many areas throughout the country. You have varying periodicities throughout the country—twenty-five in Glasgow, forty at Stalybridge, fifty in Manchester, and so on—and if you are going to try and get a uniform system, which would have been very desirable if we could start anew without the vast expense which it would entail, certainly every encouragement should be given to the authorities by the allowing of money from the national Exchequer, but certainly not from the locality. The whole subject
    1744
    bristles with difficulties in trying to obtain uniformity, and therefore every inquiry should be allowed before anything is done, and full publicity be assured.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My Amendment assures publicity. Of course, the Commissioners are perfectly aware of all the difficulties that my hon. Friend has sketched out, and, of course, they will notify everybody concerned. If anybody is affected injuriously, they have only got to appeal, and if they are enabled to establish that the alteration would entail unreasonable expense, either the Order would not apply to those undertakers or it would apply subject to such conditions as would perfectly well protect them. Unless, the Electricity Commissioners are hopelessly incompetent and the Ministry of Transport hopelessly unjust, I really can assure the House that no possible danger can accrue from this provision.
    Mr. R. MCLAREN: In this Clause you speak of the authorised undertakers, but that has nothing at all to do with the consumers, who have no remedy, apparently.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have twice said that the consumers cannot be charged anything extra without an Order from the Board of Trade.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Amendment of s. 26 of Act of 1882.)
    Section twenty-six of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882 (which contains provisions for the protection of the Postmaster-General), shall have effect as if the words "or the laying of connections with mains where the direction of the electric lines so laid down crosses the line of the Postmaster-General at right angles at the point of shortest distance, and continues the same for a distance of six feet on each side of such point" were omitted, and as if for the words "not more than twenty-eight nor less than seven clear days" there were substituted the words "one month."
    Amendment made: At the end, add the words "or, in the case of the laying of service lines to consumers' premises, seven clear days."—[Mr. Bridge man.]

    CLAUSE 28.—(Substitution of Special for Provisional Orders.)
    Anything which under the Electric Lighting Acts may be effected by a Provisional Order confirmed by Parliament may be effected by a special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners and confirmed by the Board of Trade under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or by an Order establishing a district electricity board or a joint electricity authority under this Act, and references in those Acts and the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, to Provisional Orders shall be construed as including references to such special Orders and Orders

    1745
    as aforesaid, except that paragraphs (1) to (4) of Section four of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, shall not apply to special Orders, and any Provisional Order made under the Electric Lighting Acts and confirmed by Parliament may be amended or revoked by any such special Order or Order as aforesaid.
    Amendments made:
    Leave out the word "paragraphs" ["except that paragraphs (1) to (4)"], and insert instead thereof the words "the paragraphs numbered."
    At the end of the Clause insert the words
    "Provided that a special Order made in pursuance of the powers conferred by this Section shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and shall not come into force unless and until approved by a Resolution passed by each such House"—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

    CLAUSE 32.—(Powers to Authorise Issue of Stock.)
    (4) A district electricity board may, with the consent of the authorised undertakers, discharge the whole or any part of the purchase price payable under this Act (otherwise than by way of annuity) to any authorised undertakers in respect of any generating station or main transmission line vested in or acquired by the board under this Act, or of any undertaking, or part of an undertaking, transferred to the board under this Act, by the issue to the undertakers of such amount of stock created under this Section as may be agreed upon or determined in manner hereinafter provided to be the equivalent in value to the whole or part of the purchase price in respect of which the stock is issued, and if any difference arises as to the amount of stock which is so equivalent in value shall be determined by the Railway and Canal Commissioners.
    Amendment made: In Sub-suction (4), leave out the words "the Railway and Canal Commissioners," and insert instead thereof the words "an independent financial expert agreed between the parties or, in default of agreement, appointed by the Treasury"—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

    CLAUSE 35.—(Expenses of Electricity Commissioners.)
    (1) The Electricity Commissioners shall at the beginning of each financial year prepare an estimate of their receipts and expenditure, other than on account of loans under the last preceding Section, during the year, and submit it for approval by the Board of Trade.
    (2) The Electricity Commissioners shall apportion the amount by which the estimated expenses so approved exceed the estimated receipts so approved amongst the several district electricity boards, joint electricity authorities, and authorised undertakers within the United Kingdom in proportion to the number of units of electricity generated by or on behalf of those boards, authorities, and undertakers respectively in the preceding year; and every such district board, authority, or undertaker shall, on demand from the Electricity Commissioners, pay to them as a contribution towards their expenses the sum so apportioned:
    Provided that during the first live years after the passing of this Act the amount of such excess shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, but such payments shall be treated as advances and shall be repaid, with interest at such rate us the Treasury may fix, by the Commissioners by equal annual instalments in the next three succeeding years.
    Mr. WADDINGTON: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (2).
    The object of this Amendment is to secure that the charge for the costs incurred by the Electricity Commissioners shall be a burden, not upon the undertakers, but upon Parliamentary funds. I think it opens up rather a new departure for a Government Department to put this expense upon the undertakers affected. The Board of Trade have been dealing for many years with electricity and the tramways. They have had expenses throughout that period, but it has never been suggested that those expenses should be divided up and paid by the local tramway authorities or the local electricity undertakers, and this seems to me to be an infringement of the principle of no taxation without representation. The Electricity Commissioners are going to incur certain charges. The local undertakers have no responsibility for those charges being incurred, and it does seem to me we ought not to put this charge on the various undertakers of the country. It is estimated that about £20,000 or £25,000 a year would be required. You are going to charge that on the units generated by or on behalf of the undertakers. There is a great difference between, units generated and units sold, and if you attempt to divide the charges amongst the 600 and odd undertakers you at once bring yourselves up against an injustice from that point of view. In order to make a careful calculation in dividing this money, you are going to establish a staff to look into the units generated by every station. They will have to dissect all these figures and then send down their precepts to the authorities, who, on their side, will have to check the figures. You are going to establish large clerical staffs to do something which is really a national charge, and if we could take the example of the India Bill, which we shall be discussing next week, it has been the custom to charge upon India the expenses of the India Office in this country. Now, it is recognised that it is not quite fair to India, and we are going to do away with that particular

    1747
    charge. Here we are going to establish a charge upon the local undertakers of this country for an expenditure over which they have no control—expenditure with which they may not agree, and expenditure which may, from their point of view, be entirely unnecessary. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to agree to this Sub-section being deleted.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. The intention under the Bill as it stands is that the electrical industry, and those who benefit by this Bill, shall pay the reasonable expenses of the Electricity Com missioners. We have heard a great deal about economy, and the Government have been very severely criticised. [HON. MEMBERS "They deserve it!"] If my hon. Friend opposite is going to support this Amendment, he will be responsible for imposing upon the Government an additional expense. The intention of the Bill, and, we believe, the effect of it, will be greatly to improve the provision of electricity in this country, and to cheapen it, and we think it is not fair that the country should be charged with the expense of it, but that those who benefit by it, whether the companies or the consumers, should bear the cost of the Electricity Commissioners.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "five" ["first five years"] and insert instead thereof the word "two."— [Mr. Shortt.]

    CLAUSE 36.—(Subscriptions to Associations.)
    District electricity boards or any authorised undertakers may, out of the revenue of their undertakings, pay reasonable subscriptions, whether annual or otherwise, to the funds of any association formed for the purpose of consultation as to their common interests and the discussion of matters relating to the supply of electricity, and to the funds of any recognised association conducted on a non-profit earning basis for developing the use of electricity, and may purchase reports of the proceedings of any conferences or meetings, and may pay the reasonable expenses of attendance of any members or officers of the board or undertaker at conferences or meetings of the said association or any of them.
    Amendment made: At the beginning of the Clause insert the words, "Subject to the consent of the Electricity Commissioners." —[Mr. Shortt.]

    CLAUSE 40.—(Winding up of Companies.)
    After the whole undertaking of any company incorporated by Act of Parliament is vested in or acquired by a district electricity board under this Act, such company shall subject to the provisions of this Act, be wound up under and in accordance with the provisions of and in the same manner and with the same incidents as if the company were a company registered under the Companies (Consolidation; Act, 1908, and had on such vesting or acquisition duly passed a special resolution requiring the company to be wound up voluntarily, and for the purposes of such winding up the company shall, from and after such vesting or acquisition, be deemed to be registered in England under the said last-mentioned Act, and for the purpose of calling and holding meetings and passing resolutions, and other matters incident to such winding-up resolutions of meetings of the company convened and held in pursuance and in accordance with the provisions contained in the Acts relating to the company, may and shall take effect as resolutions of a company duly registered.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to move, to leave out the word "England" ["registered in England"] and to insert instead thereof the words, "that part of the United Kingdom in which its principal place of business is situate."
    The effect of the Clause, as it has been drawn, would be that a company operating, for instance, in Scotland, would be deemed to be, registered in England for the purposes of liquidation. Clearly, I think, that is not desirable. The words I have chosen are taken from a section of the Companies Act of 1908, which deals with unregistered companies.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I quite agree with the opinion expressed by my hon. and learned Friend, but I am advised that this is not quite the best phraseology to use. The better, perhaps, are the words put forward by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, a little lower down on the Paper.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have not the slightest objection to the words of the Home Secretary. They both mean exactly the same. But I would again observe that my words are actually as taken from the Act of 1908. It is all one to me though, I do not mind.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have no affection for one set of words or the other, but I am advised as I have stated.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I still think the Government are under a misapprehension in the matter. I still think the form I have suggested is the better.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If there is any dispute about the exact form of words I am quite ready to accept the words of my hon. Friend if, after mature consideration, it is found advisable.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I leave it at that.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: Leave out the word "England" and insert instead thereof the words, "the part of the United Kingdom in which the principal place of business of the company is situated."—[Mr. Shortt.]

    CLAUSE 41.—(Power to Hold Inquiries.)
    (1) The Electricity Commissioners may hold such inquiries as they consider necessary or desirable for the purposes of this Act, and the Commissioners and, if authorised by the Commissioners, the person appointed to hold any such inquiry may by Order require any person, subject to the payment or tender of the reasonable expenses of his attendance, to attend as a witness and give evidence or to produce documents at the inquiry, and if any person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any of the provisions of any such Order he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and the Commissioners or person holding the inquiry shall have power to take evidence on oath and for that purpose to administer oaths.

    (2) Notices of inquiries, may be given and published in accordance with such general or special directions as the Commissioners may give.

    Amendment made: After the word "hold" ["Electricity Commissioners may hold"] insert the words, "or cause to be held."—[Mr. Shortt.]

    CLAUSE 43.—(Procedure for Making Special Orders.)
    (3) Before any special Order comes into force it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period not less than thirty days during which that House is sitting, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of those thirty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the Order or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of any new Order.
    Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "Order" ["before any special Order"] insert the words, "other than a special Order which is not valid unless approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament."—[Mr. Shortt.]

    CLAUSE 44.—(Definitions.)
    In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—
    The expression "private generating station" means a generating station for the generation of
    1750
    electricity for use solely or mainly on the owner's or joint owners' premises or for the purposes of his or their undertaking or, where the owner is a subsidiary company, for the purposes of the undertaking of the principal company, in any case where the undertaking of the owner or the principal company is not an undertaking belonging to authorised undertakers or to a railway, tramway, canal, inland navigation, harbour or other undertaking providing facilities for or incidental to the transport of goods or passengers:
    The expression "main transmission lines" means all extra high-pressure cables and overhead lines (not being an essential part of art authorised undertaker's distribution system) transmitting electricity from a generating station to any other generating station, or to a sub-station, together with any step-up and step-down transformers and switchgear necessary to, and used for, the control of such cables or overhead lines, and the buildings or such part thereof as may be required to accommodate such transformers and switch-gear:
    Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, in definition of "private generating station," after the word "or" ["their undertaking or"], to insert the words "any subsidiary company or."
    This Amendment, and the following one go together. The sole object of the Amendment is to provide for the contingency of subsidiary companies that are being formed by the undertaker. I do not think it can in any way widen the real effect and intention of the Clause to provide for a contingency which is likely to arise. It will give a comprehensive effect that, I am sure, was intended by the Clause.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am sorry, but I am afraid that I cannot really understand what difference this and the subsequent Amendment will make or clearly what will be their effect. I am bound to admit that I cannot see what are the merits of this Amendment, and I certainly, without understanding, cannot accept it. If there is any hidden meaning I shall be very glad to confer with my hon. Friend and see whether it is advisable to try to meet him in another place.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I quite admit that perhaps my hon. Friend has not had time carefully to consider these words, and that, therefore, they may 9.0 P.M. perhaps be confusing. But the object is simply to bring in the case where you have special or subsidiary companies not covered. I am quite prepared to withdraw, however, if my hon.

    1751
    Friend will give the matter consideration, and if he sees it wise to make the necessary Amendment in another place.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In definition of "private generating station," after the word "undertaking" ["undertaking of the principal company"], insert the words "or undertakings."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    In definition of "main transmission lines," after the word "system" ["not being an essential part of an authorised undertaker's distribution system"], insert the words "or the distribution system of a railway company."—[Mr. Shortt.]

    CLAUSE 45.—(Provision as to Subsidiary Company Limited to Supply to Principal Companies)
    Where the powers of a subsidiary company are limited to the supply of electricity to the principal company or companies, the generating station and main transmission lines of the subsidiary company shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as belonging to the principal company or companies.
    Amendments made: Leave out the word "of" ["the powers of a subsidiary company"], and insert instead thereof the words "originally conferred on."—[Mr. Shortt.]
    Leave out the word "are" ["are limited"], and insert instead thereof the word "were."— [Mr. Shortt.]
    Bill to be read the third time to-morrow (Wednesday).

  IRISH LAND (PROVISION FOR SAILORS AND SOLDIERS) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the provision of land in Ireland for men who have served in the Naval, Military, and Air Forces of the Crown in the present War, it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament—

  (a) of the Expenses of the Land Commission in managing, letting, and improving land, and of the deficiences on resales of land by the Land Commission;

  (b) of the Expenses of the Local Government Board for Ireland in the provision of cottages, plots, and gardens for ex-Service men; and

  (c) of the Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland for the purpose of promoting co-operation."—[Mr. Denis Henry.]

  Mr. G. THORNE: Might I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he can give the House some explanation of this Resolution?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): This is a Resolution providing for the expenses in connection with a Bill for the provision of land for soldiers and sailors in Ireland. The principle of that Bill is to provide two classes of holdings for soldiers and sailors in Ireland. In the one case the holdings are of ten to twelve acres, in certain districts where it is possible to acquire that quantity of land. There are other portions of Ireland where the holdings, which are already occupied by tenants, are small holdings, probably not exceeding fifty acres in extent. In the case of those districts the Bill is to provide small holdings of about two acres, with a cottage, for soldiers and sailors. So far as the first class of holding is concerned, it is proposed to put into force the provisions of the Land Purchase Act, which has already been recognised by a long series of legislation in this House, and to enable the Land Commission to acquire and sell to ex-soldiers and sailors these holdings of from ten to twelve acres. In the case of the smaller holdings it is proposed that the Local Government Board should get the powers of a rural authority for the purpose of acquiring land, and give the land and a cottage to the soldier or sailor under what are substantially the provisions of the Labourers Act. The finance of the first class of cases, namely, those of ten and twelve acre holdings, will be dealt with under the existing land purchase scheme, and the other class will be dealt with under the labourers' scheme, so far as it is applicable to Ireland. I may mention to the House that we do not anticipate that so large a demand will be made upon the Imperial resources as will necessarily be involved in the case of England and Scotland, and for this reason. The men for whom we are seeking to provide in Ireland were all volunteers, and a very small proportion of them were derived from the agricultural classes; they came mostly from the towns, and were not so much in touch with agricultural matters as the farmer's son or the labourer on the agricultural holding. This Bill was introduced in another form in the last Parliament, but, owing to an Adjournment of the Debate near the close of the last Parliament, the Bill fell through.

  1753
  As a guide to the House in regard to the possible number of applications in respect of these holdings, I may mention that, although the Bill has now been before the country for nearly a year, the total number of applications received, either by the Local Government Board or by the Land Commission, for holdings for soldiers or sailors, have amounted only to 1,700. I do not say that that is exhaustive, but it gives a fair idea of the demand that will be caused by the passage of the Bill. I do not say that there will not be a good many more, but I question very much if the total demand will reach or exceed double that number. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) asked me some questions about the matter recently, and I informed him that the Local Government Board anticipated that the total demand in respect of these holdings next year will amount only to 500; so that the House will see that the demand will not be so great as it will in England or in Scotland.
  Those hon. Members who have followed the legislation will realise that, so far as the entire Western seaboard of Ireland is concerned, it is what is known as a congested district. Powers Were conferred by Parliament upon the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of acquiring land all along the Western seaboard, and we propose to take, under this Bill, power to acquire from the Congested Districts Board land for the purpose of settling soldiers and sailors, and the expense will be considerably minimised in consequence. There is a third provision with reference to small colonies, but the cost is estimated to be not more than £1,500 a year; it is an experiment, more or less, and the cost will not be great. Provision should be made for these men, who, as I have mentioned, were without exception volunteers, and the cost will be comparatively trifling as compared with what it will be in the other two countries.
  Colonel GRETTON: The last thing I want to do is in any way to interfere with the provision of holdings for Irish soldiers and sailors who served in the War. The only object I have in taking any action in this matter is entirely financial, so that the Committee and the House of Commons may be in possession of a businesslike statement of the probable expenditure involved in this scheme. I am not in any way finding fault with the provision of small holdings and cottages under this scheme, but I am bound to criticise the
  1754
  kind of statement which has been submitted to the House of Commons in the White Paper. It gives practically no information except that the holdings are to be acquired under the Land Purchase Acts, and that the cottages are to be acquired by the Local Government Board under the powers in force for the provision of cottages and small holdings. Trying to ascertain what sums of money are involved, I find that the only information given in the White Paper is that the average deficiency on the larger holdings is estimated at £375 per holding, and the average deficiency on the cottages with the small plots of ground is estimated at £33 10s. per annum. I fail to understand why these two matters are treated on a totally different basis. The larger holdings are treated on the basis of capital expenditure, and the cottages with the small plots of two acres on the basis of an, annual contribution from the Imperial Exchequer. I am very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the additional information that he has been good enough to furnish, but this is an unbusinesslike Paper and really gives no information as to the expenditure likely to be incurred. The House is entitled to something more businesslike, and I rise to ask for further information as to the number of holdings in each class which are likely to be established. The House, even, where comparatively small sums are involved for most beneficent and generally accepted objects, ought to be furnished with a definite and businesslike statement, of the probable expenditure, and I therefore hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to tell us how many holdings of each class are anticipated to be established.
  Mr. LYNN: I rise, as representing that part of Ireland which has given the largest number of voluntary recruits to the Army, most heartily to support the Resolution. This is not only a sound and reasonable scheme, but, as a matter of fact, a definite promise has been made to these people, and the House, therefore, would be guilty of a breach of trust if it refused to carry out the scheme. The House is rightly very jealous to see that there should be no unnecessary expenditure, but I do not think that there will be, because the bulk of the people in Ireland who joined the Army came from Ulster and were engaged in industrial pursuits, and do not want to indulge in farming. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton) has referred to

  1755
  the difference between the two classes. In one part of Ireland, which is largely agricultural, the bulk of the people who joined the Army were engaged in agricultural pursuits, but in my part of the country a great many of those who joined do not want to take farms, and, in fact, would not have them if offered free. There are, however, the people who come from the smaller towns, and it is rightly proposed that they should have the option of having a small holding of two acres and a cottage. The scheme is not only a generous scheme, but it is absolutely a fair scheme, and from my slight experience I am sure that Members of all parties are anxious to do what is fair and just, and will, therefore, join with the Attorney-General in carrying through this scheme. These, people joined the Army without compulsion, and without the sligthest hesitation. The city that I have the honour of representing has as high a percentage of recruits as any part of England under Conscription. That is a fact of which I am proud, and, if any of these men want a small holding, there is not a Member of this House who would not gladly give it them. I, therefore, urge the House to pass this Resolution and to allow the Bill to go into Committee.
  Mr. HENRY: My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Gretton) has called attention to the fact that in one part of the White Paper we deal with the matter under the head of capital expenditure and in the second part we deal with it as an average annual sum. We deal with the first class of holding under the Land Purchase Acts and the persons who get the allotments will in time become the owners in fee simple of their holdings. We, therefore, translate the loss into a capital sum. An advance is made for the purchase of the holding and the holder becomes a debtor to the State for a certain sum. The balance, therefore, is written off as a capital sum. The second class are dealt with under the Labourers Act, and the soldier or ex-soldier remains the tenant of the State at a weekly rent just the same as the labourers under the Labourers Act. Accordingly, in that case we express the loss in an annual sum.
  In the latter case, I may point out, the cottage and land ultimately revert to the State, but in the former case they become the property of the tenant. My hon. and gallant Friend has called attention to the
  1756
  fact that we have not given very detailed information as regards the number of cases with which it may be necessary to deal. May I point out that in the corresponding Paper which was issued on behalf of the Scottish Office precisely the same position existed, and it was there stated that it was impossible at the moment to tell what the various applications might be or what were likely to be the charges upon the various Government Departments? The Scottish Papers said that the amount of capital expenditure likely to be incurred under the Bill would depend on (1) the number of small holdings established, (2) the cost of the land required, and (3) the cost of cottages and buildings erected. All these factors were at present unknown, and it was consequently impossible to give any detailed estimate of the probable cost. I think I may safely suggest that our position is in no way contradictory to that of the Scottish Office.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  MENTAL DEFICIENCY AND LUNACY (AMENDMENT) [MONEY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the removal of the limit imposed by Section forty-seven of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, and by Section thirty-seven of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, I913, on the contributions which may be made by the Treasury under those Sections, and to extend the powers of district boards of control in Scotland to borrow money."—[Major Baird.]
  Mr. G. THORNE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly give the Committee a little more information than we have in the White Paper?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Major Baird): The difficulty of giving more detailed information arises from the impossibility of making an exact estimate of the number of people who will be affected by our proposal, but such estimates as we have been able to make are contained in the White Paper, and the House will see it is estimated that we shall have to deal with 21,750 cases, at a cost of £60 per annum for each case. The need for this measure cannot be questioned. The strong recom-

  1757
  mendations of the Royal Commission on whose Report the Act of 1913 was based, have not been carried out on account of lack of money. The treatment of defectives under that Act was placed in the hands of the local authorities, but they were not obliged to do more than was possible with the money at their disposal, half their expenses being paid by the Exchequer and the Exchequer's contribution being limited by Section 47 of the Act to a sum of £250,000 for the whole Kingdom. That meant that in England and Wales the expenditure was not based so much on the number of unfortunate people who ought to be dealt with, not only in their own interests but in the interest of the community at large, but it was limited by the amount of money at the disposal of the authority, and that in turn was limited by the amount which the Exchequer contributed. The removal of the limit will, we hope, enable the local authorities to deal with the situation as it deserves. It will limit their operations not by the amount of money which they happen to be able to raise, but by the number of individuals who require treatment in their area. No arguments will be required to justify that as a proper course to take. The only limit imposed with regard to work of this kind should be the limit of the numbers who happen to be affected. The expense is by no means negligible, but I think it fair to suggest that the State will gain largely by reduction in crime and in other indirect ways through the proper treatment of these unfortunate individuals. I trust the Committee will be satisfied with this explanation supplementing the facts set forth in the White Paper. From the very nature of the case I am afraid it is not possible to give any close estimate of the expenditure. We have given the best estimate we can in the White Paper, but I do urge that the nature of the work for which the money is required should ensure for our proposal the support of all members of the Committee.
  Colonel GRETTON: The statement of the hon. and gallant Member was that the expenditure is by no means negligible. He told us there were 21,000 cases to be dealt with at a cost of £60 per annum per case. The expenditure involved, therefore, represents over £1,300,000 a year, and certainly that in these days cannot be treated as a negligible sum. No doubt, during the current financial year, while this new arrangement is coming into
  1758
  operation, the expenditure will be comparatively small, but ultimately it will become a very heavy item if this Bill is passed, and I hope therefore the Committee, if it agrees to the Resolution, will do so with its eyes open to the fact that it involves an addition to the national expenditure of £1,300,000. I should like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend if he can inform the Committee whether this increased charge was taken into account in the Estimates on which the Budget was framed and presented to the House this year. Or is this an addition that will be charged in excess of those Estimates which have already been passed by the House of Commons? I have no recollection of any charge under this head having been suggested, and I am afraid, therefore, this will be a new charge which was not contemplated in the general scheme of finance for this year.
  Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I should like to give very strong support to this financial proposal. Every Member of this House will recognise that a serious change is necessary in the treatment of defectives in this country. As the law at present stands, the total amount which can be spent now in the aggregate is about £300,000, to which £150,000 only is contributed by the Exchequer. I am sure we all agree that that is absolutely inadequate to deal with the large number of mentally defective at present in Great Britain. When we consider that these mentally defectives are exclusive of the criminal type and those certified as insane, we must see that this expenditure is far the benefit not only of society in general but for those defectives who are suffering from mental incapacity. I am sure the Committee will readily pass any expenditure of a reasonable character which will maintain these unfortunate defective boys, girls, and young people generally, and so, in a great, measure, protect not only society but the sufferers themselves. I feel certain the Committee will give sympathetic consideration to this proposal, which will ultimately affect 21,000 defectives who ought to be protected and properly looked after. In that way society will be protected from these unfortunate people.
  Mr. G. THORNE: The Committee is entirely in support of the Government in the object they have in view, but manifestly it will involve a considerable responsibility upon the local authorities. I would

  1759
  ask the Under-Secretary whether the local authorities were communicated with before this measure was introduced in order that they might understand what fresh responsibility will be cast upon their shoulders?
  Major BAIRD: In reply to the last question, we have been in close communication with the local authorities on the subject. I would thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) for having called attention to an omission, for which I apologise, in my speech trying to explain the financial effect of this measure. The expenditure of £1,400,000 is the ultimate expenditure, and of that one-half will be borne by the local authorities. The expenditure which will be borne by the Exchequer this year will be quite small. The plan has not been sufficiently advanced and there are other reasons which will readily occur to hon. Members which make it impossible, with the best will in the
  1760
  world, to spend this year very much of the money we ask the Committee to sanction. The sum of £1,400,000 is the ultimate expenditure and probably will not fall to be paid for several years to come. That is the limit we foresee.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley), pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes before Ten o'clock.

  RETIRED OFFICERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT PAY).
  RETIRED OFFICERS (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT PAY).
  SILVER (PRICE).
  SILVER (PRICE).
  GOLD (PRICE).
  GOLD (PRICE).
IRELAND.
  MILITARY AND POLICE (KILLED AND WOUNDED).
  MILITARY AND POLICE (KILLED AND WOUNDED).
  SUB-POSTMASTEUS.
  SUB-POSTMASTEUS.
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  MILK.
  MILK.
  MINISTRY (PROFITS).
  MINISTRY (PROFITS).
  ADMIRALTY STORES.
  ADMIRALTY STORES.
DEMOBILISATION.
  HON. ARTILLERY COMPANY (SIGNALLER LINNETT).
  HON. ARTILLERY COMPANY (SIGNALLER LINNETT).
  APPLICATIONS FOE RELEASE.
  APPLICATIONS FOE RELEASE.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  DESERTED DEPENDANTS.
  DESERTED DEPENDANTS.
  DISABILITY CLAIM (PRIVATE T. WALMSLEY).
  DISABILITY CLAIM (PRIVATE T. WALMSLEY).
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIABY CORPS (GRATUITY).
  QUEEN MARY'S ARMY AUXILIABY CORPS (GRATUITY).
MUNITIONS.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).
  MOTOR LORRIES (DISPOSAL).
  MOTOR LORRIES (DISPOSAL).
  EXPLOSIVES STORAGE, MERIONETHSHIRE.
  EXPLOSIVES STORAGE, MERIONETHSHIRE.
  BEDS (TENDERS).
  BEDS (TENDERS).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (INSPECTION STAFF).
  MOTOR VEHICLES (INSPECTION STAFF).
  NATIONAL SCHOOLS, COWLEY
  NATIONAL SCHOOLS, COWLEY
  EDUCATION GRANTS (WOMEN'S CORPS).
  EDUCATION GRANTS (WOMEN'S CORPS).
HOUSING.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (PRIORITY).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (PRIORITY).
  LONDON HOUSING BOARD.
  LONDON HOUSING BOARD.
  COVENTRY SCHEME (WAGES RATE).
  COVENTRY SCHEME (WAGES RATE).
  PAUPER LUNATICS (MAINTENANCE).
  PAUPER LUNATICS (MAINTENANCE).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
  POOR LAW (AVERAGE COST).
  POOR LAW (AVERAGE COST).
  BOROUGH BOUNDARIES (EXTENSION).
  BOROUGH BOUNDARIES (EXTENSION).
  PRISON ADMINISTRATION.
  PRISON ADMINISTRATION.
  EX-POLIOEMEN (EMPLOYMENT).
  EX-POLIOEMEN (EMPLOYMENT).
COAL PRODUCTION.
  LOCAL FUEL OVERSEER (POWERS).
  LOCAL FUEL OVERSEER (POWERS).
  INLAND WATER TRANSPORT (SUPPLIES).
  INLAND WATER TRANSPORT (SUPPLIES).
  LICENCE WITHHELD (ALDERSHOT).
  LICENCE WITHHELD (ALDERSHOT).
  EXPORT (TONXAGE AND PRICKS).
  EXPORT (TONXAGE AND PRICKS).
  COMMISSION REPORT (APPENDICES).
  COMMISSION REPORT (APPENDICES).
  WAR RISKS COMPENSATION (MERCANTILE MARINE).
  WAR RISKS COMPENSATION (MERCANTILE MARINE).
  HAY AND STRAW (DISPOSAL)
  HAY AND STRAW (DISPOSAL)
  MOTOR CARS (PRICES).
  MOTOR CARS (PRICES).
  PETROL (PRICE).
  PETROL (PRICE).
  AERATED BREAD COMPANY (PROFITS).
  AERATED BREAD COMPANY (PROFITS).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  MERCANTILE MARINE (UNEMPLOYMENT).
TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.
  WAGONS.
  WAGONS.
  MIDLAND STATION, NOTTINGHAM.
  MIDLAND STATION, NOTTINGHAM.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CARDIFF.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, CARDIFF.
  QUARRY DISPUTE, NEWBURGH.
  QUARRY DISPUTE, NEWBURGH.
  TRADE UNIONS (INFORMATION).
  TRADE UNIONS (INFORMATION).
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
  UNEMPLOYMENT, NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE.
RUSSIA.
  ECONOMIC PRESSURE.
  ECONOMIC PRESSURE.
  BALTIC STATES (ULTIMATUMS).
  BALTIC STATES (ULTIMATUMS).
  REPORTS ON BOLSHEVISM.
  REPORTS ON BOLSHEVISM.
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES (GOVERNMENT OCCUPATION).
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES (GOVERNMENT OCCUPATION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four o'clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EGYPT.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to lay any information before the House on a subject which is causing much anxiety—I refer to the state of Egypt—and whether at the same time he could give us information as to the scope and purpose of the Mission which is known as the Milner Mission.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): My Lords, in reply to the noble and learned Lord I will first say a few words about the local situation in Egypt. When I last addressed your Lordships in May—it was, I think, May 15—the short-lived Ministry of Rushdi Pasha had recently come to an end, and Lord Allenby had not as yet found a successor. A few days later, however, Mohammed Said Pasha, who had already been Prime Minister from 1910 to 1914, assumed office and formed an Egyptian Administration. His first task was to restore order and tranquillity to a country still disturbed by the abortive revolution of the spring. To this task he and his colleagues devoted all their energies, and attained such a measure of success that in July Lord Allenby felt justified in transferring to the ordinary civil tribunals of the country the trial of any cases arising out of the disturbances of March and April, other than those of violence against members of His Majesty's Forces; and, to mark his confidence in the Ministry and the good sense of the nation, the preventive censorship of the Press was abolished.
By this time normal conditions had been established throughout the country, and the fellahin, who constitute over 90 per cent. of the population, were enjoying an almost unprecedented degree of prosperity, which went far to efface from their minds the stormy time through which they had passed during the war. In the towns,
340
however, the high cost of living—which I am afraid has not yet diminished—kept alive the spirit of discontent, and the Nationalist leaders took full advantage of this circumstance to pursue their campaign against the Prime Minister and the Protecting Power, to which he was accused of undue subservience.
In the early part of June a few small and half-hearted demonstrations took place in Cairo without, however, giving rise to any serious disorder or breach of the peace. In August signs of industrial unrest became prevalent amongst different classes of workers in the towns. This unrest was fundamentally due to economic causes but was exploited for political purposes by the agitators, who were not slow to realise the value of the strike as a weapon in their armoury. Trade unions or Syndicates were formed, and the foreign Socialist elements took no inconsiderable part in fomenting the discontent which, as I have said, was rife amongst the workers in the larger cities.
On September 2 an attempt was made to assassinate the Prime Minister by means of a bomb. The assailant, a young student of El Azhar University, was arrested, and there is no doubt that the motive of the crime was political.
The Government attempted to meet the legitimate grievances of the workers by setting up a Conciliation Board, which was not unsuccessful in obtaining substantial amelioration in the conditions of labour, and the Government itself set an example in this respect by according a generous increase in the rates of pay to all grades of its employees.
A considerable impetus was given to the cause of the Extremists by the publication early in September of a telegram from Paris to the effect that the United States Senate had decided that Egypt was considered to be neither under Turkey nor under Great Britain, but politically independent. Although this rumour was officially contradicted by the American Agency in Cairo, the effect produced by it was considerable, and the Nationalist Party in Egypt have never ceased to believe that their campaign had the sympathy and would receive the support of one or other among the Great Powers. Of these, as your Lordships are aware, France and America have formally recognised the British Protectorate. Italy has promised

341
to acknowledge it. Its recognition is contained in the Peace Treaty with Germany, and is accordingly confirmed by all the signatories of that Treaty. Any such expectations, therefore, are doomed to complete disappointment.
Such was the sequence of events in Egypt until mid-autumn. The sharp recrudescence of disorder in October, to which I shall again revert presently, was so distinctly and directly connected with the anticipated despatch of the Mission under my noble friend Lord Milner that I must now ask your Lordships to go back with me to the date at which that Mission was first announced, and to the object which it had in view. Already in May last I announced the intention of His Majesty's Government to send such a Mission, and I thus defined its object. It was—
"to inquire into the causes of the late disorders in Egypt, and to report on the existing situation in the country, and the form of Constitution which, under the Protectorate, will be best calculated to promote its peace and prosperity, the progressive development of self-governing institutions, and the protection of foreign interests."
I call special attention to the words "progressive development of self-governing institutions," because they have been almost completely, and as it would appear deliberately, ignored in the subsequent agitation, although they were the keynote of the policy which the Mission was to hold in view. My Lords, at that time it was intended to despatch the Mission at as early a date as its composition could be completed. But difficulties were experienced in more ways than one. It was not found easy to find available members with' the requisite authority and experience; the summer is not exactly the best time in which to conduct investigations in the interior of a country with the Egyptian climate; it was felt desirable to give the newly-formed Egyptian Administration an opportunity of firmly establishing itself; and it was thought at that time —an illusory hope—that the Peace Conference at Paris might address itself before the autumn to the solution of the Eastern problem. Lord Allenby, upon whose judgment His Majesty's Government placed great reliance, informed us that the Sultan of Egypt and the Prime Minister both favoured a postponement till the autumn, and that he agreed with their views. It
342
was in these circumstances that the date of departure of the Mission was deferred.
Meanwhile, His Majesty's Government succeeded in composing the Mission of persons possessing, in at least three cases, actual administrative experience in Egypt, and all of them qualified by their representative character, high position, and public reputation to produce a strong feeling of public confidence in the impartial and sympathetic character of the inquiry which they were commissioned to hold. I have little doubt that, under the guidance of my noble friend Lord Milner, whose name has been so long and honourably associated with Egypt, they will be able to render a great service to that country.
I will now proceed to deal with the object that Lord Milner and his colleagues will have in view. Your Lordships will have noticed from the reports in the Press that the attacks that are made upon the Mission revolve to a large extent round the words "British Protectorate," and that these have become a sort of battle-cry in the agitation that has been fomented in Egypt. I think it desirable that we should clear our minds on the matter, not of cant, because I suspect that the apprehensions that have been aroused have been to a large extent sincere, but of gross and palpable misunderstanding. It was in 1914, after we had been compelled to declare war upon Turkey, that the British Protectorate over Egypt was declared. So far from this being intended, or indeed regarded at the time, as a high-handed act aimed at the suppression of Egyptian liberties, it was decided upon by Mr. Asquith's Government as a much milder and more generous policy than that of annexation, which at that time was strongly advocated by some. Cyprus, which had long been administered by the Colonial Office as part of the British Empire, was annexed. But the opportunity of incorporating Egypt in the Empire was deliberately, and I think wisely, rejected, because it was intended, in the wide latitude of opportunity which the formula of a Protectorate affords, to give free scope to the political aspirations and the self-governing capacities of the Egyptian people.
My Lords, I observe that a great deal of play is now made with the argument that when the British Protectorate over Egypt was declared in 1914 no attempt was made to define its character or implications. I do not remember that that argument was

343
much used, or indeed used at all, at the time. Perhaps, in the light of later events, it would have been wiser if Mr. Asquith's Government, who at that time had the advice of Lord Kitchener at their elbow, had indulged in some fuller explanation. But I think that your Lordships can readily understand how it was that this was not done. Not Egypt alone, but almost the whole of the Western world, soon to be followed by the Eastern, was involved in the first throes of the terrific struggle which was to last for another four years. Before long Egypt herself was threatened; her own frontiers were in danger; immense armies were collected upon her soil, either for the defence of the Canal or on their way to the various theatres of war; Egypt became a throbbing hive of war industry and war commotion; inter aorta silent leges: and the time was hardly opportune for discussing politics or formulating a constitutional definition. I doubt very much if at that time, in consultation with Sultan Hussein and the then Ministers, a serious attempt had been made to determine what form the constitution of Egypt should assume after the war, it would have been found practicable to pursue it to any solution.
But now, my Lords, the situation has changed, and the questions which it might have been difficult to answer then may with propriety be put and answered now. What, then, is the nature of our position in Egypt, and what is the task with which the Mission is charged in working out the future form of its Government? I need hardly elaborate to your Lordships the reasons for which Great Britain is compelled to interest herself in the political fortunes of Egypt, and is unable to give any encouragement to the claim of complete national independence. Quite apart from the fact that Egypt, if left to stand alone, could neither protect her frontiers against external aggression nor guarantee a strong and impartial Government at home, her geographical position at the gate of Palestine, for which it seems likely that a special responsibility will before long be placed upon our shoulders, at the doorway of Africa, and on the high road to India renders it impossible that the British Empire, with any regard to its own security and connections, should wash its hands of responsibility for Egypt. Egypt is, of course, primarily an Egyptian interest; the good Government and the prosperity and happiness of its people are the first
344
concern; but it is also a British interest of capital importance; and I suspect that there are few who would deny that it is also a world interest, and that the world interest is best secured by leaving Egypt under the ægis of a great civilised Power.
But, my Lords, accepting these fundamental propositions, which underlie the whole matter and which no British Government or Party will be disposed to dispute, there may yet be wide differences of opinion as to the form which the British interest should assume.
I shrink on the present occasion from attempting any scientific definition of the term "Protectorate," which, as a constitutional expedient known to all countries and to all periods of the world's history, has many shades of meaning, from an advanced degree of political or administrative control at the one end to little more than a sphere of political influence at the other. Common, however, to all these examples is the conception that the Protecting Power is under an obligation to defend the protected State from external attack, to secure the proper treatment of foreign subjects and property within it, and generally speaking to control its foreign and political relations. The degree to which a Protectorate carries with it the prerogative of interference in the internal administration of a State is laid down by no law and must be decided in each case on its merits.
In Egypt, however, these constitutional commonplaces appear to be in danger of being forgotten; and the British Protectorate is mistaken for a thinly-veiled form of annexation. The constitutional history of Egypt since the first grant of representative institutions after Lord Dufferin's Mission nearly forty years ago, culminating in the Organic Law of 1913 —unhappily never carried into effective operation owing to the outbreak of war in the succeeding year—should have supplied a sufficient answer to these misunderstandings. If annexation, either open or disguised, had been intended, the time to carry it out would have been in the winter of 1914. But it was not intended then, and it is not intended now. The idea that Egyptian aspirations and Egyptian nationality are to be crushed or ignored is an extravagant misconception which I cannot too emphatically repudiate. The object with which the Mission is going out has been defined in the declaration which Lord

345
Allenby, acting upon instructions from His Majesty's Government, has already issued in Cairo. It has been published in the newspapers in this and every country, and I have no doubt that your Lordships have seen it. But I may be permitted, perhaps, on the present occasion to add a few further words on the subject.
I have already spoken of our responsibilities and duties towards Egypt—responsibilities which Great Britain cannot forego or disown. Egypt depends upon them for her safety from foreign attack and her existence as a nation. But within those boundaries is a wide and ample field in which Egyptians are invited to participate, and must, as time passes on, participate in an ever-increasing degree, in the Government of their country. We recognise the legitimacy of these aspirations. We desire to provide for their satisfaction. The progressive development of self-governing institutions in Egypt is an ideal which they may share with us and we with them. It is not to be thought of that a race like the Egyptians, possessing in its upper ranks a high culture and historic memories, should be content with a rôle of passive subordination in the administration of their country.
My Lords, it will be the object of Lord Milner and his colleagues, in consultation with the Sultan and his Ministers and representative Egyptians of all classes, to devise the details of a Constitution by which all these parties shall be able, in their several spheres and in an increasing degree, to co-operate in the management of Egyptian affairs. British assistance and British guidance will still be required. Nor will any of those who have followed the history of Egypt for the last forty years and seen the astounding advance that she has made under our auspices, question the necessity of this supervision. Lord Milner's Mission is not going out to Egypt with a Constitution in its pocket. It intends to consult all parties before it even forms an opinion. It is not authorised to impose a Constitution upon Egypt. What it has to do is to undertake the preliminary work that is necessary before the future form of Government is determined. While it is engaged in this task the Mission, with the assistance of the material which Lord Allenby has already collected, should be able to form an opinion on the causes, some of them obscure but others very patent and removable, of the recent risings and
346
present discontent, and will be able, as I hope, to propound a remedy. They will doubtless hear of many anomalies and grievances, and if they are confronted with proven abuses in the administration they will, I am confident, recommend their extirpation with unflinching hand.
If these intentions are known, Lord Milner's Mission should be assured, not of an unfriendly greeting, but of a cordial welcome at the hands of all friends of Egyptian nationality and Egyptian progress. Such a reception, I am sure, they will meet with at the hands of the new Egyptian Ministry under Yussuf Wabha Pasha, which assumed office on the resignation of Mohammed Said Pasha a few days ago. The High Commissioner has reported to us very favourably on the character and composition of the Ministry which now enters upon office, sharing, as it does, the hopeful views of His Majesty's Government and resolved to co-operate loyally in their execution.
I see that the question has been raised in some quarters why the Mission, even if there were good reasons for its postponement in the middle of the summer, did not go out in the early autumn, and an impression of irresolution or vacillation is said to have been produced by the delay. We were quite willing and had made all preparations to despatch the Mission in September. But two reasons interfered with the execution of our plan. The late Egyptian Prime Minister more than once pleaded in the strongest possible manner for the further postponement of its arrival, and we were anxious as far as possible to carry him with us. Secondly, Lord Allenby was called to Europe for other purposes. We desired to profit by his advice, and we did not wish to act in his absence from Egypt. As soon as he had returned to Cairo and taken stock of the situation he advised that the Mission should start with as little delay as possible, and preparations are now being made for its early departure.
One other plea has been put forward and has found a good deal of favour in Egypt—namely, that the Mission should not appear upon the scene until the Peace with Turkey has been signed. There may have been some value in this plea in the course of last summer, when every one hoped that the Paris Conference, having completed its other labours, would turn its attention to the Peace with Turkey without delay. But these hopes were disappointed;

347
and although His Majesty's Government are anxious to take up at the earliest possible date the concluding stages of the work of the Conference and have made formal proposals to the other Allied Powers to that effect, the point has not yet been reached at which it is possible to commence the investigation of that subject or to prepare the way for the future settlement of the East. But I should like to point out that, whatever form the future peace with Turkey may take, or at whatever date it may be concluded, it can make no difference whatsoever in the solution of the Egyptian problem. The political connection of Turkey with Egypt is at an end, nor is it conceivable that it should ever be revived. It is not to Turkey that Egypt must look for the fulfilment of her aspirations or the future of her race.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Whatever be the terms imposed upon Turkey by the Powers, the recognition of the British Protectorate, already made or promised by all the Great Powers, will be an inseparable feature of the Treaty, nor can any provision in the Treaty alter in any way the fundamental principle of the inquiry with which Lord Milner's Mission is charged—namely, the progressive development of Egyptian self-governing institutions under British protection.
My Lords, it remains only for me to notice in a few sentences the unfortunate recrudescence of disquiet, disorder, and disturbance in Egypt during the past few weeks. In August, as I have already pointed out, when the delay of the Peace Conference in dealing with the Turkish question and the failure of the Zaghlul Mission to secure a hearing in Paris were manifest, the tone of the hearing in Egypt became increasingly bitter, and patriotic Egyptians were continually urged to boycott the Mission on the recommendation of the Zaghlul Party, many of whom had by this time returned to Egypt. The agitation continued to grow in intensity until it culminated in serious riots in Alexandria on October 24 and 25, and recourse had to be made to the assistance of British troops to restore order. These disorders were repeated a week later, and on November 16 were reproduced in Cairo. In both places the Egyptian police and soldiers have done their best to cope with a very difficult situation, but have
348
required the assistance of His Majesty's Forces, who have conducted themselves with exemplary self-restraint and moderation.
I do not propose at this moment to analyse more closely the reasons of this effervescence, which is a product of the events of the time, and is common to many parts of the Eastern world. The precise parts that are played in it by political agitation, by religious fanaticism, by the reaction of the war, by economic causes, or by the undisciplined forces of anarchy it is difficult to disentangle. They impose upon the Egyptian and British authorities in combination the primary duty of enforcing law and order and punishing outrage and crime. We trust to the firm and judicious handling of the High Commissioner to deal with this aspect of the case, and the new Egyptian Ministry will receive from him and from us every support in vindicating the first principles of civilised society.
But these incidents will not deter us from pursuing the path which has been mapped out for us by the highest conception of duty, both to Egypt and to ourselves. We appeal to moderate opinion in Egypt to support us in the task we have undertaken, and to co-operate with Lord Milner and his colleagues in their undertaking. The effort to raise Egypt from the misery and oppression in which she was plunged less than half a century ago, and the successful results of which have been our pride and her glory, cannot be dropped midway. Rather may we hope to guide her energies and resources into new channels of progress and influence.
Before I sit down I should like in a sentence to point to the opposite, and encouraging picture that is presented by the Soudan. Under the able rule of the Governor-General, Sir Lee Stack, the inhabitants of that country have continued to maintain perfect order and have given notable evidence of their affection towards Great Britain by the visit to this country in July of a deputation of notables who were received by His Majesty the King. Both to His Majesty and subsequently to myself they expressed their warm appreciation of the work accomplished by Great Britain for the regeneration of their country and their dissociation from the events which have happened in Egypt. Their one desire is to remain in the Empire and not to be dissevered from it. This gratifying

349
testimony of loyalty is largely, if not entirely, due to the admirable work accomplished by the late Governor-General, Sir Reginald Wingate, who devoted his great abilities for so many years to promoting the prosperity of the Soudan and to laying the foundations of a State in which the methods of British rule have received their fullest vindication.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think the whole House has listened to the statement of my noble friend with the greatest interest and attention. So important is that statement, so carefully balanced its different parts, so evidently the result of deep thought that I think very likely your Lordships may wish on another occasion, when we have had greater opportunities of studying what my noble friend has said, to recur to this most important subject. But I should not like this occasion to pass without making one or two preliminary observations.
I think your Lordships will all agree that my noble friend's speech was characterised by the greatest self-restraint and moderation and by a great feeling of sympathy for the legitimate aspirations of the Egyptian people. If I had any criticism to make on the earlier part the necessity for that was removed by my noble friend's conclusion. Because I thought at one moment he was not sufficiently dwelling on the great work that this country has done in Egypt within the last forty years, or sufficiently bringing to the remembrance of the world the antithesis between the present internal condition of Egypt and of its finances, and its condition in 1882.
Surely in the whole history of the Empire there has been no more wonderful work than that done by the British administrators and the great soldiers who have worked in Egypt and in the Soudan; and if now, at the end of that period, there is the appearance of a great deal of discontent and dissatisfaction among certain of the Egyptians, I think we may feel quite assured that the causes do not lie either in the motives which have actuated our statesmen or our administrators, or in the result of their forty years of administration. The causes are to be sought partly in that general turmoil of the world which has followed the four years tornado of war, and which manifests itself in the East in different ways and at different moments from what it does in the West.
350
My noble friend has told us that one of the duties of Lord Milner and his Mission will be to try and find out what were the causes of these disturbances. But there was one possible cause to which my noble friend did not allude, or if he did allude to it I was not fortunate enough to catch the sentence. It has been stated, and it has occurred to many of us, that Turkish intrigue may have played some part in those disturbances from the summer up to the present time. Now, if there is one thing on which all parties in this country are absolutely united it is in this—that in no circumstances shall Turkey have any more say in the Government of Egypt. Again, there is another subject on which all parties are absolutely united—namely, the belief that if there is one thing more proved than another in the history of modern nations it is that the Turk, young or old, is totally unfit to be trusted with the government of any human being. Therefore my noble friend and the Government may rest assured that they have the support of the whole nation behind them in letting Egyptians of all sorts and descents clearly understand from the beginning that Turkey is never again to be allowed to have any say in the Government of Egypt.
The next point to which I wish especially to draw attention is one with which my noble friend dealt fully, and I am sure he cannot deal with it too fully or too often—that is the absolute impossibility of Egypt acquiring what is called a position of complete independence. If we were by any lapse of sanity to leave Egypt to-morrow and to divest ourselves of any responsibility whatever for her future, in my judgment there is nothing more certain than that within a generation another great Power would have taken our place in Egypt. Under the modern conditions of the world, —indeed, I think if you went back into history you would find that in almost every age of the world the same story has been proved—Egypt cannot stand without the assistance of some protecting Power; and when we consider, as my noble friend said, that the Suez Canal is the gate to the East, and that behind Egypt in the hinterland and far interior of Africa there is now gradually developing the great territory of the Soudan—wholly loyal; another great monument of the courage and skill of the British administrator—it must be perfectly plain to any one who does not desire wilfully to deceive himself that this country never could allow any other Power

351
to occupy our place in Egypt. As in no circumstances can we ever give way on these two points to any feeling of Egyptian sentiment, I hope that my noble friend will never weary in trying to disabuse Egyptians of the possibility either of our allowing Turkey any re-entry in Egyptian affairs or of ourselves abandoning the task which was taken up nearly forty years ago.
Let me, in conclusion, say a word in respect of my noble friend Lord Milner. I think we are indeed fortunate that he is available at the present moment to undertake this Mission; because there is no man not only more qualified by his whole life-record of public service, but by the particularly brilliant episode of that record which began in Egypt sonic thirty or thirty years ago. He will go back to it in very different circumstances from those under which he left it; but we all look forward with the utmost confidence to his calm judgment that (if he will allow me to say so in his presence) always goes to the bottom of things and is never carried away by sentiment.

SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE, AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I had not the opportunity of saying anything upon the subject of this Bill on the Second Reading, although it is a subject with which I have been all my life very intimately connected, and I think I should occupy less of your Lordships' time by saying a few words on going into Committee than by interrupting the proceedings upon the clauses as they arise. In this Bill I recognise several very familiar friends—clauses that have been very much considered in recent years, and which have been several times before you Lordships' House, but which, unfortunately, when dealt with in another place have, like
352
many other Bills, not been heard of again. I gather from the character of the clauses that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has endeavoured to make the Bill as far as possible non-controversial, and I think he has succeeded in that to a very great extent. If there are any clauses that are open to discussion, at any rate I should hope that they will not be looked upon as controversial; and for my own part I should have liked to have seen this Bill pass without amendment. But that is not to be.
The noble and learned Lord himself has put down some Amendments to meet suggestions thrown out by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Buckmaster. Lord Buckmaster suggested that the first clause of the Bill was not clear, and that it could not be said upon the construction of it whether or not those actions connected with libel, slander, and other things, which are excluded from the County Court, did or did not come in under the language of the clause. With great deference to the noble and learned Lord, I do not think that this is the construction of the words. I think it is clear that the Bill did not intend as originally drawn to alter the law as to that jurisdiction; but I see that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has tabled Amendments which will have the effect of bringing in that jurisdiction. As I myself have always been strongly in favour of the direct increase of the County Court jurisdiction, I certainly am not prepared to say anything against that, and I shall not propose to say anything more about it in this debate.
There is another Amendment which I am sorry to see put down by my noble and learned friend near me, upon a subject that also has been for many years very familiar, but it has always been regarded as a controversial subject; therefore I am sorry to see the attempt made to put it into this Bill. I do not think there can be any doubt that it is contrary to the old tradition of the County Court jurisdiction and that it must bring a further burden on the High Court of Justice at a time when we have reason to think it is suffering a good deal from overwork and arrears.
I should have been glad to see a general introduction of the extension of County Court jurisdiction, but that, of course, would not have been consistent with the character of the Bill which the noble and learned Lord has brought in. It is a curious

353
thing that when a Bill is introduced for dealing directly with County Court jurisdiction there is always resistance to the increase of that jurisdiction, but Bill after Bill comes up upon general subjects and you find that the jurisdiction of the County Court is increased without any hesitation. I should have been glad to see something done, either in this Bill or in the other of which the noble and learned Lord has charge, to improve the salaries of the County Court Judges, but that, again, is inconsistent with the views of drastic economy that are supported now (and certainly deserve all support), and I do not see how it could have been done.
There is another subject in which I feel a very deep interest and in regard to which I should have liked to see a clause, but I know it is quite impossible. That is on the subject of jurisdiction in divorce. Holding, as I do, that it is essential for doing justice to the poor to have some change of that sort, I should have been glad to see it brought into a County Court Bill, but the matter is so controversial that it is quite clear it ought to be dealt with in a separate measure and not in a County Court Bill. The only other matter to which wish to call attention in connection with the Bill, which seems in all respects a most valuable one, is that there are two clauses at the end dealing with the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think these are admirable clauses, but whether they ought to be in the Bill may be doubted. There are some words in the title which may be supposed to bring those clauses in, and if the noble and learned Lord thinks so I should not venture to differ from him, but I do call his attention to the point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL Or DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Transfer of actions of contract, of tort, and for recovery of land from High Court to county court. 51 & 52 Vict c. 43.
1. The following section shall be substituted for section sixty-five of the County Courts Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"):—
"In any action commenced in the High Court where—

"(1) the plaintiff's claim is founded either on contract or on tort and the amount claimed or remaining in dispute in
354
respect thereof does not exceed one hundred pounds, whether the defendant does or does not set up or intend to rely on a counter claim and whether the counter claim (if any) is founded on contract or on tort and whether the amount claimed on the counter claim exceeds or does not exceed one hundred pounds; or

"(2) the only matter remaining to be tried between the parties is a counter claim, whether founded on contract or on tort, and the amount claimed or remaining in dispute in respect of the counter claim does not exceed one hundred pounds; or

"(3) the plaintiff's claim is for recovery of land, with or without a claim for rent or mesne profits, by a landlord against a tenant or any person holding or claiming by, through, or under a tenant, whose term has expired or has been duly determined by notice to quit or has become liable to forfeiture for non-payment of rent, and the action could have been commenced in a county court;

either party may at any time apply to the court or a judge for an order that the claim and counter claim (if any) or, if the only matter remaining to be tried is a counter claim, the counter claim, shall be transferred—

"(a) to any county court in which the action might have been commenced if the amount thereof had been within the jurisdiction of the court; or

"(b) if the only matter remaining to be tried is a counter claim, to any county court in which the counter claim might have been commenced if it had been an action; or

"(c) to any county court which the court or judge may deem the most convenient to the parties;

and the court or a judge may thereupon, if the court or judge thinks fit, order the same to be so transferred accordingly."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "pounds" where that word first occurs, to insert "whether the action could or could not have been commenced in a County Court and." The noble and learned Lord said: This is the first of several Amendments, to which the others are consequential. It may be convenient for me to explain quite briefly their cumulative effect. The first Amendment is to insert the words "whether the action could or could not have been commenced in a County Court and," after the word "pounds" in line 12; the next is in subsection (2), to insert, after "tort," the words "and whether the counter claim if it had been an action could or could not have been commenced in a County Court"; the third is in paragraph (a), after "if," to

355
insert "the subject matter and"; and the fourth in paragraph (b), after "action," to insert "and the subject matter thereof had been within the jurisdiction of the Court."
The object of these Amendments is to deal with a doubt expressed and a suggestion made by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster on the Second Reading. The doubt expressed by him was as to whether the result of the Bill, as drafted, was not to make certain actions for libel, slander, seduction, and breach of promise of marriage triable in the County Court. I had taken the view not that there was not a great deal to be said for the proposal that I should depart from my primary object, which was to collect into one Bill all those non-controversial clauses in the County Court Bill which, in my judgment, would be of extreme advantage to the ministration of justice, if they became law, and not, by undue ambition, share the fate of many of my predecessors in their attempted legislation; but I have consulted many of the County Court Judges and others whose opinion is of value in this matter, and they share the impression which I had generally formed, and the conclusion which my noble and learned friend had clearly reached, that it would on the whole be a great advantage if these matters were made triable in the County Court.
This class of action is of a kind which, in my judgment, may very properly be remitted. Many of these actions are no doubt substantial and they involve very serious issues of character, but many of them are purely speculative matters. They are set on foot on trumpery pretexts; they occupy a great deal of the time of the Law Courts; and, as my noble and learned friend pointed out, they fill an undue position in the columns of the newspapers; and I am, on the whole, unable to see why what has been called the ordinary "pot-house slander" should not go to the County Court. If discretion is wisely exercised, and this action does go there, it will receive the summary treatment which the experience of the County Court judges admirably qualifies them to give, instead of dragging on for several days in the Law Courts. It is expected that this modification, introduced at the last moment, will very considerably assist what is one of the principal objects of this Bill—namely, to remove the undue congestion of work in the Law Courts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, after ("pounds") insert ("whether the action could or could not have been commenced in a county court and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I desire to express my satisfaction that the noble and learned Lord has seen his way to extend the operation of this Bill. There can be no doubt that the class of action which can now be brought within the jurisdiction of the County Court is frequently of the most worthless character and occupies far longer time in the High Court than I think it is likely to occupy in the County Court. County Court judges are certainly of a standard well able to deal with these trumpery disputes, and I am glad indeed that the Lord Chancellor has found himself able to include this provision in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next three Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 1, line 20, after ("tort") insert ("and whether the counter claim if it had been an action could or could not have been commenced in a county court")
Page 2, line 11, after ("if") insert ("the subject matter and")
Page 2, line 16, after ("action") insert ("and the subject matter thereof had been within the jurisdiction of the court").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The three Amendments which I move on this clause should be read together. They are purely drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("an order is made directing")
Page 3,line 37, leave out ("is directed")
Page 3,lines 37 and 38, leave out ("directing the issue").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5, 6, and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Default summons.
8.The following section shall be substituted for section eighty-six of the principal Act:—
"(1) County court rules may provide for the issue, under the prescribed conditions, of a default summons, in the prescribed form or to the prescribed effect, in any action for a debt or liquidated demand in money, and may provide for the manner in which such a summons is to be served and the conditions (if any) under which the defendant is to be entitled to defend the action; and, where such conditions are not complied with, it shall be lawful for the registrar to enter up judgment summarily for the plaintiff in manner prescribed by the rules.
"(2) The rules may provide for different procedure and different conditions according to the amount of the claim or the nature thereof or the position or occupation of the defendant, for the exclusion of any actions from the procedure by default summons, and for the amendments to be allowed in the case of a default summons, and the procedure consequent on any such amendment."
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert "In any action in a court for a debt or liquidated demand for money." The noble and learned Lord said: The Amendment which I propose looks merely like a transposition of words, but if I rightly understand the clause—and I have very grave doubts whether I do and very great hopes that I do not rightly understand it—then they make a very great difference. At present what is called Procedure by Default Summons, an extremely drastic procedure but a valuable one where there is no defence, is applied in the County Courts for sums not exceeding£100. It is followed by a procedure which brings a case, if the defendant defends, within the jurisdiction of the County Court. If he has a defence he raises it and it is argued and decided in the County Court.
As I read this clause—I hope I have misread it—it will bring default summonses for thousands of pounds, tens of thousands of pounds, into the County Court. Can it be intended that this should be done? And what is to be done if the defendant appears and says lie has a defence? You might as well shut up the High Court of Justice altogether and send all cases in the first instance to the County Court. I cannot conceive that it can be the intention of the Government that default summonses should be issued in the County Court for tens of thousands of pounds, and, if the man does not put in a defence within eight days, judgment shall be signed against him, which, I understand, is irremediable. If he
358
does put in a defence then the County Court is thereby seised of the question and may decide a matter of the highest importance.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, at the beginning of the line insert ("In any action in a court for a debt or liquidated demand for money").—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If on a pure question of drafting the noble and learned Lord thinks the clause will be improved if the words are inserted where he wishes—
LORD PHILLIMORE: My object in inserting them is to prevent this jurisdiction; it would then leave the jurisdiction of the County Court where it is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not at all sure whether the Amendment would produce that effect. As a matter of fact, I have not with me the section of the principal Act, and I rather wish my noble and learned friend had told me the apprehensions he entertained in putting down the Amendment. On its face it appeared to deal only with the transfer of words, and I had no reason to suppose he would bring forward any objection of substance. Therefore I am not as well prepared to deal with the point that he has raised as I otherwise should have been. My impression is that no such unlimited jurisdiction as he supposes was ever intended. Certainly at no conference which I had with experienced County Court Judges to discuss the matter was any such suggestion put forward, and I entertain little doubt that when we examine the clauses of the principal Act and the present measure these apprehensions will be removed. Before the Report stage this matter shall be carefully considered, and I will discuss with my noble and learned friend whether he or I should make substantial proposals if they are necessary.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The pressure of business prevented my communicating with the Lord Chancellor on this subject, and the Committee stage has been rather hurried. I shall, however, be quite satisfied if the matter is under his consideration.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I agree with the view of the Lord Chancellor, and suggest

359
that if the noble and learned Lord pursues his Amendment in the Report stage in the form in which it now stands, he will reintroduce the difficulty he suggests.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: I cannot see that the Amendment would achieve the object of the noble and learned Lord, but if there is ground in the language of the Acts for believing that unlimited jurisdiction will obtain, undoubtedly some Amendment ought to be introduced. This clause will depend mainly upon the framing of the rules under it. It is one of those clauses—there are several others—in the Bill where large powers are given of making rules for carrying the clause into effect, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying what a very great loss County Court jurisdiction has lately sustained by the retirement of Sir William Lucius Selfe, who is one of the best Judges who ever sat in any Court. He was chairman of the County Court Rules Committee; almost every existing rule of the Court was drawn by his own hand. I cannot conceive how the Lord Chancellor will be able to get on without him with his immense knowledge of every detail of County Court practice, and his extraordinary skill in drafting.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Amendment to this clause is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 36, after ("tort") insert ("than"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause—
Section one hundred and twenty of the principal Act shall read as if after the words "any evidence" the following words were added, "or upon the facts if the amount in dispute exceeds fifty pounds."
The noble and learned Lord said: I have had an opportunity of pressing on the Lord Chancellor my view on this matter. It
360
is one of very great importance and gravity. It is a proposal to give an appeal on facts as well as on law in cases of considerable importance which come into the County Courts. When the County Courts were originally established their jurisdiction was so petty that it was not thought worth while to give any appeal from them. They were intended to be cheap—as old practitioners used to say, "cheap and nasty." They are not nasty, and I am not so Sure that they are always cheap; but as their jurisdiction was extended, an appeal has been given and is now given on points of law, but no appeal on points of fact.
If a High Court Judge sits and tries an action, as very often he does, and as I have done myself during my sixteen years experience in the High Court, involving sums of fifty pounds or less, there is an appeal from his decision on fact to the Court of Appeal, and in some cases even to your Lordships' House. Why should a County Court Judge sit and try sums up to one hundred pounds, give judgments for sums of one hundred pounds or more —and under this Bill give judgments for sums considerably more than that—and be utterly exempt from correction or examination by any tribunal? My noble friend beside me has told me that in Ireland the corresponding Court always has an appeal on fact, and whereas I believ there is no appeal from the Sheriff in Scotland there is an appeal from the Sheriff's Substitute—who occupies much the same position as the County Court Judge—to the Sheriff. I believe it is in England alone that the County Court Judge is allowed to be sovereign, unexaminable, when he decides questions of fact, which as I say may now amount to several hundreds of pounds.
It may be said that this is a very controversial matter, and that we do not want controversial matters in this Bill. The Bill becomes controversial if this clause is not put in. It becomes in my judgment, and in the judgment of other people, of eminence and worthy of respect, extremely undesirable to increase the jurisdiction of County Court Judges unless there is some power of reviewing their decisions on fact in important cases. All of us who have been in the profession have as advocates before County Courts, and I at any rate sitting in the King's Bench Division of the High Court to which County Court appeals are usually brought, and I and others sitting in the Court of Appeal, have been accustomed

361
to instances of the greatest injustice owing to some mistake having been made by the County Court Judge and his judgment on questions of fact not being open to review. We are all aware of the temptation—all of us are fallible—to a County Court Judge to support his decision on law, as to which he may have some doubt, by saying that he finds the matter as a question of fact. One has even known, in moments of judicial irritation, a County Court Judge throw out the threat or taunt to the advocate that he has the power of finding the matter as a question of fact, and that as a question of fact he will so find it. I am making no imputation upon County Court Judges. If a Judge of the High Court had the same power he would do the same thing in moments of bunion weakness. What I complain of is that County Court Judges are put in a position of great superiority to Judges of the High Court. You do not trust Judges of the High Court to decide questions of fact without appeal, and why should you allow Judges of the County Court to decide sometimes very important questions of fact without appeal?
Before I sit down I should like to deal with one suggestion which has been made. It is asked upon what evidence, and upon what materials, will the Court of Appeal act when it reviews a decision of a County Court Judge. The County Court Judges can take notes as well as the Judges of the High Court, and they have often been told that they ought to take notes, at any rate in all cases of importance. I have sat in the Court of Appeal on many appeals from County Court Judges in Workmen's Compensation cases. We always had a note, and generally a good one, and quite a sufficient one to enable us to see what the witnesses had said. Of course, there is always power to have a shorthand writer, and when a case involves some hundreds of pounds there is no reason for not having a shorthand note taken. But the materials before the Court of Appeal when dealing with questions of fact on appeal from the County Court judge may be just as good as the materials before the Court of Appeal when dealing with questions of fact on appeal from the High Court; and after my long experience as an advocate and a Judge I am convinced that it is necessary that there should be this power of appeal front County Court Judges. I therefore move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Insert the Said new clause.—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble and learned Lord who has just sat down was kind enough to send me notice of his intention to move this Amendment. I regret the more that I find myself quite unable to support his Motion that it should be inserted in the Bill; indeed I feel very strongly the other way. There are, to my mind, three great difficulties which one always has to encounter in the administration of justice. One is the delay in litigation; the second is the uncertainty of judgment; and the third is expense. Those are the great reproaches to which our present system of administering the law is open. So far as delay is concerned it has been practically removed. So far as expense is concerned, in the County Court it is subject to strict and severe limit, which has not been altered although the whole scale of expense has changed during the last few years. So far as expense in the High Court is concerned, it is beyond control. So far as uncertainty of judgment is concerned we have been unable to settle that, and for this reason —that in the High Court it has hitherto been regarded as impossible to bind a man by the finding of one Judge, either on fact or on law, but the Courts of Appeal, and notably your Lordships' House, have gone a long way to secure that by considering as sacred the verdict of a jury on questions of fact. Once a jury has decided a question of fact, however severely it may have been contested, from that moment a person is secure in his verdict unless there has been misdirection or fault in law.
In the County Court, up to the present, an appeal on a question of fact has always been refused on this ground, as I understand: The normal litigants in the County Court are poor people, and to allow one of these parties to obtain in his favour the judgment of the Judge, and then to be dragged by the other side from Court to Court, in order that it may be ascertained whether other people would have regarded the facts in a light different from the light in which they were regarded by the County Court Judge, has been regarded, and I so regard it, as an oppression. I think it is far better that in cases of mistake, and mistake must always arise, the decision should be final, and that people should not be subject to the hazard of appeal, than

363
that you should enable people to complain of findings of fact and use the power, which is undoubtedly possessed and exercised by people of wealth, to drag poor litigants from Court to Court in the hope that they may be able to tire them out.
Therefore I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not alter what I regard as a most useful and salutary rule of the County Court. I speak as a man who for years of his life practised in these Courts. I doubt if any member of your Lordships' House has ever had as close and intimate experience of the methods of the County Court as I have had, and I say with assurance that I should regard it as the greatest misfortune for my clients had it been possible for me, at the end of a case which had been decided against me, to advise them that there was an opportunity on appeal to overthrow the verdict. Finality is kindness to the litigant, and I doubt if any one is more convinced than the occupant of the Woolsack that what we want to secure is the highest standard of men upon the Bench—upon every Bench—in order that their judgments may carry the greatest possible weight. Having secured those men the next thing you want to do, within all reasonable limits, is to secure that their judgments shall be final. It is multiplication and not repression of appeal that is part of the scandal Of our litigation, and I hate often wondered what the feeling of the litigant must be who has found that the scale has swung alternately from Court to Court, only ultimately to rest it may be on a majority of one in your Lordships' House.
LORD SHANDON: I should be very slow to interfere in the discussion of a Bill if it applies only to England and to English jurisdiction, but the remarks which fell from the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down open up a question of principle as to which I certainly do not feel myself altogether in agreement with him. As a practical matter I quite admit that poor litigants should not be harried by oppressive appeals, but all this, as was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord who proposed the Amendment, arose in Ireland where certainly we cannot say that we have wealthy litigants. On the whole I should think that they were rather poorer than even here, and their system—which is much older than the English system, going back to the eighteenth century—after it had been over a century in use, showed that it was desirable to give a practically unrestricted
364
right of appeal from a County Court Judge. In practice these appeals are not found oppressive, because the rules that are made under the Act restrict the costs which can be paid to a very small sum indeed. And they are restricted not only in the Civil Bill Court, as we call it, but they are restricted on appeal. I should add that the appeal is not to the High Court but is only to one High Court Judge. There are very many cases indeed, owing to the difficulties of poor litigants especially getting their witnesses to these places, where—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would my noble and learned friend tell me—I am ignorant about Irish appeals—how far an appeal can go? Can it go beyond the one Judge?
LORD SHANDON: Only to the one Judge, and no further on questions of fact, but he may state a case for the Court of Appeal in some cases, and for the King's Bench in others. This has worked well, and I suggest that it might be worthy of imitation as the jurisdiction is proposed in this Bill to be extended to £100 and, as I understand, it is only in the big cases that an appeal is suggested. The difficulty with regard to the poor litigant would not really arise in practice, and by adopting some such method as we have found workable in Ireland I think that a compromise might be effected between the views of the noble and learned Lords.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble and learned Lord who introduced this Amendment in a weighty speech was replied to with very great vigour by my noble and learned friend who sits opposite, and I cannot help thinking that the circumstance that two Judges of such experience should hold views so diametrically diverse and should be prepared to state them in terms of such sharply contrasted argument is the best justification that I can bring forward of my omission to make any such proposal in the Bill, the only justification of which, every one is agreed, was that it was to be a measure which did not contain any controversial matter.
If I may express an opinion upon the point which has been raised and so much disputed, I am bound to say plainly that I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend who spoke from the other side of the Table, and I am bound to point out

365
to the noble and learned Lord who spoke last that it is not really accurate to say that this Bill increases the jurisdiction of the County Court. It does nothing of the kind. It is only in one utterly immaterial particular that the jurisdiction of the County Court is increased. I am sure that my noble and learned friend the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland knows that in the Act of 1903 the jurisdiction of the County Courts was extended to £100. All that the present Bill does is to penalise those persons who might have brought actions in the County Court and who insist on bringing them in the High Court by depriving them of costs if they do not recover a certain proportion of their total claim. Therefore the only question before us is, Has the experience gained in the sixteen years since 1903 been such as to render necessary the granting of an appeal on fact in cases in which no such appeal has hitherto been allowed?
LORD SHANDON: I took it that the Amendment to Section 1 did create a new jurisdiction, and in a class of case to which possibly it might be very desirable to have an appeal.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am speaking of the statement that I understood the noble and learned Lord to make, that this Act did increase the jurisdiction of the County Court.
LORD SHANDON: I am wrong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the only statement that I was controverting. The other actions of which I have spoken—cases of slander, libel, and so forth—would be remitted in proper instances and with proper securities, and therefore the effect of this Bill would be to penalise those persons who did not avail themselves of the facilities afforded by the Act of King Edward VII. The real question and the only question is, Has the experience of the last sixteen years been such as to render it necessary to grant an appeal in cases where hitherto no appeal has been allowed?
I listened with great care to the speech of the noble and learned Lord who introduced this subject to your Lordships, and I really could not see that he made out any real case at all in experience of the past. The noble and learned Lord did indeed argue that in common sense and
366
in consistency of judicial system one ought not to allow an appeal on questions of fact from a Judge of the High Court and deny it in the case of a County Court Judge. I am bound to say, in answer, that that distinction was deliberately faced many years ago. It was faced in deference to the considerations just urged by my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster, that the one thing that was fundamentally essential in these matters was to get a decision and to get finality of decision. We ought not, I think, to forget that in a great many cases in the County Court—many of them relating to comparatively trivial and small matters—you have a powerful and wealthy person on the one side and you have a small and humble person on the other, and to allow the wealthy person, to whom the cost of repeated suits is of no consideration, to take such a matter first to the Divisional Court, then perhaps to the Court of Appeal, and then to your Lordships' House, is to render possible a practice which, whether it be theoretically defensible or not, was certainly never in the minds of those who first of all framed the regulations under which our County Court system came into existence.
I agree that you can, if you chose to draw a logical dilemma close, argue the case that my noble and learned friend did in reference to the contrast between the High Court system and the County Court system, but I am sure that the balance of advantage in this matter must be, not on the side of those who are perhaps most strictly logical, but on the side of those who would still maintain the safe character and advantage of our present County Court system. I am quite sure that the passage of this Bill into law will effect an enormous improvement in this system, and that the introduction into it of the noble and learned Lord's proposal, which is so much resisted by many of the most experienced of our County Court Judges, would imperil greatly the prospects of the Bill in another place. I hope, therefore, that these considerations will disincline my noble and learned friend to pursue his Motion.
LORD SUMNER: This may be a non-controversial Bill, but it is at any rate proposed to introduce a not uncontroversial change into the existing law, and I should have thought that any changes which became desirable in consequence of this alteration were changes that it was

367
proper to ventilate and perhaps press upon your Lordships at this stage. I would not have entered upon this discussion but for two things. As I agree with the Motion of my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore, I hardly think it right to see him demolished without endeavouring to come, however feebly, to his assistance, and my own experience, such as it is, has led me to believe that either rumour has been more than usually a lying jade or there have been County Court Judges in the past—I should say they are not in the present—who have misused this power of finding facts so as to preclude any question of their own decisions being upset.
I do not think that it can be assumed—I do not wish that your Lordships should assume—that those of us who have some little legal experience all think one way upon this point. And I greatly deprecate that upon a question which is, after all, a dry one of legal reform, the test should be hastily resorted to of assuming that there is the conventional poor man seeking justice in the poor man's Court and being resisted by the conventional rich man, who is always in the wrong and who avails himself of his riches to drag the poor man from Court to Court, until he exhausts him.
I think the argument pressed by the noble and learned Lord Lord Buckmaster really amounts to this, that if the poor man manages to get a wrong decision on the facts, no one has a right to take, it away from him. That does not appear to me to consist with ideal justice. And, if it rests upon the conjecture that there is a negligently small number of such cases, quite a small number of such cases go a good way to make the public dissatisfied with the Courts, in which they ought to have every confidence. I am quite sure, though my experience of County Courts cannot hope to rival his, that every one of us who knows much about County Courts and has sat without a brief there waiting for the day when perhaps there might be a brief, will have observed plenty of cases in which the rough and tumble manner of conducting an inquiry into the facts was not at all likely to lead to a conclusion satisfactory to both sides.
I have not one word to say against County Court Judges—a body of men of whom all those who know them will be glad to speak in the highest terms—but at the same time it does seem to me that, when you are to have an amendment in
368
the law framed for the purpose of increasing the number of actions between £50 and £100 which will be tried in County Courts and not in the High Court, you ought not to refuse to consider as being too controversial an Amendment which endeavours to preserve the situation, as far as the merits and justice of the case are concerned, which exists at present, namely, the possibility of having the facts—which, after all, are the foundation of the case—revised in case there has been any error in finding them. And therefore I personally would lend whatever weight my experience enables me to offer to the support of my noble and learned friend's Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I should like to say a word in reply to the two Goliaths who have been trying to slay David on this Occasion. If my noble and learned friend opposite had been kind enough to study the whole of the short Amendment that I proposed to introduce he would see that I had not left the poor man earning a small sum or recovering a small judgment to be haled from Court to Court. I had limited the case of appeal to cases where the sum of £50 was awarded, a sum which is in excess of that which the County Courts could originally decide at all, and up to the amount which the County Courts could decide for a very considerable time. I had not made small cases appealable.
If my noble friend will permit me, I should say that his argument was an argument against appeals altogether. He spoke of the desirability of settling the case once for all. Why then give an appeal in law? Why give an appeal on fact and law in the High Court? If it is so desirable to have one final decision that you trust the County Court Judge gladly, why not trust a Judge of the High Court with it? And if it is so desirable to have a final decision that you will not allow the question of fact to be raised again, why allow the question of law to be raised again? O sancta simplicitas! The noble and learned Lord spoke as if he did not know that County Court cases on points of law had been brought from the County Court to the House of Lords. They can go as of right to the Divisional Court, they can go by leave to the Court of Appeal, and, when they have once got there, they can go as of right to your Lordships' House. I have known County Court cases so brought and so fought.

369
And, with all respect to the Lord Chancellor, the ground on which I justified this Amendment was that you are extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts by this Bill. Not only by the Amendments which he has made to-day but, unless I am mistaken, in the very first lines of the Bill—I may be wrong—jurisdiction is given where the plaintiff's claim is founded either on contract or tort and the amount remaining in dispute does not exceed £100. I may be wrong but I thought that the limit in tort was £50 and that we have extended it now from £50 to £100. I do not know that it is of very much importance, but I think sub-clause (3), which gives a right to a landlord to recover against his tenant, is also a clause in which the jurisdiction has been extended. There was also my fear—which I am glad to hear is a nugatory fear—with regard to Clause 8. There are two or three other minor cases, and this Bill all through is a Bill extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts, and it is because it is a Bill extending the jurisdiction of the County Courts that I think this corrective should be administered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not desire to attempt to answer the two speeches that have been delivered—both the noble Lords are admirably qualified to offer counsel upon such a matter—but I do rise to remind your Lordships of this, because some were not present here when this Bill was discussed on the occasion of its Second Reading. I described in detail on that occasion the deliberate and the most careful steps which had been taken to elicit from all those who are most highly qualified to give guidance on this measure an expression of their opinion as to those reforms which in the past history of attempted legislation had excited the least controversy—for all those proposals failed in the course of their Parliamentary history —and at the same time those which were the most universally admitted to be demanded in the cause of the improvement of the administration of justice in this country. This Bill is the result. After all, I have the responsibility for securing its passage into law both here and elsewhere. It is produced as the result of discussion not only with the judicial authority in this country but also with those who are as responsible for passing this Bill into law in the other House as I am for passing it through its stages in this; and I would most earnestly appeal to your Lordships not to withdraw support
370
from the Minister who, after all, has the responsibility.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Power to registrars to act for more than one court, and place of residence of registrars.
15. Notwithstanding anything in section twenty-five of the principal Act—

(a) the same person may, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor and subject to such conditions as the Lord Chancellor may impose, be appointed registrar of more than one court; and

(b) the registrar of a court may, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor and subject to such conditions as the Lord Chancellor may impose, reside outside the district of which he is the registrar.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (a), after "conditions," to insert "(including conditions as to salary)." The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment to meet a point taken by the Treasury, and the proposal here is made in order to meet a case where a registrar is appointed for three or four Courts which between them have a very small business, and in those cases the salary, reckoned by aggregating the minimum of £100, it is thought by the Treasury might be excessive. This Amendment is made with the object of giving the Lord Chancellor discretion.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, after ("conditions") insert ("(including conditions as to salary)").— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Rules as to examination and discovery, &c., in workmen's compensation cases. 6 Edw. 7, c. 58.
25.Rules under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, may provide for conferring on the judge or registrar of a county court the like powers of—

(a) making orders for the examination of witnesses and persons, and for discovery, interrogatories, and inspection of documents and for further particulars; and

(b) of granting a new trial

in proceedings under that Act as are exerciseable as respects actions in county courts.
LORD SHANDON LORD SHANDON moved to insert the following new subsection—
(2) Rules made under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, relating to proceedings in the County Courts in Ireland, may provide for conferring on the Judge similar powers to those which may be conferred under this section on a Judge or registrar in England.
The noble and learned Lord said: With your Lordships' permission I will deal at the same time with the two Amendments I have put down—the insertion of this new subsection and the insertion of a new clause after Clause 26. Unfortunately I was not able to be here on the, Second Beading or I should have mentioned the matter at the time, and I have to apologise for having put down these two Amendments without having previously indicated what was in my mind. The whole of this Bill down to Clause 25 would apply, of course, only to County Courts in England; but Clauses 25 and 26, especially the latter, deal with matters which might affect, and perhaps ought to affect, the jurisdiction under the Workmen's Compensation Act which, of course, is the same in the two countries, ruled by the same principles of law, and for the most part ruled by the same procedure.
There is a difference between Clauses 25 and 26 in this respect. Clause 25 proceeds on the assumption that the Court in respect of which rules have to be made is regulated by the English County Court Act referred to in Clause 27, and that I take it could hardly in any case apply to a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act in an Irish County Court. It refers to rules under the Act of 1906 and to "making orders for the examination of witnesses and persons, and for discovery, interrogatories and inspection of documents and for fruther particulars; and of granting a new trial in proceedings under that Act as are exercisable as respects actions in county courts." In our Irish County Courts, except possibly on what may be called the Equity side, there are no powers of interrogatory, and discovery, and so forth. That, however, is a matter of procedure, and it is possible that we may get along in the future as we have in the past without those special powers; though I must say that when framing the rules at present in force in Ireland I myself noticed that it would be desirable if some such powers existed.
With regard to Clause 26 the matter is more important. That clause provides for a special method of distributing compensation
372
on the death of a dependent. If the clause were taken simpliciter it would be taken to apply to any County Court, because "County Court" in Ireland is defined by the Definition Act as "Civilian Court" in Ireland. Clause 26 says—
"In the event of the death of any person entitled as a dependant to money paid into a county court under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, then, if no direction has been given as to the disposition thereof for the benefit of other dependants"
certain distribution is to be made. That, if I may say so, would be a most beneficial alteration in the law with regard to the distribution of these sums under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and it certainly ought to apply in Ireland as well as in England. However, it would be a debatable matter because—although Clause 27 exempts the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in these words, "This Act may be cited as the County Courts Act, 1919, and this Act, except so far as it amends the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, shall be construed as one with the principal Act"—I thought on reading it at first somewhat hastily that possibly the effect of Clause 27 would leave Clause 26 to operate in any County Court either in England or in Ireland; but on reflection I remembered that a somewhat similar question arose under the Land Transfer Act. Part I of the Land Transfer Act is in general terms, and deals with real estate vesting in executors for special purposes. A question was raised as to whether it could possibly refer to Ireland or whether under the Irish law it was altered, and I think it was held that Part I did not apply because the words were general, and that Parts II and III dealt only with land in England. As the matter would be doubtful, I would press on the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill that, as it would be most desirable certainly with regard to Clause 26 for the law to be the same in England as in Ireland, some such Amendment as I have put down is necessary.
With regard to Clause 25, I hardly think that would apply in Ireland owing to the fact that it deals solely with English County Court Acts, and Clause 27 provides that the Act has to be read with the English County Courts Acts. It is a matter I could certainly have wished to have brought to the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack at an earlier date, and, as I have said, I apologise for not having done so;

373
but if there be (as I conceive there is) a good deal in my point, I would ask him to give the matter further consideration, and that, if he cannot accept my Amendments now, they might be dealt with on Report.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, after line 23, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Shandon.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I fully accept the explanation of my noble and learned friend with regard to the late stage at which his proposal is brought forward, he equally will realise that this circumstance makes it impossible for me to accept the proposal. I communicated with the Irish Office as soon as I read the terms of my noble and learned friend's Amendment, and until last night they had not heard anything about them. They professed themselves as quite unable to sanction in any way the insertion of these words until they had consulted the Irish authorities.
LORD SHANDON: I accept that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is another difficulty which will have to be carefully considered. This Bill was really designed to be an English Bill. The Title does not limit it to England, but on reading it through I myself entertained no doubt that it was intended to apply only to England—the framework of the Bill seems to me to suggest that very clearly. The first twenty-four clauses are, by Clause 27, to be construed as one with the principal Act—that is, the County Courts Act, 1888, which, of course, is a purely English Act. I am not at all sure that on the technical sides these Amendments would not be held to be, or ought not to be held to be, outside the scope of the Bill. However, I agree with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord—though I am sorry to say I know little of the Irish County Court system—that the proposal contained in Clause 26 is one which one would expect to find would be equally beneficial in the case of Ireland.
Until I have considered the matter more carefully I cannot give the noble and learned Lord my final answer as to the point about the framework of the Act being English, but I will consider that and give him a clearer opinion between now and the Report stage; and it is possible that I
374
may by then be able to obtain some authoritative expression of opinion from Ireland. In any case, if this Bill becomes law this session (as I have cause to hope it will) there is no reason whatever why a small and non-controversial Bill, introducing both this change and one or two others which I have reason to know are desired, should not be the subject of legislation.
LORD SHANDON: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

RATS AND MICE (DESTRUCTION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM)THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LEE OF FAREHAM) moved, after subsection (1) of Clause 5, to insert the following new subsections—
"(2) A local authority in the exercise of its powers under this section, shall as far as possible, take or secure collective action for the destruction of rats or mice.
"(3) The powers of a local authority under this Act may be exercised by any committee of the local authority to which the exercise of those powers may be delegated."
The noble Lord also moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new subsection—
"(2) In any proceedings under this Act a notice purporting to be signed by the clerk of a local authority shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been signed by the clerk with the authority of the local authority."
The noble Lord said: These Amendments are put down to meet the representations made by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe during the Committee stage, and I think they carry out the pledge which I made to your Lordships on that occasion. I do not think they require any explanation. With regard to subsection (3) in the first Amendment, this authorises the County Committee to delegate its powers to one of the sub-committees which will be set up under the Agriculture (Councils, etc.) Bill. I thought on the whole it was better that this should be done, as it will conduce to prompt and effective action.
Amendments moved—
Clause 5, page 3, after subsection (1), and page 4, after Clause 7, to insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Lee of Fareham.)
LORD BLEDISLOE: I should like to thank the noble Lord the President of the Board of Agriculture for his courtesy in meeting in so large a measure the criticism which I made during the Committee stage of the Bill. There is one word of which I should rather like to obtain the interpretation from the noble Lord. That is the word "collective." It is perfectly true that I argued on the Committee stage that the local authority should have the right to deal, not with the individual who had been remiss in the destruction of rats but individuals occupying a large area which should be scheduled for the purpose. It has occurred to me that possibly this word may also apply—and I venture to hope that it will apply—to collective action between various local authorities. If, on full legal construction of the clause, it would not apply to common action between adjacent local authorities, I would suggest that on Third Reading the noble Lord might add words to make the matter clear. It is desirable, where there is a large centre of population, such as Bristol for instance, on the borders of two contiguous counties, Gloucester and Somerset, where there is a particular danger of the extreme prevalence of rats, that we should have common action.
LORD LEE OF FAREHAM: The word "collective" was selected because we thought it was the widest possible term to be employed. I am not a lawyer, but I imagine that it clearly covers the case to which the noble Lord refers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only collective action which a local authority can take is obviously with another authority.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I point out the true object of this. When I argued the matter in Committee it was with a desire that there should be collective action between various individuals upon whom notices were served. If the noble Lord is prepared to say that that would extend to collective action not merely with the local authority in question but with other local authorities I am more than satisfied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord in raising the point only expressed that part of his anxiety which deals with the question as to whether a local authority can act collectively with another local authority. I think that is the meaning, and I think it is the only meaning of this clause.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 9:
Application to Scotland.
9.—(1) This Act shall apply to Scotland with the following modifications:—

(a) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

(b) The section of this Act relating to the enforcement of the Act shall not apply, and in lieu thereof the following provisions shall have effect:—

(i) The local authority for executing and enforcing this Act shall be the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897: Provided that where a port local authority has been constituted under the said Act, the local authority for executing and enforcing this Act, within the district over which such port local authority has jurisdiction shall be the port local authority;

(ii) The expenses incurred by any local authority under this Act shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses incurred by a local authority, under the Public Health (Scotland) Act., 1897.

Application to Ireland.
(2) This Act shall apply to Ireland with the following modifications:—

(a) Any reference to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall be construed as a reference to the Local Government Board for Ireland:

(b) Subject to the exercise of the powers of delegation given to a county council by this Act, the local authorities for the purposes of this Act shall be, as respects so much of any administrative county or county borough as is not included in a port sanitary district, the council of the county or borough, and as respects any port sanitary district the port sanitary authority:

(c) The expenses incurred by a local authority under this Act shall be defrayed, in the case of a county council, out of the poor rate as a county at large charge; in the case of a port sanitary authority as part of their expenses as such authority; and in the case of any other local authority as expenses incurred in the execution of the Public Health (Ireland Acts, 1878 to 1919.

LORD STANMORE LORD STANMORE moved to omit from paragraph (b) (i) the words "Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897: Provided that where a port local authority has been constituted under the said Act, the local authority for executing and enforcing this Act, within the district over which such port local authority has jurisdiction shall be the port local authority," and to substitute "Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914." The noble Lord also moved, in paragraph (b) (ii) to leave out "Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897," and insert "Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914."
The noble Lord said: These Amendments have been put down to meet the wishes of the Association of County Councils in Scotland, who wish to enlarge the area of administration as proposed under this Bill. In the Bill as it stands, the local authority in Scotland, for the purpose of executing and enforcing the Act, is the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897. This means the town council in burghs, and in the non-burghal areas the district committee where, as is usually the case, the county is divided into districts for local government purposes. For this it is proposed to substitute the authority responsible for the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914. In this case the authorities are the county council for a whole county, including all police burghs therein, as also Royal burghs with a population under 7,000. The argument in favour of this is that only by conducting schemes over large areas can the rat plague be dealt with satisfactorily.
Amendments moved—
Clause 9, page 4, line 19, leave out from ("the") to end of line 24, and insert ("Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914")
Clause 9, page 4, line 28, leave out ("Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897") and insert ("Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1914").— Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

COUNTY COURT JUDGES (RETIREMENT PENSIONS AND DEPUTIES) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order) and passed.

TERRITORIALS IN INDIA.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the case that Territorial officers in India are being paid
378
for their war bonus and war gratuity ten rupees to the £, whilst the men for their war bonus are being paid at the rate of sixteen rupees to the £; and, if so, what is the justification for this difference.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the first part of the Question, I am aware, has been satisfactorily answered in another place, but I put down, and intentionally put down, a further Question as to what justification there is for the difference which I understand was in the first instance made between the rate of exchange at which the gratuity was paid to men in the Territorial Force in India and to Territorial officers. It is the fact, I believe, that for a time the officers were paid at the rate of only ten rupees to the £ whilst the men were getting fifteen rupees—a difference of 10s. in the £. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some justification for the difference, which seems to be manifestly unfair.
I would urge him to give an explanation whether it is justifiable or not, because I can assure him that it is extremely unpleasant for any one who has had anything to do with the administration of affairs in India to read the things which one reads in one's private correspondence with reference to the treatment of the Army by the Government in India. Extremely unpleasant things are being said as regards injustice and indifference to hardships, and where the case seems, on the face of it, so manifestly unfair I think the reasons for it should be published. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will not hesitate to say what the actual facts are.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD SINHA): My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving me this opportunity of explaining the reason for the difference such as it originally existed. The Question deals with two matters which stand on a somewhat different footing. First of all, there is the subject of the war bonus, and then there is the question of the war gratuity. With regard to the bonus it was always considered that it was a sterling addition to the pay both of officers and men. With regard to the officers, their initial pay is fixed in rupees, but this bonus was a sterling addition, and was therefore paid to them at the current or official rate of exchange—1s. 6d. for some time, and afterwards 1s. 8d. The period extended only for five months—namely, from February 1 to June 30, and

379
the rate was 1s. 6d. up to May 13, and 1s. 8d. from that date to the end.
So far as the men were concerned their pay always was in sterling, and in 1917 the Government of India considered it would be extremely hard if their back pay were paid in sterling at the current rate of exchange. A concession was made, by reason of the special circumstances, that they should get, not the current rate of exchange when the rate rose to more than 1s. 5d., but that they should get a fixed rate—one rupee for every 1s. 4d. which, of course, was a little bit favourable to them and enabled them to pay for necessaries which, with their small pay, it would have been otherwise difficult for them to do. So far, therefore, as the bonus is concerned I think my noble friend will be satisfied that there is good reason for the distinction made between the men and officers. A further reason for that distinction is that the officers were entitled to exchange compensation allowance until the rupee rose to 1s. 6d. while the men were not. I do not think the officers would grudge this little concession in favour of the private.
As regards the gratuity, that was to be paid in a lump sum. The rates vary according to years of service and rank, and, as an illustration, it is enough to say that a private who served throughout the war would get £29, and a captain, with the same service, would get about £90. That illustrates the rates according to rank and period of service. Originally, it was intended —this being a lump sum which was to form a sort of "nest egg" to be remitted to England as a saving—that both officers and men should get this gratuity at the current rate of exchange, otherwise they would get more than the sterling amount which it was intended to give them. By reason of the misapprehension of a cable which was sent to the Government of India a private got a better rate. As in the case of his bonus, so in the case of his gratuity, he got a fixed rate; that is, 1s. 4d. for every rupee. The result was that he got more rupees than he would otherwise have received, and he was able to remit more than the £29 to which he was entitled. It was a mistake; it was not intended that he should get it, but the mistake continued, and when it was discovered it was too late to remedy it and payment was continued at that rate.
So far as the officers were concerned, however, it continued to be paid at the current
380
rate—that is, 1s. 6d. to 1s. 8d., as the rate varied. The Secretary of State afterwards decided that there should not be this inequality in respect of the gratuity and the officer now gets the benefit of the mistake made in favour of the private—namely, that whereas he got the rupee previously at 1s. 8d. he now gets it at 1s. 4d.; so that he is far better off by reason of the mistake than he otherwise would have been. I do not think there is any reason for grievance on the part of the officers either with regard to the bonus or with regard to the gratuity. I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied that when the difference was originally made it was not done with any intention of favouring the men at the expense of the officers, and that the officer has had the benefit of a mistake which was made in favour of the private.
LORD HARRIS: I am much obliged for the full explanation of the noble Lord. As regards the latter part of his remarks they seem to be quite satisfactory from the officers' point of view, because they get the benefit of the mistake made with regard to the men. I do not quite follow his explanation with regard to the bonus. It seems to me to be a little complicated, but I will consult with some of my friends who understand the subject better than I do.

BRITISH MUSEUM GALLERIES.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY rose to call attention to the continued occupation of Exhibition Galleries in the British Museum by the clerks of the Registry of Friendly Societies and by other persons, and to ask for information as to the arrangements which can be made for the restoration of the Galleries to their proper use.
The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, this is a matter which I think is of real public importance. During the war the authorities of the British Museum co-operated with the utmost readiness in the desire expressed by the Government that the Galleries which were available for public purposes should be utilised for the staffs of those public offices which were called into existence or removed from their ordinary places. The two Galleries of special importance which were given over by the British Museum to the Office of Works for this purpose were the Gallery of Prints and Drawings, greatly frequented

381
by the public and containing things of extreme interest and value, and the Gallery of Antiquities, especially Egyptian Antiquities, not sculpture but mummies. The very value of these articles made it necessary that they should be hidden away elsewhere for safety during the War, and these Galleries being empty we readily acceded to the request that they should be used for public services. Originally it was requested that we should allow the authorities of the Air Force to have some quarters there, but this was objected to on the ground that, being a combatant force, the Museum would be a legitimate object of attack. That proposal was withdrawn and the Galleries were occupied by the clerks of the Registry of Friendly Societies—about 120 young women—who are doing their work there, and no doubt doing it exceedingly well.
There was a most strenuous and imperative demand on the part of the public that these Galleries should be made available for the public as soon as possible. There are few things in the Museum which attract both students and public from all parts of the world more than the contents of the Gallery of Egyptian Antiquities. They are of priceless value and during the war were necessarily stored in places of safety underground. The Prints were not of the same antiquity but of the same general interest, and these, too, were stored away in safety.
Since the war ended we have made inquiries as to how soon we may expect to be able to admit the public to these Galleries in reply to their constant demand, and we were told by the First Commissioner of Works as long ago as November 15, 1918, immediately after the conclusion of the Armistice, that he was as anxious as any one to see the Museum completely restored as soon as possible. As nothing was done the Trustees called attention by correspondence to this reply, and were told on January 20 that everything possible would be done to meet their wishes. Again nothing whatever occurred, and the Galleries continued to be occupied by the estimable clerks doing their work there day by day. When May came an announcement was made that in releasing buildings priority would be given to hotels and museums. Museums and galleries were therefore pat in the front line. This sounded satisfactory, and when the question was raised shortly afterwards in this House an answer was given that steps were in progress, and
382
that it should be possible to give possession of the occupied premises at an early date.
Nothing whatever happened. The Galleries remained in occupancy, and when students from abroad or from this country or the general public interested in the matter, and above all soldiers from the Colonies and America, who were most anxious to see the British Museum, came there, they were told that the Galleries were closed and that the objects which they came to see were not available, having had to be packed and stored elsewhere. When October came we wrote again reiterating our request and the pledges which had already been given. Up to this time we have received no reply whatever to that communication. No one can feel more strongly than I do the proprietry of using great Galleries like these during the war for the purpose of housing large numbers of persons for whom accommodation was not available elsewhere. That necessity, however, has now passed, and it does seem almost inexcusable that no steps have been taken to re-admit the public to these Galleries of Prints and Drawings, and to the Egyptian Galleries.
We have now reached a point in which we feel that we have a right to call public attention to this matter. It does not seem, if one looks at it from outside, that the clerks of the Registry of Friendly Societies are a body for which it should be impossible to find other accommodation. A whole year having passed, and nothing having been done, it does seem that we are entitled to call attention again to the matter and to ask that some reply may be given which will enable the Trustees to meet the criticism which is not unnaturally constantly being levelled against them, and to give to the public the opportunity which the public should have of seeing the treasures which are in their keeping. It is not the fault of the Trustees, for they have reiterated their demands, and the Government after giving a courteous reply have taken no steps whatever. I hope that the noble Lord who will reply for the Government will be able to tell us that steps are really being taken which will enable us again to open the galleries to the public. I am certain that the matter is one of wide interest to the public. I know how great is the disappointment which is inflicted upon those who expect to find what they look for in the British Museum. I understand that a similar question arises

383
in regard to other public buildings, but they are not covered by this Question of which I have given notice, and to which we hope to-night to receive a more favourable answer than before.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, there are two bodies at present who are occupying parts of the Galleries of the British Museum. One of these is the Medical Research committee of the War Office, who occupy at present about three-fourths of the space in the sub-ground floor of the Extension Building—a total area of about twenty thousand square feet. I am glad to be able to tell the most rev. Primate that in this case other accommodation has recently been found, and this Department will be moved as soon as the new premises are ready for occupation, which I expect will be about the end of January. In the case of the Registry of Friendly Societies, who occupy the top floor of the Extension Building, which includes part of the Prints and Drawings Galleries, I regret to say that at present it has been found quite impossible to find any accommodation elsewhere for so large a body of clerks. Every effort has been made and is now being made to find such a building. It is not possible for them to return to their own offices, as these have been requisitioned for the use of the Headquarters staff of the Ministry of Pensions. Of course they
384
will return there in due time, but so far it has not been possible to arrange it. I should like to add that the effects of the prisoners of war, which were stored in a part of the basement, were removed in September last.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Lord has given an answer which relates to certain places in the basements, which have nothing whatever to do with the Galleries. No single square foot of the Galleries has been opened to the public which was closed during the war. The return of the storage space in the cellars, to which the noble Lord refers, is no doubt to our advantage, but the public grievance relates to ale Galleries, and as to the Galleries I gather that he can hold out no hope that they will be restored until the Registry of Friendly Societies is able to return to its own offices. The Ministry of Pensions is likely to last for a great many years, and therefore apparently both the Egyptian Galleries and the Galleries of Prints and Drawings may not be available until years have passed. I do not think the position is one which the public will think to be very satisfactory.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.