I beg to move, "That Standing Order 204 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read a second time." I may explain that this Bill affects an officer who is on leave, and who has to return to India in November or early in December. If the House will agree to the Motion it will enable the Select Committee to deal with the Bill as soon as the House resumes in October.

May I ask if the Bill will come before the Committee in the ordinary way if the Second Reading is passed now?

That is so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Government of Southern Nigeria are making arrangements to discontinue the manufacture of ice and also of their provision for cold storage in Lagos, and are inviting the formation of a private company to take over the work hitherto performed by the Government; whether the past efforts of the Government have been a failure, and, if not, what are the reasons for the change; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

I have no information as to the Refrigerating Plant at Lagos of later date than December, 1909. A report then submitted by the Colonial Government was to the effect that the plant was working satisfactorily. I am asking for a further report on the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he was aware that Messrs. Lloyd, Dockhead, contractors to the Admiralty, have been in the habit of paying packing-case and box makers wages at the rate of 5½d. to 7d. per hour, whereas the current rate for this class of work is from 8d. to 10d.; whether this was an infringement of the Fair-Wages Resolution of the House of Commons; and, if so, would he take the necessary steps to have the standard rate paid?

We have had no complaint respecting the rates of wages paid by the firm in question. If my hon. Friend will send me detailed particulars respecting an alleged infringement of the Fair-Wages Clause I will have the matter inquired into.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that reductions have taken place in the staff of workmen employed at Haulbowline dockyard, and that, in consequence of the closing of the Passage Docks, the only shipbuilding works in the South of Ireland, the workmen dismissed from Haul-bowline have no chance of securing work in the district; and now that the extension works at Haulbowline have been completed, and will be formally opened by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on Monday next, the 21st instant, will he utilise the facilities provided by sending sufficient work to keep the staff fully engaged?

No reduction in the staff of workmen employed at Haulbowline has taken place, with the exception of six deck hands of a dredger, discharged on 16th July on the completion of the dredging work and the departure of the dredger for Portland. The workmen engaged in the dock extension were employed by contractors, and were discharged in June last on the completion of the work. I understand that the date for the opening of the dock extension is the 31st instant, and not the 21st, as stated in the question.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman from what source he got his information? The local men suspected that it was given by some of the contractor's men. I have been informed that the majority——

The hon. Gentleman should ask for information and not give it.

My question arises out of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman.

That may be so, but the hon. Member is not entitled to contradict it. He should accept the answer, or ask for further information.

asked the Postmaster-General if the Peel Connah Telephone Company, of Salford, are carrying out work for his Department at a new telephone exchange in London; and, if so, whether this firm are employing telephone wiremen at the rate of 7d. per hour, although the rate for men of this trade is 9½d. per hour; and, if the facts are as stated, whether he will take the necessary steps to compel the firm to pay the trade union rate?

The company are carrying out work for a new London telephone exchange. The rate of 9½d. appears to be that shown by the Board of Trade as the standard time rate for electric fitters and wiremen, but I am assured that the wiring work in a telephone exchange does not require the same skill and is not of the same class as that of power and light electric fitters and wire-men for whom presumably the rate was fixed. So far as I am aware there is no standard rate for telephone wiring work, but I will make further inquiry into the matter and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive further particulars from the trade union concerned?

Yes, Sir; I shall be very glad indeed to have any further information.

May I ask if it is customary to recognise as fair a firm which on other classes of work pays unfair wages?

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated a year or two ago that if a firm was a notoriously bad employer it would not be retained on the list of Government contractors, even although the wages paid to the workmen engaged on a Government contract were strictly in accordance with the Fair-Wages Clause. But I have no information before me which would lead me to conclude that this particular company falls into that class.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his Department could see their way to adopt the same attitude as corporations, namely, to insist that trade union wages should obtain throughout the whole of a contractor's employment, whether the work is being done under Government contract or not?

The attitude of the Government was declared on the occasion of the debate. I do not think we should be justified if we had a very small contract with some large firm in investigating all the conditions of employment in that firm's factories, and insisting that in every particular trade union wages should be paid for other work.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he will use his influence to prevent the compulsory purchase by the Hunts County Council of Park House Farm, Farcet, in view of the fact that the tenant has already been dispossessed of a farm compulsorily taken for small holdings and retains this farm alone, in view also of the fact that the farm is already a small holding and in view of the circumstances in which the local parish committee recommended the purchase?

I do not think that the Board could properly intervene at the present stage. If the county council decide to make an order the Board would have to consider, judicially, whether it should be confirmed, and before any such decision were given a local inquiry would be held at which both owner and occupier would be afforded full opportunity for stating their objections.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the opinion expressed by Dr. J. M. Hamill in. his recently published Report to the Board on the nutritive value of different varieties of bread to the effect that, in the case of poor persons whose food consists principally of bread, it is important to recognise the fact that a loaf made from households or stone-ground or standard flour possesses more available nutrient material and energy value than one made from pure white flour, he proposes to take any and, if any, what steps to bring this fact to the notice of working men and their wives throughout the country?

Copies of Dr. Hamill's Report have been sent to the Press, and will also, no doubt, be shortly in the hands of medical officers. I have no reason to suppose that sufficient publicity will not be secured by these means for the conclusions arrived at.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise how exceedingly important this Report is to those poor people who cannot supplement their bread food with other kinds of food?

Yes, Sir, and adequate means will be taken for the publication of the Report.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War whether he is aware that Messrs. Lloyd, Dockhead, contractors to the department, have been in the habit of paying packing-case and box makers wages at the rate of 5½d. to 7d. per hour, whereas the current rate for this class of work is from 8d. to 10d.; whether this is an infringement of the Fair-Wages Resolution of the House of Commons; and, if so, will he take the necessary steps to have the standard rate paid?

Inquiry shall be made into this case, and the firm referred to shall be instructed to adhere strictly to the Fair-Wages Clause if the facts are as stated.

asked the Prime Minister if he can give an undertaking that the House Letting and Rating (Scotland) Bill will be passed through all its stages during the present year?

It is certainly the intention of the Government to pass this Bill into law this year.

Would it not be possible for the words "if from the circumstances of the case it appears" [Subsection (2)], to insert the words, "if shown to the satisfaction of the Court."

On a point of Order. Did you put the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

What has become of Clause1?

Clause 1 is passed. I asked for Tellers for the "Noes," and I did not get any.

I said I would be a Teller, and the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Jowett) also said he would be a Teller.

I am sorry it did not reach me.

I cannot help feeling that there was a deliberate attempt to prevent our dividing.

If the hon. Member applies that observation to me it is not a proper observation to make. I was very careful.

I do not wish to discuss this Bill, but I think that we who sit on the Back Benches are entitled to hear an appeal that in the interest of the public service this Bill should be allowed to pass so quickly. I am not prepared to give way unless that appeal is made to the House. I do not want to be at all objectionable, but the way that this Bill is going through—a Bill which would have been all the better for a detailed examination, is somewhat distressing for me to see. At the same time if any appeal can be made on behalf of the Government that it will serve the public interest to pass the Bill at this speed, I am willing to give way.

I can certainly make that appeal with a perfectly clear conscience. It is undoubtedly in the public interest that this Bill should be passed, and passed at once. It is highly undesirable, no doubt, that any Bill should go through its stages so rapidly as this has done, and it certainly cannot be taken as a precedent. If my hon. Friends will read the Bill they will see that though the actual change in the law is slight, and it is perfectly true to say that none of His Majesty's loyal subjects run the least risk whatever of having their liberties infringed in any degree or particular whatever, nevertheless there are circumstances which may arise and have arisen which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, make it very necessary that this Bill should be passed into law. I therefore make the appeal frankly to the House that they should on this occasion, without regarding it in any way as a precedent, except for matters of great urgency, give this Bill the Third Reading.

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 1."

When the Bill was being discussed in Committee I understood from the Under-Secretary for War and the Attorney-General that they would be willing to accept an Amendment on the Report stage, which stage does not now exist. The Amendment which I suggested was to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, which at present is extremely drastic. It provides that although it cannot be shown that a person is guilty of any particular act, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, or his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that his purpose was a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State.

I suggested that in place of the words, "if it appears," there should be inserted the words "if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court." I understand that legally the words mean the same thing, but they are very much clearer to the ordinary man. Therefore, I beg to move, that the Bill be recommitted in respect of Clause 1.

May I point out to my hon. Friend that the Amendment which he suggests does not change the-sense of the Bill in the slightest degree. The words "if it appears" are "well-known words, and appear in many statutes affecting the liberty of the subject in far more serious ways than this measure does. They are not in the slightest degree novel. The difficulty in the way of accepting the words suggested by my hon. Friend is that you will have to define what is the court, which you do not require to do as the Clause stands. It could not possibly apply to anything but the tribunal. I would ask my hon. Friend, although I appreciate the point he puts forward, and which I may say is more a sentimental grievance than a practical one, not to press his Amendment. Anyone not used to reading Acts of Parliament might think that we are doing something which we are not doing. I assure the House, and I assure my hon. Friend, and all those who think with him, that the alteration which he desires will not change the Bill in the slightest degree. I would therefore ask him not to persist in asking us to recommit the Bill for the purpose of doing something that is purely verbal. If it were something really more I would accept the Amendment. My view is that it would mean exactly the same.

We understood just now that the Government agreed to the Amendment. It is rather hard lines that when the Bill has been allowed to go to Third Reading on an understanding that the Government should now object to do what within the last ten minutes they promised to do. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War will at any rate stick to what he promised, and not be led away by the lawyers. Above all it will never do for a feeling to get abroad in this House that the Government or a Member of the Government consents to something, and that afterwards when the course of procedure gives him an advantage, that that advantage is taken. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War will not conduct himself in such improper manner.

I know that my right hon. Friend would not think that I would ever wish to take advantage of a technical situation. What happened was this; the Bill went through so rapidly that there was no time to make a formal Amendment so as to get a Report stage. That was partly due to the fact that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Sir William Byles) did not get his Division. I assure the hon. Member that I was anxious that he should, in order to give us time to deal with the Bill; but the Bill went through before we could put in a nominal Amendment, in order to get a Report stage. Had we had the Report stage we could, of course, have put in words such as the Attorney-General has described, but as we did not get a Report stage, and as the recommital of the Bill would involve it going through all its stages again, and as my right hon. Friend—who, as well as being a lawyer, I would point out is a Member of this House whom we all respect—gives his word, which is that of the highest legal authority, that any putting in of these words would not affect the real meaning of the Bill one iota, I would appeal to the hon. Member to absolve me from the undertaking I was anxious to carry out.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that counsel's opinion is not law?

I would like to advise my hon. Friend not to press this matter, because I do not think it makes an essential difference in what I regard as a very bad Bill. One observation I would like to make. The Under-Secretary has told us that the provisions of this Bill would not be regarded as a precedent——

No; what I said, and what I say now is, that the passage of this Bill through all its stages could not possibly be regarded as a precedent.

Everything that this House does becomes a precedent of what it may do in the future. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that what is in this Bill would not be a precedent. I draw attention once more to these words. I say their being in this Bill will be quoted against us in some other Bill proposed by some other Attorney-General years hence. It may be 100 years hence that some other Attorney-General will say what our Attorney-General has just said, namely, that these words are founded on an Act of Parliament; that they are nothing new; that they are in an Act of Parliament, namely, this Act which we are passing. What about those who fought for our liberties in the past? What about Magna Charta? These words—

"it shall not be necessary to show that the accused person is guilty … notwithstanding that no such act (as he is charged with) is proved against him, he may be convicted."

I say that no Member of this House ought to vote for a Bill which contains those words.

I desire to assure the hon. Member opposite that in my opinion the Attorney-General is absolutely correct. Therefore I would suggest that it is only a waste of time to go forward with this discussion.

I entirely accept the view of the learned Attorney-General that the intention is the same. In view of what has fallen from the Under-Secretary for War, I cannot press my Motion, although I greatly regret the form in which the Bill takes. I do feel it gives the ordinary citizen a false impression of the intention of the Government, and the intention of the Act. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

With regard to this Amendment, I have to say that although it is difficult to understand it completely, yet it seems to me to be a privileged Amendment. The Amendment, so far as I understand it, adds to the number of those who are not disqualified. That is to say that it adds to those who are qualified to receive old age pensions. If it adds to the number of those who are qualified, then it means that more pensions will be payable, and if more pensions are payable then it increases the charge upon the public funds. If it increases the charge on the public funds then it is a privileged Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the facts which you have given to the House are correct, but I move that we waive the question of privilege. For this reason, that Scottish law differs from the English law in respect of what is called "constructive relief." Under the Scottish law relief is given not to the wife, but to the husband in respect of the wife. Unless these words are taken out, they will nullify the provisions of the Clause in respect to Scotland. Personally, I confess I am not concerned very much whether we get the Clause or not, but it does make a difficulty in respect of Scotch law, and I shall therefore move that we waive the question of privilege.

I do not want to suggest that I am not heartily in sympathy with the extension of the Old Age Pensions Act contemplated by this Clause. If the words were introduced only in order to extend the benefit to Scotland, I, for one, should not object, but I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that many similar Amendments of this sort were made by the Lords in the Old Age Pensions Act, and the Government claimed that there were breaches of privilege and opposed them, but now, because it happens to be for the convenience of the Government to ask the House to waive its privileges, we are expected, as a matter of course, to agree to that suggestion. It seems to me to be quite unreasonable that because it suits the purpose of the Government to have these Amendments made we should now be expected to agree, while three years ago similar Amendments were not entertained by this House, because it did not suit the Government to accept them.

The question of waiving our privileges in this matter is not for the convenience of the Govern- ment, but for the convenience of certain poor people in Scotland. The Government have, in every way, met us upon this Bill, and I think we might waive these very small privileges so that the poor people in Scotland shall not be shut out from the benefits of old age pensions.

It is not a question whether the Government shall waive their privileges, but it is a question whether the House shall waive its privileges by consenting to these Amendments in order that poor people who are shut out from benefits may secure them now.

It is quite true that exactly the same might be said of what occurred three years ago, to which my hon. Friend behind me referred, except that it was not the wish of the whole House to agree with the Lords Amendments. The majority decided to refuse to accept the Lords Amendments then. They sacrificed the poor people for the sake of a quarrel with another place.

I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, a question, namely, whether in waiving its privileges, this House is not weakening its privileges, and establishing a precedent which may be very dangerous?

The hon. Member must form his own opinion. This House, on many occasions, waived its privileges, and I do not think it has weakened itself.

On a point of Order. Is it not necessary—I may be quite wrong—that a substantive Motion should be put from the Chair.

That is not necessary, but a special entry will be made in the Journals of the House to the effect that the House waived its privileges.