asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there is a large sum of money at the disposal of the War Office, being the balance of the South African Garrison Institute funds; if so, will he say what is the amount of the fund, how much of it is in England, and how much in Africa; whether he will consider the advisability of using this fund, which was compiled out of the soldier's pocket, for his benefit in France and the Dardanelles at the present time; and whether he will take steps to hand this sum over to the Board of Control of Regimental Institutes to be spent in improving the canteen hutting arrangements overseas?

A sum of £50,000, part of the accumulated balance of the South African Garrison Institute, was remitted to this country last year. I am unable to state what balance now remains in South Africa. Part of the £50,000 has already been used for the purpose suggested and further measures of the same character are in contemplation. Any proposals that the Board of Control may make for assistance from this fund to approved objects will receive full consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will state what is the percentage of married men in all branches of the Army at the present time?

As I have already stated, this information is not available.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of taking some steps in future to reduce the enormous proportion of married men?

That is a very large subject to arise out of a very small question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if access is given at the Contract Department of the War Office to men who claim to be contractors and manufacturers, but who are merely runners and go-betweens seeking to earn commissions on contracts they may secure; if he will consider the possibility of dealing directly with the manufacturers if in this country, or with their duly appointed representatives if they are abroad; and if these runners and agents will be kept out of the Government offices?

It is already the established practice of the Contract Department of the War Office to deal, wherever possible, with actual manufacturers or their duly accredited representatives.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that grave dissatisfaction exists on this question, and that it is frequently stated that there have been cases where a manufacturer himself has not been able to get access to the authorities?

It is almost unavoidable that there should be some dissatisfaction with any department which has to conduct operations of the nature of those connected with the War Office. It is the established practice at the War Office always to deal with manufacturers direct wherever it is possible.

Is it not the case that manufacturers must first of all struggle to get on the list, and that after they have got on the list they have to struggle to get orders?

Where a manufacturer is able to show that there is a reasonable prospect of his being able to execute orders on terms satisfactory to us there is no difficulty.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that firms on the list have not received inquiries from the War Office, but have received inquiries from armament firms who are contractors and who make a profit out of them?

I am not aware of that. If the hon. Gentleman will bring any cases to my notice I will look into them.

asked how many officers are attached to the General Staff of the Commander-in-Chief of the Expeditionary Force in France?

The General Staff Branch of the General Headquarters consists of sixteen General Staff officers.

asked how much has been spent on advertisements inviting recruits to join the Forces of the Crown; who is responsible for this Department; and what salary he receives?

As I stated on the 2nd March, in reply to the hon. Member for the Melton Division, it would not be possible without great labour and diversion of energy from other pressing work to take out a statement of the cost of all the advertisements issued. The responsibility for these advertisements rests with the Recruiting Department of the War Office.

Would it not be advisable now to put a stop to that expenditure?

It is a very difficult question to answer, because one does not know how much result is obtained from a definite amount of expenditure. But I would say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this is not a time to stop any agency by which we may be able to get recruits.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that many thousands of men have enlisted whom the Government are unable to equip and arm, he will say why large numbers of men working on munitions of war and equipment are still being recruited; and whether the enlistment of such men means further delay in the arming and equipment of those already enlisted?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will now institute a system of registration of willing recruits for the Army and allow them meanwhile to continue their civil occupations until such time arrives as the equipment of those already enrolled in the Army has reached a more complete stage and until the Minister of Munitions, has enrolled a sufficient number of men to secure a satisfactory supply of shells and other munitions for successfully conducting the War?

It is not proposed to cease enlisting recruits for the Army at the present juncture, or to register men merely as proposed in question No. 7. Men of skilled trades in which there is a shortage of labour required for the production of munitions of war are not now accepted for enlistment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that recruiting bands are stationed outside factories which are supplying munitions of war, and are taking men away from these factories to join the Colours?

I am not aware that men whose services would be useful for the manufacture of munitions are being recruited for the Army.

I will send my right hon. Friend cases.

asked whether constables in the Metropolitan Police who had enlisted as ordinary recruits in His Majesty's Forces and, in order to do so, had to resign from the police service, are now protected by the retrospective provisions of The Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915; and, if so, will he state why their wives and families are not yet in receipt of the weekly allowances to which they are entitled from the police funds?

The Act applies retrospectively to any constables who enlisted with the consent of the Chief Officer of Police of the force to which they belonged, but not to those who resigned and enlisted without such consent.

asked what proportion of machine guns had the British Army per battalion, and what proportion had the German Army at the commencement of the War; what steps were then taken to remedy the deficiency of machine guns at the commencement of the War; and on what date was the first order placed for machine guns in America?

I answered a question on this point put to me by the hon. Member for the West Toxteth Division on the 21st instant. I do not think it would be in the public interest to give the detailed information asked for in the last two parts of the question, but I may assure my hon. Friend that every possible step is being taken to increase the supply of this weapon.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the practice, which is increasing, of members of His Majesty's Forces, both in and out of the House of Commons, delivering speeches, writing letters, etc., dealing with questions of policy; whether he can say if any action has been taken with regard to such practices; whether, if any action has been taken, it has been taken in all cases; and whether he can say in which cases it has been taken, and what was the nature of the action in such cases?

This question has been engaging my attention. I would point out to my hon. Friend that there is a distinction between statements made outside the walls of Parliament, and those made inside. Questions of policy seem to be proper subjects of discussion by Members of Parliament. It has been the immemorial custom to consider statements made inside Parliament as privileged. I am not able to define precisely the limits within which that privilege may be applied. Such a definition is as difficult as would be one delimiting the boundaries of good taste and, while it may be possible to overstep the borders of the one, there may be a liability to violate the neutrality surrounding the other. I think the traditions of this House and the good sense of hon. Members should prove an adequate safeguard.

Are we to understand that officers, who are Members of the House of Commons, and who have returned from the Front, are not to be allowed to make any statements in regard to the conduct of the War? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the case of Captain Jorsy de Knoop, of the Cheshire Yeomanry, who has been refused permission to return to the Front, by reason of having stated—what is perfectly true—that we were short of ammunition?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I do not think the description given of Captain Jorsy de Knoop's speech is wholly accurate. He cast a certain amount of slur upon those in high authority. That is a question of discipline, and ought to be dealt with in the ordinary way by the military authorities. What I should like the House to realise is that any gentleman who is good enough to give his services to the country, and is a Member of Parliament, is not thereby debarred—it is not proper that he should be so debarred—from discussing questions of policy. If, however, he discusses other questions, questions, for instance, relating to military discipline then I think a different rule should apply.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, for the sake of information, whether, when a Member of this House is an officer on full pay, he is entitled to make speeches in the House concerning military authority, or whether it is not the practice that Members of this House attached to the naval or military authorities only make such speeches when they are on half pay?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I should like to ask him whether the privileges of a Member of this House are defined by any Department of the State, or whether they do not stand upon an altogether different footing, and cannot be interfered with?

Yes, Sir, I think the hon. Member opposite is quite right in his definition. It is not possible, as I have said in answer to the main question, to lay down a definite rule. In regard to the other point, of course it is quite true that hitherto it has been the custom of Parliament for Members who were serving with the Forces of the Crown either to be seconded or to be placed on half pay, in order to enable them to discharge their Parliamentary duties. In this War, owing to the large number of hon. Members who have been good enough to come forward and serve the State, that practice has been abrogated during the War.

Would the right hon. Gentleman's Department not consider the special circumstance that this House has passed a special statutory provision to enable these Gentlemen to accept commissions without vacating their seats, and is not that to be taken into consideration in regard to the way they exercise their rights of speech?

I do not know that I quite understand the point referred to by my hon. Friend, but so far as I do, I think the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Craik) was emphasising the exact differentiation as between the two cases mentioned.

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker—

The hon. Gentleman must not wave me down. [Laughter.] He must give notice of any further question.

On a point of Order. First of all, may I explain that it was only in my way of speaking, and I had no intention of being out of order. May I ask if it is not allowable, considering the very interesting point which has been raised, for a Member who puts very few supplementary questions, to put one on a point which I am sure will be in the interest of the House on this very interesting occasion?

We already have had six supplementary questions on this one. There must be some limit, for there is a moment when supplementary questions tend to become a general debate. When hon. Members rise first on one side, and then on the other, it is evident to me that the time has come when a stop must be put to questions.

I would like to ask whether, at the end of questions, supposing there is sufficient time, I might put a supplementary question on this point to the right hon. Gentleman?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me see the question, and also give notice to the Minister concerned.

Is the Under-Secretary for War aware that there is a general feeling of uneasiness in the country that officers of the headquarters staff criticising the Government in this House are acting as mouthpieces of the Field-Marshal commanding in France, and can he say anything to allay that feeling?

I was wholly unaware of any such feeling. If it exists—of which I have the gravest doubts—I would say, in order to allay it, that there is not a word of truth in it.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is right, without notice to this House, so that we may have an opportunity of judging the nature of a question, that an attack should be made on the Commander-in-Chief?

That is one of the difficulties of hon. Members putting supplementary questions without notice. I do not think the hon. and learned Member was here earlier this afternoon when the hon. Gentleman thought he was ill-used because I had suppressed his supplementary question. I have now allowed him to ask it, chiefly for the purpose of letting the House see how right I was on that occasion.

May I first of all make a remark before asking a further supplementary question?

We must not have any more supplementary questions.

May I ask, if the officers of the headquarters staff were to come into this House to-night and criticise the Field-Marshal—

The hon. Gentleman will see that that is quite out of order.

May I now ask Question 37, which was passed over?

Yes.

I beg to ask the question standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell), whether the initiation of the present policy of the British Expeditionary Force on the Continent to kill Germans rather than conquer them dates from his visit to the front, and accounts for the phenomenon that no prisoners of war are now being taken; whether recruits are being informed of this new condition of the War and its reciprocal consequences; and whether this House or this country will be afforded an opportunity of expressing its opinion of the policy of killing men after they have laid down their arms?

called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply.

Mr. Speaker—

I have already called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Will you allow me the opportunity to make a personal explanation?

When I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat and I call upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in ordinary courtesy he should wait and hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.

I apologise very sincerely for my seeming discourtesy to you, Mr. Speaker; but an attack was made upon me by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), who said I had attacked the Field-Marshal Commanding in France. I want to know when I shall have an opportunity of replying to that attack and repudiating it most emphatically? [An HON. MEMBER: "Take the Albert Hall!"]

The hon. Member must take the first opportunity he gets.

Question No. 37 standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell) was postponed by him and consequently was not answered; but as the question contains a scandalous and wholly false attack—

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is a Minister entitled to answer a question which has been openly postponed?

Certainly, if there is any attack upon any private individual.

Upon the British Expeditionary Force. I desire to take this opportunity of saying that there is no foundation whatever for the allegations contained in the hon. Member's question.

On that, may I ask you whether your attention has also been called to the certain fact that a question such as this must necessarily cause much loss to many of our gallant soldiers at the front, and also be productive of much bitterness and entirely unnecessary feeling?

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the United States Government to convey to the German Government that the hon. Member opposite is not of sound mind?

I desire, with reference to this question, to ask you, Sir, whether it appeared upon the Paper with your approval and knowledge?

My attention had been called to it, but I am placed in a very grave difficulty. The question in the ordinary course of things would be a perfectly regular one. It does not violate any Parliamentary rules, and, however much I might deprecate it appearing on the Paper, if I were to strike it out we should have the hon. Member and other hon. Members attacking me for not having carried out the ordinary rules, and for having struck out a question of this character. Hon. Members have a great responsibility, just as great a responsibility as I have, and they must act according to their best lights.

Can any inquiry be held into the state of mind of the hon. Member?

If we were to begin inquiring into that kind of thing, I do not know where we should end.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether all ex-soldiers who re-enlist are entitled to proficiency pay; if so, whether he is aware that in certain cases soldiers who re-enlisted over nine months ago have not yet received it; and will he see that these men are paid this allowance?

No, Sir. It is necessary that they should have a total of two years' qualifying service.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that great dissatisfaction exists in consequence of this proficiency pay not being paid to ex-volunteers at the same time as it is being paid to ex-soldiers? There are many cases of ex-volunteers who have served for a great number of years who are debarred from this proficiency pay.

I am quite well aware that that is the case; but the whole question is being considered.

I will put a question down for Thursday.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that old age pensioners are being informed that the acceptance of additional assistance during the War will proportionately reduce their pension; and whether, in view of the reduction in the value of the pension owing to high prices, he can take steps to give the full benefit of the pension to the aged poor, many of whose former supporters and relatives are now engaged in war services?

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn on Thursday last and to previous statements made on the same subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions to the pensions officers, in order to secure unanimity of practice, and so that those concerned may know that mere temporary assistance granted to them will not debar them from obtaining the full amount of their old age pensions?

That is the rule, and, so far as I am aware, there has been no departure from that rule. If the hon. Member will communicate to me any case where he knows the rule has been infringed, I shall be glad to consider it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in order to secure the observance of this rule, issue proper instructions?

In the absence of any information that there has been any breach of the recognised rule there can be no reason for making another rule, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will inform me of any case in which there has been a breach, I shall be very happy to deal with it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the profits being made by agents in the shape of commissions on contracts connected with the War with the various Government Departments, adequate steps are being taken to make such profits liable to Income Tax; and if he will consider the possibility of making the contractors special agents for the Government to collect such Income Tax at the source before paying over any money, directly or indirectly, in the shape of commission to such agents?

Income Tax will be assessed and collected in the ordinary course on the profits to which the hon. Member refers.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in taxing the extra profits made by contractors during the War, he will take steps to include in such extra profits the sums being made in the shape of commissions by agents' runners and go-betweens between such contractors and the Government?

In connection with any scheme for the taxation of war profits the point to which the hon. Member refers will not be overlooked.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he will be able to secure the full Income Tax and the extra taxes on these properties?

We had better wait. I would rather not at present express an opinion upon it.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to a suggestion that the accumulated balances, amounting to about £400,000, derived from the annual Grants to the Scottish Board of Agriculture, for the purposes of the Scottish Small Landholders Act, should be temporarily invested in the new War Loan; whether he can state where these funds are now lying and what rate of interest they are returning; and whether, in the event of that rate being materially less than 4½ per cent. per annum, he will consider the desirability of adopting the suggestion referred to?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative; the balance of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund is at present on bank deposit receipt in Scotland; to the extent of £375,000 the deposit earns interest at 2½ per cent. per annum, and to the extent of £55,000 the ordinary deposit rate of 2 per cent. In view of the fact that the fund is being constantly drawn upon in the exercise of the administrative duties of the Board it would not be suitable to invest it in a permanent security, but the question of securing a more remunerative investment in Government securities is at present under consideration.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if those balances, amounting to nearly £400,000, were invested in the War Loan now before the country that they would be unrealisable?

No, Sir, I do not suggest anything of the kind.

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given private notice, namely: Whether he will arrange, in conjunction with the Postmaster-General and the military authorities, for facilities to be given through the Field Post Offices, to the troops serving abroad for the purchase of the smaller bonds and vouchers of the new War Loan?

Facilities for subscribing to the War Loan will be afforded to the troops serving abroad as far as possible. Detailed arrangements are now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether an applicant for stock or bonds of the new War Loan, having paid up in full in cash, will have the right of designating the particular holdings of Consols, or other securities named in the prospectus, to which the "rights of conversion" to which he is entitled shall be applied?

The options attaching to holdings of 4½ per cent. War Loan can only be exercised by holders in respect of Consols, 2½ per cent. and 2¾ per cent. Annuities, or 3½ per cent. War Loan, belonging to them.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will expain why the death of William Francis Maw, late of His Majesty's ship "Good Hope," was not notified to the father until six months after it occurred; whether the father of the deceased, who is a Civil servant of thirty-three years' standing, is obliged, in accordance with instructions contained in Form 14 M.C., to attend with two householders before a clergyman of the Established Church to whom he is personally unknown to prove his right to the administration of the effects of the deceased, although ministers of other religious denominations and various city justices could certify his identity on their own know-edge and without the assistance of two householders; and if, having regard to the natural disinclination of relatives distressed by reason of bereavement to go through the process of attending with witnesses before a stranger concerning mere matters of property, he will arrange some alternative method of proving identity for persons to whom the present method is distasteful and objectionable?

As regards the first part of the question, I think that my hon. Friend is misinformed. The "Good Hope" was lost on 1st November, 1914, and I understand that Mr. Maw was advised of the death of his son on the 21st of that month, and that he acknowledged the receipt of the notification on the following day. The forms sent in this case are those prescribed in connection with the Navy and Marines (Property of Deceased) Act, 1865, and if Mr. Maw had made representation to the Department as to any difficulty in complying with the instructions, his representation would have been given full consideration. With regard to the last part of the question, I may say that the subject of the procedure for obtaining administration for naval assets is already under consideration.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very widespread dissatisfaction with this practice?

There is an Order in Council in connection with the Act of 1865, but, as I have said, I think the whole question requires consideration, and is being dealt with.

Will it receive urgent consideration? Great dissatisfaction is going on at present.

It is being considered, and I will see what I can do to meet the point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if the powers of the Press Censor are being exercised impartially throughout the United Kingdom, will he explain why the passage in a recently reported interview with the Pope, in which His Holiness said that Cardinal Mercier had not been arrested or imprisoned but was free to move about in his diocese, freely published in Great Britain, has been suppressed from the report in Ireland; and, now that the alleged imprisonment has exhausted its purpose of assisting recruiting in Ireland, whether, in the interest of truth, he will allow the interview with the Pope to be published as fully in Ireland as in Great Britain?

I have already assured the hon. Member that the Press Bureau exercises its powers impartially. I am informed that neither the Press Bureau nor the Irish Government gave instructions for the omission of the portion of the reported interview with the Pope to which the hon. Member refers; and a prohibition which has never been imposed cannot be removed.

Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the omission of this particular passage in Ireland?

asked the Home Secretary whether the censorship is applied to official dispatches sent to this country from the headquarters of the Allies and of the enemy?

I have communicated with the Press Bureau, but the meaning of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's references to dispatches is not clear. Probably a reference to the former Solicitor-General's answer on the 20th April last will furnish the information required.

asked the Home Secretary whether the censorship is applied to speeches delivered in both Houses of Parliament?

The Press Bureau does not censor speeches in Parliament.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to amend the Defence of the Realm Act (Regulations) by providing that no naturalised alien of German or other alien enemy origin who still owes allegiance to the Sovereign of his country of origin shall reside in or enter upon a prohibited area unless provided with a permit from the registration officer of the district; and whether, following the precedent of the Aliens Restriction (Belgian Refugees) Order, 1914, he will take steps to amend the Aliens Restrictions Orders by providing that all aliens resident in this country, whether in prohibited areas or not, shall be registered, and that no alien shall reside in or enter on a prohibited area unless provided with a permit issued by the registration officer of the district?

Both these suggestions have been carefully considered, but for reasons difficult to state briefly in oral reply it has not been found possible to adopt them. I shall be glad to confer with my hon. and learned Friend privately on the matter if he will give me the opportunity.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether a circular has been sent to boards of guardians requesting them not to give appointments to men of military age; and whether this rule is acted upon in any and what Government Department?

My Department issued a circular on the 21st May to boards of guardians and other local authorities, suggesting that, where vacancies occur, appointments should not be made of men who are eligible for the Army or Navy or for other national service. The same rule is being acted upon in the Department.

31. To ask the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of the fact that aeroplanes have shown great possibilities of use, apart from their function of scouting and otherwise acting as adjuncts to the military and naval forces, he will proceed to develop the aeroplane service as a new arm of the offensive and defensive force of the nation?

32. To ask the Minister of Munitions whether, by creating a Department of his office devoted to fostering the production of aeroplanes, by co-ordinating the efforts of all private firms engaged in their manufacture, and by establishing new factories, it would be possible to increase the output to 10,000 within the next six months; and whether he will take the steps necessary to that end?

33. To ask the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of the dispatch of Sir John French of 20th November, 1914, referring to aeroplanes and saying that no effort should be spared to increase their numbers, he will speed up the production by selecting standard types for the machines themselves and all the parts in particular and by organising a sufficient number of workshops in regard to this object?

Not seeing the Minister of Munitions in his place, I beg leave to postpone these questions until he arrives to-day.

I have been asked to answer them.

May I say that yesterday I had no intention whatever of offering any offence to the Under-Secretary of State for War. What I meant was, that the Minister of Munitions, being responsible for these matters and being there in his place, should have answered them, and not simply have given a stereotyped answer through another who is not responsible.

Does the hon. Gentleman want an answer to the questions or not?

I wish to postpone them until the Minister of Munitions is here.

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that the Minister of Munitions particularly asked me to answer these questions, because the question of aeroplanes is not within his province; perhaps in those circumstances the hon. Member will allow me to give the answer.

On a point of Order—

It is perfectly obvious that this is in the Department of the War Office. If the hon. Member insists on putting the question to another Department, he must take his choice of having an answer or not.

I will take my choice of not having an answer.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will specify in each of the thirteen cases in Ireland in which persons have been expelled from their homes and business under the Defence of the Realm Act, the nature of the charge and of the evidence; if the accused was summoned before any tribunal, what its constitution was; whether he was allowed to offer any explanation or defence; and what the duration of the sentence is?

I may say generally that in each of the thirteen cases referred to the order was issued by the competent military authority on the ground that the person named in it was suspected of acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or the defence of the realm, but it would be undesirable to give more precise details of the nature of the charge or of the evidence. The regulation under which action was taken does not provide for the establishment of any tribunal other than the competent authority. Any representations made by or on behalf of any person on whom such an order has been served are duly considered by that authority. In two cases the orders have now been withdrawn, but in the remainder they are still in force.

How long have they been in force?

I cannot say that.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will specify, in each of the eight cases in Ireland in which persons have been deprived of their employment in the public service for alleged offences relating to politics, the nature of the charge and of the evidence, the time and opportunity afforded for defence or explanation, the constitution of the Court adjudicating, and the Statute, if not the Defence of the Realm Act, under which the proceedings were taken?

The general grounds on which the employment of eight persons in the public service in Ireland has been terminated were given in my reply to the hon. Member of the 23rd instant, and I do not consider it desirable to give details of the charges or of the evidence in individual cases. Where there was any suggestion that the conduct of the persons affected had been misrepresented, full opportunity was afforded them of rebutting the charges brought against them. The termination of service was directed in each case by the head or heads of the Departments concerned in pursuance of the powers vested in them and governing the employment of the persons dealt with.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how these vacancies were filled up—whether they were filled by the appointment of those members of the Civil Service who gave the information?

I feel pretty certain it was not so, but I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman definite information.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government offices are now engaging for Civil Service Employment men of military age and medically fit for active service?

So far as circumstances permit, appointments are not being made to posts in the permanent Civil Service for which the candidates would be of military age, and the open competitions for such posts have been suspended. Instructions have also been given to Departments that temporary posts should be filled either by women or by men disqualified for service with the Forces.

Could my right hon. Friend say whether it is the case that his Department is refusing permission to men of military age to enlist, although their duties could be discharged by women clerks?

No, Sir; I do not think my hon. Friend is correctly informed. Government servants of military age whose services can be dispensed with are allowed to enlist.

If I bring a case to my right hon. Friend's notice, will he inquire into it?

I will inquire into it.

Is this not an economic form of compulsion?

No, there is no compulsion or refusal. It depends entirely whether the services of the Government servants are necessary to the State.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause a census to be made of all Civil servants employed in Government offices of military age and medically fit for military service, with a view to ascertaining how many can be spared for active service without detriment to the public service?

I do not think that any very useful purpose would be achieved by the acceptance of this suggestion.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are not a large number of men employed in Government offices who want to join and whose services could be spared?

No, Sir, I do not think so. Generally I think a great many have enlisted now, and the number who could further be spared is probably extremely small.

Would it not be a good thing if there was a list kept showing how many Civil servants had already joined?

That is another question, and perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of it.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will require during the War the suspension of the agreement by which the men of the London Fire Brigade can give a week's notice and so prevent any further loss of men such as has necessarily occurred through Reservists being called out, and needless loss through men being tempted by high wages in South Africa to throw up their positions after they have been made valuable assets by their training?

I fully appreciate the difficulty in which the London Fire Brigade has been placed by the loss of men who have joined the fighting forces, though I believe only one man has gone to the Union Forces in South Africa. Both the War Office and the Admiralty have, at my instance, agreed to take no more recruits from the members of the Metropolitan Fire Brigades, for they are discharging a patriotic duty in protecting London from the risk of fire.

With reference to the statement about only one having gone to the Union Forces in South Africa, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am referring to the general labour situation tempting men away from the London Fire Brigade?

I did not know there was more than one.

That is only the Union Forces.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there are eighty-five professional and volunteer fire brigades in the Metropolitan Police area; whether he is aware that there are in addition a number of fire brigades on the borders of this area as well as a number of privately-owned fire and salvage brigades, such as belong to the railway and insurance companies; whether he is aware that the system of control of the eighty-five fire brigades and of the other bodies by county, borough and urban district councils is such that full co-ordination of this personnel and matériel equipment is impossible; and, in view of the menace to which London and outlying parts are subject from aerial attack, will the Government bring the fire brigades under a single control such as is exercised in the Metropolitan Police, or inquire into the matter by a Committee of the Cabinet?

I am aware that there is a large number of professional and volunteer fire brigades in the Metropolitan Police area outside the administrative county. As already stated in reply to a previous question on this subject, a conference of the heads of a number of these brigades was held by the Chief Commissioner of Police and a scheme of co-operative working agreed upon. The London County Council Fire Brigade have a considerable number of motor fire engines, and should, in the event of fires occurring outside their boundary, be able to give very effective help if the chief attack were upon an outside area; and there are also outside the administrative county a number of motor fire engines available.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the fire brigade in France and some other countries is organised as a regiment for the whole country, so enabling the resources to be distributed where they are most required; and whether he will charge one Minister with the co-ordination of the fire brigade resources of the country, so as to distribute men and material with due regard to the areas most threatened by aerial attack?

I am not aware that the fire brigade service in France is organised as a regiment for the whole country, though I understand this is the case in Paris. Conditions in the two countries are so dissimilar that it cannot be said with certainty that an arrangement suitable to France would be suitable to this country. Our system depends on local control and local initiative; and an attempt suddenly to change it would, I fear, involve loss of efficiency.

Who is responsible in future for the fire brigades, and is there any Minister responsible in this House?

I think it has already been explained to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the fire brigade in London is a local force. I am not aware that the London County Council has, in any way, authorised the suggestion that it has ceased to be so.

15. To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in 1914 704 prisoners were sentenced for prison offences to sleeping on a wooden guard bed; if he will state the kind of bed thus used and the maximum term for which a prisoner may be condemned to sleep on it; whether he is aware that in England no prisoner may be deprived of his mattress; and whether he will consider the making of a similar rule with respect to prisons in Scotland?

16. To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state what is the maximum term for which a prisoner in Scotland may be sentenced to solitary confinement for a prison offence; and what was the average term for which the seventy-five prisoners sentenced in 1914 to such confinement were so sentenced?

17. To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in 1914 no prisoner in Scotland was sentenced to solitary confinement except at Peterhead, where seventy-five prisoners were so sentenced; and whether, in view of the fact that elsewhere in Scotland the punishment has been found to be unnecessary, he will order the abolition of the punishment?

Would my hon. Friend postpone these questions till next Tuesday? I have not yet got the information for which he asks.

Are we to understand that the last time the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) was in Scotland he spent most of his time in these institutions?

I could not hear the question of my hon. Friend, and I am sorry, because it appears to have been witty. I must ask him to speak up. Would he mind repeating the question?

asked the President of the Board of Education when the annual volumes, Statistics of Public Elementary Education (England and Wales), will be issued; why Part II is generally published months before Part I. is issued; and whether in future some attempt will be made to issue these volumes, even if reduced in scope, so published that the information given is up to date?

Part I. (Educational Statistics for 1912–13) was issued in December last Part II. (Financial Statistics for 1912–13–14) is now with the printers. This follows the usual order of publication. Part II. relates mainly to the financial year 1912–13, but some figures for 1913–14 are included. Part II. cannot be completed until the audited accounts of local education authorities have been received. Some advance financial figures for 1913–14 were published in January last [Cd. 7764], and some educational figures are given in Appendix VIII. of the Board's Report [Cd. 7934]. But in view of the depiction of the staffs of the Board and of local education authorities I can give no undertaking as to the dates of issue of statistics.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, seeing that officials of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society interfere with the business and sometimes increase the expenditure of statutory bodies whose expenditure in salaries and in other respects is under public control and that the society receives State aid, will he state the names of all the officials of this society paid £100 a year or more, with the salary and expenses of each in the last completed financial year?

I fear I cannot give the hon. Member the information he seeks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the reason for concealing this information?

The Development Commission who make this Grant satisfy themselves that the expenditure on salaries is not excessive. Without the consent of the society, therefore, I have no power to give the information.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what provision against abuse and in the interest of efficiency is made in the arrangements now in operation in the Civil Service in Ireland for promotion consequential upon political espionage?

The principles governing promotion in the Irish Civil Service remain unaltered.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not inform the House how promotion goes on when some members of the Civil Service spy upon and report their colleagues?

I know nothing at all about that. If the hon. Member refers to the Order in Council of January, 1910, he will there see the principles upon which we continue to act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any decision has yet been arrived at with respect to the petition from the officers of the prison service for an increase of pay; and whether the Treasury Committee has yet reported with respect to the need for an increase of wages to temporary warders?

The petition of the prison officers was submitted to the Treasury for consideration along with other applications from the Civil Service. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by the Secretary to the Treasury on the 18th of May.

I beg to move, "That leave be granted to introduce a Bill for the compilation of a National Register."

The justification for the Bill which I have now the honour to ask the House to allow me to introduce is to be found in language used by the Prime Minister in a speech delivered in this House on a very recent occasion, which I am confident profoundly moved all those who heard it and which, I believe, most faithfully represented, not only the views which are held in the country, but also the overwhelming desires of the vast majority of our people. The Prime Minister said:—

"We have for the moment one plain, paramount duty to perform—to bring to the service of the State the willing and organised help of every class in the Kingdom."

May I, as an illustration of that, quote a remark attributed to one of our most distinguished old soldiers and citizens, Sir Evelyn Wood. It was reported of him that a short time ago he had a conversation with some Member of the Government, and he said:—

"You want my services. They are at your disposal, but I ask you to tell me what I am to do. Sweep a crossing? Yes, give me the broom."

That I believe to be the feeling of everybody in this country, and the object of this Bill is not to coerce labour, but to secure complete and general and satisfactory organisation. Before we decide what we are going to do with our resources in a time of great national crisis, it seems to me to be obvious that we must ascertain as carefully as we can what those resources are. I would venture to illustrate this by a very common reference to ordinary business relations. Surely the ordinary business man not only takes stock of all that he has and what he can do with it, but he does something more—he keeps a careful record of his financial position. He has, in other words, his bank book, which tells him what he has got, what securities he has available, which of them are already mortgaged for other purposes, and which he can usefully employ for the said purpose of the moment. It is in order that the State may do this that I ask the House to enable a national register to be formed. It is not to be wondered at that the first thought which occurs to anybody in connection with all these various questions, some of which have already been debated in this House, has reference to our naval and military Services.

We are not in the ordinary sense a military nation, and, if being a military nation means adopting the principles of militarism, I hope that we never shall be. But, though we are not a military nation, our position during the last nine or ten months has been really remarkable. I can only compare it to the state of affairs surrounding a beehive which by the onslaught of some big bully, not knowing what he is dealing with, has been momentarily disturbed in the pursuit of its peaceful occupation The air is full of a busy crowd of little insects determined to defend themselves, their lives, and their possessions. Our Empire, not our country alone, is a great armed camp; the seas of the world are covered by our sailors, and we know that not only is this great military force on sea and land unparalleled in its size as compared with anything we have ever possessed in this country before, but, as it is unparalleled in its size, so I venture to submit it is unparalleled in the splendour of its acts ever since the War began. Surely our first duty is to support these heroes on sea and land by giving them all the men they want, all the munitions they want, and all the support they want, in whatever form it may be. This, I venture to submit, is not only our paramount duty but it is a duty which we must perform, if, as the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) said yesterday in that fine speech which moved the House and which will appeal to the country, "we are to retain those liberties which we value more than any other possession that we have."

There is not only a vast mass of sailors and soldiers, but what have our workers been doing? In the munition factories we know now that volunteers are crowding to aid us in producing what is required. In other fields of labour, in our coal-fields, not only have enormous masses of men gone to the Colours, but the work has been going on steadfastly and continuously, and wherever you go you find the same earnest desire on the part of the citizen to do his share in this great national work. But while it is our paramount duty to support our sailors and soldiers on sea and land, it is none the less our duty to see that our productive powers are so organised that our trades and our industries here at home are kept going prosperously and successfully, and, beyond that, it is in my humble opinion none the less our duty, if we are to maintain a sound financial position, to see that our export trade, if possible, is also carried on successfully. The Government believe that all this is possible for our country. The Government believe that the country have no need to be dismayed at the gravity of the crisis with which we are confronted. They believe that our resources are sufficient, if they are mobilised and organised; they believe that we can meet the crisis, as we mean to, successfully, and that we can bring our people through it in such a way that, when peace comes, they will find themselves in a position far more satisfactory than might to the ordinary mind seem possible. These are our paramount duties: to maintain our Navy and our Army, to maintain our industrial and our financial position. Can anybody say, with all this strong feeling in the country, can anybody say in his heart and conscience that he believes we are doing to-day all that we can possibly do? Do we not know that there is room for improvement? Are we not prepared to make that improvement? I believe the answer to that last question will be unanimously in the affirmative. This Bill is intended to provide the machinery which will give that organisation without which you cannot secure what we want, the maximum output at the minimum of cost.

I wish to give two very simple illustrations—I have come across hundreds of them myself—of the result of the present system which, without disrespect, I may perhaps be allowed to describe as a somewhat haphazard one. In one case a man to my knowledge is now assisting in the production of munitions of war as a result of chance, for he was happy to see an advertisement in the paper which enabled him to place his services at the disposal of the country. In another case, active labour engaged on work which could easily be done by older men has now been transferred to more productive services. There are hundreds of thousands of these instances, as we all know from our own experience. It happens almost every day that one has applications from people saying, "I am ready to work; I am ready to do this, I am ready to help; what am I to to? Where am I to go?" We do not know where to send them or how to direct them. We do not know what resources we have got, and we must have that knowledge before we can use those great resources to the very best advantage.

The proposal of the Bill is that there should be a compulsory registration of the people of this country, male and female, between the ages of fifteen and sixty-five. That registration will not be a central one, as I see it stated in some quarters, but it will be essentially a local registration, and it will, of course, be available not only for use by our large local authorities, but for use by our central authority. In the forms which will be issued to everybody, and which will have to be returned promptly, questions will be put as to their age and their employment, and they will be asked to state whether they are willing to volunteer for any special form of labour with which they are specially acquainted, other than that ii which they are now engaged. They will be entitled to receive—and will receive a certificate, stating that they have been registered, and I, for one, hope and believe that they will regard that certificate as a badge of honour. This registration will be under the control of the Local Government Board, but it will be conducted by the boroughs and urban and rural sanitary authorities throughout the country, under the advice and control and with the assistance of the Registrar-General, as in the case of the Census. The cost of this will be borne by contributions from the Exchequer on a basis to be settled between the Treasury and the Local Government Board. There are guarded penalties in the case of non-fulfilment of these obligations.

That, I think, completes the provisions of the Bill which will, I hope, be in the hands of Members to-morrow, and they will be able, therefore, in conjunction with this brief statement, to appreciate for themselves what is the scheme which the Government now submit. I believe it will enable the Government and the State to take the fullest advantage of the circumstances of everybody for the benefit of the State. The moment is a great one in the lives of all of us. Our duty, I believe, is a sacred one. We owe it to ourselves; we owe it to posterity that in this great vital struggle we shall leave no stone unturned, and we shall leave nothing undone that can aid us in securing the victory we are determined to secure. I believe we are fighting against tyranny for freedom. I am confident, from information which has already reached me, that I can appeal to the local authorities of this country—to their patriotism and their sense of public duty—to help the Government in securing promptly a full register of the kind described. I have received innumerable offers from volunteers. I may specially mention the school teachers of this country, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland tells me that he has received equal assurances from the school teachers of Scotland that they will be willing to aid during their holiday time. All the local officials, almost without exception, have pressed their services on the Government. This is a grand voluntary movement to secure knowledge of the forces which the country possesses. I believe that the local authorities, I believe that the country at large, will aid us and come to our assistance and give us this information in a comparatively brief time, and it is because the Government hold that this measure is necessary in the discharge of a great solemn duty which has been laid upon them that they ask the House now to allow them to introduce this Bill.

Does the hon. Member rise to oppose the Motion?

I oppose it, unless the Government gives an explicit undertaking that this Bill shall not be applied to Ireland, either by Amendment or otherwise, and that no Bill of this nature shall be introduced for Ireland. As the Chief Secretary does not rise in his place to give that explicit undertaking, I must to the best of my ability oppose the introduction of this Bill. The refusal of the Government to give that undertaking amounts to a threat that something of this sort is about to be applied to Ireland, either by an Amendment of this Bill or otherwise. In these circumstances, knowing as all of us do in Ireland, and as the Chief Secretary himself must know, that Ireland is not a country to which to apply such a Bill, I am left no option but to oppose this proposal. The ordinary decennial census in Ireland is not taken under the Bill introduced for Great Britain. There is always a special Bill authorising it. The President of the Local Government Board has announced that this Bill will be compulsory; this Bill will require rules and forms to be filled up by the people, and there will be penalties for refusal to fill them up. According to the statement to which we have just listened, the drawing up of these rules and forms is to be taken away from the House and to be entrusted to the Local Government Board or some such authority. I think the country will watch with some interest whether this House is going to surrender its right to determine for what sort of forms and rules it shall give a blank cheque to the Local Government Board to impose penalties, and what the penalties are to be. These rules and penalties should, in my opinion, be distinctly set forth in the Bill, and this House should be given a full and ample opportunity of discussing them and modifying them from whatever shape in which they are introduced into a shape in which they can be safely worked.

There can be no justification whatever for imposing such a Bill upon Ireland, since this House and the British Government have persistently pursued the policy of killing and preventing almost every form of industry attempted in Ireland. This special census will require special forms and special penalties, and we are here to insist upon knowing, before the Bill passes and before the census is taken, what sort of forms and penalties those are. For the House to abrogate its right—not only its right, but its duty in this matter—and to subject the people to forms and penalties of which the House knows nothing, would be a betrayal of its trust to the people who have elected it. This Bill, furthermore, is obviously intended not only to be a pilot of conscription, in regard to which the Government are holding up their scheme, but in itself will be more than half enacting a Conscription Bill, because it would prepare the ground and subject the people to that kind of discipline on which conscription will be based, and because opponents of conscription, if this Bill were passed, would be deprived of every logical argument against that measure. The House and the Government can hardly expect that in the event of such a measure as this being enforced with penalties upon Ireland that it will not run a strong chance of being resisted, and resisted with considerable force. In the event of the operation of this Bill being resented in Ireland, the people resenting it, and those advising them to resent it, will be able to quote the language used on a corresponding occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General with reference to another Bill. He said:—

"Yon will be told that to resist it will be illegal. Of course it will be illegal."

He went on to say:—

"Therefore, do not be afraid of illegality. There are illegalities which are not crimes."

If that language is to be used in connection with enforcing this Bill in Ireland, the Coalition Government will be able to put up their present Attorney-General to identify himself with that language and to justify its use in Ireland by other people as its use has been justified by him. Perhaps these considerations did not occur to the right hon. Gentleman before introducing this Bill, and for that reason I would strongly recommend him to ponder upon them before proceeding further, and I would recommend the Chief Secretary to ponder on them before extending the operation of this Bill to Ireland, either by amendment or by any other means whatever.

I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."

4.0 P.M.

This Clause deals with the Income Tax payable by savings banks. Under the Income Tax law as it stands at present, a certified savings bank is entitled to exemption from Income Tax on its income from investments which are invested with the National Debt Commissioners. So far as the ordinary department of a certified savings bank is concerned, in which the limit of deposit is £200, they are compelled by law to invest all their profits with the National Debt Commissioners; therefore they get exemption from Income Tax. But so far as their special investments branch is concerned, in which the limit of deposit is £500, and so far as certain savings banks are concerned that are not certified savings banks, there is no general exemption from the Income Tax, although under the Finance Act, 1894, any savings bank, whether certified or not, is entitled to relief from Income Tax on such of their income from investments which goes to pay or credit interest to an investor of less than £5. On everything else those savings banks have to pay Income Tax. They do not, as a rule, recover the Income Tax which they have paid from their depositors. The reasons for that generally are, firstly, that it is very doubtful under the existing law whether they have the power, and, secondly, if they did, there is such a large number of investors that the procedure would be very complicated. The consequence is that the revenue obtains tax on a large amount of income which ultimately goes to exempt persons, and this tax falls upon both those who are liable and those who are exempted. This has been the state of the law up till now, with the exception of some banks which have succeeded in getting extra-statutory arrangements from the Inland Revenue under which a percentage of their total income, which was held to be roughly the amount which would go to exempted persons, is exempt from liability.

But this arrangement, which has been more or less satisfactory up to the present, becomes very serious now that the Income Tax is so high. Savings banks usually allow their depositors interest at 3 per cent. They get from their investments about 3½ per cent., and Income Tax at 2s. 6d. in the £ on 3½ per cent. interest represents a diminution of that interest by about seven-sixteenths per cent., so there is not much balance left for the savings bank management, and unless something is done to prevent the savings bank paying Income Tax, which they are not really liable to, it might result in very disastrous liquidation. Two alternative methods might be adopted. You might give them power to deduct Income Tax, and then allow the depositor to recover from the Inland Revenue, That is a very complicated machinery, which I am quite certain in this case the House would not approve. The next alternative is to exempt from Income Tax the whole of their profits which are used for the payment of interest to depositors whether under or over £5. This is a departure from the principle of Income Tax being paid at the source, but by the provisions of this Clause the savings banks are required to give to the Inland Revenue officials a list of those to whom interest of more than £5 is paid, so that it will be possible for those who are really liable to be directly assessed, and the information that we get from the savings banks will make sure that no one will escape. The cost of this relief would be about £25,000, but then, as this is a cost to the Exchequer by the loss of Income Tax to which really, strictly, under the law they were never entitled, I think it is a cost which we may well undertake. The second part of the Clause deals with the expenses of management, extending to savings banks which are not companies the exemption of management expenses which was allowed to insurance companies under Clause 8 of the existing Bill, which the House has already passed.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

This is a Clause which gives relief to British life insurance companies which are carrying on business both at home and abroad. Under the Act of last year all the foreign investments of such a company were rendered liable to Income Tax even though the income was not brought home. Strong representations were made that the effect of that change of the law was very injurious to those companies, as in competition abroad with other companies not equally affected they would have to raise considerably the rates of premium. I was told, and I accept it as a fact, that companies would be face to face with one or other of two alternatives. Either they would have to give up their foreign business altogether because they could not compete with their foreign rivals, or else they would have to separate their foreign business entirely from their home business, with the result that we should not only lose the Income Tax from the foreign business, but also the control of the whole capital engaged both at home and abroad. In these circumstances we have thought the best course to adopt was, at any rate as a temporary measure, to meet the difficulties of these companies on the footing of the relief which they themselves stated as necessary, and to leave the subject for further investigation and examination by the Committee which is inquiring into the whole of the Income Tax laws. I said our relief was on the footing of their requirements, but I should add by way of precaution, on the footing of their requirements as I understand them, in case it might be stated hereafter that we had not done everything which they asked. We allow a deduction from the expenses of management for the purposes of Income Tax, but it is quite clear that as they will not pay Income Tax under this exemption they ought not to be allowed the benefit of the further reduction in respect of a sum which they do not pay.

Will the amount of management expenses allowed for be in proportion to the English investments?

There will be separate accounts kept of the cost of management. They would know what their foreign management was. I do not think it would operate in proportion. Of course it must be clearly understood that any profit brought home will be charged Income Tax. It is only in respect of that profit and income which is not brought home that the relief is given.

I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman that by some means he has forgotten to put forward a number of other Amendments to which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was committed. Last year they were embodied in a Bill which was read a second time. Although we are in the midst of a War a definite pledge was given by the Government when the House agreed to split the Finance Bill into two, and it was suggested that we should have a much larger opportunity for discussing Amendments on the second Bill than on the Bill immediately devoted to taxation. The Bill immediately devoted to taxation is that which received the Royal Assent last November. There were two matters on which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer last year yielded, and they were in the Government Bill of last year, but owing to the War and the general collapse these Amendments were dropped. I rise, not for the purpose of objecting in any way to this Clause, but to remind the Government that we expect a realisation of the promises which were then made. I would specially remind the right hon. Gentleman that one dealt with licences and the other dealt with the question of tenants' improvements in Ireland, which the Government agreed in certain circumstances to exempt, and brought in Clauses in their Bill which in consequence of the War were dropped. It must not be supposed that we shall allow them to be dropped altogether out of proposed legislation of this kind.

Has any estimate been made of the respective Amendments which are involved in the proposition which my right hon. Friend now makes, and the relief which has been granted under the Act? Will he tell us how these figures compare, because it is very difficult to arrive at an opinion in regard to the proposition unless we know that?

I have not the figures at my disposal, but if the concession is necessary on the grounds I have stated I do not think the amount will be a relevant point. If my argument is right, we should not only lose the amount of the concession, but we should also lose the control of the capital engaged in the business.

Ought not the two things to be taken separately? Why should my right hon. Friend take away with one hand what he gives with the other? Why should he take away the relief granted under the Act in respect of expenses of management?

Inasmuch as we do not propose to charge Income Tax on the major sum, there is no ground for deducting from that major sum the amount relating to a further concession. We deduct the amount in the further concession because we charge Income Tax on the major sum, but inasmuch as we are not charging Income Tax on the major sum, there is no reason to make any deduction from it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman either now or on Report stage go back to the last Government Bill, and embody the non-contentious Amendments in this Bill?

The hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, I think, relates to the 1912 Act. There is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with that, and I would rather wait till we get to it before I deal with the point. On the second point I have not acquainted myself with the subject, but I will make inquiries without delay.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

My right hon. Friend has deputed me to move this Clause, because it is the outcome of a rather long discussion which I had with his predecessor. He has met me very handsomely, and has inserted safeguards which his advisers thought necessary to prevent the Clause from abuse. I hope that if I move it from this side of the House, instead of the other, and if I get the support, not only of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer but of two previous Chancellors of the Exchequer, the Committee will realise that it is a most desirable improvement. Hospitals make use of a large amount of spirit in their various preparations, and the rectified spirit has been found to be the only satisfactory solvent of most preparations. If I give one example of the great hardship of this duty it will be enough. I am informed that last year the London hospitals bought 195 gallons of rectified spirit, for which they have to pay £256. Of that £256 a sum of £229 represented duty, and the other small amount was the cost of the spirit. I think everyone will agree that that is a very heavy impost to place upon a charitable institution. At any time the claims of hospitals for considerate treatment are, I think, justified, and they have certainly an overwhelming claim at a time like this, because everyone knows what a tremendous strain has been put upon our ordinary hospitals as well as our military hospitals by the War, and how splendidly they have met the demands made upon them. I think hon. Members will agree with me when I say that the difficulty that confronts the treasurers of hospitals in keeping up their subscriptions is a very severe one at the present time. I do not know whether I ought to be glad or sorry to say that probably a good deal of the money which now will go to the War Loan might, under other circumstances, have been secured by the treasurers of hospitals to help the finances of those institutions. I reaffirm that the hospitals have an overwhelming claim at this time, and one which I feel sure the Committee will agree is just.

The objects of this Clause are, first of all, to give a supply of duty-free spirits to the hospitals for the preparations which they make themselves under the regulations which prevail under Section 8 of the Finance Act of 1902, and also to give a rebate on tinctures and other things which they buy ready-made, if they can prove that they have been used for the hospital. These exemptions are subject to compliance with such regulations as the Commissioners of Excise may require, and anybody who makes a false return is liable to a fine of £20. I think the Committee will agree in the main with the Clause. I see that there are a considerable number of Amendments down, which I think are not hostile to the intentions of the Clause, so much as they are intended to prevent the possible abuse of the privilege. To my mind, the fact that the regulations and restrictions are considered sufficient by those very careful guardians of the public purse who preside over the Customs and Excise, ought to be a sufficient guarantee for this Committee. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be very glad to consider any Amendment, if it is possible to strengthen the provisions against any abuse, and I do hope that those who think there is any danger of that kind, will not oppose the whole Clause. When you come to realise that a concession has been made of duty-free spirit to arts and manufacture, and that some of these manufactures consist in making explosives, I am sure the Committee will feel that the most beneficent use to which spirits can be put, namely, in the treatment of sick and wounded, deserves, at any rate, a similar privilege to that which is granted in regard to the manufacture of munitions of war. I beg to move.

Is there any registration of the persons who are to get this privilege? I suggest that there should be some method of registration, so that everybody should not be allowed to put in a claim. I take it that this will include chloroform?

I think that that would be one of the regulations which would be made by the Commissioners of Customs. The definition Clause in Subsection (4) practically restricts it to people who are responsible for the working of the hospitals.

I do not think so, although I have looked at it from that point of view. You begin by authorising the person to receive the spirits, and then you define public hospitals. Does not the person get this indemnity, or modification, provided he satisfies the Government that he is going to supply public hospitals? The definition of public hospitals would not cover the word "person." The person will be any person. Any person could get it, provided that person is going to supply a public hospital. I am heartily glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought in this Clause—and I congratulate him on his new position—but at the same time I desire that by some means, by registration or otherwise, that in regard to the persons who engage in the supply of these things, such as chloroform, ether, etc., we should know who they are, so that we should have some means of effective check in later years.

Appreciating, as I do, and as I think, in all probability, every Member of this House will appreciate the desire of the hon. Member (Mr. Bridgeman) to do something to assist the hospitals, I am sorry to say that I am bound to oppose the Clause. I may say at once that I am doing it because I have been asked to do it by the organisation which represents the medical profession of this country, namely, the British Medical Association, and also by the Pharmaceutical Society, which represents the pharmacists of the country. The fact that this Clause appears on the Paper is not due to any new burden which has been placed upon hospitals as a result of this Finance Act or of any financial measure this year. The Committee knows that there was a good deal of discussion over the increased duties on alcohol. First of all, the Government proposed to double the duty, and then to add 1s. 6d. per gallon duty on immature spirit, but the Bill to which this Clause is proposed to be added excludes from the operations of this new duty—which is the only new duty imposed, namely, the 1s. 6d. duty on immature spirits—all medicines, so that there is no additional burden placed on hospitals in that respect.

The hon. Member for Oswestry, as he has told us, has taken very great interest in this question, and he has put on one or two occasions questions to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the last occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would deal with the matter in the Finance Bill. It did not occur to anyone—at least it did not occur to me, and it certainly did not occur to the medical profession—that that meant that there would be any attempt in the Finance Bill to remove the whole duty on alcohol used in hospitals. Obviously the medical profession would desire anything that would assist the hospitals. It is the last thing that they would want to do, to place any difficulty in the way of the hospitals, but I would point out this danger to the House: that there are many ways of assisting hospitals other than by making a rebate on certain taxes which they pay, if by assisting them in that way you do perhaps more mischief than good. The first difficulty is the difficulty of defining what is a hospital. The Clause defines it in this way—

(4) "For the purpose of the foregoing provision the expression 'public hospitals' means a hospital supported by any public authority, or wholly or partly out of any public or charitable funds or by voluntary subscriptions."

It is quite clear that any institution of any kind that could, in law, bring itself within that definition, is entitled to claim from the Commissioners such privileges as they give to hospitals under this Clause. That will not be a matter of interpretation for the Commissioners; the law defines what is the institution that is to get this privilege, and it is defined in this wide way: Under the Clause as it stands any place where the sick are surgically or medically treated, whether by qualified or unqualified people, would come within that definition. There are, as is well known, institutions run by unqualified people, by quacks, and so long as that person running that institution gets some charitable funds, or voluntary subscriptions, the institution becomes a hospital within the meaning of this Clause. It is also well known that there are a large number of nursing homes run for profit. I do not want to say anything which may be misunderstood, but there are numbers of these nursing homes run for profit by private individuals, and it would be quite easy for these nursing homes to comply with this definition and come within its scope. Then there is the other class which is to come into this Clause, namely, any institution of a public authority. Does that mean workhouse infirmaries, fever hospitals, and so on? What this Clause would do would be to relieve the local rates of the cost of their local institutions at the expense of the national Exchequer. If the House thinks that it ought to do that, then let it do it, but we have here raised the whole question of the relief of the local rates of this country, and surely this is not the proper way to do that. If you want to relieve the boards of guardians from the taxes which they pay upon the alcohol which they use in their institutions, why not also equally relieve them from the taxes which they pay on their buildings? If you are going to relieve them of their taxes upon alcohol you make a grant out of the Exchequer amounting to an indefinite sum, and it seems to me that if you are going to do that there is no reason why you should tax a local authority ort its infirmary, or its fever hospital, or its sanatorium, or that you should not relieve them of any other contribution which they make on these buildings to the national Exchequer.

Rectified spirits of wine paying duty will cost 4s. a pint; duty free it will cost as many pence. Imagine what the state of things will be! In a public institution, however well managed, hundreds of people will have access in one way or another, at some time or other, to the tinctures which are medicines and which come within this Clause, because, as the hon. Member for Oswestry pointed out, there are two things to be done under this Clause. The hospital is to get its rectified spirit, for anything in which it makes in the way of medicine, subject to certain conditions, free of duty, but it is also to be able to get a rebate on all the tinctures used in medicines which it purchases. Take, for example, tincture of orange. It is there because there are certain drugs which, as some of us know, perhaps from experience, are not very pleasant to take, and this is a flavouring tincture, a medicine with a distinct value as a medicine, but it is added in order to make the article more palatable. That tincture conies within this Clause. It is about double the alcoholic strength of brandy. A pint of it would cost 6d. Dilute that pint with an equal quantity of water and you have got a quart of what some people would call a nice, palatable cordial at a cost of 6d. a quart. Is it certain that that is the state of things which it is wise to bring about?

May I call attention to the fact that the British Medical Association, which represents not only general practitioners but very largely surgeons and others who hold hospital appointments, have thought it necessary to send a representation to the Chancellor pointing out these difficulties? Associated with that representation is the Pharmaceutical Society. What they say is:—

"There are many disadvantages to the practice of medicine in general which might follow if alcohol were permitted to be used in hospitals under conditions which differ from those obtaining outside. There is no doubt that if alcohol in hospitals were duty free the present economic restrictions on its use would entirely disappear, and preparations largely consisting of alcohol would be used more frequently than they are now. This would be unfortunate, because the tendency of recent years has been to limit the use of alcohol in the use of medical preparations so far as is consistent with efficiency, and many new preparations have been brought into general use because they have been found to be quite efficient, though containing little or no alcohol, and are therefore cheaper than the older preparations."

Then I would point out another consideration, which I do not think would appeal at first blush to the layman. They say:—

"It would be unfortunate, too, if students who after they have qualified would have to prescribe or use preparations containing duty paid alcohol"—

that is £1 on rectified spirits, or about a guinea a gallon—

"were trained under conditions in which the cost of alcohol had not to be considered. This would lead either to an extravagant use of alcohol in prescriptions, for which the public would have to pay, or to their haying largely to unlearn the habits of prescribing what they had been taught in the hospital."

Then they point out that the possible effect of such prescriptions of preparations containing alcohol as a drug on the National Health Insurance should not be overlooked. The Drug Fund is overdrawn. There is not sufficient money now to meet the demands made on the Drug Fund. Members of the House have no doubt been approached by insurance committees and by pharmacists pointing out that pharmacists have been discounted—that committees have not been able to pay them their full bills. What is the effect of training medical students under a system where the cost of alcohol does not matter and then turning them out to order the same thing which cost a few pence in the hospitals and will cost many shillings outside? What is the effect going to be on the Drug Fund of the Insurance Act?

It is well known that some of these large institutions have in the course of the year scores of thousands of out-patients. The out-patients are within this provision, as to duty free alcohol, of which, because of its dearness, the Revenue have allowed certain common liniments to be made. You have got to make them with spirit. They are made with methylated spirit and not rectified spirit. Once this concession is given the hospital would have to make the liniment with rectified spirit rather than methylated spirit, as methylated spirit would cost the hospital rather more than rectified spirit. The result is that all these liniments would be made of rectified spirit. In the case of a number of these people who go to the hospitals it often happens that the physician in prescribing does not specify the amount. The patient takes the prescription downstairs, the dispenser looks out through the pigeon-hole, takes the prescription and says, "Where do you want to use this liniment?" They are so fond of it that they say, "All over me." This is a most common practice amongst poor persons, who leave the hospital now with methylated spirits, but who in future will leave with a pint of rectified spirit which will have cost the hospital 3d. or 4d., but is worth outside many shillings. That is not a thing which ought to be overlooked. Then as to the hon. Member's safeguard, how is the provision as to allowing the duty-free alcohol, the raw alcohol, to make preparations to be safeguarded? The Clause says that it is under the provisions of the 1902 Act, under which the manufacturers are able to obtain duty-free spirit, but if Members will look at that Section of the 1902 Act they will see how almost impossible it is, if any good at all is to come out of this concession, to apply it to the hospitals. The Clause says:—

"Where, in case of any art or manufacture carried on by any person in which the use of spirits is required, it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the use of methylated spirits is unsuitable or detrimental they may, if they think fit, authorise that person to receive spirits without the payment of duty for use in such art or manufacture upon giving security to their satisfaction that they will use the spirits in the art or manufacture and for no other purpose, and the spirits so used shall be exempt from duty: provided that foreign spirits may not be so received or used until the difference between the duty of Customs chargeable thereon and the duty of Excise chargeable on British spirits has been paid,"

and then we have

"(2) The authority shall only be granted subject to compliance with such regulations as the Commissioners may require the applicant to observe for the security of the Revenue and upon condition that he will to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, if so required by them, render the spirits unpotable before and during use and will from time to time pay any expenses that may be incurred in placing an officer in charge of his premises."

There the Revenue—it was so difficult to manage that—had to provide for an official being placed on the premises and the expense of that was cast upon the manufacturer. In 1906 that was modified to this extent, that the manufacturer had not got to bear the cost of this Revenue official being on his premises, save in exceptional circumstances. I wonder if the hon. Member has really discussed the matter with any hospital authorities, and has he discussed with them what kind of supervision they would expect and what kind of supervision is in fact exercised on the provisions which are made to apply to them.

First of all, they have got to have an officer to see that the conditions are complied with, and then when they came to deal with manufacturers the great safeguard was that the Commissioners could require them to make the spirit unpotable. Of course that did not matter at all when dealing with manufacturers, but here you are dealing with medicines, which are used for internal purposes, all of which are potable. It is very difficult to define "potable." If you look up the dictionary you will see that it says "fit or suitable for drinking." All medicines are fit or suitable for drinking, or else they would not be ordered, except liniments for external purposes. Then if it is to be a question of palatable, I should be sorry to have to define that, because that is all a matter of taste. There are people who think that methylated spirits are palatable. If it really does mean that the Commissioners, if they granted this, are going to compel the hospital to make drugs, which are not in themselves unpleasant, unpleasant by using a spirit which is to be made unpalatable, then I think that the effect of that on the art of medicine is extremely serious.

Everybody knows the great difficulty which doctors have got in getting patients to take medicine because the patients say that the medicine is nasty, and doctors do everything they can to make it pleasant, especially when dealing with children. But not only are you not trying to make drugs more pleasant to consume, but you are making drugs, which are not in themselves unpleasant, unpleasant if you use alcohol as solvent, in order to get free alcohol. That seems to me to be obviously undesirable. When you come to deal with the question of rebate, you find that they are entitled to get the rebate upon all these tinctures, subject to certain restrictions which the Board of Inland Revenue may make, and neither the House nor the hospital, nor the profession, knows what that means. I think that I have said enough to show that this thing is not as easy as at first appears, and that there are difficulties. That is very strongly borne out by what happened some months ago, and I think that the House will be interested to learn what has taken place meantime. The hon. Member for Oswestry on 10th March asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

"If he will consider the desirability of providing in the Finance Bill for the supply of duty-free rectified spirit to hospitals for the making of tinctures under similar restrictions to those which regulate the supply of absolute alcohol, free of duty, for the purpose of research in clinical laboratories and colleges?"

Mr. Lloyd George said:—

"The general question of the use of spirit is under consideration, but I am afraid that it would not be possible to grant this particular exemption."

The hon. Member then asked:—

"Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Loudon Hospital alone has spent £256 on tinctures of this kind, of which £229 is duty, and could he not at any rate make an exemption in favour of tinctures and solutions of iodine; I think it will be easier to do that?"

The Chancellor replied:—

"I could supply the hon. Gentleman with the reasons given to me by the Customs as to the difficulty in making a discrimination. I will hand the paper over to him."

That was the official position in this House in March. Since that time, the hon. Member for Oswestry has been appointed to a position on the Treasury Bench, and it may be that he has been able to convert the Commissioner of Customs to the view of the feasibility of doing this; but I frankly say that those who know the difficulties do not see at present how it is to be done. What they ask for is this. They say in their circular:—

"Representations have been made by our association to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Clause may be dropped, and that the whole question of duty-free alcohol in medicine be referred to a special committee for consideration and report. We earnestly ask your support in the House in support of this recommendation, as under the Finance Act the position of hospitals is not in any way worsened in regard to the use of spirits. Our associations are of opinion that the suggestion of delay is reasonable."

That is signed by Mr. Alfred Cox, Medical Secretary to the British Medical Association. If this Clause is proposed in consequence of some promise made to the hon. Member for Oswestry, it certainly was not a Parliamentary pledge, but if it was a Parliamentary pledge, does it amount to one for dealing with this matter in the Finance Bill. There is another pledge which the Government have given, and which I think ought to be borne in mind, namely, that they will introduce nothing in this House which is not necessary for the conduct of this War, and which is controversial. They have given that pledge, which I think is an excellent one, and in a case like this, where there are serious objections from the whole recognised body of the medical profession, and from the recognised body of pharmacists—and I have taken the responsibility of saying so—I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not fair, that it is not right, that he should at this moment proceed with this Clause.

There are plenty of ways of dealing with it in the meantime. If it is desired to give relief to hospitals, let it be done quite apart from spirit altogether, and if the right hon. Gentleman consents to do this I can assure him the medical profession and the pharmacists' profession would want to help him in improving the position of hospitals, and, if it can be done in that manner, they would place no difficulties in the way. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask when we are at war? We have this proposal in the Bill, and the secretaries of associations have been calling their members together from all parts of the country to consider it, and this at a time when they have a good deal else to engage their attention. The country do not understand this sort of thing. I am very sorry to detain the House at this stage in trying to bring this about. There is a string of Amendments on the Paper, and in normal times I am bound to say that I should have felt it absolutely my duty—unless the Government dropped the Clause and agreed to go into the whole subject systematically, in order to apply it to medicine generally—to use every form of this House in order to defeat the proposal. That is not possible at this time. The medical profession and the Pharmaceutical Society, having made these representations, and there being no evidence of an organised representation from the hospitals in regard to it, I do think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be justified in taking into consideration the representations of these bodies, and in not proceeding with the Clause to-day.

The hon. Member who has just sat down will not doubt that I recognise the great authority with which he speaks, an authority that I myself cannot rival. I attach very great importance to the arguments which he brought forward, and I also attach great weight to the representations which have been made. I suppose that there are many representatives who have members of the British Medical Association in their constituencies. I am bound to say, however, that although I have received this communication from the British Medical Association, I cannot find that it has been supported by any general communication from other members of the medical profession, some five thousand of whom are constituents of my own. That gives me some reason to doubt whether the arguments, weighty as they are, which the hon. Member has adduced are sufficient to lead me to oppose the Clause. I think the matter has been fully discussed. I am not quite sure that the medical profession is so universally against it as the hon. Member assumes, for I think I should have heard from outside representations in that sense. I have not received any, and while I attach great weight to some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, yet I should like to urge some other considerations which lead me, on the whole, to give my support to the Clause. In some respects I think the hon. Member's arguments had the weakness of being a little too strong, and now and then perhaps a little far-fetched. We were told by the hon. Member in the earlier part of his speech that this Clause would have the effect of transferring the burden on the rates to the National Exchequer. Is not that a little far-fetched? There are a great many hospitals in this country, perhaps the bulk of hospitals in this country, which do not draw anything from the rates, and which are supported by voluntary contributions, and surely you should not deprive these voluntary institutions of an advantage in doing their benevolent work because of the incident that some trivial small expenditure might be transferred from the rates to the National Exchequer.

In this Clause the hospital is defined as a place supported by any public authority, and it is to the institutions supported by public authority that I applied that argument.

I have no doubt there would be a very slight relief to the rates. One must remember that these institutions, supported by the rates, are not institutions which require the most of our benevolence, and the institutions which do require our benevolence are at this time placed under great difficulty owing to the pressure which has fallen on private benevolence of every sort in consequence of the War. I am not inclined at all to think that all the dangers which the hon. Member foresees would, in fact, be realised. I do not think that hospital attendants would find in these medicines something which might have a lowering effect upon them and cause them to drink. I do not think that in any ordinary, well-regulated hospital—and I know something of hospitals, and as a governor I ought to be attending a meeting of the governing body of a hospital near here if I were not detained by the Debate on this Bill—any disorderly conduct of the kind suggested would occur. I am quite prepared to support any sort of safeguard which the hon. Member may think necessary, and which the Minister in charge of the Bill may think proper to adopt. I think possibly it might be well to confine the Clause to medicines for the use of any patient, and that would solve one difficulty which the hon. Member thinks is likely to occur. I think, also, that it is right and proper to restrict the benefit to those hospitals which are not run for private profit. There are certain classes of homes, certain institutions, which are really carried on for commercial purposes, and I do not think that they deserve this special consideration. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the hon. Member in charge of the Bill thinks it proper to confine the Clause to those institutions that are not carried on for private profit, I should be very glad to agree to that, and to know that one, at all events, of the difficulties which the hon. Member has raised was guarded against.

But I am not quite sure that I see great weight in some of the arguments he adduced on the part of the British Medical Association. I know the authority of that association, and I should be the last to derogate from it, knowing how many of my own Constituents are members of it. But I do not think their arguments carry complete conviction. They allow that this is a gift, and they admit that their communication appears like looking a gift-horse in the mouth. I go further: I think it does. This is a gift by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think we may take it that it is a very considerable gift, and an advantage so far as it goes. I do not want to raise difficulties on the very inception of this proposal. The British Medical Association in their circular do not apparently think that this is an advantage which should not be obtained; all they say is that if it were delayed the hospitals would not be put in a worse position than they are at present, and that the matter might be referred to a Special Committee for consideration and report. The British Medical Association do not say that there is no grievance, nor that this grievance ought not to be cured; yet it seems rather ungracious to propose that the Clause which is to be embodied in the Bill should be thrown overboard, and that we should be asked to postpone the gift until the Greek Kalends—until a Committee has been appointed and reported. It is not likely that a Special Committee can be appointed now, or that it could turn its attention to the subject.

5.0 P.M.

This is an urgent matter. We know the difficulties; we know that at this moment hospitals are reduced in their resources from private benevolence. We know that the necessary charges for this kind of rectified spirit required for the purposes of the hospitals were tremendously heavy, as the hon. Member has pointed out. We know that out of the sum of £260 no less than £220 in a fever hospital was paid for spirits. It is now proposed, I am very glad to know, to relieve them of that burden. I chink we might also trust to the regulations which have been laid down by the Commissioners. In Section 8 of the Finance Act of 1902 we have a distinct settlement of the conditions under which regulations are to be issued by the Commissioners in the case of the use of spirits in any arts or manufactures. In the case of arts or manufactures it was really a far more difficult thing to stop the abuse of such a relief than it is in the case of hospitals. "Arts and manufactures" is a very widely-expressed definition. All sorts of institutions for carrying on arts and manufactures might be relieved from the duty on spirit, and it might in the case of such a very large class of arts and manufactures be a real danger. This danger was considered to be sufficiently guarded against by the regulations laid down in Section 8 of the Act. Similar regulations will be laid down under the present Clause, because it embodies Clause 8 of the Act of 1902. Will they not be sufficient for carefully managed institutions like hospitals if they are sufficient for the very wide range of art and manufacturing institutions using spirits, and which were given exemption under the Act of 1902? Representing as I do a very large section of the medical profession, I cannot, even after the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member, take the responsibility of rejecting this Clause and of refusing to accept what I think is the very handsome concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By all means introduce safeguards, if they are necessary, and restrict your exemption, if you like, to those hospitals which are not run for private profit, and restrict it, if it should be considered necessary, to in-patients. You can lay down the rule that those medicines, which it is said may prove to be so palatable, should be under the regulations laid down under Clause 8 of the Act of 1902. I cannot, of course, speak for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I do not know whether he contemplates those restrictions. I think there is a great deal to be said for them, and that it might be well to guard against some of the fears which the hon. Member has expressed by consideration of those Amendments, but I cannot join in the responsibility of rejecting the Clause, which confers a very considerable benefit upon very deserving institutions.

It seemed to me at first that this Clause was a fairly simple matter. The first serious objection to that view was the receipt of this circular from the British Medical Association. I was, of course, greatly impressed by the weight of authority, but as I read the arguments which they adduced in that circular I must say their authority began to dwindle, as none of their arguments were very convincing. I had somewhat the same experience to-day in listening to the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Glyn-Jones). He himself enjoys an exceptional reputation in this House for his extraordinary and enviable knowledge of drugs, but as he developed his arguments I began to find that none of them would hold water. He has a highly analytical mind and I am inclined to think he has given to chemistry what was intended for metaphysics. His research enables him to find reasons and excuses and arguments which would never occur to any mind of common sense. Take, for instance, his argument that these drugs would become so useful that they would be freely prescribed. That seems to me to be equivalent to a remark I once heard in the case of a surgeon who said that the knives were too blunt, but the authority seemed to think they would do harm if they were sharp. The hon. Member for Stepney seemed to think that if the medical officers of hospitals had too free a range they would be likely to run riot in prescribing drugs which were not useful in particular cases which they had. Then, again, there was the argument of students learning expensive prescribing in hospitals, and afterwards mulcting their poor patients outside. From what I have seen of medical men outside I am inclined to think they forget a good many things they learned in hospitals. One of those things most sharply brought to the imagination afterwards is the art of not prescribing expensive and unattainable drugs. I think that argument also vanishes.

There was the argument from the case of out-patients. The hon. Member drew an imaginative picture of an out-patient coming to a hospital for some liniment and desiring to be painted all over his body like an ancient Pict or Scot. From what I have seen, an out-patient goes to a hospital because he has serious need of some relief. It is not exactly a matter of enjoyment to wait in an out-patient's department of a hospital for a long time to receive often what the hon. Member thinks is very summary attention and inadequate treatment, and then to apply the medicine he receives for the benefit of his case. I think very few out-patients go to a hospital unless they feel that they are somewhat seriously ill, and that they require really serious treatment. I think even if they require liniment that they would never use it over the whole of their bodies simply on the ground that it was inexpensive. I think the Clause is not quite wide enough in scope, and I would like to see another Clause introduced which would give relief not only to hospitals but in the case of drugs used in research. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends making any concession to men engaged in scientific research with regard to the cheapening of drugs. Recently Sir William Ramsay, who is not a man to waste words, wrote a rather urgent letter pointing out the great expense that is imposed on men of science in the purchase of materials for research. I think it would be a very good thing if relief could be given in cases of proper research. Finally, with regard to the possibilities of abuse of this privilege in institutions which were not public institutions of a wholly charitable type, I have myself suggested an Amendment, and I have some hopes of having it accepted, which would clear the ground in that respect. I believe, in spite of the circular of the British Medical Association, that nine-tenths of the members of the profession would thank the Chancellor of Exchequer for having introduced this Clause, which is a very serviceable Clause to great hospitals, especially at this time, because it really does arise out of the conditions of the War. The objections to it, urged so ingeniously, are really somewhat far-fetched and almost metaphysical.

I rise to protest against the Committee of the House of Commons at this time being asked to spend hour after hour upon this matter when we are engaged in a life-and-death struggle with a foreign enemy. It is with the utmost difficulty that I sit here listening to this discussion, and, to be quite candid, I do not feel able to do it. Looking at the newspapers to-day, I am distressed beyond measure. I warned the last Government when it kept on bringing in things like this that it had nothing to do with such matters, and that its only duty was the vigorous prosecution of the War. Month after month they continued to do so despite what I told them, and finally came the great change. I do say it is an exceedingly bad start for this Government, which has been put in power to beat the enemy, to ask us to deal with things which have been called metaphysical, and in which we are told about the British Medical Association or the Pharmaceutical Association, or which have to do with the intricacies of the manufacture of drugs. I am not equal to it, and I protest against it with all my mind and all my soul. I do say it is bringing us to a straining point that we should have Government Whips coming here to-day—

Is the hon. Member in order on this Clause, which deals with a specific point, in referring to what should be discussed?

I think on the question of whether or not the Clause should be read a second time the hon. Member is entitled to make a protest against the further consideration of it, but I should not allow him to argue the matter.

I do not want to argue it. It needs no argument; it only needs to be stated. If I am asked to sit here hour after hour for discussions of this kind, I shall decline to obey the Government Whips. I can use my time better. I have been spending nearly the whole of the day in inducing people to subscribe to the War Loan, and rather than remain here for such discussions I would sooner go back to that work.

I think my hon. Friend is under a complete misapprehension. The Clause proposes nothing more than to give certain relief to hospitals.

made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

If my hon. Friend does not want the Clause, and if it is seriously contested, then, of course, a pledge having been given, we shall have to consider the matter. But that is not the point of my reply. I was referring to what was said by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). This is evidently a Clause which ought to be discussed. We must remember it is a Clause which proposes to give relief to hospitals, and hospitals are now being used in a manner in which they have never been used before. And to speak of this as a waste of time, and of the discussion as one that ought not to be undertaken is, according to my humble understanding of the matter, a complete misreading of the argument.

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to do me an injustice. What I am protesting against is the controversy. I have not stated whether I am in favour of the Clause or not. If it is agreed to, well and good; but what I am against is the House of Commons being plunged into controversies.

My hon. Friend says that he complained against the late Government bringing up matters of controversy which did not relate to the War. How are we ever to know if such a simple matter as this is going to be the subject of controversy or not?

We had a long discussion before on Second Heading.

This is a new Clause. How are we to know whether it is to be treated as a matter of controversy or not? If it is to be treated as a matter of controversy, under the pledge the Government will not proceed with it; but we never could know whether it was going to be a matter of controversy or not, and we should be rendering discussion absolutely futile if no Member were ever to be allowed to express an opinion for or against a proposal without being told that he was wasting time. I really think my hon. Friend has not done justice to the merits of the Amendment or the opposition to it.

During the War.

That is entirely another point. The only question now is how far this Clause is a proper Clause to bring before the Committee. This is not the final stage of this Clause. Very serious arguments have been raised against it. Those arguments will have to be considered, and may lead to amendments of the Clause. What I suggest to my hon. Friends is that, if they will give the Clause a Second Reading now, we will do our best to come to terms with the opponents of the Clause, and if satisfactory terms are not arrived at, we shall always remain bound by your original pledge not to carry through business to which there is serious opposition. Such an arrangement will give everybody time for further consideration. It is obvious that we are all agreed in wishing to give relief to hospitals. The question is as to the method by which it should be given. If the Committee will allow the Clause to be read a second time now, on Report either we will withdraw the Clause, or, if we come to terms with the general sense of the Committee, we will be able to go forward with it.

I rise to support most heartily the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman, rather than delay these proceedings any longer. My sympathies are very greatly with the hon. Member who protested against the length at which the Clause has been discussed. Those who have listened to the Debate from the commencement must feel that this is not a controversial subject, and cannot justly be so called, because my hon. Friend (Mr. Bridgeman) began his speech by saying that it was the subject of an agreement between himself and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.