asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in the rearrangement that may arise as the result of the War in the Embassies and Consulates representing the British peoples in foreign countries, he will recognise the large numbers of eligible and capable men engaged as commercial travellers whose technical skill in the arts of salesmanship fit them especially for position of Consul, Commercial Attaché, and other positions in our Embassies in countries where British manufacturers need special representation?

A Royal Commission recently reported upon the Diplomatic and Consular Services, and made certain recommendations which are engaging the attention of His Majesty's Government. It is not possible at this time to make any statement. Admission to these services on a permanent basis is at present suspended. But when the Government are able again to give practical consideration to this subject, the suggestion contained in the question will not be lost sight of. I shall be happy to furnish to my hon. Friend a statement of the duties of Consular officers, from which he will see that they are a good deal more varied and complex than is sometimes thought.

asked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that the National Car Company, of Hamilton, and the Canada Foundry Company, of Toronto, Canada, who have contracts for the manufacture of munitions of war for the British Government are employing a number of Austrians and Germans on this work; whether he is aware that these two firms are paying their workmen from 25 per cent, to 45 per cent, less than the standard rate of wage; and whether he will instruct his agent in Canada to take steps to prevent the employment of alien enemies on the manufacture of munitions of war for this country, and also see that the proper rate of wage is paid?

I have no information with regard to the particular circumstances referred to, but I have full confidence that the Canadian Government will take any steps which may be necessary.

Will the hon. Gentleman communicate with the Canadian Government on the matter?

I will consider that. It is a matter for the Canadian Government.

With the leave of the House, I desire to make a statement as to the result of the subscription to the new War Loan. Since the lists were closed on Saturday, statements have appeared in some newspapers that subscriptions have been received to an amount of between £700,000,000 and £800,000,000.

I would like to say at once that such a total as that was neither expected nor desired. It would have created quite an unnecessary disturbance in our business financial arrangements, and, indeed, I will go further and say that had any such amount as £800,000,000 been in view, I should have found it necessary to close the lists.

The actual number of subscribers to the Loan through the Bank of England has been 550,000, and the actual amount subscribed for is £570,000,000. I would like to remind the House that this gigantic total represents new money; it does not include stock to be issued for conversion. I would also like to remind the House that it does not include any subscriptions through the Post Office.

As regards the Post Office, we must not forget that the applications did not close on Saturday, and that consequently the figures up to last Saturday do not by any means include the whole amount of subscriptions. But up to Saturday last, through the Post Office, 547,000 persons had applied for a total sum of £15,000,000.

I regret to say that I am not able to give the House any figures at the present time in regard to the number of vouchers sold. But here, again, as this selling of vouchers is a continuous process, I shall probably be able to give the House a more accurate statement and forecast in two or three weeks' time than it is possible to give now. This huge total of nearly £600,000,000, far and away beyond any amount ever subscribed in the world's history, has been obtained only through the patriotic response of the whole people.

I cannot speak without emotion of the efforts which have been made by every class of the community to scrape together all the resources upon which they could lay their hands in order to subscribe to the Loan. We must not forget that when an application of this kind is made, it can be made only in respect of available resources. We must remember that the markets have been practically closed for the sale of all securities; that thousands of people who were willing to sell securities were unable to sell because there were no buyers; and, consequently, this sum represents actual subscription of everything that is available.

It has been obtained not only by the patriotic response of the whole nation, but by the unanimous assistance of the whole Press, and I wish, on behalf of the House to express our thanks to the efforts which the Press have made to secure the success of this great national effort.

All classes have been equally concerned. The private individual, the trading interests, and the great banks, joint stock and private, all have contributed to this gigantic total, and we owe the nation's thanks to all.

I would like, also, to refer in the most appreciative terms to the work which has been done by the Bank of England. Those who consider what it means to receive in this short space of time applications from 550,000 subscribers—to get work down, to deal with all the variety of applications, and with the gigantic correspondence which they entailed—can understand what the great labours of the Bank of England have been, and how successful they are.

This has been an exhibition, a necessary exhibition, of the unrivalled financial resources of the British Empire. They have been thrown into the scale of this War, and it is a declaration to our Allies, and to our enemies alike, that this United Kingdom will prove faithful to its trust and to the cause of the Allies.

I move this new Clause in fulfilment of the promise made in Committee. I think the Clause carries out in its entirety the understanding which was arrived at. The Clause is quite simple, I think, and clear.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for meeting so fully the point which I put before him in the Clause which I put on the Paper in Committee. As he says, this Clause fully meets the point in regard to bankers' loans to private individuals. I should not have risen had it not been that I desire just to point out the particular bearing of this Clause upon the great National War Loan, the successful issue of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has this afternoon announced in the House. In regard to that, I should like to be allowed to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, as he congratulated the country, upon the magnificent result of this, his earliest effort in his new office. There is one other thing I must point ont, and that is of a technical nature. The right hon. Gentleman has met my point fully in regard to bankers' loans. Of course he has hedged that around, very properly, and limited it to bonâ fide banking business in the United Kingdom. Although I do not want to be greedy, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is another class of loan which, although I shall not press it this year, I may refer to in future. It is much larger in extent. Here the grievance—and it is a real grievance—is exactly the same, and that is in connection with the habitual lending by stockbrokers against the stocks they hold Here again Income Tax on the interest is undoubtedly received by the Treasury twice over, just as it is in the case of a loan made by bonâ fide bankers.

I do not think it would be appropriate to press that point now, but I just want to mention it to the right hon. Gentleman. In order to complete the symmetry of this Clause and remove this grievance altogether, I hope that next year the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to somewhat extend the limit so as to include all bonâ fideloans, whether made by bankers or by Stock Exchange firms, against securities which are really not the property of the persons who are the nominal owners, and who do not really derive the benefit of them. There is only one other point. I take it that this Clause is strictly limited to the present year. I should like, just to avoid any possible doubt, and to know positively from the right hon. Gentleman whether, on this Clause being enacted, it would be within the rights of anyone to claim arrears of Income Tax that they have wrongly paid over the usual period of three years?

I do not think arrears will be recoverable, although I cannot speak positively.

The matter is extremely complicated. We propose to allow the warehousing of spirits as suggested. It must not be forgotten that duty has been paid upon the spirits from which the spirits of wine are obtained by rectification, and that it is only reasonable that the same facility should be given for the use of spirits of wine to the home manufacturers as are now given to those for export This Clause, introduced into the present Finance Bill, is in response to a question put by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, and I think the House generally will agree with it. I propose to move it in a slightly different form to that upon which it appears upon the Paper. I propose, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b), to leave out the words "or under this Act." These words were inserted because at the time the Clause was, drafted it was thought that an amendment of the law might be secured by the hon. Member who is sitting beside me in relation to spirits of wine used in the hospitals. I propose still further to amend the Clause.

We had better take these Amendments as Amendments to the Clause.

I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether those manufacturers of absolute alcohol who have recently applied themselves to that industry in this country—because, previously, the whole of the absolute alcohol was supplied to this country by Germany and none of it was manufactured here—come within this Clause and will be allowed to warehouse duty free the absolute alcohol on their premises. When the War broke out absolute alcohol, especially for the manufacture of medicines and for a great many purposes connected with munitions and other matters, was a great necessity, and it was so scarce that manufacturers had to have special pressure put upon them to get them to make this alcohol at a loss. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can inform me whether or not they will come within the Clause in question. They are rectifiers of spirits.

As I understand, absolute alcohol is a description of rectified spirits differing only from the ordinary description in the fact that it is more fully dehydrated, and it would, therefore, come under the provision of paragraph (a) of the new Clause. I can briefly answer my hon. Friend, therefore, in the affirmative.

had the following on the Paper:

This Clause imposes a charge.

Of course, I accept jour ruling upon that, but I should like to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out the promise made by his predecessor.

The hon. Gentleman would be out of order in going into that here.

On a point of Order. This Clause was put into the Rill in 1912. It was put in by my hon. Friend, and it did then undoubtedly impose a charge, but the authorities of the House and Members at that time did not notice it. If this Clause is repealed the Bill will be in exactly the same position as in 1910, and the consequence is that the illegal action of my hon. Friend will have been put right. The point I want to raise is whether it would not be in order to put the Bill back in the state in which it was originally, when it was brought in by the Government, and from which it was altered by an illegal Motion.

I do not know how it came about that the Clause was improperly put in, but there is the fact, and, if this Clause were inserted in the Bill, it would impose a new charge on a new set of people. We cannot do that on Report, and probably not in Committee without a Resolution.

It would redistribute the charge.

If I am entitled to recover from the hon. Baronet a particular sum of money, and an Act comes in which prevents my recovering it, he may call it a "redistribution," but I should call it a charge imposed upon me.

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

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Clause was in his own name in Committee. The object of pitting it down, which I have done in a slightly different form to meet certain difficulties raised in the old Clause, is to obtain an understanding from the right hon. Gentleman as to the form of words arrived at with regard to hospitals by his predecessor. I have no doubt he is prepared to give us an undertaking that some concession in that direction will be given. In that case I would be prepared to withdraw the Clause.

I sincerely trust that my right hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment until it is very seriously considered. I have received strong representations from many in hospitals, and I trust he will not accept the Amendment.

I have already answered a question, in the course of questions, which I believe thoroughly satisfies all parties, opponents as well as supporters of the Clause. I repeat, it is subject to general agreement that the undertaking is given.

In these circumstances I will not press the Clause.

I do not think my right hon. Friend must take it that the principle of the Clause is accepted by all parties I have received representations from many quarters that there are strong objections to the principle of the Clause, and I am not sure that those objections can be met by any form of words that can be brought forward. I have found it is not considered altogether a wise policy to cheapen alcohol in hospitals. I only want to say that the Clause requires most careful scrutiny, and my right hon. Friend must not take it for granted there will be general agreement until he is told so by all the parties.

had the following on the Paper:

The same objection applies to this Clause.

I should like to say that I put this Clause on the Paper with a view of trying, if possible, to get rid of some of the unfortunate cases of hardship which have arisen under the other Clause, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able in the next Bill to meet the case.

I beg to move, after the word "apply" ["in addition to the cases therein specified, apply to cases"], to insert the words "to cases of off-licences, and."

4.0 p.m.

This Section makes further provision for relief of licensed houses by reason of the time they are closed by the operation of the Defence of the Realm Act or by voluntary closing or otherwise; but in all these cases care has been taken, by that strong representation the brewers have in this country, to limit it to on-licences. My object is to allow a rebate to be made in favour of off-licences as well. I do not know why, but the grocer's licence is a heavier licence than the publican's licence. It is far heavier for small rents. When the rent is £20 the publican pays a licence of £5 for selling on or off; the grocer pays £14 for selling off. These restrictions affect the grocer just as much as they do the on-licence holder, and yet you have a man who pays £14 getting no relief, while a man who pays £5 gets it. I think that is absolutely wrong. It may be said, and I believe it is said, that a man will not drink so much if the public-house is only open till 10 o'clock. Whoever advances that argument forgets that the public-house has an off-licence as well, and if a man wants to drink he could get the drink to take away just in the same way as he would from a grocer. I do not see the slightest ground for suggesting that the grocer should not have the same rebate if he can prove "to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that during the continuance of and in connection with the present War the sale or consumption of intoxicating liquor on his premises has been suspended during any normal hours of sale." I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to meet this case and include the off-licence as well as the on-licence, and thus give them both the benefit they are entitled to when they can show the Commissioners of Customs and Excise that they have lost trade by these various restrictions.

I wish to say a few words in support of this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen-shire (Mr. J. M. Henderson) has dealt very fully with the cost of these licences, and he has shown that the off-licensee has frequently to pay more than the on-licensee. My hon. Friend has dealt with the financial aspect of this question, but I desire to deal with another aspect, namely, the question whether a loss of trade is sustained by a restriction of hours in the case of off-licence holders. I have in mind the case of grocers' licences in Scotland. I brought this point before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman last year, and after due consideration he came to the conclusion that the off-licensees suffered no loss by the restriction of hours, and he pointed out that the hours which were cut off from the off-licensees were hours when very little or no trade was done. He also pointed out that the trade which used to be done under the old hours would be done during the hours the shops were open. If his contention is right, then the-off-licensees would be unable to prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that they have suffered a loss. Therefore last year's arguments and last year's circumstances do not apply on this occasion. If these off-licence holders who are suffering this injustice in view of the restriction of hours can prove a loss—and the onus of doing it is on their shoulders—then they are entitled to the compensation granted to on-licensees. If the right hon. Gentleman, who is not paying the slightest attention to my argument, will point out to the House the difference that exists between on-licence holders and off-licence holders in this respect, and if he can make it clear that the loss in one case is greater than in the other, I will submit to his contention. I think, however, that he will be unable to do so, because if the hours of one class of trade are restricted, and they incur a loss, the other class is; precisely on all-fours.

It has been said that the holders of off-licences have not the same weight of influence, but that is a poor compliment to my hon. Friend's powers of advocacy judging by the many legislative triumphs which he has achieved during the time he has been in this House. On this occasion I am afraid that the hon. Member has failed to convince me of the merits of his case. As he knows, I have taken some pains to investigate this matter, and I have had the honour of receiving a deputation on the subject. There is one fundamental difference between on and off-licences in this respect. It does not necessarily mean a diminution in sale if you keep your shop open a fewer number of hours for the sale of something which has to be carried away from the shop. On the contrary, it may mean that you do the same amount of business more economically because you concentrate your business into shorter hours, and therefore the expenses of administration become less. On the other hand, if you carry your mind to a public house and see a man consuming liquor for consumption on the premises, and you suddenly turn him out at eight o'clock when he would be accustomed to go on drinking until ten o'clock, however well disposed he may be, however gallant his efforts, or however Scottish he may be by descent, he cannot consume as much by eight o'clock as he could have consumed if he sat there till ten o'clock. That is the difference in principle between the on and the off-licence. There is no analogy between the two cases, and I therefore suggest that this relief was properly confined to the on-licence holder, and in spite of the eloquence of my hon. Friend, I think the House would do well to resist his arguments.

Undoubtedly there is a great deal of force in the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, but may I remind him that he is dealing with the question from the English point of view, and he forgets that the Scottish grocer carries on a wholly different kind of business. One very important difference between the two is that the English off-licence holder is obliged to sell a bottle at a time and he cannot sell any less, whereas in Scotland he can sell the smallest possible quantity he can divide into a glass. They have a habit in Scotland, not perhaps a very good one, of going repeatedly to the grocer, not only for their food but for their drink, and they take away the drink in small quantities because a great many object to having a stock of drink in the house, and therefore they desire to obtain it in small quantities and do not like it left about the house as a temptation to anybody else. I once heard the hon. Member for Inverness say that it was a dangerous thing to keep whisky in a Scottish house, because it was one of those articles that did not keep. Probably the Financial Secretary to the Treasury does not know that there has been entire closing in certain parts of Scotland for three or four weeks, and this applies to all licences. Does he suggest that the grocer has no complaint in that case? Whatever the right hon. Gentleman's argument is, it does not affect that state of things, and therefore I think there is a good claim for consideration provided a man can show that he has suffered, and no doubt the off-licence holder can show that he has suffered. I do not think this Amendment can be fogged off so easily as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think. I believe if he knew the difference between the two cases he would agree that the Scotsman has a strong claim for relief, because the off-licence holder often pays a larger licence duty than the on-licence holder.

It is somewhat surprising to me that the Treasury never seem to grasp the fact that there are other licences besides grocers' off-licences. I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I told the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer that there were thousands of premises in this country, in every village and in every town, in which there are off-licences which are not held by grocers at all, but which would ordinarily be called beer-houses or public-houses with only a licence to sell beer off the premises. They are open for the same hours as ordinary on-licence public-houses, and therefore all the arguments that apply to the on-licences apply to the off-licences of the small public-houses, and therefore what the right hon. Gentleman said does not apply to them. They are the smallest and the poorest of the people upon whom these heavy duties fall the hardest, and this is a case where if relief is given to the on-licences it should in logic and fairness be extended to them. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has never contemplated these off-licences. I pointed this out to the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he seemed to be surprised to hear that there are thousands upon thousands of these public-houses which have only an off-licence. I know the grocers have been able to interview the Treasury, because they are people who are very well off, but I am pleading on behalf of small people who have no organisation and no money to spend in order to come to London to address the Treasury, and therefore they are not in a position to make any impression upon the Government. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this case. In these cases they do not drink beer upon the premises, and as a rule they do not take it home, but they drink the beer within a certain distance of the licensed house and take it away in a pot. If you shorten the hours during which that drink can be sold in this manner, then you are diminishing the income of these off-licensees, and if you give relief to the on-licence people because the amount of drink that can be drunk is diminished you should give the same relief to the off-licences because their hours are also diminished. I have brought my case directly within the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman which he put so forcibly just now. As regards the grocers, there is a good deal to be said which I know he has thrashed out with the trade affected, but he has not had the case of the off-licence holders put before him, and I ask that these people should be put upon the same basis and treated in the same way as the on-licensed public-houses.

The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. J. M. Henderson), to leave out the word "on" ["retailer's on-licence"], is consequential.

I should like to say the late Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that if the hon. Baronet and myself would give him some hard cases he would consider them. We gave him some forty hard cases, but no amount of hardness apparently has any affect upon the Treasury or softens them at all.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "except upon the pay of sailors and soldiers serving in the armed forces of the Crown, on which Income Tax shall be charged at the rates mentioned in Section three of the Finance Act, 1914."

On the Committee stage of the Bill an Amendment designed to give a certain amount of relief from special war taxation in respect of the pay of officers who are serving in the Army and Navy was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Leamington (Mr. Pollock). Certain arguments were put forward by the two right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench in opposition to that Clause, and I think I have in my Amendment entirely avoided them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer criticised the Clause of my hon. and learned Friend as not being very ably drafted to correspond with the arguments which were put forward in support of it. I frankly admit the justice to some extent of that criticism, because we really wished to relieve officers in the Army and Navy from the exceptional war taxation; in fact, from the additional 1s. 3d. Income Tax imposed in large measure to meet the cost of their own pay and that of the men of the Army and Navy. I would like in justice to my hon. and learned Friend to point out that by his Clause he would have done rough justice; he would have given something more than relief from war taxation to those officers below the rank of major who were in receipt of quite small pay, less than £400 per year, and he would have done something less than justice to those officers of higher rank in respect of their pay. The first objection to that Clause made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was that it actually increased the pay in the case of junior ranks of officers. That was so. His second objection was that the cost to the Treasury would be £970,000; and his third objection was that it would be unfair to the privates. I think his third objection has been sufficiently dealt with in Committee, but I would remind the House that the main additional war taxation which is borne by the working classes, who roughly represent the privates in the Army, is upon alcohol, tobacco, and tea, and, except in respect of the third, those who are serving at any rate in the Expeditionary Force not only do not pay the additional taxation, but they get off practically the whole of the taxation on the consumable article which was imposed in peace time.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend did not propose to relieve officers of the extra Income Tax during the War, but to relieve officers with incomes under £400 of all Income Tax, and it was therefore in effect and in intention a proposal to increase the pay of officers. I concluded from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that had we drafted our Amendment in a somewhat different form and had we simply asked him to remit the extra 1s. 3d. Income Tax which was imposed subsequent to the Finance Act of 1914 he would have willingly, and I may say joyfully, met us. He admitted by the whole tenor of his speech that there was a genuine and obvious grievance and hardship. He said, in effect, that in peace time we raised our Income Tax at an equal rate upon all salaries and pay and profits and gains of all sorts which are earned by the civil population and the military alike, because all alike benefit pari passu in the expenditure of the revenue derived from the ordinary peace taxes. He would also admit that it is obviously unjust, and I think I may say without exaggeration absurd, when it is necessary to double the Income Tax and when one of the extra charges which necessitates that doubling of the Income Tax is actually the pay of the military forces of the Crown, to ask the officers—who in many cases are new men who have left their civil vocations and have volunteered for this novel form of duty to defend their country—to pay the full rate of war Income Tax, and to say to them, in effect, that although in peace time they were entitled to the pay of, say, £1, with a deduction of 1s. 3d., yet when they are risking their lives in war we think it right to pay them £1 with a deduction of 2s. 6d. That is what we are doing if the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot see his way to accept the Amendment.

Clause 9, which I propose to amend, raises the Income Tax to 2s. 6d. in the £. and provides for its being deducted from all profits and gains and so forth at that rate. I make the exception that it shall not be deducted from the pay of soldiers and sailors serving in the armed forces of the Crown, on which Income Tax shall be charged at the rates mentioned in Section 3 of the Finance Act, 1914. I leave the pay of soldiers and sailors serving the Crown subject to the ordinary Income Tax as it was levied before the declaration of War. If it is contended that some officers in the Army are in receipt of very large private incomes, which perhaps make their pay quite a negligible part of their total income, and that men of that kind really do not require any relief such I propose and would not welcome it and even would not care to accept it, I quite agree that there are those exceptional cases, but I had to consider what was practicable, and it would enormously complicate and render more difficult the actual deduction from the Income Tax to make any such restriction. If the right hon. Gentleman, however, feels that the principle of the Amendment is right, but that it ought to be hedged round by a provision that the remission should not apply to anybody in receipt of an income, we will say, at such a level as would subject it to Super-tax, I will very gladly see the Amendment restricted in that sense, but I know from many representations made to me that large sections of the civil population feel very strongly that this burden ought to fall upon them and not upon those who are actually carrying on the fighting of the country. With that proviso, I move the Amendment, feeling confident that as it meets the whole of the objections the right hon. Gentleman put forward to the Clause moved in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Leamington, he will accept it.

I understand the effect of this Amendment would be that the Income Tax as respects soldiers and sailors would remain exactly as it is. The proposal is that they should not be subjected to the increased taxation proposed in the present Bill. When it is proposed to exempt any section of the community from taxation, of course I recognise at once that there must be some special consideration for it. In the present case there is the all-important consideration that those in respect of whom it is proposed are serving the country on sea and on land. But there is more than that. There is in addition the very important consideration that although we are all living in the presence of death at any moment, yet the soldiers in the field and the sailors on the sea are in much closer proximity to it, and are, in fact, contending with the forces of death. They are at any moment liable to death in battle, and in that contingency, which is a contingency to which we are not subject, the estate which goes to their relatives or friends immediately becomes liable to Estate and Probate Duties. For these reasons, I do think, especially at a time of great stress when our soldiers and sailors are fighting a battle for our very existence, a battle which we trust will soon be terminated, we might safely and in discharge of our full duties exempt our soldiers and sailors from the extra taxation imposed upon others.

I regret that this subject has been raised again after the full discussion we had upon it in Committee. It is quite true that in Committee I raised an objection that the form of the Amendment did not support the speeches of the hon. Members who supported it. But I also gave what I thought were strong objections in principle to any Amendment of this kind, and the House will remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) made an appeal to hon. Members not to discuss a proposal of this kind, which, in his opinion, might be disagreeable, or, at any rate, not agreeable, to the officers themselves. The objection to an Amendment of this kind is one of principle. If this Amendment were accepted it would impose on the Exchequer a loss of £375,000 a year. What does that mean? It means that on a Finance Bill, by a side wind, we should be increasing the effective pay of certain soldiers and sailors by £375,000 a year.

Not above what it was in peace time.

We should be increasing their pay, and if we accept this Amendment the soldiers and sailors this year would receive an increased amount of £375,000. But mark the distribution of this money! Of the additional money which would be distributed amongst soldiers and sailors, not one penny would go to any soldier or sailor whose pay was less than £160 a year! It would go to those whose pay was above £160 a year, and it would be distributed amongst those officers, not according to their means but wholly disproportionate to their means—the higher the pay the greater the relative increase would they get on the total distribution. It would mean, in fact, an alteration of the pay of officers in the Army and Navy. If any alteration is to be made in their pay during war or peace, the proposal should come from the Admiralty and the War Office, and it is not proper that this House should, by a sectional relief of a particular tax, give advantage to sections of individuals. It is not the proper way of dealing with the question, and if hon. Members who support the proposal really think the pay and allowances of our officers in the Army and the Navy are insufficient they should make their proposal in Committee. It is not proper that they should effect their object by a side wind in this way. I really must appeal to hon. Gentlemen not to press this point any further. If they think the pay of these officers ought to be increased, let them make representations to the Secretary for War or to the Admiralty. Any increase which is made in the general rate of pay would never take this form, or any form at all like it. You would never begin to increase the rate of pay above £160 a year. It never has been done, and certainly I am not prepared to give a higher increase, not in proportion to the scale of pay, but a higher rate of increase on the higher scale of pay. I hope hon. Members will not press the Amendment.

The argument of the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to me to be very sound or solid. I hold in my hand a measure entitled "An Act to extend the relief from Death Duties, given under Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1900."

Under that Act exception is made in favour of the estates of officers who are killed in the present War, and surely if such a rebate is made in that Finance Act there is no reason why it should not also be made in the Bill we have now before us. The logic of the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not seem to me to be very clear.

The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. That rebate is not limited to the estates of officers only. It applies to all estates down to the smallest.

The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, absolutely wrong. I am the executor of the estate of an officer who has just been killed. If that estate is valued under £5,000 I shall not have to pay any Death Duties on it.

That Act does not apply to officers only. It applies to others beside officers.

The ordinary man in the Army does not possess an estate of £5,000 as a rule.

Under £5,000.

Yes, that is so. It is under £5,000, but there is a further rebate for officers whose estates are over £5,000.

The Act applies to everybody.

It mainly affects officers who have estates of under £5,000. I really feel that the Amendment is solid and right, and provides a righteous rebate. These gentlemen before the War were paying Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 3d. in the £. The War comes on, and while they may have had a slight increase of pay, it is not commensurate in any way. We who stay at home feel that this little rebate should be allowed to these officers under the Finance Act. We could not bring this proposal forward in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman because the Estimates have already been passed for the Army and Navy, but I do put it that this is a reasonable proposal. The right hon. Gentleman talks in grandiloquent language about the amount involved—£375,000. I have worked it out and, on his own estimate, it represents but one-eighth of one day's cost of the War, and therefore he is not going to lose such a stupendous amount after all. I really think that this is an Amendment which should be accepted.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["amending that Act"], to insert the words "or any other enactment authorising money to be borrowed for the purposes of the present War."

This is a purely drafting Amendment. When the War Loan Act of this year was originally drafted, and when this Bill too was drafted, it was thought that the War Loan Act of 1915 would be purely an amendment of the 1914 Act. But it took quite a different form. All this Amendment secures is that the National Debt Commissioners shall have power to invest in the War Loan issued under that Act, which otherwise they would not be able to do. The words I propose are simply intended to carry out the intention of the Clause.

I beg to move at the end of Part III. of the Schedule to add the following words, "Where a blend consists of spirits of different ages the additional duty shall be levied on the average age of the spirit included in such blend, and not on the spirit of the lowest age, which may be so included."

The effect of this would be to impose the duty on the average age of the blend. I will give a concrete instance to illustrate the point aimed at by the Amendment. It is a blend in which you have twenty-four gallons over seven years old, 387 gallons seven years old, 180 gallons from six to nine years, 200 gallons over eight years old, 800 over two years old, and ninety gallons under two years. You there have a blend of 1,681 galons, of which only ninety gallons come under this restriction. The officers of Customs in assessing for duty the ages of the blend, condemn the blend to be of the age of the youngest whisky included. In this particular case the average age of the blend works out at upwards of four years, yet this is condemned, under the present practice of Customs officers, to be a blend of under two years, and it cannot be removed from bond for nearly three years. I have given this concrete case in order broadly to illustrate my Amendment. It is really quite an average case. It is not at all exceptional, and I could easily bring other cases of a like character under the notice of the House. The provisions embodied in Part III. do not touch this case because they only refer to blends made before the 17th day of June in the current year. The Amendment is meant to apply to the manner in which blends can be assessed for the additional duty in future. Any blend made subsequently to the 15th June would come under it. I have another case in which the average age is five years and upwards, but because there is a mere trifle which is under two years it comes under the same hard and drastic—I will not call it law, but administration of the law.

It is in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do justice in this matter under the existing law; but, at any rate, the Customs officers at present proceed in the manner I have indicated. When interviewed on this subject and asked why they cannot charge on the average age, which appears to be the natural thing to do, they answer that to carry out the proposal would necessitate a large increase of staff. I cannot understand such a plea being put forward after the way in which every staff of every description has of late years been increased to the uttermost limit. I had hoped that my Amendment would have met with the approval of hon. Members from Ireland, but I am sorry I have to face the powerful opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). There is no hon. Member in this House better provided with good reasons for the faith which is in him than the hon. and learned Member, but I would suggest to him, if I may be allowed, that in this matter the feeling of the spirit blenders of Ireland would be with me rather than with him.

It has taken us twenty-five years to get an Act which this Amendment proposes practically to shatter. During that period, time after time, we have endeavoured to induce this House to agree to this small modicum of honesty which is secured under the Bill that has recently become law. Since it became law only six weeks have passed, yet now we have an attempt on the part of the hon. Member who has just spoken to endeavour to secure that the sale of immature spirits shall be allowed to continue, and that the duty shall be charged on the average age of the spirit, which would mean that all kinds of fanciful concoctions would again come on to the market. The hon. Member has spoken of what he says is the practice of the blenders. I deny it altogether. I say that the wholesome provision which this House has made for compelling people who use immature spirits to pay an extra duty is one of the most salutary things that the House has done, at any rate in late years. Why should anybody use immature spirits in a blend? Why should anybody go through that process and then have the whole thing marked on the bottle "seven years old"? Remember that the Government used to lend the moral sanction of His Majesty to what was really a fraud upon the public, namely, by allowing these messes to be made up and the bottles or barrels sent out fraudulently marked. That has been done away with through the activity of private Members, and not through any action on the part of the Government. There is one other thing I hope ultimately to see. When this question was taken up my ambitions went still further. My hope was that certain materials should not be allowed to be sold as spirits, and that only pot-still whisky made from malt and grain should be allowed to be called whisky. If that is done, I do not care what you blend into your spirit, and you can have it at the mature age of one month. The hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) said that a very small quantity of immature spirits is going to be used by blenders. It is the old story of the baby being only a little one, and it is exactly the defence made on all these occasions. These moral and innocent blenders are only going to use an extremely small quantity of immature spirits.

The Bill recently passed was not for merely taxing purposes but for temperance purposes. It was struggled against by a large body of Members from the North of Ireland, and it was fought to some extent by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney-General for England, yet such was the wave of emotion which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer caused to surge through the country that the Bill was floated into law. After that, are we to be told that the Government should yield on this question? Give us at all events six months or six years to see how it turns out. If any injustice is being done the admirable body of blenders, who have received such a high testimonial from the hon. Member, can knock at the door of this House next year or the year after, and their complaint will be duly considered. This experiment is not two months old, and this is not the time to tear up the plant to see how it is growing.

This provision is not in the Act.

I know. My plea is that this is not the time to disturb the settlement. Perhaps I might remind the right hon. Gentleman—I know it is is not quite in order to do so—of another matter, and ask him whether he will make a statement as to why the Amendment to which I called attention three or four days ago, a Government Amendment, has not appeared on the Paper?

I can at once relieve my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) of any anxiety as to the Govern- ment's attitude on this Amendment. We do not propose for a moment to recommend the House to accept it. It is precisely the same proposal which was before the Committee on this Bill. It was very fully considered, debated, and rejected, and I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) should have raised the question again. There must be some finality in these matters. A settlement was come to, and I really cannot recommend the House to accept the present proposal.

Was there any settlement, or was it not merely a promise to consider the matter?

No, Sir; an Amendment was passed on the previous stage of the Bill. I promised, if the Amendment did not go far enough to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman, to consider any cases of hardship he brought to the notice of the Treasury. We have not had any particular cases brought to our notice, therefore I am not in a position to deal with them. I did not quite gather from my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) what he meant by the Government proposal which had not appeared on the Paper. We have no further Amendments.

Are you going to take the Third Reading to-night?

No.

Then I will mention it on the Third Reading.

Was it upon another matter?

Yes. It was an Amendment which the Government promised last year, because a little injustice is being done.

I will consult my hon. and learned Friend privately on the subject.

As I took part in the last Debate on this subject, I desire to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the hon. Member who proposes the Amendment is perhaps not aware of the fact that the promise which the right hon. Gentleman made to the Committee was to consider the case of those who had blended immature spirits before the Bill was introduced, in ignorance of the fact that the Bill was to be introduced, and that he would see that in the administration of the Act they were reasonably considered.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "as soon as may be," and to insert instead thereof the words "within five days."

I hope my right hon. Friend will not press the Amendment. I know that his object is to secure the prompt enforcement of the measure, but our experience shows that when the law as it now stands has been enforced these steps are taken immediately. If we put the words "within five days" into the Bill those who have to enforce the law are apt to take advantage of the full limit, and are more likely to extend two days into five days. The Bill as it stands is more likely to secure the rapid enforcement of the law.

I beg to move to leave out the word "Any" ["Any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Every."

This Amendment is moved with the object of making this Clause compulsory. I do not believe in a Bill making the notification of births compulsory for the whole country unless it is followed up and made really effective by making this Clause also compulsory. I do not know how the President of the Local Government Board is going to regard this Amendment. This Bill aims at securing that every child born in this country should from the start be well cared for and have the very best possible chance of a healthy existence, both as a child and later on as a man or woman. To secure that, the best thing is to make the Clause compulsory.

I think I can convince my hon. Friend that this Amendment will really defeat the object which he and I and the Government have in view. We all want the notification to be universal. At present, under the adoptive Act, 80 per cent, of our people apply the Act. We want to bring in the remaining 20 per cent. If we tell the local authorities that they shall do this particular thing we are much more likely to put them up in arms against us than if we gave them the powers to make it effective. It is not enough to put the Act into operation to say to the local authorities, "You shall do this," unless the local authorities will pursue the work with vigour, intelligence, and determination when they put it into operation. The successful operation of a Bill like this depends more upon the subsequent action than it does upon the actual powers conferred by the Bill. We are all at one in agreeing that these powers shall be universally applied. We are willing to do what we can, in reason, to improve the conditions under which children are brought into the world, both by caring for their mothers before birth and seeing that the health of the children after birth is as carefully looked after as it can be. I am convinced that it is far better to leave the local authorities to carry out the powers as they think fit. By not making it applicable to the whole country in the end we shall get what the hon. Member desires.

Clause 1 makes the notification of births compulsory all over the country, and takes away from local authorities the option as to whether or not they will apply the Act. Clause 2 gives new powers to local authorities. I agree with the Mover of the Amendment, that it would be much better if we could make them of universal application all over the country. I was rather astonished when the right hon. Gentleman said that 8 per cent. had already done this work. I am very glad indeed to hear it. If that is so, why should we not compel the remaining 20 per cent. the recalcitrant bodies, to do it? It is very much better, where the condition of the people all over the country depends upon every local authority doing this particular work, to compel them to do it. No objection could be taken by those who are already carrying it out, and those who are not carrying it out might have an excuse if it were not made compulsory.

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not made this an adoptive Bill, and I am extremely pleased he has not made this Clause compulsory. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that if a Clause like this were made compulsory upon every local authority, a great deal of money would have to be spent at once, and it would mostly be spent by people who have no enthusiasm for a compulsory Act, and no experience of how it ought to be spent. That is the general rule in the case of functions imposed upon local authorities who have to exercise them against their will. I am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman has not made it compulsory in the first instance. As time goes on, and when the benefits of the Act have become apparent and the way in which it ought to be worked is ascertained, then might be the time to make it compulsory, and then it could be made compulsory without waste of money and energy and with the full benefit that the Act is expected to attain. I therefore oppose the Amendment.

I beg to move to leave out the words "(including in any county district both the council of the county and the council of the district) may make such arrangements as they think fit, and as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers, and of children under five years of age who are not being educated in public elementary schools; and any expenses incurred in carrying out those arrangements," and to insert instead thereof the words, "(whether a sanitary authority or not) may, for the purpose of the care of expectant mothers, nursing mothers, and young children, exercise any powers which a sanitary authority has under the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1907, or the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, as the case requires.

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend one or two questions upon this Amendment.

May I ask when my Amendment to the Amendment comes in?

When we have removed the words proposed to be left out.

There is a good deal of legislation by reference to this Amendment. It incorporates the Public Health Acts from 1875 to 1907, and the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. The Public Health Act, 1875, comprises 344 Sections. I have not read them because I have not had time, but I have the Act here. I have also the Public Health Act, 1891. That comprises 144 Sections. I have not read that either. I have left out any other of the Public Health Acts which deal with this question, because I have not had time to find them, and those I have found, as they comprise 488 Sections without counting the Schedules, make it very difficult for anyone to understand what the Amendment means. I should rather like a little explanation with regard to that. I should also like to know what my right hon. Friend thinks it is going to cost. I did not see that anyone asked any question about that on the Second Reading. A great many hon. Members were very pleased to do something for someone else at the expense either of the ratepayer or of the taxpayer, but I did not see that anyone asked what it would cost. The days which are past are gone, and it will be very difficult to find money for all these very excellent objects. I do not say that the object is not excellent, but I am afraid it will cost a considerable sum of money. I am not at all sure that we should be really doing very much good even if we encouraged that want of self-reliance in our people which used to be the backbone of this country. I object very much to all this sort of dry nursing. I believe people ought to look after themselves, and at present when the working classes are in receipt of higher wages, and when there is more employment than there has been for very many years before, I do not quite see why it is necessary to do this. However, I am afraid I am rather the voice of one crying in the wilderness, although I think my prophecies are coming home to roost, and that there is at last a slight turning in the direction which I have advocated for so many years. We are going to have a meeting in the City to discuss economy within two or three days. I should like to ask whether anything very dreadful is incorporated in all these different Acts and whether my right hon. Friend has made any estimate of what the cost is going to be.

I think my right hon. Friend may be reassured because I think this Clause as proposed to be amended really does very little. All it says is that any authority, whether a sanitary authority or not, may exercise certain powers which are already possessed by the sanitary authorities. All these powers under the Public Health Acts are already possessed by the sanitary authorities. My difficulty is in really knowing what the effect of this Clause will be, and what the authorities really will be able to do, because it is very difficult, if anyone reads the Public Health (London) Act, which I did this morning, to find any powers relating to the care of mothers and of children. I should like to know exactly where the local authorities are going to stand in the matter, because I know a great many things have been done by the local authorities for which it is very difficult to find any express local authority. I suppose it has been done by straining the powers of the Act, but it is rather important when a new Clause of this kind is introduced to know exactly what it is that the local authorities will be able to do. For example, people have been appointed as sanitary inspectors under the Public Health Act who were really acting in quite a different capacity, as birth visitors. I should like to know whether this Clause will give local authorities power to carry out the scheme which was suggested in the circular issued by the Local Government Board on 30th July last year. They then contemplated the establishment of public clinics and houses of visitation for children not on any school register, "school" including not only the ordinary public elementary schools but also schools for mothers and other similar institutions. I do not know whether the words now introduced in the Amendment "for the purpose of the care of expectant mothers, nursing mothers and young children," actually have the effect of extending the powers of the Public Health Acts, but I feel that it is rather desirable to know exactly what the powers of local authorities will be because I find it difficult to ascertain. I quite understand the reason for the proposed Amendment of the Clause, but it leaves the matter a little vague.

I want to thank the President of the Local Government Board for trying to meet objections, which were at once stated when this Bill was printed, by introducing this Amendment. I am sure we realise that he is trying to bring together all different parties and to produce a Bill which will carry the united support of the House, but there will be now, as I understand it, three different authorities, all with certain powers to look after children when they are born and to bring them on to a healthy life. First of all there will be the local sanitary authorities under this new Amendment. What exactly their powers are I do not know. I spent half an hour at the Public Health Act, and got out the standard work, of 2,000 pages, and looked through several pages of the index, but at the end of it I cannot find out exactly what powers the sanitary authorities have under the Public Health Act to look after expectant mothers and children apart from the appointment of inspectors who may, though appointed sanitary inspectors, really be doing health duty, probably of a very wide and nebulous kind. The second authority you will have will be the officials under the local education authority exercising the powers which have been already largely exercised, and very advantageously in some cases, and perhaps rather more extensively than the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) would support. But I believe it is money as well spent as any public money can be. They would be carrying on the schools for mothers and advice for children of any age whatever which has already been going on under the medical work of the Board of Education. Now you have, also, a third authority which can do the same sort of work, and that is the board of guardians under the Children Act, 1908, who can appoint for any child what is called an infant protection visitor. The authority for this infant protection visitor is the board of guardians everywhere, except in the City of London, where it is the Common Council. There you have actually three authorities entrusted with looking after the health of young children from the earliest age. You say to any one of these authorities, "You may do something," and you do not prevent all three authorities getting to work, and there may actually be, therefore, some districts in which you have three authorities getting to work under three separate Acts and three different Departments. In other places, as this is a purely voluntary Clause, and does not impose duties absolutely on anyone, there may be no work done at all. That I call uncertainty, inefficiency, overlapping, and really not good organisation. I have no doubt that if the President of the Local Government Board issues proper letters and orders and instructions to local authorities he may do away with the possibility of overlapping and duplication, but really I do not think the Clause as it stands, though I welcome it, and thank the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit in which it is introduced, is good legislation as it stands.

I regret very much, in the interests of public health, and in the interests of the Local Government Board itself, that the right hon. Gentleman has been so very desirous of making friends with the President of the Board of Education. The position is this. When the Bill was brought in by the Government for the first time it was definitely stated in Clause 2:

"Any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act (including in any county district both the council of the county and the council of the district) may make such arrangements as they think fit, and as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers, and of children under five years of age who are not being educated in public elementary schools."

That was hailed by everyone interested in these matters as a great advance, because for the first time the sanitary authorities were going to have actual words in an Act of Parliament giving them the powers which they sought and which everybody thinks they ought to possess, namely, the powers of assisting to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children who die from want of proper nourishment on the part of the mother or from want of proper care on their part, or from the hundred and one causes during the early months of their existence. This Bill was brought into the House of Commons and was hailed with great satisfaction by those who were anxious that something should be done; but a right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House opposed it and the result is that the President of the Local Government Board brings in an Amendment which, as my hon. Friend opposite has shown, means absolutely nothing at all. It simply says that some authority, that is to say, the county councils in other counties not in London may do what the municipal councils have already the power to do. In London that merely means nothing at all, because the county council under this Clause does not come in. It says that the borough councils shall have the powers which they already possess under the Acts cited by the hon. Baronet (Sir F. B anbury). That, of course, means that the original idea has gone by the board.

The moment the President of the Local Government Board puts down the Amendment for England the two right hon. Gentlemen who sit next to him (the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Lord Advocate for Scotland) immediately put down Amendments on behalf of Ireland and Scotland to reinsert in this Bill for Scotland and Ireland the very words which we are now asked to take out of the Bill as affecting England. They see perfectly well that this change is not going to do good in Ireland or in Scotland. It is not going to do good in England, but is going to do a great deal of harm, and it is simply put in because the Board of Education have, very properly and very energetically, taken up the question of teaching mothers and young mothers. They have given Grants for the purpose and have been very much interested in this subject. I would point out, however, that the greater part of this work is work of a health character; it has a good deal to do with the antenatal condition of the mother. Public health authorities have to do with infantile diseases; they have the power of dealing with cases of tuberculosis or the provision of children's hospitals, and all these powers are closely connected with this one power which they hoped was going to be given to them by this Bill, namely, the power of looking after and of making arrangements for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers and of children under five years of age. I suggest that the President of the Local Government Board has made a very great mistake in accepting the views of the Board of Education.

I know that those who have been engaged in the local administration of this work are of opinion that it is much better left to the medical officer of health than to the medical officers of the school boards under the county councils and the education authorities. The work consists of visiting poor mothers in their homes. At the present time the borough councils all over the country, or at any rate most of them, have their own health visitors. These health visitors have made a practice of going into the homes of the mothers, and have then communicated with the various philanthropic institutions which have been started for the purpose of assisting mothers. The inspectors of the Board of Education do not inspect the homes; they do not go to the homes of the mothers, but are simply concerned with the very laudable desire of teaching mothers. I do not know why they should teach mothers in regard to their children, because it seems to me they have quite enough to do in teaching children. I repeat that the very fact that both in Scotland and in Ireland those who represent those two countries have refused to have this new arrangement put upon them, and have insisted that the original words of the, Bill should stand part, is proof of my contention that the Amendment proposed now by the President of the Local Government Board is undesirable, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider further the wisdom of making that Amendment The Local Government Board have been extremely active in this matter recently. They have issued a very valuable circular to the local authorities, and they have issued a still more valuable volume, of advice prepared by one of their own inspectors. I think the subject has been far better dealt with in these documents and generally by the Local Government Board than it has ever been dealt with by the Board of Education, with all its good intentions. Therefore, I ask the President of the Local Government Board to stick to his own words. I do not see in the least why the old words should affect the Board of Education. The old words simply gave definite powers to the sanitary authorities. That would not, I submit, have affected the right of the Board of Education to do what it is doing now, namely, to give Grants for the purpose of education. That is all they do at the present time. They give Grants to these schools for the purpose of this kind of education. They may go on with that with very great advantage to the mothers without this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a great disappointment to the sanitary authorities—I have been approached by my own borough council on the subject—that the powers which they would like to exercise are not to be given to them by this Amendment. I beg, therefore, to oppose the deletion of the words proposed.

In regard to the Bills or Acts for which I have been responsible, I have often realised how even the best of intentions fail to satisfy everybody. My hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) has declared this Bill to be absolutely worthless, and that it is going to do nothing, while, on the other hand, the hon. Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) said that it offended his time-honoured prejudices because it was going to do too much. It appears, on the whole, that we have hit the happy medium even better than I anticipated. The Member for the City has set me a task which I am not quite prepared to accomplish in the time at my disposal, and that is to go through all the Sections of the Public Health Act, 1875, and all the Sections of the amending Acts, and then embark with him upon an interesting investigation of the Public Health (London) Act. In the first place, there are only two Sections of the Public Health Act which really apply in this particular case, and as they are not applicable to London, because it has its own public health laws, they are really only in respect of certain limited matters: first of all, the provision of hospitals, and secondly, the provision of medical assistance under which we enable local authorities to give aid to expectant mothers and to children—powers which we think they need. The hon. Member for Paddington was almost as severe in his criticisms as my hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) who has been good enough to tell the Committee all the secret history of the last few weeks. He has described the terrible conflict between my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education and myself, in which I got much the worst of it and was heavily downed and had to submit. It does great credit to the hon. Member's powers of imagination. He has drawn a brilliant picture. I hope he thinks that I do not look very bad after my maltreatment at the hands of the President of the Board of Education.

My hon. Friend has called attention to the difference that is made as to the application of the Bill to Scotland and Ireland, compared with England. I have often had occasion to say in this House when we have been discussing local government questions that Scotland, at all events, is far more fortunate than England in her code of local government laws and her system of education. It is true that Scotland and Ireland were not satisfied with the Clause as arranged, and they desired to have it in its fullest form. It is true that the Clause as amended does go as far as it did in its original form. It is true that the Bill in its present form will not do all that many of us who are advocates of local government reform desire to see attained, but I do not admit that it will not do anything. It extends the powers now enjoyed by sanitary authorities, it applies the Bill to the whole country, it gives new powers in regard to expectant mothers and young children, it enables local authorities to do what they cannot do now—to exercise powers conferred upon them by the Public Health Act for the benefit of expectant mothers and children. Therefore, if it does not go as far as many of us would wish, it goes a very long way. My hon. Friend (Mr. Dickinson) and my hon. Friend opposite have both accused me of surrendering my principles in consequence of differences between the President of the Board of Education and myself. I hope they will forgive me for saying that I am old-fashioned enough to believe that the floor of the House of Commons is not the place upon which any difference of opinion, should they exist between Departments, should be fought out. The proper place to adjust any differences that exist between Departments is before the Bills get into the House of Commons. There has been a different view taken in the two Departments, the Local Government Board and the Board of Education, about this question for a very long time. I am strongly of opinion that that difference ought to be settled finally, and can only be settled in all probability by legislation; but we thought it better to so alter the Bill as to give powers which will be useful and which will be beneficial both to mothers and infants, rather than take this opportunity of dealing at this particular moment with questions as to which there is a difference of opinion, and in regard to which the action of the sanitary authorities and of the education authorities has varied, and in regard to which their powers are to some extent conflicting and overlapping. I entirely agree, and so does the President of the Board of Education—because we are' in entire agreement and we speak with one voice in this matter—that the country should be satisfied with a modest measure of reform now, with a view later on, if he and I are responsibe in happier times for these two Departments, of producing legislation to cover the whole ground, legislation which will be the result of an agreed policy on the part of these two Departments which are so closely connected with the care of the children of the country and of the mothers upon whose health, immediately before birth, so much of the future of the children must depend. That is really the whole story, and I am sure the President of the Board of Education will confirm me in what I have said.

As regards the question of expense I may tell the hon. Member (Sir F. Banbury) that our estimate is that in all probability if this power is wisely exercised the total cost will not amount to more than £100,000, and so confident are we that that estimate is fairly accurate that we have provided a sum of £50,000 as our contribution, because the State is to provide one-half. I can assure the hon. Member for the City that he need have no alarm in regard to the expenditure of money in this direction, and for this reason: It is the duty of our sanitary authorities to care for and look after our women and children, and if the population of a district becomes unhealthy, if the lives of the people become precarious, it is eventually upon the local authorities that they have to fall for their maintenance. Nothing could be more costly, not only in what is a most valuable possession of this country, namely, the health of its country, but in actual cash, than the existence in any local area of a large number of people who are in such a bad state of health that they cannot maintain themselves and have to look to the Poor Law of the country to maintain them. Therefore, I believe that we are not only doing something in the best interests of the community, but by spending money in this direction we are very likely saving expenditure in the localities. I hope, under these circumstances, the Committee will be good enough to accept the Amendment.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "for the purpose of," and to insert instead thereof the words "provide for."

I think that we are entitled to know what new powers are going to be conferred on the sanitary authorities, and I should like, instead of saying "may for the purpose of the care of expectant mothers," to say "may provide for the care of expectant mothers," etc. That says what I believe the right hon. Gentleman intends to say, namely, that the sanitary authorities shall have the powers which they imagine they have in some cases and which they have been asking for. The only effect of my words would be to give them the powers of providing for the care of expectant mothers.

I am afraid that I cannot add to in any way the full answer which I gave to my right hon. Friend just now. I admit that the new powers do not go as far as I should like to see them go, but at the same time they are a step in the right direction. I am advised that the language in the Clause, which was very carefully considered, is appropriate, and in those circumstances I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

The speech which I made was for the purpose of getting a statement from the right hon. Gentleman. I think that I am satisfied, as to the powers in the possession of the local authorities, that I have learned all that I desire.

I beg to move to leave out the words "in such manner as the authority direct."

If a committee is appointed by an authority it must carry out the necessities of work which that authority gives it, and it seems to me that the words in the Bill cause difficulty and tend to hamper the work of the committee. I trust, therefore, that this Amendment will be accepted.

The hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment under a misapprehension. I am not a lawyer, as he knows, but I am advised that the effect of this would be to transfer power from the local authority to the committee. That is not what we want at all. The power and the responsibility must rest with the local authority, while their exercise through a committee would be provided for.

I beg to move, after the word "committee," to insert the words "or committees."

It is quite obvious that a county council or the council of a county borough could do its work better by having different committees for the different districts.

I will accept the Amendment.

I beg to move to leave out the word "comprising," and to insert instead thereof the words "which shall include women and may comprise."

I will accept that Amendment.

I beg to move at the end of the Clause to add,

"(2) Where the Local Government Board are satisfied that an authority for the purposes of this Section are refusing or neglecting to discharge their duties thereunder to the satisfaction of the Board the Board may exercise in respect of the area of that authority all or any of the powers of the authority, and may recover from the authority any sums expended by them in relation to such exercise.

For the purposes of any inquiry into any supposed refusal or neglect, as aforesaid, the Board may apply by Order any enactments relating to the holding of public inquiries, and the enactments as so applied shall extend accordingly."

Suppose that you have a case in which the local authority is absolutely neglecting its duty with the result that there is a great loss of child-life, and so on, I do think that you want the Local Government Board to be in the strongest position to exercise its powers and insist on action being taken by the local authority, and I think that this Sub-clause would add to the power of the Local Government Board in such a district where there is an obvious need of dealing with the problem under the Bill.

As far as the Local Government Board is concerned, my hon. Friend knows very well, better than I do, as he knows these questions so well both inside the House of Commons and out of it, that the power of compelling a local authority by mandamus is of no effect whatever in such a case. What we want is to get these local authorities to approach this work with a good will and to take it up with enthusiasm. If you begin to threaten people with compulsion or do not trust them, but strive to compel them, you are much more likely to deter them and to urge them in the opposite direction. I am sure that my hon. Friend, remembering his own experience in local administration, will agree that it is better not to put these powers into the Bill.

I do not quite agree, but I shall withdraw.

My right hon. Friend has said that the expense would not exceed £100,000, and that he was going to provide out of the National Exchequer a sum of £50,000. How is he going to provide it? It is not in the Bill, and I think that it will require a Financial Resolution and probably an Act of Parliament.

I do not desire to embark on a discussion with my hon. Friend as to the Rules of this House with regard to finance. This, of course, is done under the existing system by which money is voted by Parliament for the relief of certain local expenditure, and repayment is made to the several authorities, but the money for the purpose is taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when we are voting the Supplies.

I beg to move, after "(1)," to insert the words "In the application of this Act to London the following Sub-section shall be substituted for Subsection (1) of Section two:—

Any Metropolitan borough council may make such arrangements as they think fit and as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers and of children under five years of age who are not being educated in public elementary schools."

Clause 2, as now drafted, does not affect London at all, because though it gives the right to the county councils to come in and do this work, yet under the Act of 1907 the County Council of London was expressly excluded, and therefore it gets no powers under Section 2 of this Act. I therefore ask that the original words should apply to the borough councils of London, which at the present moment are doing this work, and I think are doing it very well.

This is merely a question of draftsmanship. I am advised that the provision already inserted in the Bill reserves all the powers of the Metropolitan and borough councils and that the Amendment suggested by my right hon. Friend is unnecessary and even wrong. Under the existing law the borough councils have got certain powers, and these are preserved to them. The Local Government Board administer the Grant in the usual way, having approved of the scheme; all these powers of the borough councils are preserved, and this is altogether inconsistent with the form which, we were advised, is the best form in which to draw the Bill. I hope, therefore, that with this assurance my right hon. Friend will be satisfied.

I beg to move to leave out paragraph (a).

I would like the Lord Advocate to explain why these larger powers are introduced for Scotland.

This particular Amendment is being made because it concerns the definition of a phrase which, in consequence of the alteration made in Clause 2 by my right hon. Friend, now disappears from this Bill. I am not sure that I should be in order on this Amendment in dealing with the matter referred to by my hon. Friend.

Perhaps you will explain it on the other Amendment.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to add at the end,

"(b) The following Sub-section shall be substituted for Sub-section (1) of Section two:—

(1) Any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act may make such arrangements as they think fit, and as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for Scotland for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers, and of children under five years of age within the meaning of Section seven of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908."

As I understand, this enacts for Scotland the original Clause which was altered.

The position of the matter is simply this: Under the Bill as drafted, Clause 2, as applied to Scotland, enables the public health authorities to make such arrangements as they might think fit, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to carry out the purposes of that Clause—that is to say, make such arrangements as they may think fit for attending to the health of expectant and nursing mothers and children under five years of age. As the Committee is aware, my right hon. Friend has varied the phraseology of Clause 2, and consequently, so far as England is concerned, Clause 2, as now adjusted in Committee, invokes certain powers conferred upon sanitary authorities in regard to public health in England. Those powers are already in existence, so far as the sanitary authorities are concerned, and are now invoked for the purposes of this measure. Those powers under the Public Health Acts of England are considerably wider powers than are enjoyed under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, and it was thought desirable in these circumstances, rather than legislate by reference to these English Statutes which contain wider powers than we have in Scotland, to retain, so far as Scotland is concerned, the direct grant of powers which was contained in Clause 2 as originally drafted. The Amendment which I am moving now is for the purpose of giving effect to the intention which I have described, and I hope my hon. Friend will in these circumstances think that it is an acceptable proposal.

As I understand, the matter stands thus: You have not the power in Scotland which you have in England, under the Public Health Act, and you are now going to introduce not only all that you had in the original Clause but a good deal more, although the powers vested in Scotland at the present moment are less than those in England. Under this proposal larger powers will be given to Scotland than are given in England under the Public Health Act, although the powers at present given in Scotland are smaller than those which exist in England.

I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. Scotland would have narrower powers than England possesses under the Bill, and in order to avoid that we propose that the original Clause should be applied to Scotland. Under that Clause our powers will be just as wide, if not wider, than those exercised in England.

Henceforth they will be much wider.

So much the better.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "may" ["may make such arrangements"], to insert the words "provide such buildings, and may."

The Amendment of the Lord Advocate would then read, "any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act may provide such buildings and may make such arrangements as they think fit," etc. The Committee are aware that this Subsection now proposed for Scotland is the original Clause as introduced into this House. When that Clause was proposed for England and Wales the hon. Gentleman the Member for Paddington put down an Amendment to the same effect as mine, and I hope I will get his support for mine in regard to Scotland. The reason for my Amendment is that the local authorities for Scotland are exercised in their minds as to their powers under this measure, particularly the local authority in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. They are in doubt as to whether, under the Clause we are now dealing with, the local authorities could provide such buildings, or take over existing undertakings and continue the work. If the Lord Advocate can assure me that the Clause as proposed to the Committee would enable the local authorities in Scotland to do these two things, to erect buildings for this purpose, and to take over buildings which are already being utilised, then there would be no necessity for my Amendment.

I have no hesitation in offering to my hon. and learned Friend the assurance for which he asks. The words which are in the Clause have been deliberately and carefully selected because of their width, and I have no hesitation in saying to him that those words which are already in the Clause are sufficient, without the addition of the words which he proposes. The Local Government Board in Scotland understand the words in that sense, and they will be administered by the Department in that sense. I am further fortified in the view I have expressed by finding that the same view of the meaning of these words was taken by my right hon. Friend with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Paddington.

The local authorities in Scotland had an opportunity of studying this measure for some length of time, and they have been unable to come to the conclusion just communicated to me that those two things could be done. Of course, we all know that lawyers differ, and apparently the legal advisers of the authorities have taken a different view from that of the Lord Advocate. After his assurance, however, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), at the end to insert:—

"(b) The following Sub-section shall be substituted for Sub-section (1) of Section two:—

(1) Any local authority within the meaning of the principal Act may make such arrangements as they think fit and as may be sanctioned by the Local Government Board for Ireland for attending to the health of expectant mothers and nursing mothers and of children under five years of age."

I am not going to object to the Amendment, but I observe that there are no Irish Members present. I did not say anything in regard to the application of the Bill to Scotland, because they will not spend very much money there, but in Ireland they are very fond of spending money. I am sorry there is no hon. Member from Ireland present, but under the circumstances I do not offer any opposition.

I made a few remarks in Committee which I am sorry did not receive attention from the President of the Local Government Board. I pointed out that there were three authorities the local sanitary authority, the board of guardians, and the local education committee—that could all do separate work, and in certain cases might be put to work at once looking after the well-being of the children. I think that is unfortunate, while there is no controversy upon any one of these powers under Clause 2 of the Bill to do the work. I hope that in the circulars or orders which are sent out by the Department in connection with the measure, due notice will be taken of the possibilities of overlapping, and that you will secure harmonious working for the very excellent objects which this Bill has in view.

I rise in order to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board on the passage of this measure. At a time when such stupendous efforts are being put forward for the destruction of human life I am sure it will always be a gratification to the right hon. Gentleman that he has been able to find time to pilot a Bill through the House, the object of which is to preserve and prolong life.

We will do our best, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the President, and the officials of the Board of Education, to avoid overlapping. No doubt we shall gain experience which will enable us at no distant time to put the law with regard to this question in a thoroughly satisfactory position.