asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that M. Gambs signed, on 18th April, 1918, a certificate relieving M. Marks from being called up for military service yet, adding, after the name of Gambs, the words on behalf of the Russian Embassy; whether M. Gambs is authorised by any Russian Embassy in any capacity; and, if so, who is the Ambassador for whom M. Gambs acts?

M. Gambs was appointed in July last, when the Military Service Agreement with Russia came into operation, to issue certificates of exemption to Russian subjects on behalf of the Russian Embassy. I have no information as to the actual certificate referred to, but any certificates which have been issued by M. Gambs will be accepted by the British authorities as effective for the purpose for which they were issued.

May I conclude that there is no answer to the last part of this question?

The hon. Gentleman will remember that I gave him a reply in answer to a question he put to me as to the rather anomalous position now necessarily occupied by the Russian Chargé d'Affaires and M. Litvinoff, and I do not think I can add anything to that answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the position that there is a Russian official entitled to grant exemptions, but that there is no British official in Russia entitled to grant exemptions?

I do not think any difficulty has arisen under the last head, but if it arises I shall be very glad to see if it can be remedied.

In the interests of our nationals in Russia, who might at any time be summoned for military service in Russia, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider acting in some way in their interests?

I do not think the occasion has arisen.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state to what extent this country has facilitated the export trades of European neutrals during the past three months; and can he indicate what return we receive from each of these countries for giving them these transhipment facilities at a time when the full use of our shipping, quay space, railways and man-power are urgently required for purposes vital to the success of the Allies?

The total quantity of goods imported into this country from Sweden, Norway Denmark, Holland, Switzerland and Spain, and allowed to be transhipped, during the period 1st January to 31st March, 1918, amounted approximately to 22,355 tons. Transhipments are carefully regulated by a special committee of the War Trade Department, whose decisions are guided by considerations of home supplies, our obligations to our Allies, and the interests of British trade. Subject to these, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to refrain from hindering the commerce of friendly neutrals.

asked the Under secretary of State for War whether a prosecution under the new Regulation 40 D of the Defence of the Realm Act took place at the City Police Court, Manchester, on the 19th April; whether the prisoner was sentenced to two months' imprisonment; what was the nature of the medical evidence; and whether the soldier or sailor concerned appeared against the prisoner?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now had a Report on the case of a young girl of seventeen years who, on 19th April, was sentenced at Manchester to six months' imprisonment for an offence under Regulation 40 D?

I have been asked to reply to these questions. I have obtained a police report, and I find that the sentence was two months, as stated in the first of these questions, and not six months. The girl herself stated that she was suffering from venereal disease, and this was confirmed by the prison doctor. The attendance of the soldiers whom she solicited was not, therefore, required.

Are we to understand that, in contradiction to the statement which the Under-Secretary made in reply to me two days ago, that the magistrates always summoned the soldier or sailor for cross-examination, in this, the first case that arises, the woman has been sentenced to imprisonment without the soldier or sailor being called?

As a general rule, it would be as stated, but in view of the fact that the woman admitted the offence, there was no necessity to require such attendance.

In view of the extreme youth of this young person—she is only seventeen—cannot the right hon. Gentleman in some way intervene to reduce the term of punishment?

It is too soon to consider that.

As these women do not know of their power to summon the soldier or sailor, will the right hon. Gentleman issue Instructions to the chief constable in each district so that these women on each occasion may be told of their right to summon the soldier or sailor concerned to give evidence?

The soldier or sailor will be usually called for the prosecution as witness, and the persons charged are always told that they are entitled to summon witnesses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the pamphlet recently published by the Liberal Publication Department containing the speech on the War and the terms of settlement delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife at Derby on the 22nd March was submitted to the Press Bureau in compliance with Regulation 27C of the Defence of the Realm Act?

The answer is in the negative. I understand that the publishers took the view that as the speech dealt mainly with after-war problems it did not fall within the Regulation, and I think that there is much to be said for that view. The speech is certainly incorrectly described in the question as a speech on the War and the terms of settlement. I may add that other publications by the Department have been duly submitted to the Press Bureau.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this speech contains passages dealing with the inception of the War, passages dealing with the conclusion of a clean peace; and, in view of the fact that poor and humble men are imprisoned for single sentences, does he propose to take no action when they came from important individuals or organisations?

It is a question of fact in each case. I certainly should make no distinction on account of the position of the person concerned. This is a speech on after-war problems, republished with the title "Problems of Peace." The speaker did in two sentences in the speech say our first duty was to prosecute the War and obtain a clean peace. I do not think those two sentences make the speech one which comes within the Regulations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men are imprisoned now for single sentences in long articles, and why is the law not enforced against the Liberal party or the Liberal Publication Department?

The law is enforced against everybody alike.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a soldier who has been confined to a lunatic asylum for upwards of one month, and subsequently discharged from the Army, is liable for medical re-examination or to be ordered to obtain work of national importance by the National Service Committee?

My hon. Friend has asked me to reply. If the man in question has served outside the British Islands during the present War, or has served in the field in any previous war, or has been certified to be totally and permanently unfit by a recruiting medical board, or by a National Service medical board, after the 5th April, 1917, he is excepted from the provisions of the Military Service Acts, and cannot be called up for medical examination or for service, nor required to undertake work of national importance. If he has not served or been certified as above, he may be required to report for medical examination by a National Service medical board, and if he is then found to be totally and permanently unfit for military service, he will be freed from any further liability, and will not be required to do work of national importance.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the total number of men returned from the Army to shipyards and marine-engine works in fulfilment of the promise that 20,000 men would be so returned?

Approximately 6,000.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister stated to the House recently that since the offensive began in France ships must come first, and does he not think that 6,000 is an inadequate proportion of 20,000?

Since then, as my hon. Friend knows, circumstances have considerably altered, but as a matter of fact I think the Admiralty refused a number of men for physical reasons.

How many men are now doing maidservants' work who might be usefully employed in the Army?

Are there not expert workers in connection with shipbuilding who are still in the Army, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's statement?

That does not arise out of the question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Guards may be seen cleaning windows in Lower Swan Street any morning who might be doing useful work?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the organisation of the new Department of the Controller-General of Merchant Shipbuilding has been completed; and, if so, who are the responsible officers appointed under Lord Pirrie, and what are their respective duties?

No, Sir; the organisation of the Department is not yet complete. Lord Pirrie is going personally into the requirements of the various sections of the Department, and has not yet decided as to the organisation of the Department as a whole.

When does my right hon. Friend expect that this Department will be complete?

That I cannot say. I know that Lord Pirrie is largely seeing the shipbuilders himself, and it may well be that extra time will be occupied in that connection.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state if the Shipyard Labour Department—formed to deal with shipyard labour—is now under his Department, or what is its position? Where can we apply to when difficulty arises with regard to labour?

The Shipyard Labour Department is undergoing part of the general revision of the whole problem.

To whom can we apply for the moment?

You had better apply to me.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what Department is now responsible for expenditure in connection with the construction of merchant ships?

My hon. Friend will remember that special powers were given by the Treasury to the first holder of the post of Navy Controller—now the First Lord of the Admiralty—and those powers are still vested in the First Lord. The matter is referred to in paragraph 46 of the Second Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. Lord Pirrie's appointment, independent of the Board of Admiralty, though responsible to the First Lord, with direct access to the Prime Minister and the War Cabinet, makes some readjustment of the arrangements to which I have referred necessary. The matter is being carefully considered, but I am afraid I cannot make a definite Announcement at this moment.

Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that nobody is responsible at the present time?

For the finance?

For the expenditure upon shipbuilding.

I imagine at the present time the Parliamentary Secretary to the First Lord is responsible.

Does that answer apply equally to shipyards, such as Chepstow, as to expenditure upon merchant shipping?

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend means the extensions in private yards or the new developments in national yards?

Both.

At the present moment, as I say, I imagine the Parliamentary Secretary to the First Lord is responsible.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary to the First Lord to be deprived of the control of expenditure on merchant shipbuilding?

I cannot assume for a moment that, unless some fresh arrangement is made—and the whole matter is now the subject of revision—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty can be divested of his authority to the First Lord and this House.

Will the changes proposed in the control of expenditure be laid before the House of Commons?

It will be our duty to acquaint the House with the procedure. That is one of our first duties.

asked the Minister of National Service whether he is now making arrangements to take men for the Army from shipyards and marine engineering works; and, if so, what is the total number of men it is expected will be obtained for the Army in this way?

Arrangements have been made providing for the release from marine engineering works and from certain occupations in shipyards of a certain number of men fit for general service in accordance with the Schedule of Protected Occupations, M.M. 130, Revised. The release of these men for service with the forces is under the supervision of the district directors of the Admiralty Shipyard Labour Department for the respective districts. I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that it is undesirable in the public interest to give the numbers of men who are being raised for the armed forces at the present time.

May I ask how the work of taking men from the shipyards into the Army is being co-ordinated with the work of returning men from the Army to the shipyards?

We are in close consultation with the Supply Department. Certain classes of men can be spared in view of the present grave emergency. In other classes not a single man or boy can be spared from the shipyards.

Does the hon. Gentleman's answer also refer to Royal dockyards?

Yes, the same principles apply broadly to the Royal Dockyards.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what class of workmen in shipyards and marine engineering works can be spared?

I should require notice of that. It is all set out in the Schedule, M.M. 130, but, roughly speaking, men employed on hulls cannot be spared, but a certain number of marine engineers can be spared.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that ship constructors cannot be spared, and does not the same thing apply to Royal dockyards as to private firms?

I shall be very glad to have information as to that. In fact, we are having a number of representations that too many men are being protected in shipyards. There is alleged to be great resentment in certain parts of the country because of the number of men protected.

How does that square with the request of the First Lord for everybody to volunteer to go to the shipyards?

It is a matter of balance of national interests. The physical fitness of the men comes into the question. Those taken are young, fit men who can be spared, and if they are not taken older men have to be taken.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the large landowners are not doing their fair proportion of ploughing up grass land, on the plea that they have not horses for such work; whether his figures bear out this opinion; is he aware that high prices are being got this year for grazing land, sometimes as high as £5 an acre, and that these prices accrue to those who refuse to act according to the Government's demands; and will he take any action, with the assistance of the Food Controller, to limit grazing prices or to take over all grazing lands and apportion them?

The President has not received any evidence to support the suggestion that large landowners are failing to plough up their allotted proportion of grass land. He is aware of the high value of grass land this year, and is considering whether any action can be taken to prevent occupiers who may fail to carry out orders to plough from deriving the benefit of the high prices which might accrue to them from their default.

Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether it is the fact that large landlords are not doing their share in ploughing up grass land?

If the hon. Gentleman will give any specific case I will look into it.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state the maximum price at which the producer can sell his milk during May and after for the summer months; will he state the maximum price a wholesale and retail dealer in such milk can charge respectively; and is he aware that much discontent is felt by producers at the high margin of profits allowed to dealers as against producers?

I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Milk (Summer Prices) Order, 1918, in which are set out the maximum prices of milk for producers, wholesalers, and retailers respectively. The Order further provides that if in any area the cost of production can be shown to justify such a step the maximum price chargeable by the producer for milk can be increased by Order of the Food Controller. The prices chargeable by wholesale and retail milk dealers are maximum rates subject to variation by local food control committees. I am not aware that much discontent has been expressed by producers at the rates fixed by the Committees in various districts.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some producers resident near big populous districts deliver the milk direct to the retailer, and that no wholesaler comes in; and seeing that the expenses of the production of milk are greater owing to the proximity to the big centres, should not the producer share at least part of what usually goes to the wholesaler?

I am aware of the circumstances. They give rise to argument, and I shall be glad to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether there is or has been any system of rationing in force in Ireland, with the exception of hotels; whether, at the present moment, fresh meat, bacon, poultry, and butter are freely sold in unlimited quantities in the shops; and why, in view of the restrictions imposed on the rest of the United Kingdom, such conditions should be allowed in Ireland?

The only article at present rationed in Ireland is sugar. No recommendation in favour of the extension of rationing to meat or butter has at present been received from the Irish Food Control Committee, and, consequently, no statutory restrictions have been imposed on the sale of these articles except as regards their price. I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that Ireland is in all respects a land of plenty.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food why a county war agricultural executive committee, acting for the Board of Agriculture and buying oats for the feeding of food-production horses, is charged the price of 56s. 3d. per quarter by the Army Supply Department when the controlled price of oats for feeding is limited to 46s. 3d. for farmers; and why one Government Department should raise the price to such an extent against another?

There is no question of raising the price against another Department. The War Office was asked to assist, and has gone out of its way to do so. The controlled price referred to applies only to home-grown oats. The oats supplied were imported oats, and the price charged includes freight and the necessary expenses.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that seventeen of His Majesty's Counsel in Ireland have pledged themselves to resist the application of the Military Service Act take Ireland; and whether it is intended to take any notice of their action?

The matter is under the consideration of the Attorney-General for Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that threats are being used to compel the scattered loyalist population in the three southern provinces of Ireland to sign a pledge to resist the operation of the Military Service Act; and what measures he proposes to take to protect these citizens from being forced to become law-breakers against their will?

No report has been received by the constabulary of any intimidation to compel persons to sign a pledge to resist Conscription.

Will the right hon. Gentleman or the Irish Government look into the Anti-Conscription League at Hume-street, Dublin, and inquire what they are doing?

That does not arise out of the question.

May I ask what steps His Majesty's Government will take if cases of such intimidation are brought to their notice?

We will deal with them when they arise—not before.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the application of Conscription to Ireland has been sanctioned by an Act of Parliament, he has obtained any advice as to the illegality of the present conspiracy in Ireland to render the enforcement of Conscription in Ireland impossible; and, if he has not obtained any such advice, whether he will consult the law officers of the Crown?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The Government is, of course, aware of the facts to which my hon. and learned Friend refers and will be advised as occasion may require upon the questions of law which arise.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that while we are awaiting that advice this conspiracy is daily assuming more dangerous proportions and is becoming more and more difficult to deal with?

I am aware of the facts which my hon. and learned Friend tells me as to the extent of what he describes as a conspiracy and the public danger involved.

Do the Government intend to apply Conscription to Ireland in view of the fact that the successor of the right hon. Gentleman has voted against it in this House?

That raises so many questions of debate that I think I must not attempt to deal with it.

Put it to the Prime Minister.

(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the County of London Appeal Tribunal expressing their regret that the new Regulations issued under the Military Service Acts deprive an applicant of the full right of appeal from the decision of the local tribunals, and deprive him of the right of professional assistance on hearing his application; and whether, in view of the undertaking given by the Government to this House on 15th April that the right of appeal should be preserved to the applicant, and that these Regulations come into force on Thursday next, he is prepared to suspend their operation in this regard until the House of Commons had been given a proper opportunity of discussing them?

My attentions was this morning called to the resolution referred to, passed yesterday by the County of London Appeal Tribunal. I cannot admit that the new Regulation deprives applicants of the full right of appeal from the decision of the local tribunals. I think that that statement as to the interpretation of the Regulation is incorrect. I admit, however, that the right of professional assistance to the applicant has been taken away. I may say that the sole object of that was to expedite the proceedings before the tribunal. I am now given to understand that some Members of the House, specially experienced in the working of Appeal Tribunals, are of opinion that the abolition of the right of professional assistance will really retard and not accelerate the action of the tribunals, and that they desire I should suspend the operation of this Regulation until they have been accorded an opportunity of putting their views before the House. As I understand, this opportunity will be accorded on the Local Government Board Vote next Thursday, I think the best course will be to decide whether or not it is possible to proceed with or modify the Regulation after a full Parliamentary discussion.

Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that this Regulation dealing with the right of appeal will not come into operation until after discussion on Thursday?

Oh, yes; I thought I had made it perfectly clear that the Regulations will exist, and will come into operation, on 2nd May. I have no means and no machinery at my disposal now by which I can possibly cancel that particular Regulation which prohibits the obtaining of professional assistance before the tribunal. After all, that will only operate for a very few days. If the House, after full discussion, should come to the conclusion that it is better to continue professional assistance before the tribunals—I shall listen to that Debate with very great eagerness to know what is the view of the House—I shall be able to rescind or vary this particular Regulation in accordance with the opinion of the House.

In regard to the first part of my question, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give facilities to the House to discuss the interpretation of these Regulations, and to take the opinion of the House as to what I suggest is right or what he suggests?

The House will have the fullest possible opportunity on Thursday, I understand, of discussing all these Regulations, if hon. Members choose to do so. I shall certainly listen very carefully to what the House has to say. I still think my view is correct that the full rights of appeal are embodied in the Regulations. That, however, will be a matter for debate.

May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the opinion of the House when it is expressed?

My right hon. Friend might allow me to be a judge of what is the opinion of the House. I am most anxious to have that opinion in regard to our Regulations, and will be largely guided by that opinion. But we do not always gather the opinion of the House just by the number of speakers who speak for or against a particular Motion.

That is precisely the point.

We can take a vote.

If, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, he will not be guided merely by the speeches on Thursday, how, may I ask, are we to gather the opinion of hon. Members on this very important question?

The right hon. Gentleman is a very old Member of the House, and I think he knows how to gather the opinion of the House. I also am a very old Member of the House, and I think I know how to gather the opinion of the House.

If the right hon. Gentleman is assured either by vote or the speeches in the House on Thursday, that he is wrong, will he bring in an amending Rule to preserve the rights of those persons who may be prejudiced by delay?

Will these Regulations prohibit the National Service Department employing lawyers as National Service representatives before the tribunals?

It would be obviously very unfair if the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that professional assistance should be allowed—very unfair on the few gentlemen dealt with on Thursday; would he not allow the tribunals to take a holiday on Thursday, so that no cases may be decided on that day, and until the opinion of the House is gathered?

This Debate will be pretty well known by those gentlemen who preside over the tribunals, and they will see what is the intention of the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds, possibly thousands, of cases stand to be decided on Thursday evening, and will he take steps to postpone the decisions until the opinion of the House has been ascertained?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies—

I think that is a great exaggeration as to the number of cases; I could not possibly take any such action.

Arising out of that reply, is it not in the power of the tribunals to adjourn the cases until the decision of the House of Commons is taken?

Yes, it is; and I have not the slightest doubt but that chairmen of tribunals will, as regards professional assistance, be largely guided by what they gather is the opinion of the House of Commons.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Income Tax at the highest rate is chargeable upon manses and other rent-free official residences, even in oases where the official occupants are entitled to pay at rates below the highest; and, if so, whether he is prepared to propose an amendment of the law with a view to removing the hardship thus entailed upon them?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which. I gave on the 21st March to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Berwick Division of Northumberland. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this reply.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is proposed that Income Tax shall be paid in two instalments; and, if so, at what dates must the payments be made?

As to the classes of income in which tax is at present payable by two instalments, I would refer my hon. Friend to the provisions of Section 33 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915. As he will see from paragraph (6) on page 8 of the financial statement which was issued on the 22nd instant, I propose to extend the arrangement to duty payable on property chargeable under Schedule A.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a farmer whose financial year ends on 31st December in a given year shows by his accounts that his profit has not been equal to the proposed assessment to Income Tax will he be allowed to make the amended payment in January or must he pay the full demand and secure repayment from Somerset House?

Income Tax under Schedule B is payable in two instalments, the first of which is due on or before 1st January. In the case suggested by my hon. Friend, if the farmer is able to prove, immediately after the end of the year, that his profits have fallen short of the assessment, an adjustment of the charge would be made. Obviously such a course conduces to the convenience both of the taxpayer and of the Revenue Authorities.

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words,

"and the provisions of the said Sub-section with respect to orders made, but not executed before the passing of that Act, shall apply to orders made but not executed before the passing of this Act, as if this Act were substituted for that Act under the said Sub-section."

I have added the last sentence to my Amendment on the Paper. A very strong desire has been expressed in many quarters of the House that where an order for eviction has been made but not executed this Act should embrace those cases. I myself desire to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Labour party, but as it was not in order, I have added those additional words to my Amendment.

I think the House will agree that it is unfortunate that no provision has been made to meet the large number of orders for eviction which may have been executed before the passing of this Bill.

That does not arise on this Amendment.

I understand that we are discussing the Amendment on the Paper?

No; it is the one I have just read out.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the effect of his proposal upon a man who has bought a house and paid for it when the law was that he could get possession? That man paid his money on the clear understanding that the law allowed him to obtain possession, and, having got an eviction order by this Amendment, he is not to be allowed to obtain possession.

This Bill is retrospective, and the effect of this Amendment makes it a little more retrospective.

What are the words which the right hon. Gentleman has added to the Amendment on the Paper—I cannot gather what their real effect is?

It is purely a question of drafting.

The words which have been added are "as if this Act were substituted for that Act." That may be quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think we ought to be told what is the actual effect of the Amendment. I suppose there is something in "that Act" which, if we went through it carefully, we should find it embodied by putting in these words. The proposal is quite incomprehensible, and I hope my hon. Friend will tell us what is concealed in "that Act" which is going to be put in "this Act."

I have already explained that if this Amendment be passed, a man who has purchased a house and has obtained an order which has not been executed may be brought into Court, and it will be left to the judge to decide whether that order shall be executed. The Court will ask themselves the question, "Supposing this Act had been passed, should we have allowed the execution to take place under this order?" and they will be guided by that. The Amendment on the Paper, without the additional words, would have been misleading. The object is to incorporate the words which were in the original Act, and which provided that

"where such order has been made but not executed before the passing of this Act, the Court by which the order was made may, if it is of opinion that the order would not have been made if this Act had been in operation at the date of the making of the order, rescind or vary the order in such manner as the Court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act."

My Amendment makes it perfectly clear.

The Sub-section quoted from the original Act deals with a very different set of circumstances from those dealt with by this particular amending Bill, which simply limits the definition of the word "landlord." I take it that the Court may rescind or vary any order which has been made if a man has become a landlord after the date of the 30th September. I think we should have an assurance that this matter is provided for in the Bill and that it is not going to be left to the discretion of the individual judge.

The Court will operate under this Act as under the operation of that Act which is the Sub-section I have just read. The judge will say "supposing we had this Act in operation, should we have made that order." It will have precisely the same operation as under Subsection (3) of Section 1 of the original Act.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain what this Amendment means?

I think the right hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly plain.

As I understand the position it is that if a landlord has enforced his right to get possession he stands clear, but if he has waited to give his tenant time to clear out then he is subject to whatever disabilities there may be under this Act. I can quite understand that it would be a reasonable thing to say that the Bill should be retrospective for a certain time, irrespective of whether the order has been executed or not, but I really should like to ask on what ground the right hon. Gentleman justifies an Amendment which makes the landlord or the sheriff who has not executed his order under the Act subject to further orders of the Court, while the landlord or sheriff who has been stern and harsh, and has seen about his order being executed at once, is left secure. If he has been kindly and has let matters drift on, hoping that the tenant would dear out, then he will be subject to these further rules. I quite understand the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman is placed, but hard cases make bad law, and this kind of legislation is somewhat doubtful policy from the point of view not of the landlord, but of the general public and of the interests of the country. I should like a little explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to how he justifies the general meaning of this Amendment.

That is a very different question. The hon. Baronet does not ask me to qualify or explain a particular Amendment. He raises the question whether or not we should adopt the policy in the Bill, and whether or not the House wishes to make a distinction between the man who has purchased and obtained an order but has not executed it, and the man who has purchased and obtained an order and has executed it. All along, in Committee, we took up the line that there was no intention actually to reinstate a tenant who had been turned out. There would have been many difficulties in doing that. The landlord might have given up the house in which he had been living, and it might be very difficult to follow up the purchase money. There is a great difference—and I am sure that the Committee saw it—between a man who has purchased a house and has obtained an order, but has not executed it, and a man who has purchased a house and obtained an order and has executed it; in which case the tenant would have to be reinstated. It was the general view of the Committee that we should not aim at reinstating tenants who had been turned out; but that we should aim at keeping in their houses tenants who were still in possession, although orders for their ejectment had been obtained.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's recollection of what took place in Committee. As a matter of fact, I had an Amendment down, which, like a good many other Amendments, was ruled out of order. It said specifically that in certain cases—the case of a wife, widow, or dependant of an officer or man who is serving, or who has served in His Majesty's Forces—the ejected tenant—should be entitled to resume possession of, and to occupy, a dwelling-house. It is quite true that the Committee did not discuss that Amendment. It could not; because it was out of order. This Amendment is in order, because it precisely deals with that Subsection in the original Act that we are amending. It uses practically the same words. I do not like to hear that we are to consider ourselves precluded from dealing with very hard cases where people have been ejected and where they ought to be put back. Later, on the Third Reading of the Bill, I propose shortly to recapitulate some four or five matters with which it has been impossible to deal and which urgently require to be dealt with. This question of reinstatement is one of them. One would infer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that this was entirely outside the scope of anything that Members present during the Committee stage had in their minds. There are cases where the ejection order has been executed which ought to be dealt with, and, while supporting the Amendment, I agree with the hon. Baronet that it is very illogical that a landlord who has been a bit slow, easy, and kindly and has not turned out the tenant the moment that he has obtained the power to do it should be placed in a position where the order can be revoked while the landlord who has been harsh and sharp and has turned the tenant out quickly is to be left in complete possession of the property that he has acquired by purchase exactly as if this Act had never been passed at all, and while the tenant, who may be the wife, widow, or dependant of a soldier who is serving or who has served in the War, is to be kept out of the premises.

The object of inserting this Amendment, which was under discussion when the Bill was in Committee, was to extend the protection given by the Bill to those tenants against whom orders were pending, but had not been executed. The question of date, therefore, becomes of some importance. The critical date in the Amendment is "the passing of this Act." It seems to me desirable that the House should have some information as to what is the prospective date of the passing of the Act, because the longer the passing of the Act is postponed the further the critical date will be postponed, and more of these orders can be executed in the meantime. This Amendment is the only place where this phraseology "the date of the passing of the Act" occurs. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give the House some idea what will be the date of the passing of the Act and what are the Government's intentions as regards the procedure in another place and the remaining proceedings necessary to pass the Bill into law?

In the case of a suspended order, the landlord has been put to certain costs. What is to be done with regard to that matter?

I notice that the Bill as circulated had the date "12th March." While the Amendment does not go so tar as we would like, we fully recognise that it goes part of the way, and that when a line is drawn some are going to be hit rather badly. So far as we are concerned, we are not going to oppose it. Unfortunately, the Bill is extremely narrowly drawn, and we cannot get toe Amendments in that we would like.

I beg to move, alter the words last inserted, to add the words,

"Provided that this enactment shall not apply in any case where the court is satisfied by certificate given by or on behalf of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries (or as regards premises in Scotland by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, or in Ireland the Department, of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland) that the premises in question are required for the occupation of a person engaged or employed in agricultural work urgent national importance."

I said in the Debate in Committee that the right which a landlord had under the original Act to obtain possession of certain cottages for the purposes of carrying on the business of agriculture—cottages probably occupied by ploughmen, thatchers, and skilled agriculturists of that kind—should be preserved to any purchaser of that property, but the Bill, if passed as drawn, would preclude the purchaser of agricultural property from having the rights which were saved to the original owner of the property by the House of Commons when it passed the original Act. This Amendment will meet the general desire that was expressed that in these days, when we are so anxious that every acre of ground should be properly cultivated to its full value, the right should be preserved, not only to the present owner, but to any future owner of these agricultural estates to evict from certain cottages which are absolutely necessary in order to carry on the business of agriculture anybody—I do not care who it is—who is in possession. This Amendment will meet the desire that was expressed, and as it is consonant with the original Act I hope it is also consonant with the present wishes of the House.

I desire to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon having done now in terms the one thing we intended to do in the Act of 1915, but which we failed to do by the interpolation of a somewhat clumsily-drawn Amendment. This is to protect the agricultural occupants or servants of an agricultural tenant or landowner of a cottage, because it is part and parcel of his farm machinery. That was the case which gave rise to the whole of this trouble, which caused an interpretation to be put on the word "landlord," which enabled unscrupulous members of the public to use the word "landlord" in a different sense from what was intended, and which has made it necessary to have this amending Bill. I tried myself in Committee to get this Amendment made, but my words apparently were not sufficiently apt, and although I was told they were included by the Title, they were excluded by the scope of the Bill. However that may be, I am glad the opportunity has been taken to put right the very source of the mischief, and I sincerely hope the House will accept the Amendment.

I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "or Minister of Munitions."

I should like to join the last speaker in thanking the President of the Local Government Board for meeting the general wish that was expressed in Committee and framing an Amendment which is in order. At the same time, I want to ask him whether he will not go a few inches further. He has met quite adequately the purely agricultural case. There is a precisely analogous case, that of munitions. There is the case which was brought up in Committee, of a man who was busily at work producing munitions of the greatest importance, who desired a. house close to his factory for the housing of his own employés. Under this Bill he will be absolutely unable, however urgent and necessary it is that he should obtain an extra employé, to house him close to Ms factory. I therefore move this Amendment, which would be followed later by another Amendment, leaving out the word "agricultural." The effect of the Amendment would then be that if either of the Boards of Agriculture or the Ministry of Munitions produce a certificate that the premises are urgently needed for work of national importance, then the landlord must give up possession. The addition is very slight, and although I agree that the cases will be comparatively few, sometimes they will be of such importance that I think we should wisely extend very slightly the elasticity given by this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment. I do so because in Committee I made an attempt myself to obtain something of this kind, but the right hon. Gentleman was then adamant, and declined any sort of assistance to those who wanted to help men to obtain a house where they were doing work of national importance. All that will be necessary after this is to take out the word "agricultural." We know that in another place they declined altogether to allow the farm to have a Bill giving him fixity of tenure. Apparently the labourer is to have fixity of tenure. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why he cannot accept this Amendment? We certainly want munitions, and we cannot have people making them unless they have houses to live in. If these munitioners are wanting houses and the houses are occupied by people not doing work of equal national importance, the ground for securing houses for munition workers certainly stands as good as it does for men who are going to plough the soil. The difficulty may be equally great, and the interest is equally great in both cases, and the law ought to be precisely the same in both cases. If the certificate of the Board of Agriculture is good enough to turn a man out of a house in a village, the certificate of the Ministry of Munitions ought to be good enough to turn a man out of a house in a town. I cannot see any difference between the two cases. The Amendment I moved in Committee was to allow the certificate of the Ministry of National Service to hold good in these matters. The Minister of National Service would be a sort of Court of Appeal from both the Board of Agriculture or the Ministry of Munitions who may want a man to be housed. That would be better than to leave the matter with one Minister, who might be influenced, perhaps, by his own Department or by those persons with whom his Department has to deal. Therefore, it was suggested that the Minister of National Service should deal with all these cases. The right hon. Gentleman would not have that. Now he has selected agriculture out of all the important industries of this country for favouritism. That is not fair. He certainly ought to accept this Amendment, and, if he does, he will go a little further towards making the Bill a just one. The right hon. Gentleman probably knows that the Ministry of Munitions has had the most tremendous difficulty all over the country in getting houses for the men they have to employ. Visiting committees have gone all over the country for months, if not for years, holding meetings, interviewing town councils, and doing all sorts of things to try to get houses. My right hon. Friend now brings in an Amendment which will not give the slightest help to the Ministry of Munitions, but which, on the contrary, will interfere with the work and prevent an employer of labour in a district where munitions are being made from providing proper housing for the men he employs. I cannot understand why that should be so. Therefore the Amendment ought to be accepted. It will make the Bill a little better than it is.

I support the Amendment, and I feel sure the President of the Local Government Board will see the reasonableness of it, because no one has been so unfair in turning out tenants in recent years as the Government Department concerned. In my own Constituency there have been cases of hardness and harshness, people being turned out without a thought and often quite unnecessarily. It has been positively a scandal. Many of them have been turned out, for works which have probably never been carried out, at a fortnight's notice, and when we hear hon. Members talking about landlords it is a case of Satan rebuking sin as regards the Government. It is not unreasonable to ask, if it is really necessary, that other national industries should be considered besides agriculture.

I do not care a great deal about the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment as it is, but if he accepts this Amendment to it I shall certainly vote against it. The Mover has talked about munition workers, but it must be remembered that, in addition to munition workers pure and simple, there are men and women engaged in work of equal national importance. For instance, the owners of a big factory manufacturing shells and guns might reasonably require housing accommodation in the neighbourhood of works, and they might, and probably would, turn out men and women engaged in manufacturing clothing for the Army and Navy. It is far better to leave matters as they are as far as these people are concerned than to allow the proprietors of big works to evict tenants who are engaged on work of as great national importance as that which the men or women they wish to put into the houses would be engaged upon. Therefore, the Movers of the Amendment have taken a very short-sighted view of the situation. How many people are going to be affected by it? Not a very large number. Therefore, if in the neighbourhood of a munition works accommodation is required for 2,000 people and there are only half a dozen houses which can be taken over in the way suggested, why insert an Amendment of this kind, which would lead to injustice? Something more ought to be considered. In the immediate neighbourhood of quite a large number of munition works there live the wives and families of soldiers and sailors, and if the Amendment were accepted these women and children would be evicted in order to make way for munition workers. It is, therefore, most unfair to ask the House of Commons to adopt an Amendment of this sort which gives power to any Court to evict the wives and families and widows of soldiers who have fallen. Therefore I make a strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say at once that he refuses to accept the Amendment.

With regard to the Government Amendment, I should like to be assured on this point: Are we to understand that in cases where landlords get men to come and work on their farm the wives and families of men already serving at the front or their parents or other dependants are to be displaced in order to make room for new men? If that can be done under the Bill, I shall vote against it as often as ever I can. With regard to the Amendment to the Amendment, I remember that on the Committee stage a lot was said with regard to housing. The hon. Member mentioned again the question of the Ministry of Munitions sending round visiting committees in order to obtain houses. I wish to acknowledge the great sacrifices which people have made in giving over their large houses in the interests of Red Cross work, and so on, but there are a great many houses whose owners have never offered to do anything of the kind with their property, and it seems to me hard that the people who are maintaining our industries now should always be the people who have to move from one street or one town to another in order to make room for people to come and do work of a particular kind. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Munitions that they should very carefully take into consideration the billeting of people in very large houses. If people living in close proximity to munition works, but working at another trade which may be very important from a national point of view, have to be constantly evicted they are not going to take it very kindly. Victimisation has always entered into this matter, and if it is left open that any man who can get a certificate from the Ministry of Munitions can buy whole streets of houses in order to house workers—he may not do it, but so long as it is left open victimisation and irregular buying in this manner can be continued, and I am rather afraid this Amendment is stretching the point too far. I again ask for a definite answer to my question whether the wives and children of men who are now serving their country or are killed can be evicted, and will the right hon. Gentleman make any representations with regard to commandeering, if necessary, very large houses for billeting people?

I join with the last speakers in urging the Government not to accept any Amendment which may have the effect of dispossessing from their homes the wives, widows, and dependants of our fighting men. I have had many letters from widows and wives and families in my Constituency, very heart rendering letters in some cases, and they have put this question, which is very diffi- cult to answer. They have said, "Do you think it right that we should be turned out of our homes and left without any place to go to or to put our little bit of furniture?" In this matter we are dealing with far more than houses. We are dealing with homes. Even to very humble people a home is a home, and they feel that to be dispossessed is a great hardship. Very few of us can realise what it means for poor people to be turned out of their homes and be forced to move into a different locality.

The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.

I will merely say that, in consequence of the letters which I have had from my Constituents, I would urge the Government to listen to the cogent arguments which have been brought forward by previous speakers and refuse to accept any Amendment which may have the effect I have indicated.

I trust the right hon. Gentleman will stand to his Amendment as it is. Those who have followed the whole of the proceedings in connection with this measure are quite aware of the exception which was made and the Amendment which was allowed to be made to the Bill in 1915. We then had the case put forward, which has been repeated over and over again, with regard to the exceptional needs of agriculture. It is not that all cottages would be affected, but there were exceptional cases where dairymen or horse-minders must reside within a reasonable distance of the farmhouse. That was the reason for the Amendment of the Act of 1915 which has led to all the difficulty. Now we are asked to extend it. The right hon. Gentleman has brought down an Amendment, which he promised to do in Committee, which defines clearly what the exception is to be. Now we have an Amendment proposing that a certificate obtaining from the Ministry of Munitions should have the same power ns that obtained from the Board of Agriculture. There is no reason why you could not keep on adding Department after Department in that way. The most extraordinary argument ever urged in favour of this addition was that put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. Gwynne). He began by attacking Government Departments—there is a good deal in what he said— for the reckless way in which they have cleared out property, and then he supported the Amendment in order to give Government Departments still more power than they now have to acquire property. I thought that rather strange. Let us look at the case seriously from the munition point of view. Some of us have had a great deal to do with the housing of munition workers. I have never come across a single case where a place could not be got for a munition worker in a munition area, but I am quite aware that the condition on the other side has been so severe that the Minister of Munitions has had to get exceptional powers under the Defence of the Realm Act and under the Regulations to protect munition workers in the cottages in which they live. That extraordinary power which has had to be applied to certain munition areas is just required because of the converse of the arguments we are hearing this after noon. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will stand by the Amendment as it appears on the Paper.

I think I had better recall the House to the very limited nature of the Amendment which I am proposing. First of all, the House came to the conclusion that in future no ordinary purchaser of a house shall be able to obtain an order for ejectment. He may buy the house, but he cannot obtain possession. An exception was made in the original Act of the landlord of an agricultural estate, and Parliament made it with its eyes open because it said: There may be cases where the landlords of an agricultural estate cannot cultivate it properly—this applies to large parts of Yorkshire and Scotland—unless he obtains possession of certain cottages. If he does not, he will not be able to house his ploughmen, shepherds, factors, and skilled agriculturists of that kind, and therefore he will not be able to farm his property to the very full extent which it is now desirable he should do. It was pointed out that although that right would be left to the man who now owns an agricultural property, yet if he parted with the property the purchaser would not have that right to obtain possession of these cottages, and might, therefore, not be able to operate the estate to its full value. There was a general expression of opinion with which I agreed, and I promised that I would, between then and Report, see whether I could put down any Amendment which would meet that case and would be in order. After considerable consultation with my advisers, we found an Amendment which met that case and which was in order. That is not a very easy thing to do under the title of the Bill. The effect of my Amendment is this: Supposing that the owner of an agricultural property sells that property to a bonâ fide purchaser who wants to cultivate the property for agricultural purposes, that new purchaser shall have this right, that if he wants a certain cottage for a skilled agricultural labourer and that agricultural labourer can obtain a certificate from the Board of Agriculture that he is a skilled agricultural labourer, and that he is needed for the cultivation of that estate, then, if the Court also finds that he is an agricultural labourer who is to be engaged on work of urgent national importance, the landlord shall be able to eject the occupier of that cottage, and obtain possession in order to place in as tenant the ploughman, shepherd or other skilled agricultural labourer. The hon. Member for Clitheroe may rest assured that this will operate in very few cases. The landlord, if he wants to eject anyone, must prove that the person he is going to put into that cottage has a certificate from the Board of Agriculture that he is the sort of person who is really necessary for the proper cultivation of that estate, and the Court must be satisfied that the person is going to be ejected for the sake of putting into that cottage someone whose work is work of national importance, and who is needed for the cultivation of that estate. I think that should meet the general wishes of those who have taken an interest in the passage of this Bill.

I am asked to extend this to munition workers—that is to say, that the Ministry of Munitions shall also be able to say: "We want that row of cottages in connection with munition work." The hon. Member who moved that Amendment says that he only wants me to go a few inches further. I am afraid it would mean going a few miles further. What would happen would be this, that the Ministry of Munitions might be able to say that they wanted a row of cottages for their workers, and the workers occupying might be engaged in building ships. After all, ships are just as important as shells. Where are we going to end if we start in that direction? If you can make out a case for munition workers, you can make out a case for those working in shipyards, and if you make out a case for the shipyards you can make out & case for the Admiralty.

They do it now!

My hon. Friend's proposal would go further than he really wants to go. It would enormously extend the power of those who control munition workers, and enable them to affect other people who possibly may be engaged in work just as useful and necessary as the work of those engaged on munitions.

My object is to curtail the powers of the Government. At the present moment they do this sort of thing without going through any formality or going to any Court. If the munitions people have to come to a Court to do it in this way we should get some advantage.

I shall claim my hon. Friend's vote in support of my Amendment. I must ask the House to support me in my very limited Amendment, and to refuse to accept any extension of it.

I am very glad to hear that the President of the Local Government Board will not accept any Amendment to his Amendment of the nature proposed by the hon. Member for Carlisle. Not only would it be open, under the hon. Member's Amendment, for the Minister of Munitions to turn out persons who were engaged in equally vital national work, but there would be nothing to prevent one munitions contractor buying up a row of houses already occupied to a large extent by the workpeople of another munitions contractor, and getting into the position to carry out a contract to make profits by turning out the workers already engaged in the same industry by a rival contractor. I am sure the House does not intend to support that Amendment. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that his Amendment is limited to the case of an agricultural estate or farm changing hands by purchase, and that in such a case where the cottages are spread very thinly and situated on the actual farm which requires to be worked, it may be, and I believe it is absolutely essential that the new owner who becomes the landlord by purchase should have exactly the same power of cultivating his farm as the man who acquires a farm by inheritance. Twice in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks he said, referring to his Amendment, that it was limited to the man who was required to be engaged or employed in agriculture for carrying on the work of that estate. That is exactly how I would have liked to see this Amendment limited, but there is nothing in the Amendment to limit it in that way. I have tried to draft an Amendment, but I find difficulty in limiting it to the actual case one wants to deal with; that is, to give power to the new landlord, who probably in many cases will be the farmer who has bought his own farm, to get possession of cottages actually on the farm or close to it, which are required for the cultivation of the farm. The President of the Local Government Board, in his Amendment tries to limit it as much by using the words "a person employed or engaged in agricultural work of urgent national importance." All agricultural work is of urgent national importance. These are not really the limiting words we want. The limiting words we want would be such words as would apply the provision to agricultural labourers who were actually required for the work of the farm itself, not merely that they were engaged in agriculture. I think the words, in my Amendment go very much nearer to the object we have in view than the words of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I use the words, "Some person whose employment is necessary for the proper cultivation of a farm." I submit that those are much more apt words to carry out the meaning and tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and I am somewhat sorry that he has not seen fit to move the words of my Amendment, because I think they are really more practicable.

We are not now discussing the main Amendment, but the Amendment which refers solely to the question of the Ministry of Munitions.

The right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Carlisle, and I am not surprised, because it would practically knock the bottom out of the whole scheme of his Bill. At the same time he cannot deny that the argument of the hon. Member for Carlisle is perfectly logical. What is the position of the right hon. Gentleman in exempting agriculture from the operations of this Bill? It is that where an agricultural estate changes hands, it is necessary that the houses required for the cultivation of that estate shall also change hands, and be at the disposal of the man who has purchased the estate. Does not that apply with equal force to a colliery which has changed hands? If a man buys a colliery he also wants the houses occupied by the men who work at the colliery, and it is absolutely necessary that he should buy the houses at the same time as he buys the colliery. It also applies to a shipyard. A man who buys a shipyard would buy the houses of the people who work in the shipyard. Therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to see that the same considerations govern the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carlisle as govern his own Amendment. I do not want to vote for this Amendment. On the other hand, I do not like the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, and I am very much astonished at the position in which we are placed in regard to it. This Bill was introduced on the ground that aliens were turning out people who were doing work of national importance.

That is an argument more appropriate to the Third Reading. Let us dispose of the matter now before us.

I will not pursue the argument further. I only want to point out that the Amendment of my hon. Friend is perfectly logical, and to express the hope that if the Government will not accept the Amendment now, they will deal with the whole situation later.

In asking leave of the House to withdraw this Amendment, I would like to answer very briefly some of the remarks—

The hon. Member is not entitled to a second speech.

Not by leave of the House? I only want, in two sentences—

If the hon. Member is going to withdraw his Amendment, what is the use of arguing further about it?

Where it has been mis-described by various Members, I think it is only fair to the Amendment that it should be withdrawn with honour.

If the hon. Member does not wish to withdraw, the Debate can go on. If he wishes to withdraw, he can do so in a sentence.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add the words, "Provided that this certificate shall not be applied to the case of dependants of serving, deceased, or discharged soldiers or sailors."

When this matter was discussed in the Committee stage, there was a great deal of sympathy expressed from all parts of the House in regard to the dependants of soldiers and sailors, and it was recognised that nothing should be done which would prejudice the position of the dependants of soldiers and sailors at present serving in the forces or the dependants of men who are deceased or who have been discharged after having done service in the Army or Navy. There have been already certain cases brought to the notice of Members of the House where the dependants of men who are serving at this moment at the front have been turned out of their homes in order to make room for the employees of particular firms, and, I believe, the same thing has happened in the case of the employés of firms. When this matter was discussed in Committee my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wiltshire (Sir C. Bathurst) specifically raised this point, and he, more than anyone else in this House, represents agricultural interests, and, as far as I can make out, he was quite prepared that an Amendment of this kind should go into the Bill to safeguard the interests of the dependants of soldiers and sailors. I sincerely hope that the Government may see their way to accept this Amendment, because they certainly expressed a great deal of sympathy with this view when the matter was discussed on a previous occasion. I feel sure it would meet not only with the general approval of the House, but also with that of the country outside.

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, namely, that these exceptions we are now dealing with in connection with agriculture should not apply in cases where the persons about to be evicted are soldiers' dependants and friends.

Friends? That includes everybody.