Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 108: debated on Tuesday 23 July 1918

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Tuesday, 23rd July, 1918.

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Private Business

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

South Metropolitan Gas Bill.

Ordered, That the Bill be committed.

Private Bills [ Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Ipswich Dock Bill [ Lords].

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER, laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

Sligo Corporation Bill [ Lords] (by Order),

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Brentford Gas Bill (by Order),

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [ 20th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Question again proposed.

The promoters of this Bill have, as I announced a little while ago, decided to withdraw the proposal of the Bill relating to the acquisition of a new site at Chiswick, and they also propose to accept the Instruction which stands in my name, to strike out the provision of the Bill relating to increased prices. I hope in these circumstances the House will see fit now to send this Bill to a Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred to strike out the provisions whereby it is proposed to increase any statutory maximum price or to modify existing statutory provisions as to the relation of price to dividend.—[ Mr. Whitley.]

Cannock Gas Bill (by Order), Hampton Court Gas Bill (by Order), Liverpool Gas Bill (by Order), Longwood and Slaithwaite Gas Bill (by Order), Yeadon and Guiseley Gas Bill (by Order), Cardiff Gas Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 6th August.

Commercial Gas Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Hastings and St. Leonard's Gas Bill (by Order), Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill (by Order), Plymouth and Stonehouse Gas Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred until Tuesday, 6th August.

Portsea Island Gas Light Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Richmond Gas Bill (by Order), Southampton Gas Bill (by Order), Swansea Gas Bill (by Order), York Gas Bill (by Order), Basingstoke Gas Bill (by Order), Rhymney and Aber Valleys Gas and Water Bill (by Order), Alliance and Dublin Gas Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 6th August.

Ordnance Survey

Copy presented of Report of the Progress of the Ordnance Survey to 31st March, 1918 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Board Of Education

Copy presented of Notes on Medical Education in England, being a Memorandum addressed to the President of the Board by Sir George Newman, K.C.B., M.D., F.R.C.P., Chief Medical Officer and a Principal Assistant Secretary of the Board of Education, and Medical Assessor to the Universities' Branch of the Board [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

Arklow Harbour

Copy presented of Report of the Commissioners and Abstract Accounts for 1917 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:

1. Public Records: (Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings).—Copy of Second Schedule containing a List and Particulars of certain classes of Documents existing or accruing in the Office of the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings which are not of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act];

2. Lunacy.—Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made and the number of Patients detained by the Commissioners during the six months ending on 30th June, 1918 [by Act].

Oral Answers To Questions

War

British Subjects In Enemy Countries

Claims For Compensation

1.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken or are proposed to be taken to compensate British subjects who at the outbreak of war were resident and carrying on business in enemy countries or in countries that have been overrun by the enemy and who have had to abandon their businesses and have had their goods and properties seized by the Governments concerned; if, as regards Turkey, the Government have in hand funds belonging to the Ottoman Government; and, if so, whether these could be utilised for the purpose of compensating British interests in that country which have suffered as the result of the War?

By the Proclamation of the 7th September, 1916, British subjects having claims against enemy Governments are required to make returns thereof to the Foreign Claims Office at the Foreign Office, with a view to such action as His Majesty's Government may think fit to take in the matter on the conclusion of hostilities. Such claims obviously cannot be settled before the end of the War. I will consider the suggestion in the last part of the question.

Is the Noble Lord aware that certain shipowners in Constantinople who were unable to get into communication by cable with this country did not have the facilities for insuring their steamers; and would the Government, in these circumstances, consider the advisability, instead of waiting till the cessation of hostilities, of saying whether they are prepared to accept responsibility in the special circumstances?

Of course, I will consider any suggestion my hon. and gallant Friend makes, but there is evidently a great difficulty in treating one set of claims differently from another set of claims. However, I will consider it.

Mesopotamia Operations

Statement By Lord R Cecil

2.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make a statement as to military and political matters on the coast of the Red Sea, the Hedjaz and adjoining Sultanates, and in Mesopotamia?

The House will, I hope, pardon me if I answer may hon. Friend's question in some detail.

General Marshall's operations on the Euphrates in March, and his subsequent operations in the neighbour of Kirkuk in April, resulted in inflicting on the Turks casualties amounting to about 10,000 men, of whom 7,500 are prisoners of war, the capture of 30 guns and much other war material.

As regards the operations of the Mesopotamian Political Administration, very satisfactory progress is being made in redeeming the country from the state of ruin into which it had fallen under the Turks. Thirteen Government primary schools, four municipal State-aided schools, a teachers' training school, and a survey school have been opened. Extension classes in agriculture have also been started. The local demand for education is very insistent, and is being met as rapidly as the supply of teachers will permit. Large tracts of land hitherto unfilled have been brought under the plough through the combined efforts of the people and the Political Administration. Use has been made of mechanical tractors and artillery horses, which have supplemented the ordinary means of cultivation. The opening up of the country by road, rail, and improved water transport and the establishment of security on the highways have resulted in an increase of trade and a lowering of prices of commodities. The contrast between the improved condition of Mesopotamia and that of the neighbouring country occupied by the Turks, where disorder and famine are chronic, has not failed to impress the population and its leaders, the local notables and tribal chiefs. The relations between our troops and the people are excellent, and a spirit of harmony and co-operation prevails. The opinion is frequently expressed that the British people mean well by the Arab race.

Turning to the operations of the forces of our Ally, the King of the Hedjaz, the casualties inflicted on the Turks by the Arab armies along the line between Dera'a and Ma'an number about 2,000, in addition to which two locomotives have been destroyed, 122 culverts and bridges demolished, and railway communication between those two points permanently interrupted. In the interior, five Turkish convoys, aggregating 1,500 camels, have been captured by the Sherif Ali, and a severe defeat has been inflicted on the Emir of Hail by the Sherif Abdulla.

Is my Noble Friend aware what kind of education is being given? Is it an English education?

I am afraid I do not know the details, but I am sure it is the best education.

Are any schemes of of irrigation under contemplation in Mesopotamia?

The matter is, I know, being considered, but I cannot tell my hon. and gallant Friend the details.

East Africa (Medal)

5.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the troops employed in the operations during the last four years in East Africa will be eligible for the medal that may be issued for the great War or will a separate medal be sanctioned?

I am afraid I cannot at present make any definite statement on this subject, but the troops engaged in these operations will probably be considered eligible for any medal that may be sanctioned for the present War.

Prisoners Of War (Turkey)

7.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the dispatch of blankets and candles to prisoners in Turkey is prohibited and the despatch of soap limited to 1 lb. per month; and whether, in view of the comparatively small number of these prisoners and the difficulty of obtaining these articles in Turkey, he will arrange for these restrictions to be modified?

The dispatch of blankets and candles to prisoners of war in Turkey is at present prohibited. The amount of soap which may be sent to officers is 16 ozs. per four weeks, and to other ranks 12 ozs. per four weeks. In addition, one stick of shaving soap is allowed per quarter and 18 tablets of anti-lice soap are included in each "standard parcel" sent by the Invalid Comforts Fund. So far as soap is concerned, the quantity authorised is considered adequate, but the question of modifying the restrictions as to candles and blankets is now being further considered.

Russian Officers

8.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Russians who were officers in the ex-Czar's Army and are tried soldiers are being allowed to deliver speeches to the Russians from the East End who are in a Labour Battalion at Wilderness Camp, Sevenoaks; why are these officers not conscripted as their compatriots; and will he say how many of this battalion have been during the last month, or are now, in hospital or guard room?

Certain Russian officers are attached for liaison duty to the headquarters of the Labour Battalion referred to, and no doubt address the men in the course of their duties. The figures asked for in the last part of the question are eighty-four and nine, respectively. The second part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Service.

Ireland

Disturbance At Glenbeigh

9.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on 14th July the annual aeridhacht at Glenbeigh, county Kerry, was cancelled owing to the Proclamation, but that a number of visitors arriving, unaware of this, went to picnic on the seashore and about three dozen there engaged in singing well-known Gaelic songs, but the police quickly brought fifty soldiers who drove the whole party from the seashore, prevented any further singing, and struck persons with their rifles; whether these soldiers acted under military command; and, if not, whether commanding officers in Ireland will be instructed not to assist the police on trivial occasions or without real necessity?

A meeting was advertised to take place at Glenbeigh, county Kerry, on the 14th instant. This was forbidden, and no meeting took place at Glenbeigh, but certain persons attempted to hold one at Rossbeigh about one and a-half miles distant. This was dispersed without any force being used. Subsequently further crowds collected, and, as they did not disperse after being warned by the police, the police and military dispersed them. There was no charge of any kind, but in certain cases the men who refused to move were pushed with the butt ends of rifles, but this was the only instance. No songs were heard. The military present were under their own commanding officer.

Mrs Sheehy-Skeffington

33.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mrs. Sheehy-Skeffington, now detained in Liverpool and prevented from returning to Ireland, is a widow whose husband was murdered by a British officer but who has received no compensation, that she desires to return to Dublin, where she has earned her living as a teacher; and that her son, aged nine years, has gone to Dublin; and whether he will state the conditions on which she will be allowed to live at her home?

I have nothing to add to the replies with reference to this case which were given to similar questions on the 18th instant by the Attorney-General for Ireland and myself.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman ascertain what is the charge against this lady, and why she should be subjected to this special penalty after having been allowed to come to Liverpool and go no further?

She was warned before she left the United States that she would not be allowed to go to Ireland.

I dare say it was in the ordinary form, but she knew very well that she would not be allowed to proceed.

Captain Bowen-Coulthurst

34.

asked the Home Secretary on what date was Captain Bowen-Coulthurst released from Broadmoor; how long had he been then an inmate of Broadmoor; whether a special mental inquiry was made into his case; if so, whether he is now considered to be sane and free from all danger of any relapse; how many persons have been liberated from Broadmoor during the last ten years; and what was the average term of detention in these cases before they left Broadmoor?

Captain Bowen-Coulthurst was received in Broadmoor Asylum on the 5th July, 1916, and conditionally discharged on the 26th January last. I was advised in the matter by the medical staff of Broadmoor, who are specially skilled in all questions of insanity, and who had him under constant observation during the whole period of his detention. Captain Bowen-Coulthurst is not regarded as free from all danger of relapse, and for that reason conditions as to residence and supervision were attached to his discharge. During the last ten years 185 inmates of Broadmoor Asylum have been discharged from the asylum. Of these 169 have been discharged on conditions designed to protect themselves and the public from the risks arising from a relapse into insanity. I cannot say what was the average term of their detention. It varies very greatly according to the circumstances of the individual case.

May we take it that this officer is now at liberty to live in Ireland, although the widow of the man whose death he caused, and against whom no charge is made, is not allowed to go there?

No, Sir, that is not the case. One of the conditions of his release is that he shall reside in a fit place, in England.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is his intention to recommend that Captain Bowen-Coulthurst be now placed upon the military staff in Dublin?

Interned Persons (Censorship Of Letters)

35.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that delays occur in letters from interned Irishmen in English prisons reaching their friends; whether it is on his instructions that for three weeks past no news from Irish prisoners in Lincoln prison have reached their friends; why are letters from Holloway so detained that in one case two letters, written at an interval of two weeks, arrived on the same day; and whether, in view of the anxiety, distress, and false notions engendered by such irregular correspondence, he will give orders to ensure that the prisoners' friends have regular news from the prisons?

I am aware that letters written by these interned prisoners to their friends are sometimes delayed. They are allowed to write for the purpose of communicating with their relations and friends on domestic matters and matters of business in which they are personally interested, and unless their letters are confined to such matters they are liable to be delayed or stopped. Such delays as are suggested in the question, if they have occurred, can only be in cases where these limits have not been observed. The prisoners have been specially reminded of this rule, and if it is observed their letters will not be held longer than is necessary for their proper examination by the Censor, which, in ordinary circumstances, does not delay them for more than twenty-four hours.

Military Works, Cippenham

19.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any other Departments are concerned in the erection of the new military works at Cippenham, in South Bucks; and, if so, will he say which they are?

20.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the special plant which is being erected at the new military works at Cippenham, in South Bucks, for the purpose of washing the gravel was found necessary only after the further examination of the soil, or whether its use was originally contemplated when the site was chosen; and will he say what is the estimated expenditure on this machinery and the cost of working it during the preparation of the site?

It was never contemplated to use the gravel at Cippenham for ferro-concrete work without washing the gravel. The gravel-washer will cost about £150, and the cost of washing and grading the gravel is estimated at 9d. per cubic yard.

21.

asked whether it was originally intended to supply a system of water transport in connection with the new military works at Cippenham, in South Bucks; whether it has been found impossible to extend the waterway of the neighbouring canal so as to serve the new site; and, if so, whether, in consequence, the whole idea of securing water transport for these new works has now been definitely abandoned?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last two parts in the negative.

Grand Central Hotel, Belfast

22 and 29.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether, before it was decided to take over the Grand Central Hotel, Belfast, the responsible Department of the War Office was aware that it was the largest hotel in the city; whether he will give the date of taking over and the number of weeks that elapsed before use was made of the accommodation; whether the accommodation has yet been fully used, and, if so, for how many nights; whether any ground for drill or training has been found near the building, and, if so, at what distance; whether he is satisfied that the whole transaction has proved a satisfactory one in the public interest; (2) whether he will state the monthly cost to the public of the taking over of the Grand Central Hotel, Belfast; from what date is payment due; and how much has been paid to the proprietors up to date?

I regret that the inquiries which are necessary to enable me to answer these questions are not yet complete, but I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

Members Of Parliament (Army Leave)

23.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there are any special privileges for leave granted to Members of Parliament who hold commissions in the Army?

A Member of Parliament who holds a commission in the Army occupies no privileged position in regard to leave except that he is able to plead the necessity of attending from time to time to Parliamentary duties. As to this, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the late Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Wednesbury on 1st November, 1916.

I am not quite clear whether a Member of Parliament is entitled to leave to attend to his business or profession other than his Parliamentary duties. Is he entitled to return for private or business affairs?

The whole question of leave is, of course, under the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in any theatre of war, and if anyone, whether a Member of Parliament or not, puts forward a good case that he should have leave for urgent private affairs, the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief is always sympathetic.

Are we to understand that a private anxious to conduct his own private business is entitled to have special facilities to do it?

It all depends what "his own private business" means. I have said that if a case is put forward by a private or by a Member of Parliament, or any soldier, in which it is a clear case of urgent private affairs in an emergency such a claim is always sympathetically considered.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see what the effect in the country is of special facilities being given to officers which are denied to privates?

I have never said that, and I deny that it is true. I think each General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in any theatre of war is most careful in the way he administers leave. After all leave is not a right, but a privilege.

Does not the question of giving leave depend on the importance of the duties that the soldier has to perform?

Is the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Simon) home on ordinary or special leave?

Military Service

Officers Recalled For Service

12.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if an officer or non-commissioned officer recalled for service under the Military Service Act, who has previously left or been discharged from the Service, will, irrespective of his medical grade, be entitled to be restored to his former rank?

The case of each officer is fully considered. As regards non-commissioned officers, the question is still under consideration, and it is hoped to issue instructions very shortly.

Conscientious Objectors

32.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Herbert Wilson, a conscientious objector, now court-martialled for the fourth time, has always been ready to do work of national importance; and whether he will be allowed to do work under the Home Office scheme?

The Central Tribunal, before whom this man appeared in September, 1917, reported that he could not be said to have any real conscientious objection to military service. The answer to the last part of the question is therefore in the negative.

Is it not the case that these conscientious objectors are permitted to leave prison if they will pledge themselves to do work of national importance?

Is there any right of revision in a case of this sort where a man professes himself to be anxious to do work of national importance?

No; if he has not satisfied the Central Tribunal he is not examined again.

Old Soldiers (Release)

11.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the war bounty is now limited to men who are not above the age of fifty-one years, he will again consider whether men of that age who have completed thirteen years' service may be released from the Army in the same way that the limitation of the bounty awarded under Army Order 209 of 1916 to men under the age of forty-one carried with it the compensating advantages for men of the age of forty-one and upwards, that they could claim their discharge if they had completed thirteen years' service?

My hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. Any soldier who was serving on an Army engagement entered into before the outbreak of war which expires during the War, and who is retained under the Military Service Acts, is eligible for the bounty irrespective of his age at the date of being retained.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the question I asked. The question I asked is whether a man of fifty-one can be released.

My hon. and gallant Friend says "in view of the fact that the war bounty is now limited to men who are not above the age of fifty-one." None of us was quite clear what he had in mind.

Prisoner's Death (Wormwood Scrubs)

31.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether J. G. Winter, a Durham miner, has died in Wormwood Scrubs; when was he admitted to hospital; when did death occur; and whether any inquiry, apart from reports from prison officials, has been, or will be, made?

Winter was received into prison on the 10th instant, and was at once admitted to hospital, as he was suffering from a sharp attack of influenza. Next day an attack of pneumonia supervened, and he died on the 13th instant. An inquest was held, as the law requires, and the jury returned a verdict of death from natural causes. The evidence given at the inquest showed that while the deceased was in military custody he made no complaint of illness, and refused to allow a medical examination.

Naval And Military Pensions And Grants

Civilian Employe Pensioners

26.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that under War Office Letter, 27th April, 1914, paragraph 4, instructions have been issued to civilian employé pensioners employed at Colewart Barracks, Portsmouth, and to the pensioners similarly employed under the Royal Engineers, Hillsea lines, that in future their rate of pay is to be reduced by 2s. per week; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to the withdrawal of the paragraph in question, as no man who has fought for his country and earned a pension should be placed in civilian employment at a disadvantage as compared with other workmen?

28.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it has yet been decided to render financial assistance to the widow and children of the late Bertrand Samuel Goater, S/14576, staff sergeant, Army Service Corps, who died on the 30th October, 1917; whether he is aware that this soldier served through the whole of the South African War, being invalided from the Army about two months before the, outbreak of the present War with tubercular lung, the disease being accelerated by foreign service; that, after three months' sanatorium treatment, the soldier resumed his former duties at the Army Service Corps Office at Netley, and was afterwards engaged at Romsey and Winchester as barrack warden; that his widow has received no financial assistance, though left with three children, their ages ranging from one to four years; and that one child falling ill was unable to obtain the necessary nourishment, and died in consequence; and what action it is proposed to take?

This man was a discharged soldier, employed as a civilian subordinate. His widow is not entitled to a soldier's widow's pension, and his civilian service was too short to entitle her to a gratuity under the Superannuation Act. A small Grant has been made to Mrs. Goater from the Civil Compassionate Fund.

Re-Employed Pensions (Deductions)

27.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Section 4 of the Superannuation Act of 1887, requiring that officers who have been retired with a pension or gratuity must have at least 10 per cent. deducted from any civil emoluments they may be able to earn in a Government Department, is held to apply to officers who have been retired from the Service owing to wounds or disablement incurred during the present or any previous War?

52.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an officer in Government employment who is in receipt of a disability pension is in any case subject to any deduction from his salary on the ground that he is in receipt of a disability pension; and, if so, will he state what percentage of the salary earned is deducted on such grounds, and what justfication there is for such deduction?

The Treasury is advised that an officer who is in receipt of retired pay granted on account of disability owing to service in His Majesty's Forces, and who accepts any civil employment of profit under any public Department, is liable under No. 4 of the Rules made under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, to a deduction of not less than 10 per cent. from the profits of his civil employment, provided that his salary and retired pay together exceeded £400 per annum. The deduction is prescribed by Statute.

Then a soldier, officer, or man, wounded in this War is to have 10 per cent. deducted from any employment he gets? Will the hon. Gentleman have that Warrant cancelled?

I used the word "disability" advisedly. The wounds pension alone is exempted under Rule No. 1 (a) from that action. It would require alteration by Statute.

Will the hon. Gentleman include disability in that, and get the Statute altered?

Partial Disablement

40 and 43.

asked the Pensions Minister (1) whether he is now in a position to state whether a man who was partially disabled by wounds or injuries received in former wars will be put in a position corresponding to that of a man who was totally disabled in such wars and receive the scale of pensions as laid down for the present War; (2) whether he is now in a position to state whether a man who was partially disabled by wounds or injuries received in former wars shall be put in a position corresponding to that of a man who was totally disabled in such wars and receive the scale of pensions as laid down for the present War?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER of PENSIONS
(Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen)

I regret that I cannot yet announce a settlement of this matter.

Are we to understand that the statement made by the Minister of Pensions last Friday week was unauthorised and inaccurate?

I cannot admit it was either unauthorised or inaccurate. I think what he said was perfectly true. He said he hoped to be able to make an announcement shortly.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when an official announcement will be made, apart from that form of announcement?

This is a matter which concerns not only the Pensions Ministry, but other Departments. It is before the Government. The Committee are considering it, and I believe an announcement will be made very shortly.

Enlisted Apprentices (Dependants)

41.

asked the Pensions Minister whether he continues to receive complaints about the practical effect upon the dependants of enlisted apprentices of the present Regulations governing such cases; and whether, in the light of the experience latterly obtained on this matter, he is proposing further modifications in favour of this class of case?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and as regards the latter, it is being considered whether farther modifications can be made in the Regulations in favour of the class of case to which the hon. Member is referring.

Pension To Rifleman's Widow

54.

asked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. Cavill, of 222, Nutgrove Road, Brown Edge, St. Helens; whether he is aware that her husband was wounded in October, 1914, discharged from the Army, and died from tuberculosis on 24th February, 1917; whether he is aware that Mrs. Cavill has only been granted a pension of 10s. for herself and three children, and that the pension authorities have refused to increase the amount, on the ground that Rifleman Cavill's tuberculosis was not connected with the wounds he received in action; whether he will state the reason the Ministry of Pensions have for making this assertion, the names of the doctors upon whose certificates they rely, the dates of those certificates, and their nature; and, seeing that the attitude of the Ministry of Pensions towards Rifleman Cavill's family has created indignation in the neighbourhood, will he say what action he proposes to take?

This case has recently been carefully considered by the Medical Advisers to the Ministry, who are of opinion that Rifleman Cavill's death cannot be regarded as attributable to, or aggravated by, service, nor as connected with the disability fox which he was discharged. In these circumstances Mrs. Cavill is only eligible for a reduced pension under Article 17 of the Royal Warrant, which gives no additional allowance for children. I regret that I cannot give the information for which the hon. and learned Member asks in the third part of his question. My right hon. Friend cannot be called upon to disclose the source of the advice which is tendered to him, and the responsibility for which he accepts.

Prisoners Of War

Exchange

10.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will consider as to taking steps to arrange for the periodical publication in the Press of particulars regarding the exchange of prisoners of war for the information of the relatives of prisoners in Germany and other enemy countries; and what steps are taken to ensure that British prisoners of war shall be acquainted with the arrangements that exist with respect to the exchange of prisoners.

Agreements respecting the exchange of prisoners of war are published in the form of White Papers. Copies of the Hague and Berne Agreements have been sent to the protecting missions at Berlin and Constantinople respectively, so that prisoners of war may be kept informed of their provisions. The Agreement recently come to at The Hague contains provisions for its circulation when ratified in all prisoners of war camps, and for its publication in the British and German Press.

Work In Mines

46.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that our prisoners of war in Germany are forced by the German Government to work in the mines, and that many of them are totally unused to this kind of work and are suffering hardship; whether any protests have been made through the Netherlands Embassy against this ill-treatment of our prisoners; and whether, in case the German Government refuse to abandon these practices, steps will be taken to compel German prisoners in this country to work in the mines here?

The Agreement concluded at The Hague contains an Article (No. 33), which it is hoped will provide a satisfactory solution of the question of the employment of British prisoners of war in mines, which has long caused anxiety to His Majesty's Government. The Agreement, however, has not yet been ratified.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the Agreement made at The Hague will be ratified and the terms of the Agreement made public?

I cannot say that; of course it has to be ratified, not only by this Government, but by the German Government. It might be very inexpedient to publish the text before it was ratified.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the adoption of the suggestion that German prisoners should work in British mines would mean trouble for the Government?

Turkish Camps (Deaths)

83.

asked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) how many British and Indian officers and rank and file, including followers, are known or believed to have died in each prisoners' camp in Turkey in each month since 1st January, 1917?

I am informed by the military authorities that the following deaths have taken place in prisoners' camps in Turkey since 1st January, 1917: 3 British officers and 518 other ranks, including Colonials; 1 British naval officer and 8 naval ratings; 6 Indian officers and 732 other ranks.

I am sorry that I cannot state the number of deaths in each camp in each month without throwing undue labour on the officials concerned.

Can the hon. Gentleman inform me whether the figures are derived from the Turkish Government—are they official?

No; I think the figures come from neutral sources, but they are military figures and come from the Casualties Branch of the War Office. I shall be glad to make further inquiries on that point, if the Noble Lord wishes.

As these figures are as and from 1st January, 1917, will the hon. Gentleman say up to what date they apply, so that we can have some idea as to when it is possible to get the last information from Turkey?

War Bounty

24.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that men who have qualified for the war bounty under Army Order 209, of 1916, and the amending Order of the 8th July, and who have received one-third of the bounty in cash, are now being made to refund that one-third if, subsequent to the alteration in their term of service which qualified them for the bounty, they have been discharged on account of wounds or illness due to active service in the field; and whether he proposes to reconsider the position of these men?

If my hon. and gallant Friend will give me particulars of any case, I will have inquiry made and let him know the result.

Army Stores Depot, Dublin

25.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can state particulars of the progress made in the examining and receiving depot, Dublin; and when it is expected that the testing will be commenced?

Some additional accommodation has been taken over since my reply on the 30th May last to a question by the hon. Member. I regret it is not yet possible to state when it is expected that the testing will commence.

Ration Allowance

30.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the increased cost of foodstuffs, it is intended to increase the allowance in lieu of rations from the present equivalent of £27 a year; and, if so, when the increased rate will come into operation?

The rates of allowance in lieu of rations were revised as recently as May last, and I am not aware of any reason for a further revision. The normal allowance is now 2s. 1d. a day, which is equivalent to £38 a year.

Secret Treaties (Pamphlet)

36.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has now received any reply from the publisher of a pamphlet called "The Truth about the Secret Treaties"; and what action he proposes to take.

I am informed that this pamphlet was issued at the instance of the Minister for Propaganda, and consequently does not come within No. 27-C of the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

Intoxicating Liquors (Sale To Young Persons)

39.

asked the Home Secretary whether, as it is not possible under present conditions to introduce the legislation which would be necessary to enforce a general regulation against serving intoxicating liquors in licensed houses to persons under the age of eighteen years, he will consider the question of the provision of tables and chairs and refreshments other than intoxicating liquors in licensed houses, so that young persons can find accommodation there without being compelled to stand at a drinking bar?

Though I agree in principle with the suggestion in the latter part of this question, I fear that there are no steps which I can take in the matter at present.

Teachers (London County Council)

45.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the women teachers in the service of the London County Council Education Committee have asked for arbitration of the questions of commencing salary for fully trained certified women teachers and the immediate improvement of the financial position of all women teachers, and that such arbitration has been refused; and, if so, whether he will take steps to introduce the necessary legislation to enable them to claim arbitration in such matters as of right?

The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I am aware that on the 11th June women teachers in the employment of the London County Council asked the Council to submit the two questions referred to to arbitration, and I understand that the council are considering the Report of their Education Committee on the matter to-day. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for East St. Pancras.

May I ask the Leader of the House to answer the last part of that question?

No, Sir. I am not prepared at present to say that we can introduce this legislation.

Would it not be possible to make representations to the Education Department to introduce legislation? Have representations been made?

Could it not be done by Regulation under the Defence of the Realm Act?

81.

asked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the fact that the increased scale of salaries recently granted by the London County Council to women teachers in its schools has resulted in many cases in an actual decrease in money payments owing to the withdrawal by the Council of the original war bonus; and whether, in order to remedy this state of affairs as well as to prevent the depletion of the teaching staff, he will state whether he will intervene in the matter?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Members for West Ham and North Somerset on the 10th June, a copy of which I am sending him. I am watching the situation very carefully, but I do not think that a favourable opportunity for my intervention has at present arisen.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if these teachers have not asked for arbitration, and whether, in the, case of a dispute, it is only a reasonable proposition that both sides should agree to arbitration, provided that they are desirous of doing what is fair one towards another?

I cannot judge whether the course indicated by the hon. and gallant Member is reasonable or not. I have not been invited up to the present moment by either party to intervene.

But may I ask if, in the general course of events, arbitration, where there is a difference of opinion, is not the most favourable for both sides?

Does my right hon. Friend realise that these ladies are denied a right which is given to telegraph girls and boy messengers?

Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Lancaster

47.

asked what member of the Government will answer in this House for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Railway And Police Pensioners

48.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a small Committee to inquire into the position of persons in receipt of railway superannuation allowances and police pensioners who are suffering serious hardship owing to the rise in the cost of living?

As at present advised, the Government is not prepared to appoint such a Committee.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the very great hardship suffered by numbers of these people who have subscribed to these funds, and that nearly all the other pensioners have been dealt with?

Yes; but the funds referred to do not come under the Government. I do not think that at present there is any necessity for appointing such a Committee.

Does not the Government take the extra profits on the railways, and were we not told yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade that they were considerable? Therefore, the funds from which they can be assisted really do come under the Government. Another point is that these funds are now controlled by the Government and the Government are using them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the case of war pensioners, and that they are as of great importance as the shareholders in statutory companies?

Government (Number Of Ministers)

49.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Ministerial changes announced last week involve the addition of a new Minister to the total number of Ministers in the Government; and what is now the total number of Ministers composing the Government?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part 91, which includes appointments in the Royal Household which are always made when a Government is formed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that out of those ninety-one Gentlemen no fewer than sixty-seven are Members of the House of Commons—10 per cent. There has been nothing like it for a long time.

I do not know the exact number. Perhaps the hon. Member is not aware that even before the War the number of members of the Government appointed in the same way was upwards of sixty. As regards the last part of the question, I have a better opinion of the House of Commons and their competence than the hon. Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the habit of increasing Ministers has grown despite the War in an almost extreme proportion to the necessity, and is he aware that in Lord Salisbury's last Ministry there were only forty-four members, including the large contingent of the Cecil and Ceciloid family?

Before the War there was a tendency to increase, and pressure has nearly always come from the House of Commons.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many members, in addition to the sixty-seven members of the Government, are drawing subsistence allowance from the Government?

Will the Government consider the advisability of increasing the present number of the Ministry?

Aliens

German Banks (Winding Up)

50.

asked whether, in winding up the German banks, care will be taken that any claims now pending against them by British subjects will be allowed to proceed and will not be prejudiced by any action that may be taken on this subject in the immediate future?

I have no reason to think that any claim pending against German banks by British subjects will be prejudiced by the Orders which have been made for the winding up of the businesses of these banks.

Ministry Of Health

51.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the announcement on behalf of the Government, on 17th July, in regard to the question of a Ministry of Health, he will further consider his reply of the 30th October, 1917; and, in view of the conflicting and varied interests involved and the number of Government Departments concerned, he will now consider the desirability of setting up some form of public inquiry by Royal Commission or otherwise into the desirability and practicability of instituting a Ministry of Health?

This question is being actively considered by the Committee of Home Affairs, who hope shortly to settle a satisfactory scheme. The Government still consider the appointment of a Royal Commission unnecessary.

Have the difficulties and doubts surrounding this question, on which the Noble Lord, speaking on Wednesday last on behalf of the Government, in another place, dilated, disappeared?

I am aware that there are difficulties. The Cabinet Committee is considering them, and we hope to be able to arrange to meet them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that unless a separate Bill is introduced for Scotland there will be serious opposition to it?

Income Tax (Naval And Military Officers)

53.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that naval and military officers' consolidated allowances in lieu of rations and lodging are chargeable to Income Tax although field allowances are not taxable; and whether, in view of the fact that rations when drawn in kind are not taxed, he will give instructions that the allowance supposed to be equivalent to the cost of the ration is equally exempt from taxation?

As I promised in connection with the Finance Bill, careful inquiry is being made into the subject of the taxability of certain allowances of this nature, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

American Troops (Transport)

55.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller, with reference to his statement that British ships are bringing an army of American troops to Europe every month, whether this transportation has been made at the cost of depriving the United Kingdom or our Allies of essential supplies, either of food or of materials of war?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING CONTROL
(Sir Leo Chiozza Money)

The organisation of the transport of American troops across the Atlantic—which has been so successful that it is now proceeding at the rate of about 200,000 men per month in British-controlled ships alone, in addition to about 100,000 per month carried in American ships—has necessarily deprived the United Kingdom and her Allies of imports which otherwise they might have had, but shipping organisation as a whole has been such that food and the materials of war have continued to be carried in adequate quantities, both for ourselves and for our Allies.

Food Supplies

Director Of Cultivation (Scotland)

56.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether Mr. C. J. N. Fleming, inspector of schools, Scottish Education Department, has been appointed Director of Cultivation under the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, in place of Mr. William Barber; and, if so, what are the practical qualifications of Mr. Fleming for this appointment?

Mr. Fleming is a Civil servant of long experience and high capacity, with a good general knowledge of agriculture. As secretary to the district agricultural committees of Berwick and Selkirk he was extremely successful in extending cultivation in these counties. From this work he was selected by the Ministry of Food as Deputy-Commissioner for the East of Scotland. His present appointment is to undertake temporary duty as Director of Cultivation in Scotland. For such a position administrative capacity and experience are of the first importance. Mr. Fleming will act under the general supervision of the Board and in association with officers of wide agricultural knowledge. The appointment, I may add, had Mr. Barber's warm approval, and, so far as I can judge, any criticism proceeds from quarters in which Mr. Fleming is not known. I have every confidence that the appointment will justify the Board's expectations.

Is Mr. Fleming a practical farmer or has he any practical knowledge of farming?

I have already stated the practical knowledge which he possesses, and that he has the full confidence of the Board and of the agricultural community.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the appointment of a school inspector to this post has caused serious disquiet and mistrust among the agriculturists in Scotland?

I have no such information, and I am satisfied that when Mr. Fleming has filled the position for a very short time any such feeling as may exist will disappear.

Is it the policy of the Scottish Office to appoint people to offices for which their capacity is unknown?

Allotment-Holders (Security Of Tenure)

57.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to bring in a Bill this Session to give security of tenure to the allotment-holders?

The Corn Production (Amendment) Bill, which has just reached this House, deals with this matter.

Does the Corn Production Bill give security of tenure to allotment-holders, and, if not, will a new Bill be introduced next Session?

This Bill does deal with the matter, and I think that my hon. Friend had better wait and see.

Cherry And Plum Crop

58.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the failure of this season's cherry and plum crop in Kent was largely due to an attack of a fungus commonly known as brown rot, Sclerotinia fructigena, and not due to frost; whether he will take every possible step to prevent the recurrence of this fungus this autumn and next spring; and will he see that fruit growers can get an adequate amount of sulphate of copper spray to syringe the fruit trees?

The failure of the Kent plum and cherry crop in the present season cannot be attributed to a single cause. The inclement weather during flowering, the normal alternation between years of large and small yield, and the fungus mentioned by the hon. Member, which was encouraged by the quantity of fruit left to rot on the trees last year, were all contributing factors. Brown rot is an endemic disease, and the means for combating it are described in the Board of Agriculture's Leaflets Nos. 86 and 312. Supplies of copper sulphate are available for the spraying of fruit trees as a preventive against brown rot. Further investigation into the diseases of fruit trees is under the consideration of the Horticultural Advisory Committee, recently established by the Board of Agriculture.

Wood Cutters' Wages

64.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the terms of a contract entered into by a Department of the Board of Trade for the cutting of a large wood in a certain district in Yorkshire, the name of which has been given to him privately; whether he is aware that the contractors are in connection with this contract temporarily paying to unskilled workmen wages so high as to attract agricultural labourers away from the land to the great detriment of the farmers in the neighbourhood, especially at harvest time; and whether he can state why the contract price was fixed so high as to allow of the contractors paying these unduly high wages to unskilled workmen?

The wood referred to was bought by the Yorkshire Pitwood Association, and the Board of Trade do not control the wages paid by that body for working it. I am, however, drawing the association's attention to the points raised.

Is it not the case that the timber people escape the high Income Tax and the Excess Profits Duty, and is not that the reason why they can pay such high wages?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of preventing the abstraction of agricultural labourers from the land for these and other purposes?

Jam And Cheese

75.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been called to the unequal distribution of jam and of cheese; and whether it is proposed to secure a more equal division of such supplies as exist, so as to avoid an absolute famine in these articles in some industrial districts?

The distribution of jam will improve as soon as the new stocks of this season are available. The Food Controller is considering whether any further measures are necessary in order to secure a more equal division. So far as cheese is concerned, a fresh scheme has been devised for including home cheese in the arrangements for distribution, which have hitherto merely covered imported cheese. In settling this scheme special attention will be paid to the occupations and needs of industrial and agricultural districts, where the present scarcity is most acutely felt.

Bacon And Ham

76.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether there is any prospect of a lower price being fixed for bacon and ham in the near future?

The price of bacon and ham to the consumer in this country is largely governed by the cost of those commodities in North America. This is one of the matters now being discussed between the inter-Allied Food Controllers, and I cannot at the moment make any definite statement.

Ration Scheme (Supplementary)

77.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the improved food supply, he will consider whether disabled discharged men suffering from physical ailments, which call for special nourishment, may be included under the supplementary ration scheme?

Food control committees have been instructed that all invalids suffering from certain specified diseases are entitled to the appropriate extra rations, and discharged soldiers and sailors are, of course, included in this concession. It is also within the discretion of food control committees to refer applications from invalids suffering from other diseases to the Ministry of Food for a grant of extra rations, and the committees have been specially instructed that they may adopt this procedure in the case of discharged soldiers and sailors. I hope that these arrangements will meet the cases to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and I am sending him the memoranda issued on the subject for the guidance of the local food control committees and of medical practitioners.

Potatoes

78.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will now state the scheme that has been prepared for the distribution of the potato crop which will be purchased by the State as and from the 1st November next; is the distribution to be in the hands of certain factors appointed by the Food Control Department to the exclusion of wholesale dealers and retailers; if so, how many of these factors are to be appointed; on what basis will they be remunerated; and has he received any resolutions from potato merchants and growers against this sale policy of the Potato Distribution Committee?

As I informed the hon. Member for Perth yesterday, it is hoped that an announcement on this subject will be made very shortly.

South-West Africa Company

59.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the South-West Africa Company, which owns more than 40,000 square miles of mining rights in the territory formerly known as German South-West Africa, has for some time past been endeavouring to obtain leave to acquire for cash the holding in the company owned by enemy aliens; and can he say why the effort of the company to free itself of its enemy shareholders has been thus far without result?

It is the case that His Majesty's Government were asked to agree to the German shareholders of this company being approached with a view to the acquisition of their shares in the company. It was, however, thought that there was not sufficient reason to justify permission being given for negotiations of this kind with the enemy during the War.

Government Offices (Accommodation)

60.

asked the First Commissioner of Works if there are any requests for new office accommodation now awaiting the decision of the Cabinet Committee on Office Accommodation; and, if so, which Government Departments are making these requests?

Yes, Sir; from the War Office, Ministry of Munitions, and Overseas Trade Department.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any further provision of office accommodation for the Committee on Enemy Aliens?

Does the right hon. Gentlemen mean that only three new sets of buildings are being considered by his Department?

Railway Season Tickets

62.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that the sole reason lately advanced by him against the interavailability of railway season tickets being that greater facilities for travel would increase the number of passengers, he will propose to the Railway Executive that interavailability should be granted to season-ticket holders as between the first and final stations covered by their ticket if that distance exceeds 100 miles; and whether such a condition would reduce travel by allowing the holder to spend a longer time on one day at his destination, thus rendering the number of days on which he travelled fewer, and thereby reduce the mileage travelled?

I cannot under present circumstances recommend an extension of the present arrangements as regards the interavailability of season tickets on railways. In the case which the hon. Member is understood to have specially in mind interavailability can be obtained, if required, on payment of the usual additional charge.

Goods Traffic (Mileage Returns)

63.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a large amount of clerical labour is spent by railway companies in ascertaining, dissecting, and booking the exact mileage that each passenger and consignment of goods covers on a journey where more than one company's line is used; whether this work has any useful object whilst the State guarantee of dividends to the railway companies exists; whether the impossibility of discovering the mileage travelled on railways by an interavailable season-ticket holder is the main objection of the railway companies to the interavailability of such tickets; and, if so, will he overrule such objection in the national interest?

The first part of the hon. Member's question is based on incorrect assumptions, and the points raised in the latter part do not, therefore, arise.

Neutral Shipping (Clyde)

65.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider as to arranging for the crews of neutral vessels entering the Clyde to leave their ships at Rothesay or some adjacent point, beyond which it is not desirable that they should proceed, having regard to the information that they might obtain with reference to shipping movements and naval and military matters, and for such crews to be accommodated in hulks fitted up for the purpose, or in some other way, and for the vessels to be manned temporarily by a crew of riggers and taken to the port of discharge and returned either light or loaded, and the neutral crews taken on board again; and, if this is done, whether he will consider as to charging the cost against the foreign owners, in view of the fact that the freights paid to them are higher than those paid to British owners, and that none of the profits made by them benefit British revenue in any way?

I have been asked to answer this question. The existing procedure is that no one is allowed to land from any ship trading with a neutral European port—not even the master. The feasibility of similar schemes to the one now suggested has been frequently and is now under consideration, not only for the Clyde, but for other places. But the difficulties are the provision of the necessary personnel, and the delay which would be caused to the shipping concerned. However, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the matter is always before the proper authorities, and all that can be done to safeguard the public interest is being and will be done. I have answered the body of the question, but the last part would seem to be a matter for the Board of Trade.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman previously stated, in reply to my questions, that the subject is under consideration, and does he not think it advisable that the consideration should be something on the lines indicated in the question forthwith?

My impression is that certain steps have been taken, but I will let my hon. and gallant Friend know.

Dogs Exported To Holland

66.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any objection is raised on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the export of dogs from this country to Holland to be owned and kept by our officers or soldiers who are interned in that country; whether he is aware that no objection is made to such export on behalf of the Netherlands Government; and whether any permit has to be obtained for such export?

No licence is necessary for the export of dogs to Holland.

Parliamentary General Election

67.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of a probable General Election this year or early next and the change in many instances of the areas of constituencies, he will arrange for facilities to existing Members or prospective candidates to have an adequate supply of petrol in order to get round the constituencies in which they may be interested?

No special facilities will be granted to Members, or to prospective candidates, for the purpose of enabling them to visit constituencies in which they may be interested, but it has been decided to grant special facilities, during the period of an election only, to bonâ-fide Parliamentary candidates and their election agents. The facilities will consist of a motor-spirit licence for a quantity of petrol depending upon the area of the constituency, and a special permit to use a motor car issued under the Motor Spirit (Consolidation) and Gas Restriction Order, 1918.

Can the right hon. Gentleman define the period of the election? Is it to be from now onward or from the date of the nominations?

Seeing that the constituencies got on very well before the introduction of motor cars, will not this be a waste of petrol?

Coal Supplies

68.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the policy of the Controller of Coal Mines to ensure that all available coal shall flow through the same channels and to the same customers as heretofore; whether he is aware that several coal merchants in Ireland who do not own ships are losing customers, owing to their inability to obtain supplies; and whether instructions will be issued that will ensure an even distribution throughout the trade?

Since September last the principle of continuing available coal supplies through the same channels as previously has been in force so far as possible. Whether the available supplies of coal should go to the same customers as heretofore depends entirely upon the importance of the work the consumers are doing. Work vital to the conduct of the War must have priority. The position, however, is affected in regard to quantities as a result of the release of miners for the Army, increased supplies to Allies, plus the effect of the influenza epidemic, which has largely affected the miners. The attention of the Coal Controller's representative in Ireland has again been drawn to this question.

Is the price of coal in Ireland controlled, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that in many poor agricultural districts of that country labouring men and workmen have to pay £3 10s. a ton for coal?

I only want to know whether the price is controlled in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Why not?

Cross-Channel Steamers

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in February last, the seamen and firemen of cross-Channel steamers sailing under the direction of the Railway Control Committee were granted increases in pay, with effect from the previous October, amounting in all to an increase of over 100 per cent. on pre-war rates; whether the officers of these ships received any corresponding increase; whether he is aware that many mates have for some months been receiving less than deckhands and engineer officers less than greasers in the same ships; and whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that the claims of these officers shall be fully considered without further delay?

The question of the pay of officers on steamers under the control of the Railway Executive Committee has been under consideration for some time, and the committee have agreed to pay the initial rates for each grade as recommended by the National Maritime Board, but desire to retain their own classification of railway steamers and their own system of seniority. The rates of pay will on the average, and on the whole, be equivalent to those laid down by the National Maritime Board, and the increases of pay will be retrospective and date back to the 6th October.

Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when the money will be paid to these officers, who have now been waiting nine or ten months?

I am aware that they have waited some time, but I think that a decision will be arrived at very early.

Yes; it has been arrived at, but I am unable to state anything of the actual facts.

Royal Navy

Free Postage During War

71.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will recommend His Majesty's Government to grant to the Navy the privilege of free postage during the War?

This concession has already been made and is applicable to the officers and men of all sea-going ships, It has not been extended to the personnel of certain depot ships and shore establishments in order to preserve some analogy with the Army personnel serving at home.

U-Boat Warfare (British Seamen)

72.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the story about the derelict U-boat has yet been reported on, and, if so, what conclusion has been come to; and whether the story was first told by a naval officer at a meeting at the Colston Hall about five weeks ago, at which the Parliamentary Secretary himself was present?

We have endeavoured to trace this story to its origin. Fleet-Paymaster Collingwood Hughes appears to have heard it from more than one source. He should certainly have taken the opportunity afforded him in his official position to verify it. In our opinion the story is without foundation. As regards the second part of the question, Commander Sir Edward Nicholl, Royal Naval Reserve, certainly told the story in the course of a speech at a meeting at Bristol, at which I was present. I learn from him that he was present at an earlier meeting addressed by Mr. Collingwood Hughes in South Wales, and heard the story recited by him on that occasion.

What steps have the Admiralty taken to stop inventions and tales like these, which do infinite harm in Germany and neutral countries?

Has the form of the fairy tale told by Sir Edward Nicholl been investigated?

I do not know what my hon. Friend means. Sir Edward Nicholl told what he had heard.

Why was action taken when an obscure paymaster tells the story and gets reported, and not when Sir Edward Nicholl told the story?

I assume that when it was told by an officer of the Intelligence Department it had a more official character.

No; I think he holds a commission as an officer of the Royal Naval Reserve, but nothing beyond that.

Cabling Facilities (Mr Leverton Harris)

73.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire was a director of the Trade Division of the Admiralty War Staff during the period when he asked for cabling facilities from the chief cable censor; if he was not a director, who was; and was the director cognisant of the application for facilities by his subordinate?

No, Sir. The director was Captain Richard Webb, C.B., R.N. At the time in question my right hon. Friend was giving assistance to the director as a voluntary worker, and passed on to the chief cable censor at the War Office a communication from the firm of Harris and Dixon, which pointed out that the delay in the exchange of cables with their house in Spain was causing serious delay to Spanish vessels carrying iron ore and foodstuffs to this country and the Allies, and which asked that their cables might in future be expedited.

As already stated in this House by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, other firms had already been granted these facilities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman heard the statement of the right hon. Member for East Worcester on 24th June, to the effect that, in view of his connection with this firm, he considered that his correct course was not to put forward any recommendation officially. Therefore, the answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Sanatorium Accommodation, Lancashire

79.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the lack of accommodation for sanatorium treatment in certain Lancashire areas; whether there is a waiting list of military tuberculous patients who are given priority; whether civil patients have died whilst waiting for sanatorium treatment which has been ordered; and whether he proposes to take any steps to provide sufficient accommodation for military and civil sufferers?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and an Interdepartmental Committee has been appointed with a view to securing the provision of such additional accommodation in Lancashire and other areas as may be practicable in the present circumstances. I understand that, so far as the administrative county of Lancashire is concerned, there is no waiting list of military tuberculous patients, but there is a deficiency of accommodation for civilian patients. Certain patients died whilst waiting for admission to institutions, but our information is that they were hopeless cases, and the probability is that death would have occurred at an early date even if they had been admitted to a hospital or sanatorium.

Is it not a fact that the waiting list was caused by the preference given to the military tuberculous cases? Was not that the reason why there was a civilian waiting list?

The list has been increasing for some considerable time, and no special set of circumstances is definitely responsible, so far as I know. It is a matter that has been growing in gravity for some time.

May I ask if that increasing gravity is not caused by the military tuberculous patients?

Undoubtedly they have substantially added to it, but it was growing before.

Munitions

Alliance Aeroplane Factory

82.

asked the Minister of Munitions on what terms Messrs. Waring and Gillow's Alliance Aeroplane Factory has been taken over as a settlement of the recent strike; and whether it is proposed to take any others over on the same terms?

As was announced in an official communication which appeared in the Press yesterday, the Alliance Aeroplane Erecting Shop has been taken over by the Ministry of Munitions as a national factory. The superintendent of the Royal Aircraft Factory, Farnborough, has been called in temporarily to manage the factory pending the appointment of a new permanent manager. The financial terms of the transfer are not finally settled. The question of taking similar action in other cases must depend on the facts in each case.

The financial arrangements incidental to taking over the factory have not been completed, and I cannot make an announcement with regard to it.

Surely he can say whether it is the intention to purchase out and out? I am not asking the price.

I cannot answer as to that. A good deal would depend on the conditions as to whether purchase out and out will be adopted.

I should be able to give a definite reply at the beginning of next week.

Can my hon. Friend say whether this is taken over under the Defence of the Realm Act or under the Munitions of War Act, or what statutory power is employed for the purchase, and if he can say that he can surely say whether it is to be purchased?

If it is taken over under the Defence of the Realm Act, is there any power to purchase?

Will care be taken to see that no money is paid for the goodwill of the business, and that it is taken simply at its value?

Government Of Ireland

Nationalist Party Resolution

I wish to give notice that at an early date I shall move the following Resolution:

"That the policy pursued towards Ireland by His Majesty's Government is inconsistent with the great principles for the vindication of which the Allied Powers are carrying on the War; that this policy has greatly alienated and exasperated the Irish people; if persevered in will still further alienate and exasperate them, and will steadily increase the difficulty of reaching a settlement of the Irish question on a basis of friendship between the British and the Irish nations.
That this House heartily endorses the principles laid down by President Wilson in his great speech by the grave of George Washington. When speaking of the objects for which America and her Allies are fighting, he said:
'These great objects can be put into a single sentence. What we seek is the reign of law based upon the consent of the governed and sustained by the organised opinion of mankind. These great ends cannot be achieved by debating and seeking to reconcile and accommodate what statesmen may wish with their projects for balances of power and national opportunity. They can be realised only by the determination of what the thinking peoples of the world desire with their longing hope for justice and for social freedom and opportunity.'
And that this House is of opinion that the true solution of the Irish question is to put into operation without delay in regard to Ireland the principles laid down by President Wilson in this historic utterance."
To-morrow I shall ask the Leader of the House for a day to debate that Motion.

Private Business

Bristol Corporation Bill [ Lords],

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Local Legislation Committee

Special Report brought up, and read.

Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 91.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 91.]

National Expenditure

Fifth Report of the Select Committee brought up, and read; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 92.]

Orders Of The Day

Business Of The House

May I ask the Leader of the House what Orders will be taken to-day, and also what will be the business on Thursday?

On Thursday we shall proceed with the Bills on the Paper. To-day we shall take as many of the Orders as possible down to the Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Bill, and if there be time also the Corn Production (Amendment) Bill.

Will the right hon. Gentleman put down the Report stage of the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill as the first Order for to-morrow or Thursday?

It will be put down to-morrow, but I cannot say whether it will be the first Order or not.

Ordered "That Government business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour although opposed."—[ Mr. Bonar Law.]

Naval Prize Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

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

This Bill seeks to set up the machinery for the distribution of prize money to the officers and men of the Fleet eligible to receive the same. For the better understanding of its proposals, let me state in as brief outline as I can the facts relating to prize money and prize bounty, asking the House to bear in mind that the two things are entirely different. Prize money is an award to the Navy for the capture of enemy merchant ships and cargoes, the award being paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the same. Prize bounty is a Grant by the State of a certain sum per head of the personnel of enemy war ships sunk or captured to the officers and men of the Royal Navy taking part in the sinking or capturing of the same. Prize money is older than the Navy itself as at present established and maintained. Down to Henry VIII.'s time the ports of the Kingdom furnished their quota of ships for the defence of the realm, and in consideration, as an act of grace, the Crown made an award to the mariners from the proceeds of the prizes captured. Time brought its changes, notably the establishment of a navy supported either by the Crown or, as in later years, by the Votes of Parliament. But the policy of awarding, as an act of grace on the part of the Crown to the ship or ships of the Navy capturing an enemy merchantman, the net proceeds of the capture, remained. Down to the present War the award of prize money has been made to the crew or crews of the ship or ships directly and actually engaged in capturing the prize. I call particular attention to the fact because a fundamental change in the mode of award is now proposed in this Bill.

Of course the award of prize money to the actual captors in each case, which was the old system, was a much simpler piece of administration than that now to be followed, but when the Naval Prize Bill was before a Grand Committee of the House of Commons in 1911 attention was called to the injustice involved in awarding prize money to those fortunate enough to be stationed on the trade routes, whilst the men who actually brought the enemy's ships of war to action got nothing from the distribution, though they did, of course, get their chance of earning prize bounty, as to which I will presently say a word. The injustice seemed to be accentuated by modern developments both of ships of the Navy and of the Mercantile Marine. It appeared possible that a small ship of war with a personnel of certainly less than 100 could hold up, capture, and bring in a great liner worth, say, a million of money—not sink her, of course; that is the German method—but bring her in, and undoubtedly, had the enemy Mercantile Marine kept the high seas, that is what certainly would have happened. It was, therefore, decided that, whilst retaining, by grace of the Crown, the old Navy privilege of participation in prize money, to alter the principle of award, so as to make possible a more general scheme of distribution to the Fleet. The net proceeds of each prize were no longer to be presented to its captors, but to be placed in a general pool out of which the officers and men of the Fleet as a whole actually taking part in sea operations in the present War should participate. I want to make quite clear this change in the method of award. Of course this necessitates the postponement of the final distribution of the award until the pool is full, which, of course, will not be until the close of hostilities. Now this Bill proposes to give statutory sanction to this important change in the method of distribution, announced, as it was, by Order in Council of the 28th August, 1914.

I said I would say a word or two on prize bounty, which is quite a different thing from prize money, and this would appear to be a convenient point to do so. The award of prize bounty is not of such ancient origin as the award of prize money. It dates from the time of the Commonwealth. It represents, as I say, a Grant from the State of a fixed sum per head—in recent times, since 1708, £5 per head—of the ship's company of any enemy armed ship—not a peaceable merchant ship, please remember!—actually sunk, burnt, captured or destroyed, to be distributed under an approved scale to the ship's company effecting the destruction or capture of such enemy ship. The policy of direct award in the case of bounty has been perpetuated in the present War. The Order in Council of 2nd March, 1915, sanctioned this, and the Orders in Council of 29th February, 1916, and 24th October, 1916, prescribed the scale of distribution. The procedure prescribed by the Naval Prize Act of 1864 has, of course, been followed. Claim has been made in the Admiralty Court, the President has given judgment, and the Accountant-General of the Navy has made payment. Down to 9th July, £53,539 has been distributed to officers and men of the Fleet by way of prize bounty out of £55,704 distributable.

4.0 P.M.

I return to prize money, and come to certain important features of our proposals other than that of pooling; and here I must go back to history for a moment. In the Crown, from the beginning, as already said, is vested the right to prize, and, by its favour, awards of the proceeds of the capture of enemy merchant ships and their cargoes captured at sea have been made to the Navy. All prize, therefore, originally was the perquisite of the Crown. In the course of time the office of Lord High Admiral, originally held by the Sovereign, was conferred on a subject. It was so conferred in the reign of Charles II. on his brother the Duke of York. For the maintenance of his office the proceeds of prize taken under certain circumstances were allocated to the Lord High Admiral. The original Order in Council—and I think the House will be interested in this—is dated either 1665 or 1666, and provides for the maintenance of his office of Lord High Admiral by Charles II.'s brother, the Duke of York. It reads as follows:
"1. That all ships and goods belonging to enemies coming into any port, creek, or road of this His Majesty's Kingdom of England, or of Ireland, by stress of weather, or other accident or by mistake of port, or by ignorance, not knowing of the War, do belong to the Lord High Admiral: but such as shall voluntarily come in, either men of war or merchantmen, upon revolt from the enemy, and such as shall be driven in and forced into port by the King's men of war, and also such ships as shall be seized in any of the ports, creeks, or roads of this Kingdom, or of Ireland, before any declaration of war, or reprisals by His Majesty, do belong unto His Majesty.
2. That all enemy's ships and goods casually met at sea and seized by any vessel not commissionated, do belong to the Lord High Admiral.
3. That salvage belongs to the Lord High Admiral for all ships rescued.
4. That all ships forsaken by the company belonging to them are the Lord High Admiral's, unless a ship commissionated have given occasion to such dereliction, and the ship so left be seized by such ship pursuing, or by some other ship commissionated then in the same company, and in pursuit of the enemy: and the like is to be understood of any goods thrown out of any ship pursued."
Here you have the beginning of what were subsequently known as the droits of Admiralty and the droits of the Crown. The prizes thus allocated to the Lord High Admiral have come to be known as droits of Admiralty, while that portion of the proceeds retained by the Crown are known as droits of the Crown. The House must please get these two categories clear. Droits of Admiralty fell to the King in his right of Admiralty and they were surrendered by King William IV. when the Civil List was established. They therefore fell from that time into the Exchequer. It is important to bear in mind the state of the existing law in this respect in order to appreciate why, in certain cases, the proceeds of prize revert to the Treasury and are not distributed to the Navy. This is, of course, no innovation. The purport of this Bill as regards these two kinds of droits is to secure for the Navy what it has enjoyed for centuries by ancient custom and practice—no more and no less.

I now come to the application of this ancient custom and practice in the present War. In the early days of the War, at any rate, certain Prize Courts did not distinguish between droits of the Crown and droits of Admiralty. It is not disputed that the net proceeds of droits of the Crown have by immemorial custom been given to the Fleet by the pleasure of the Crown. The net proceeds of droits of Admiralty belong to the Treasury. The phraseology is apt to mislead, I admit, but the difficulty at the moment is the allocation of the value of condemned prize into these two categories. The Government has decided to appoint a strong and impartial tribunal to essay this task of separating these two kinds of droits. The tribunal will, it is proposed, consist of three members. I am glad to be able to announce that for the chairmanship we have secured the services of Lord Phillimore, better known as Sir Walter Phillimore, lately one of the Lords Justice of the Court of Appeal. He bears a name which is as well known in the naval service—as well of to-day as of the last century—as it is in the law. The son of a very distinguished judge who presided for many years in the Court of Admiralty, himself for many years a distinguished leader in the same court, and since then, for twenty years, a judge, Lord Phillimore combines in a peculiar degree the qualifications necessary for the post. The distinguished gentlemen who have consented to act as his colleagues are Admiral of the Fleet Sir George Callaghan, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., and the Eight Hon. Sir Guy Fleetwood Wilson, G.C.I.E., K.C.B., K.C.M.G., who has bad a distinguished official career and was lately the Finance Member and Vice-President of the Council of the Governor-General of India. The tribunal will have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof in regard to the attendance and examination of witnesses, the production of documents, and punishment for contempt of court. They may appoint a clerk who will be paid a salary, and provision is made for meeting the remuneration of the clerk and any other expenses of the tribunal to such amount as the Treasury may sanction. Provision is also taken for the filling of a vacancy amongst the members of the Tribunal, if unhappily one should occur. All this will be found in Clause 2 of the Bill and paragraph 6, Part 2 of the Schedule.

The total sum standing to the credit of the London Prize Court on the 30th June was £9,818,845, and to that must be added the amount standing to the credit of the Overseas Courts. It is quite impossible to give any estimate of those amounts, but the total standing to the credit of the several Prize Courts must not be taken as the amount to be distributed as prize. So much must be clear from what I have said, because part of the total consists of droits of Admiralty and part droits of Crown. Further, part may be neither the one nor the other. I refer to the cargoes ordered to be detained in this country under the various Blockade Orders in Council, and, again, the expenses incurred in safeguarding ships and cargoes before they have been sold or otherwise disposed of, warehouse rent, dock dues, watch-keepers, as well as the expenses of sale, have to be deducted from the gross proceeds before any conclusion can be arrived at. When all legitimate charges have been met and when the droits of Admiralty have been properly separated from the droits of Crown, the net proceeds of droits of Crown will constitute the prize fund and be ready for distribution. The regulations which will determine eligibility to shave in the distribution and the scale of distribution will be authorised by Proclamation as provided for in Section 1, Sub-section (2). For the better information of Members they have been laid and issued in draft form as a Command Paper, so that Members may be duly apprised of that important side of the matter who is to be eligible for a share in this prize fund and what is to be the scale of distribution. I felt that the discussion would not be complete unless hon. Members had this document before them. The officers and men of the Fleet will naturally be very interested in these Regulations, and I make no apology, therefore, for endeavouring to explain them in some detail. I should like before I do so to express on behalf of the Board our thanks to Admiral Bethell and his Committee, who examined the whole question of the problem of eligibility and the scale of distribution with a care and thoroughness which I cannot praise too highly.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how that Committee was constituted?

Certainly; I will read the names:

Admiral Bethell, President, Captain H. T. Buller, R.N. (Naval Assistant to the Second Sea Lord), Mr. Evans (head of the Naval Law Branch), Mr. Drake (Accountant-General's Department), with Staff-Paymaster M. G. Bennett, as secretary.

Prize money was earned in the old wars by service at sea, and in this scheme it has been considered desirable to adopt the same principle while a more general distribution is being made of the proceeds of prize. We propose to lay it down that to qualify for a full share each individual officer and man must have completed a certain period of service at sea in a seagoing ship. At present we contemplate that this period should be thirty months for a full share, but if the War should last more than double that length of time a longer period of sea service would be required, and we should issue another Proclamation amending this. When the sea service of an individual has been less than the prescribed period only a proportionate amount of the full share will be given, but in no case will any portion of the share be given unless the individual has had at least one month's service at sea. Special conditions are laid down to enable the relatives of those who have lost their lives and of those who have been invalided in consequence of wounds or injuries received while on sea service to receive a full share irrespective of their total period of service at sea, and also in the case of those who die or are invalided on account of disease contracted in the Service, though in the latter case a minimum period of service at sea, namely, ten months, is stipulated as a necessary condition of the award. Prisoners of war will also be treated with special consideration in regard to their eligibility for the distribution. If hon. Members desire more detailed explanation, and will put questions, I will endeavour to answer them.

The scale of distribution of prize money which it is proposed to adopt is based, as far as possible, on a system of relative responsibility of the various ranks and ratings concerned. It is, of course, only an approximation to the value of the services rendered by the various classes. We adopt the principle of a fixed number of shares for each rank and rating, and those of the same relative rank have been grouped together in classes. Under the old scales of distribution, before those eligible for awards were allocated their share, a certain proportion was set aside for flag officers and officers in command. For instance, under the last of the old prize money scales of distribution, flag officers took one-thirtieth and commanding officers of all ranks one-tenth, such one-tenth being of the whole fund where there were no flag officers or one-tenth of the remainder after deducting the one-thirtieth in the cases where flag officers participated. We have departed from this policy, and no one, I think, will object to our having done so. From the lower deck, supernumeraries, right up to the Commander-in-Chief, all now come upon the fund for their appropriate number of shares. Further opportunity has been taken to recognise the importance of the services rendered by the engineer-officers in charge of the engines of the larger ships. Compared with the past, our scales setting forth the number of shares to be awarded to each rating and rank represents, if I may so put it, a less steep progression upwards than the old scale.

At the bottom of the proposed scale are the canteen staff, and other supernumeraries. I make no apology for going into these details of shares, for I am quite sure the House will desire to know them. These, then, that I have just mentioned will get two shares each; the boy bluejackets and ordinary seamen come next, with three shares each; the able seamen, and equivalent ranks and ratings get five shares each; the leading seamen, six shares each; petty officer, second class, six shares; petty officer, first class, eight shares; midshipmen, and chief petty officers, ten shares each; warant officers, not in command, twelve shares each; if in command, fifteen shares each; sub-lieutenant, mate, commissioned warrant officer, not in command, fifteen shares each; if in command, twenty shares each; lieutenant, not in command, twenty shares; if in command, thirty shares; lieutenant-commander, not in command, twenty-five shares each; if in command, forty shares; commander not in command, and officers of equivalent rank, lieutenant-commander serving as second in command in a ship commanded by a captain, engineer-lieutenant-commander in charge of the engines of a ship commanded by a captain, thirty shares each; captain not in command, and officers of equivalent rank, commander serving as second in command in a ship commanded by a captain, engineer-commander in charge of the engines of a ship commanded by a captain, forty shares each; commanders in command, sixty shares; captains in command, from 100 to 160 shares each, according to their position on the captains' list. Above this are the commodores, rear-admirals, vice-admirals, and admirals. They go up from 160 to 1,250 shares each. At the top of the scale is the Commander-in-Chief in command of the Grand Fleet, with 2,000 shares. That, then, is the proposed new scale. As I have said, it represents from the bottom to the top a flatter rate of progression than in the past. So much by way of general explanation. I wish I could, but I could not, under the circumstances, make it shorter.

Questions will arise, and have arisen, respecting two or three matters with which I may as well deal now. The policy of pooling, as I have already said, made distribution after each condemnation and sale out of the question. The country, therefore, has had the use of large sums of money from the beginning of the War down to the present time, part of which, at any rate, belongs by grace of the Crown to the Fleet in the form of prize money. The Bill provides that any accumulation of interest on the moneys in the hands of the Prize Court shall be added to the funds. Again, in this War the Government has, as on previous occasions, taken prize ships into its use for the conduct of the War. It has also done what, so far as I am aware, has never been done before, made use of ships which have been condemned, whether as droits of the Crown, droits of Admiralty, or to be detained, for the purpose of trade to meet the necessities of the civil population. As regards those ships which may be classified as droits of the Crown, it has been decided that it would be equitable to credit the naval prize fund with the value of such ships at the time they are taken over by the Government, and to allow compound interest at 4 per cent. per annum, with half-yearly rests; that is, interest is added to capital every six months on such values until the money is paid over to the naval prize fund. Interest at the same rate will also be paid on the net proceeds of goods condemned as droits of the Crown which have been sold.

I should like to add that in certain respects we are improving the machinery of the past in the interests of the Fleet. The deduction of 5 per cent. taken from the proceeds of prizes before distribution to the captors which, under the Naval Prize and Agency Act of 1864, was appropriated by the Exchequer, will no longer be made. The Treasury waives that in the interests of the Fleet. Similarly, the various odds and ends of forfeited and unclaimed shares and the balances which remain after the distribution has been made will no longer fall into the Exchequer, but will form part of the residue of the fund. As to the fund, one word in a moment! It is also provided that, as the employment of ships' agents is no longer necessary in connection with prize money, they shall have no claim for any percentage such as is reserved to them under the Naval Agency and Distribution Act. Up to the present, as regards prize bounty, they have a claim of 2½ per cent. on the sum distributed. In regard to this there is still some necessity for their employment, but in this case also power is taken by Clause 3 of the Bill to reduce the allowance to a sum not exceeding 1 per cent. We have gone into this matter carefully, and we believe—as experience shows—that this will be equitable. It is not to be supposed, of course, that even at the close of hostilities and the distribution to the Fleet, to which I have just referred, that the matter will then by any means be finally disposed of. Claims will be coming in and matters will remain for final adjustment probably for years to come. It is proposed that after the main distribution, the "sweepings up," if I may so call it, will—I do not deny—involve a very considerable sum of money in the aggregate. This, it is suggested, should be devoted to naval charitable purposes. This is provided for in Clause 1, Sub-section (3). I should like here to say that the officers and men belonging to His Majesty's Dominions outside the United Kingdom, who have contributed so loyally and materially to the success of our operations in this struggle, will share in the distribution of the prize-money to the same extent as members of the Royal Navy. Further, members of these forces will also be eligible to benefit from the income to be produced by the residue of the fund, after its application to naval charities. I have stated the matter quite broadly—a task by no means easy in the case of a most ancient and most complex problem like this. I do not doubt hon. Friends have questions of details in their minds which have not been answered in the course of this general statement. If they have, we will do our best to reply to them. I beg to move.

I should like, first of all, very warmly to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the very clear and lucid statement which he has made. I especially congratulate him on treating this subject first from a historical point of view, and also on his having paid reverence to the past, for this is always specially pleasing to the Services when it comes from one educated in the schools of Radicalism. If I make any criticism in the course of my speech that criticism is in no way personal to my right hon. Friend, who has always met us and explained things to us privately to the very best of his ability, and who has always treated Members of this House with the greatest kindness and consideration. Nor is it personal from myself, because my object simply is this: while we are discussing the droits of the Admiralty and the droits of the Crown we also desire to insist upon the rights of the House of Commons. There may be one or two questions in connection with this Bill and Amendments that it may be considered desirable to make. I am not at all sure, for instance, whether my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Peto), who more than any other Member in this House represents the interest of the Mercantile Marine, may not desire to extend certain portions of this Bill to the Mercantile Marine after he has read the Bill, for up till now we have not had much opportunity. In Clause 1, Sub-section (6) of the Bill there is laid down the officers and men to whom the Bill is applicable. It is possible that an Amendment might be in order to extend that. I do not know, but in Clause 3, Subsection (2), an extension is made to the members of the Air Service, and you give a reason for it. You say

"shall include the officers and crew of such of His Majesty's aircraft operating under the directions of the Admiralty as are determined by the Prize Court to have been actually present at and to have assisted in the taking or destroying of an armed ship of any of His Majesty's enemies."
They share in the droits of the Crown which constitute prize money. It is not a question of prize bounty but of prize money. As my right hon. Friend opposite knows, again and again Mercantile Marine officers have, like the Air Force, helped in the destruction of enemy submarine craft, and they certainly, more than any other class of the community, have shared in the dangers of the sea. It may well be, if it is in order, that someone may, for the purposes of discussion, seek to extend the operations of this Bill to the Mercantile Marine. There is another point in regard to Sub-section (5) of Clause 1. I think it is the Sub-section dealing with the White Paper or the draft Proclamation. Whether or not it will be in order to move Amendments dealing with the Proclamation I do not know, but I put the matter in query form so that it may be considered.

That deals with the Proclamation? My point is whether we are entitled to move Amendments dealing with the Proclamation, because that Proclamation is only issued as a White Paper. As a matter of fact; however, we had a distinct promise in the House of Lords that the scale of charges for prize money would be in the Bill—and we are accustomed to Ministers referring to what takes place in the other House as applying to this House—we had that promise from Lord Lytton this year on 14th May, and he said:

"It has been decided in this War that all prize money shall be pooled and distributed throughout the Navy upon a scale to be submitted to Parliament which will appear in the Naval Prize Bill."
That scale does not appear in the Naval Prize Bill, but in the White Paper. Only 170 copies of that White Paper have been printed, none of which have been issued to Members of Parliament. As my right hon. Friend knows, a White Paper is issued to the Vote Office only to the extent of 170 copies, and it is issued from the Vote Office later, perhaps at the end of this week we may have a Pink Paper asking us whether we desire this particular White Paper, and if we do we put our initials to that Pink Paper and get it. For the moment the result is that a very large number of Members who have seen the Bill will never have seen this scale. My right hon. Friend recited what that scale was. It is a question which very much concerns the House of Commons, because of the original scale to which reference is made by the right hon. Gentleman. He said the Committee had fined down that scale so that there was a less steep progression upwards than formerly. I think those are the words he used. The old scale was based on very aristocratic times.

Yes; exactly. We followed traditions, for I think that scale which we propose to replace dated from the seventeenth century. This new Proclamation still has vast differences like the old scale—that is my point. After all, however, the House of Commons has very much changed since the French wars. It is a democratic House of Commons. It might desire in its wisdom that the awards shall be much higher at the lower end of the scale, and also lower at the higher end of the scale. For instance, my right hon. Friend mentioned that an able seaman gets five shares, whilst the lowest amount is two shares. On the other hand, the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet gets 2,000 shares, which is 400 times as much as an able seaman. The two richest men in the whole Navy, the two Commanders-in-Chief of the Grand Fleet, Lord Jellicoe and Sir David Beatty, will get 2,000 shares each. The thing has to be judged upon its merits. We are going to concede to the Admiralty for all time the power to issue Proclamations under this Bill, and that scale is the one which the Admiralty tells the House of Commons is a fair scale. My own view is that, should an hon. Member at a later stage table an Amendment proposing to cut down the higher limits or to increase the lower limit, and it should be in order, I shall feel bound to go into the Division Lobby to support him, providing he does not ask too much. After all, the honour and glory in all these matters mainly goes to the officers, and the doings of individual men are not publicly recognised to the same extent. For that and other reasons I should be inclined to give any increases to the lower end of the scale. I asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the constitution of the Committee which settled the matter, and he mentioned that it consisted of two or three officers and two or three official civilians, but there was no civilian directly to represent the interests of the lower deck. And, after all, it is the lower deck which later on frequently comes on to the Poor Rates and all those sad cases of men going about who have been discharged from the Army and Navy.

I am much more concerned in preventing anything of that kind happening by giving them higher payments instead of giving it to the senior officers, whose future is safeguarded. I would rather see the upper limits rather toned down and the lower raised up. I remember a story of the old days regarding a man in the Navy who, in the middle of a naval action, was caught praying, and the officer asked him what he was praying for. He replied that he praying that the bullets might be whacked out like prize money; and in that case the bulk of them would have gone to the officers. There is another point as to whether it is in order to discuss the question where the Foreign Office comes in. I was wondering whether any Amendment would be allowed as to the way the prize fund would be compensated where the Foreign Office takes ships out of the Prize Courts when the Prize Court may or may not have given a decision condemning the ship. As far as I can make out, under this Bill the Navy would lose that money. I take for instance, what Lord Grey offered to agree to on 25th April, 1916, and again on 2nd August, 1916. He offered to agree formally, and in advance of the decision of our Prize Courts, to submit Swedish vessels to arbitration after the War. All those vessels would have been held up if they had gone to arbitration if that had been agreed to, but the Foreign Office were prepared to offer all these ships to arbitration, and the prize fund might have lost the benefit. The Foreign Office again set up a secret Committee of the Foreign Office to sit in judgment and revise the Prize Court decisions. That is a new factor. I am far from arguing that the Navy has any rights in this matter, and I believe it is merely a matter of established custom. The Naval Discipline Act of 1864 expressly laid down in Section 55 that:
"Nothing in this Act shall give to the officers and crew of any of His Majesty's ships of war any right or claim in or to any ships or goods taken as prize or the proceeds thereof, it being the intent of this Act that such officers and crews shall continue to take only such interest (if any) in the proceeds of prizes as may be from time to time granted them by the Crown."
If the prize money ever was taken away, then I would contend you should level up the rates of pay all round, because prize money is partly a compensation for the absence of higher rates of pay, and of the two I should infinitely prefer to see the rates of pay raised all round. While you recognise this custom, I think there is an argument for saying that when the Foreign Office takes ships which have been condemned out of the prize fund, then the Government should compensate the prize fund. Now let me go back to the time when we had an Order in Council dated 28th August, 1914, suspending the Naval Prize Act. It is nearly four years now after that date that the Naval Prize Bill is introduced in spite of our continually asking for its introduction, and it is being brought forward towards the end of a Session, at a period when the House grants almost anything. I would be disposed to put down Amendments myself on the Committee stage, but I cannot feel the same inclination to put them down at the end of the Session, when I know His Majesty's Ministers are all suffering from their labours and the House itself is anxious to get away. Personally I am ready to sit all through September, but I am not prepared to go against the general sense of the House by prolonging the Committee stage of a Bill like this. May I point out that last night, when it was proposed to take this Bill, the White Paper dealing with this question was not even out, and I pointed this out at Question Time. When I asked my question drawing attention to the fact that this White Paper was not out, a few copies were rushed at 7.40 into the Vote Office. I do not complain, but that is not the way to treat the House of Commons in regard to a big Bill like this.

My right hon. Friend points out that you are going to deal with a sum amounting to £9,819,000 in the Central London Prize Court alone. You have to decide how much of that is droits of the Crown and how much droits of the Admiralty. To that has to be added all the money in the Prize Courts abroad, and possibly the proceeds of a good many of the 251 detained ships. We were told on the 20th July, 1916, that the draft of this Bill was already in existence, and that is exactly two years ago. Then on 9th April, 1918, we were told in the House of Lords that the Bill would no doubt come before their Lordships at an early date, and we were promised numerous times that it would be brought forward at an early date. I know the excuse is that the Government had to consult the Dominions, but between July, 1916, and the present time I should have thought you might have finished your consultation with the Dominions, and got this Bill before the House at an earlier period of the War, instead of four years after the War commenced.

I would remind my right hon. Friend that there are all the widows and orphans of men who have been killed in this War to be considered, and I cannot help thinking that some system might have been devised, in spite of the pool not being complete, under which those widows and orphan? might have had some of the prize money to which they are entitled. That is why we were continually pressing for this Bill to be introduced much earlier in the War. There was an officer advertising in the "Times" the other day for cash for the surrender of his prize money. What results he obtained I do not know, but he did advertise for anybody who liked to accept a sporting chance as to his share of the prize money. My right hon. Friend told us the constitution of the tribunal which is going to judge as between the droits of the Admiralty and the droits of the Crown, and I have no fault to find with its constitution. I do not think a better judge could have been selected than Lord Phillimore, who, as my right hon. Friend said, possesses naval associations, when you put a clever financial authority like Sir Fleetwood Wilson up against a sailor like Sir George Callaghan the advantage as a rule would rest with the financial man. After all, as Sir John Jellicoe pointed out the other day, navai officers suffer from an inability to express their ideas easily. [HON. MEMBER: "Not all of them."] Well, nearly all of them. I remember reading of what occurred in this House when Admiral Lord Clarence Paget represented the Navy—as my right hon. Friend opposite does so well to-day, and has done for the last ten years, in fact, he is the oldest member of the Government as regards keeping the one position all the time—Mr. Disraeli got up from the Front Opposition Bench, and said to Lord Clarence Paget that there was no getting answers from the Noble Lord, for whenever he is faced with an awkward question he hitches his breeches and says he is only a simple sailor. If that difficulty arises in regard to officers, it is still more a difficulty in regard to the men, and I ask the Admiralty whether they cannot give a greater award to the men, even at the expense of those higher up amongst the officers, when they come to deal with the details of this Bill in Committee.

I should like to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend upon having at last introduced this Bill. I myself more than a year ago, when I was at the Admiralty, invited Sir Walter Phillimore to take up the post under this Bill. I really thought at that time that we had everything ready, but I do not think it is really any use going back into the question of delay. We have been at war four years, and there is a good deal in what my hon. and gallant Friend opposite says, that in the exigencies and calamities of war it might have been well if some scheme could have been devised to allocate a portion of this money to the hard cases of those who had suffered in naval warfare. At the same time, we are bringing about a very great change as regards naval prize, and anybody who has had anything to do with this question cannot help knowing that there were very great difficulties that had to be overcome, and not the least of them was fighting the Treasury on behalf of the naval forces. What we really tried to do when we were framing this Bill, which is, I think, practically the same as it was when I left the Admiralty, except for the addition of two extra members to the tribunal, was in making the change foreshadowed in the Proclamation of the 28th of August to preserve absolutely to the naval fighting forces every privilege they had had under previous Proclamations. After all, the officers and the men enter the Service with the knowledge that in the event of war there are certain sums which come to them in addition to their ordinary pay, and certain rewards which under certain, tragic circumstances they are entitled to. The one thing that I was determined was that no privilege which they had had hitherto should be in the slightest degree infringed upon, and that the fund to be distributed by this new tribunal should be the fullest possible substitute for the old prize fund, which was distributed in an entirely different way, and I congratulate the present officials at the Admiralty that they have succeeded in bringing into the House legislation which in no wise infringes upon the fund which has always been distributable as prize money. I do not believe that any Member, knowing what naval warfare is, knowing the daily and nightly hardships and sufferings which the officers and men have to go through during this long period of anxiety, and that their wives and families waiting at home go through, would like to see one single shilling that has ever been applied to the prize fund not applied in the present case.

I say that also in reference to an observation made by my hon. Friend (Commander Bellairs). He said that it might be necessary to move Amendments to include in the number amongst whom the prize fund is to be distributed the Mercantile Marine. The Mercantile Marine have won, a place in this War which is beyond all praise. It is impossible to describe what we owe to them. Nothing could be too good for them. At the same time, I do object to any portion of what is properly naval prize and properly distributable amongst the officers and men of the Navy being applied for any other purpose, no matter how worthy it may be. If, as is true, the Mercantile Marine have taken a part in this War which deserves the highest commendation of the House and the gratitude of every citizen of the Empire, surely we are well enough off to make a sufficient fund for them without doing the mean and niggardly thing of saying that we will pay the Mercantile Marine out of the prize fund of naval officers and men. So far as I am concerned, I could never be a party to any such suggestion, but in any steps that my hon. Friend opposite, who takes such an interest in the Mercantile Marine, may take to secure for them an equivalent prize fund out of public funds he shall have my most earnest support. I hope, even though it is late in the Session, that this Bill may have a speedy passage through this House. It has been very fully considered already in all its aspects both by the Admiralty and by the Treasury, and I can assure my hon. Friends that the amount of work and labour that this tribunal have taken upon themselves is simply colossal. They will have to go through all the different cases that have arisen in the Prize Courts, and, indeed, through all the cases by which the fund has accumulated, and, although there has been no special earmark to show the droits of the Admiralty and the droits of the Crown, they will have to distinguish between them. I think this House and the country will be under a deep obligation to the learned Lord who has taken upon himself the burden of being chairman and to the other members of this tribunal. The best service that the House can do is to pass the Bill at the earliest possible moment.

I rise to deal with one point to which the right hon. Gentleman and my gallant Friend have just referred. I look with considerable interest upon this Bill, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) has suggested, I do so from the point of seeing just who it does include and who it does not include. I wish at once to say that I am in entire agreement with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) has said. I do not believe that the Merchant Service have the slightest desire to poach on a fund which almost from time immemorial has belonged to the officers and crew of His Majesty's ships. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could tell us a little more clearly what Clause 1, Sub-section (2), really does include, because, as he knows, the officers and crews of His Majesty's ships have been recruited to an immense extent during the War from the Mercantile Marine? I am quite sure that he would be the last to wish that officers who have joined in such numbers, and who have got commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve, and in many cases in the Royal Navy, should be in any worse position than any other officers on His Majesty's ships. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether, in interpreting the words "officers and members of crews of His Majesty's ships of war," we are right in inferring that they include all officers and crews in the direct pay of the Admiralty, all who are serving His Majesty, no matter in what exact capacity, so long as they are persons who have commissions in the Royal Naval Reserve or the Royal Navy. I should be glad if he could tell us where the line is drawn, because it is not a very hard and fast line, and this Bill is not sufficiently fully drawn in all particulars to enable one to see who is included and who is not included. I am not putting in any claim on behalf of others who are not entitled to share in this prize fund.

I should like to say one word with regard to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) has said about a special fund for the Mercantile Marine. It is not inappropriate on this Bill that we should have some indication from the Admiralty whether they would regard with special favour and insist in pressing upon the Board of Trade, the Department specially concerned, the formation of some fund to which the nation should have the opportunity of contributing through the Treasury to signify in some practical manner our appreciation of what the nation owes to the Mercantile Marine. I have suggested to the President of the Board of Trade that he might very appropriately appoint a Committee, upon which there should be representatives of officers, engineer officers, men, engineers, shipowners, the Treasury if necessary, and certainly the Board of Trade and the Admiralty, to consider the question of a special fund of the sort indicated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think a pensions fund would be the most appropriate form that it could take; but, so far, beyond receiving a sympathetic reply from the President of the Board of Trade, I have not had any answer that has given me the satisfaction of knowing that he proposes to appoint an official Committee for that purpose. I am grateful to you, Sir, for allowing me the latitude to diverge from the strict matter of this Bill, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Admiralty if he could make it quite clear just how far those words "officers and members of crews of His Majesty's ships of war" carry us.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the very interesting speech of my right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara) was the historical part, in which he told us that the Duke of York was Lord High Admiral of England in the time of King Charles the Second. There was another Lord High Admiral during the same reign, Sir George Cartaret. He came from the island of Jersey, to which I have the honour to belong, and he further had the honour of representing Portsmouth, which was then a small town of 20,000 people. This is a very good Bill, and I was very glad to hear that the dependants of those who have been killed in our service are to draw their share of the prize money, that invalids are to do the same, and that generous treatment is to be meted out to prisoners of war who have had the misfortune not to be able to serve their country any further. My right hon. Friend spoke of charitable institutions. I should like to know if he includes the possibility of Greenwich Hospital?

I am very glad to hear it, and the possibility of getting a little of what may be left over. Another point that struck me was that our cousins from the Dominions should take their share. They most certainly should do so along side ourselves. The question of the Mercantile Marine is one which I think we shall be able to settle in Committee. As I understand it, those who have joined the Royal Naval Reserve will naturally participate on the same footing as naval men. There are two blots on the Bill. One was spoken of by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), who seems to be under the impression that naval officers have a difficulty in expressing themselves clearly. I refer to the 2,000 shares that are handed to the Commander-in-Chief. No one would wish to cut down what is due to the higher officers or to the officers generally, because upon them victory to a very great extent depends, but at the same time I am with my hon. Friend when he says that the difference between 2,000 shares and five shares is very large. Of course, there have been two Commanders-in-Chief, but if there should happen to be ten commanders—

5.0 P.M.

The other blot is the pool. If a ship in these waters or in Dominion waters has a severe action and captures a prize, I cannot follow the idea that the men on that ship should share with others at the other end of the world. It is not a reasonable, a fair, or an equitable idea. A great deal of the work of the Admiralty falls upon my right hon. Friend, but I have not asked him, and I shall not ask him, to pool his salary with the 670 Members of this House. I do not think it makes for discipline or for heroism, or for the good of the Service, for the men on a ship going into action to know that if a large percentage of the complement happen to be killed their prize money, which they leave to their widows, will have to be divided with men who probably have been in safe waters for the period of the War. It is no catch being in the Persian Gulf, but let us say that the ships serving in the Persian Gulf would share with all those ships which were engaged in the Battle of Jutland. That appears to be an inequitable arrangement and one which we shall have to amend in Committee.

That is why I mentioned it. I think that particular root must be extracted.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks of preceding speakers respecting the introduction of the Bill, although it is late in the Session. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will tell us the scope of the definition of the various ships engaged in His Majesty's Service in a naval sense. Does it include motor launches, drifters and trawlers, and what would be termed in ordinary circumstances our small craft, not regularly associated with the Navy in olden times? I rather doubt the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) as to the inability of the sailor or an officer to express himself clearly. I have mixed very much with them and I have found a freedom of expression and a vocabulary that a King's Counsel might almost envy. The hon. and gallant Member raised the point of the great inequality in the distribution of the prize money, which ranges from five to 2,000 shares. I should like that to be somewhat revised. I do not suggest that anybody is getting too much, but it seems a very great difference between the top and the bottom. Another point is the delay in the distribution of the money. If you keep this money until the close of the War a great many of these men, through the misfortunes of war, will not survive the period, and it would be a very wise thing if in some way a percentage could be paid out, in order that the widows and others should have some advantage arising from what would have been due to their husbands had they survived the War. As to the eligibility of the persons to share in the money and the amount which is to be distributed, I see that there are many deductions, and I wonder what the fund is really going to be. My fading hopes were somewhat revived when I realised that there is still some more money to be added to the amount mentioned. It would be an advantage to the Service to really know what is going to happen both to the lower deck and the men of the auxiliary services. I believe they will be generously and justly treated by this new tribunal. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the introduction of the Bill, and hope that it will easily pass into law.

I have tried to gather what is the fundamental principle of the Bill. It seems to me that, instead of the prize money being distributed among those who take part in the action or assist at sea in the capture of the prizes, which I believe was the old system, the money is now to be pooled and divided between every seaman and officer in the Royal Navy, whether or not he has been engaged at all at any time in any sea fight of any kind.

He may have been coaling the Fleet. He may have been on the ship in a clerical capacity or as a canteen assistant. This is a principle which requires a little thinking about. I should like the House of Commons to be able to consider it and see whether or not they approve of it, but I am afraid there is very little chance of that being done. The House is a thin one, and unless it could be circularised, and told exactly what it was, it could never come to an opinion. If it did form an opinion, however strongly held, and ventured to oppose the principle, the right hon. Gentleman would put the Whips on and tell us that we must not vote against the Government in a time of war, and there would be an end of it. I suppose that, whether we like it or not, we have to accept this principle. That is the first deduction I draw from what I have heard to-day. I should like to know very much what are the droits of Admiralty? I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), but he could not tell me. It is very difficult to discover what they are, but upon what are or are not the droits of Admiralty depends how much money the sailors will get. If the droits of Admiralty are extensive or are extended, by so much the less will be the droits of the Crown which are to be distributed among the sailors. I am sorry that I have to plead ignorance as to what the droits of Admiralty are. I know one or two of them. One is that if a ship is taken in a port or creek or what they call a roadway—that is to say, either in a port or a place near the shore—that is a droit of Admiralty, and the Crown gets nothing and the sailors get nothing. Again, if the prize is captured by a naval ship which is not a ship of war, that is also a droit of Admiralty. Those are the principal droits of Admiralty that I know.

I would remind the hon. Member that that matter was expounded at considerable length by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. It is not a new point.

I am very sorry that I came in just at the end of that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. In these circumstances I will not persist any further in that point. But I still would like to have, if possible, a definition in the Bill itself of what are the droits of Admiralty. There is no definition at all. It is to be left entirely to the decision of Lord Phillimore and the two gallant admirals who are to be associated with him. I suppose they know or will get to know. Those are the two principal criticisms I want to offer on the Bill. The question of the merchantmen has been mentioned, and we hope to have a statement from the right hon. Gentleman that something is going to be done for them—I quite agree, not out of the Naval Prize Fund, but out of some fund provided by this House. I noticed on reading the Bill through that the Royal Air Force is not included in Clause 4. It should be included, if possible.

In one case the Royal Air Force is brought in, but it is not mentioned in Clause 4. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into that and see that it is put right.

I should like to congratulate the Admiralty upon having broadened the basis of the distribution of this fund. It was an inevitable change, and one which will be popular throughout the Navy. It does not seem to have struck some speakers that the majority of the people who go to sea in the Navy in these days are at imminent risks at all times and should share in the prospects of their more fortunate comrades who are engaged in capturing enemy vessels or are the means of obtaining prize money. The one point I desire to put to the House is due to the fact that a great deal of sympathy has been expressed for the lower deck and not very much for the officers. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) pressing the claims of the lower deck as against those of the officers. He did not mention the terrible-responsibilities which the senior officers in the Navy have at all times to bear. If it should so happen that this matter is discussed in Committee—at present, I understand, it is unlikely—I, for one, shall support the claims of the senior officers very strongly, because of the fact that their responsibilities are always greater than those of the lower deck. One point I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is that, although he has provided for a vacancy occurring in the chairmanship of the tribunal, no provision is made that in the event of the one solitary representative of the fighting service becoming a casualty, so to speak, his successor shall be a sailor. It is quite possible that some future Administration will fill the place of the distinguished admiral whose name appears in the Bill by appointing a civilian.

I do not think my right hon. Friend would do it, but we have to legislate for the future, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be prepared to accept a short Amendment to enable what I regard as an omission to be repaired. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, from personal experience, I know that this Bill has been anxiously awaited throughout the Service, and that even its rather belated production will be popular with the officers and the lower deck.

I wish to raise a point with regard to the tribunal. I did not interpolate any remark with regard to this point before, because I did not want to interfere with the general discussion. Probably it is a point that would be better debated in Committee. I give notice that in Committee I shall raise the point of the deletion of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Clause 2. In support of what the hon. and gallant Member opposite (General McCalmont) has said, I do not see any provision that a naval member of the tribunal should be succeeded by a naval man, although there is a proviso that the legal member of the tribunal shall be succeeded by one of the same profession. I do not very much object to that, but I object to the limitation in the proviso, because it would debar an eminent lawyer, who might be suitable and available for this work, from being appointed. Take the present Home Secretary, or the ex-Prime Minister, both of whom are distinguished for their skill and balanced judgment. They would not be available under this disqualification, and it might be that if there was a successor wanted to Lord Phillimore and there was no judge available no one would object to the appointment of any other exceptionally suitable person who might be so available at that time. I do not see why he should not be chosen. I am only mentioning the matter now, and I give notice that I will raise the question when we come to Committee.

I can only speak by the leave of the House, but there are one or two matters with which I should like to deal in reply to the Debate. At the outset I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs), and the other hon. Members for the kindly reception which they have given to this Bill, and especially, if I may say so, my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty, with whom I was in close touch during his occupancy of office. I would like to say, if I may, with great respect, that I shall always look back with the deepest pleasure to my association with him at the Board of Admiralty. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone and other speakers have referred to the case of the Mercantile Marine, which is only natural. We all look with great admiration to the services which have been rendered during the War by the men of the Mercantile Marine, and I am asked how far, if at all, men belonging to the Mercantile Marine will come into this scheme. The answer is that if they are serving—and no doubt a large number of these men are serving—in vessels which are now commissioned ships they will come into the scheme; and this applies to armed merchant cruisers and other armed mercantile fleet auxiliaries, armed boarding steamers, armed examination tugs, armed fleet sweepers, armed mine sweepers, Admiralty patrol yachts, and other miscellaneous armed auxiliary vessels. If they are serving in any of these commissioned ships they do come in. I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham is not present to hear this, but he will be interested to learn that these men do come in as members of the Navy for the time being, and are eligible for prize money.

There will be, of course, a very considerable body of officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, from the Mercantile Marine, and the great fishing fleets serving with us, who will be eligible if they qualify for the distribution. But in regard to the Mercantile Marine proper I think it is commonly agreed that much as we deeply appreciate their services it would not be desirable to put the Mercantile Marine on this particular fund. If they are to be assisted or rewarded, it should be in some other way. As regards what my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) said about the appeal he had made to the Board of Trade for a fund for the purpose of superannuating officers and men of the Mercantile Marine, I should like to read a letter sent by me on behalf of the Board to him, which, I think, shows a very sympathetic attitude on the part of the Admiralty towards the Mercantile Marine:

"16th July, 1918.

My dear Peto,—

In a letter to me of the 23rd April, you said:

'I should be much obliged if you would let me know whether, from the experience of the Admiralty during the War, they would favour a national scheme of pensions for merchant seamen to which (1) officers and men, (2) shipowners, and (3) the State should contribute in agreed proportions; particularly whether, from the Admiralty point of view, it would be a source of strength to the Navy that such a scheme should be constituted to encourage men of British birth to enter the Merchant Service and adopt the sea as their career?'

I sought occasion to bring the matter before the Board of Admiralty, and I am authorised to assure you that the Hoard are entirely sympathetic to the proposition that some scheme of retiring allowances for merchant seamen should be worked out.

Of course, the matter does not come directly within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, but it would, indeed, be poor return for the magnificent services rendered by the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine during this War if the Board of Admiralty in such a matter hesitated to express their opinion on the ground that to do so would be going outside their proper province. The Board, therefore, desire me to say that they would cordially welcome any step which may improve the status of the Mercantile Marine, encourage British youth so minded to follow the sea as a permanent calling and not as an intermittent occupation, and steadily increase the proportion amongst those by whom the British Mercantile Marine is manned who are persons of British birth.

The Board observe that in a communication of the 25th May to the General Secretary of the Navy League, the Board of Trade—while sympathising with the object which you and the Navy League have in view—call attention to this fact, that the governing body which is being constituted under Section 27 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1918, to administer a special fund, will have to prepare a scheme of benefits, which scheme may provide for the payment of pensions to officers and men of the Mercantile Marine.

The Board of Trade suggested that this may possibly form the nucleus of a pension scheme. They further undertook to act as the channel of communication between the shipowners and the representatives of the other interests concerned for the purpose of the appointment of a Committee to study this question of the establishment of a scheme of superannuation for the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine.

I am desired to say that the Board of Admiralty will watch with an entirely sympathetic eye the discussion of this problem, and if they can at any time render assistance and advice, they will certainly be most glad to do so.

Very faithfully yours,

T. J. MACNAMARA."

I only mention this to the House in order to show that whereas we could not agree to the Mercantile Marine coming upon this fund, it would be quite wrong to put the Board of Admiralty in the position of being unsympathetic to the Mercantile Marine or unappreciative of the noble services it has rendered during the War. That would be far, indeed, from our real point of view. As regards the Proclamation to which my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Bellairs) has referred, I would like to deal with his inquiry as to whether it can be discussed or amended in the progress of the discussions on this Bill. The Proclamation is referred to at the end of Sub-section (2) of Section 1—

"and in such manner as His Majesty may, by Proclamation or Order in Council, determine."

I submit with great respect that it would not be competent to go through this Proclamation and amend it, because it is not a Schedule of the Bill. What I thought was that it should be set out in draft form, so that hon. Members would look at it, and I will go as far as to say that if they have any suggestions which they would like to make to us of any kind regarding this Proclamation—although a discussion is not possible by way of proposing an Amendment to the Bill, because it is not a Schedule—we would certainly give them most careful consideration.

Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that Lord Lytton, in the House of Lords in the quotation which I have given, dated 14th May last, promised that the scale which is in that White Paper and the Proclamation should be submitted to Parliament and would appear in the Naval Prize Bill?

I was not aware of that, but I would point out that we are adhering to the original procedure of Parliament in proceeding by way of Proclamation. I was not aware that Lord Lytton had said that it would be in the Bill, and it certainly was not intended that it should be. It must be by Proclamation, as it always has been, as my hon. Friend knows, and all that we have done is to let the House of Commons see it in advance, because we think it is of great importance that we should have any suggestions that can be made in regard to it.

As regards the scale, two or three hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone, have called attention to the Commander-in-Chief's 2,000 shares, and have made a comparison between that and the amount received by the men at the bottom of the scale—namely, the supernumeraries, and so on. I was sorry to hear that from him. I have stated that, as regards the past, we have flattened the upward progression, and we have agreed that flag officers and officers in command should not take a fraction out of the fund before you begin the distribution. But, having done that, I hope it will be agreed that we have not been too generous to the high naval officers. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel McCalmont) referred very properly to the responsibility which the naval officer has upon his shoulders, and, when we consider the 2,000 shares which the Commander-in-Chief is to get, it must be remembered that the whole safety of the personnel and materiel of the Grand Fleet are in his keeping, and not only that, but the whole Allied cause depends largely upon his genius and his courage.

I am sure my right hon. Friend recognises that that is already provided for in the pay.

I know, but I want to put to my hon. and gallant Friend a consideration which I think he will see is very relevant in one moment. The whole safety of these realms depends to a very large extent upon the Commander-in-Chief's action. I have every reason to be as solicitous about fair play for the lower deck as my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not come from the lower deck, but I come from the next door to it, which is the barrack-room. After careful consideration, I think the House will agree that this is a fair and an equitable distribution, and one which is not too generous to the officers, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend, after consideration, will come to the same opinion. Supposing we were to divide the 5,250 shares which are taken by the four men at the top of the list and divide it by half. It would only mean the addition of a few pence or a few shillings at the outside to the men at the bottom of the scale, because these men are so many, and the distribution would be so wide that the 1,000 shares which you might take away from the Commander-in-Chief would only add a few pence or shillings to them. In face of that, I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will take the view that this is not too generous. Personally, I do not think it is.

With reference to the pooling arrangement which was raised by my hon. Friends (Sir Bertram Falle and Mr. Wing), I have only to say that I have already tried to explain why we had gone in for pooling as being a fairer method than the method by which those who had had the good luck of being on the trade routes in this War would have had a large sum of money while those who had brought enemy ships to action did not share at all. I feel sure that opinion in this House and opinion generally will be in favour of this system of pooling. I have every sympathy with the case of the widows and dependants of those who have lost their lives, and in regard to the point of whether an interim payment should not be given I may say that that has been considered more than once, but the great difficulties in the way made it quite impossible to carry it out. The hon. Member for Oldham thought that Clause 4 related to the Naval Air Service. It really does not do so. Clause 4 simply extends the power of the Admiralty to deal with an estate up to £100. It might be that if the prize or bounty award were added to such an estate it would bring it to over £100 in which event the poor people would have to go to law in regard to the administration of the estate. What Clause 4 does is to modify the existing law, to read the £100, which we can administer without going to law on behalf of these poor people, as if it included both the prize and the bounty, which is another thing entirely.

I quite understand that. I see the object of the Clause. I saw it before. But it is limited to officers, seamen, or marines. It does not say anything about the Royal Air Force.

With regard to the Royal Naval Air Service, we cannot allow the time they spend on shore to count for participation, but they will participate to the extent to which their service at sea will entitle them under the Regulations which have been drafted. The principle of sea service is the fundamental principle to qualify for an award, and, so far as the Royal Naval Air Service is concerned, we have expanded that principle to the fullest extent to allow those who are stationed on shore to count flying time at sea towards eligibility. As regards the Royal Air Force, though they are not eligible for prize money, if they are under the authority of the Admiralty they can claim prize bounty.

As regards vacancies in the tribunal, supposing anything should happen to Sir George Callaghan, of course the Board of Admiralty would insist on filling that vacancy by a Naval officer of high rank. We should not think of allowing that post to be filled by any other than a Naval officer of flag or high rank. Complaint has been made of the delay in bringing in the Bill, but once you agree to pooling, and get away from awards made in each case, you cannot distribute this fund till the pool is full at the close of hostilities. Therefore, no one's interest is prejudiced by the fact that the Bill is brought in to-day. All we want now is that droits of the Crown and droits of Admiralty shall be separated, and that the charges paid into and out of the fund shall be examined, so that at the close of hostilities the money will be there ready for distribution to the Fleet. The tribunal will have two months immediately before it of the legal recess, and a certain period of Parliamentary Recess, during which it can do most valuable work. It is most anxious to commence its duties, and I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) say there should be no delay in allowing us to get the Bill, so that the tribunals can get to work as early as possible.

Commander BELLAIRS rose—

I wish to ask a question, with the leave of the House. The expression "during the War" occurs in the Bill. We have never had that defined. Ought it not to be defined in the Bill? You may be in difficulties as to what it means.

I should like to look into that question. I do not quite follow what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[ Colonel Gibbs.]

Trading With The Enemy (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

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

The principal object of this Bill is to fulfil a promise which was made by the Home Secretary on the 11th inst. He made certain promises with respect to businesses under the control of enemies carried on in this country and also with respect to banks under enemy control. He said the Government proposed to introduce legislation dealing with certain businesses which were under the control of subjects of enemy States and which, under existing powers, we are not able to wind-up. He also said we proposed to take power to wind-up a company, as distinct from the business carried on by that company, where the business of the company has been wound-up, and without making application to the Courts for that purpose. He also said we proposed to take powers to prevent enemy controlled banks from reopening in this country after the close of hostilities. These are the principal provisions of the Bill, and they are contained in Clauses 1, 2, and 3. The remaining Clauses deal almost entirely with administrative matters. They are points of minor importance which our experience in dealing with the principal Act of 1916 has found to be inadequate for these purposes. Under existing legislation the Board of Trade is empowered to wind-up businesses carried on in the United Kingdom wholly or mainly for the benefit or under the control of enemy subjects. Where a business is carried on by a company incorporated in the United Kingdom, the Board of Trade has full power with respect to the winding-up of the business of that company, but we have not power to wind-up the company itself. It is necessary in those instances for the Board of Trade to make application to the Courts, and it is for the Courts to make an order winding up the company. I think it would be agreed that in those instances, where the Board of Trade makes an order winding-up a business carried on by a company, it would be desirable that we should at the same time have the power, and should in fact make an order winding-up the company so that the company, and the business carried on by it as well, should be permanently and finally brought to an end and completely dissolved. I think, in dealing with this aspect of the problem, we have gone a long way towards meeting the recommendations made by the group of Members of which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) was the chairman, which suggested that the Board of Trade should make every effort to wind-up these businesses and companies within a period of three months. It will be quite impossible for us to come under any such obligation as that.

There will be exceptional cases, but on the whole it will be possible for us approximately to meet that particular recommendation, and having the power to wind-up the business and the company at the same time will, I think, remove what is to-day a constant source of irritation.

Clause 2 deals with enemy banks. Under it it will be impossible for any bank which is carried on, wholly or mainly for the benefit or under the control of subjects of present enemy countries, to be established in this country for a period of five years after the War. It would be a great mistake for us to allow these banks to be re-established after the War, after we have gone through the difficult process of winding them up. Banks in the business world occupy a very special position, and if they are carried on by those who are not friendly to the interests of this country, they would establish a real menace to those interests. For that reason, I think it very expedient and desirable that we should take steps to prevent these institu- tions from being re-established. The establishment of banks under the control of those who are not friendly to our interests obviously affords them exceptional facilities for acquiring information with respect to the businesses of this country, and, probably more important than that, it affords these institutions an opportunity of establishing businesses in this country not in the interest of British subjects, and not intended to take a fair and honourable part in the development of trade and industry of this country, but rather established in the interest of subjects of present enemy countries, and as part of a deliberate national policy of commercial and political penetration. Under this Clause it will be a misdemeanour for anyone to associate himself in the establishment of any banking enterprise in the United Kingdom which is carried on after the War wholly or mainly for the benefit or under the control of subjects of the present enemy countries. Under the Bill we are taking power to inflict very severe penalties, both by way of fine and imprisonment, for any breach of this prohibition. But having done that, it is of course necessary to go further. If by accident a banking institution should be established in this country which comes within the expression which I have indicated, the Bill not only empowers the Public Prosecutor, under the fiat of the Attorney-General, to take steps to punish these people by fine and imprisonment, but it is also necessary that we should have power to wind up these businesses, and in Sub-section (2) of this Clause power is given to the Board of Trade to wind them up. It may be there is a possibility of some misconception arising upon this Sub-section. It is not intended that the Board of Trade, or any advisory committee which may be set up, shall have any discretionary power on this question of winding-up. It is intended that it shall be the duty of the Board of Trade to wind up these banks, and I am quite willing at a later stage, if this point is not quite clear, to move an Amendment to make it perfectly clear that the Board of Trade is bound to wind up these businesses.

Could it not be done by inserting the word "shall" instead of "may"?

I think it may be necessary to do a little more than that, because under the Sub-clause as now drafted it is possible that the reference to the principal Act may make provision for discretion being exercised by the Board of Trade. That is necessary, and it has proved to be necessary in dealing with businesses under the principal Act, but, now that we are dealing with banks, I suggest that it is not necessary to have that discretion, and that it should be made perfectly clear that these banks are not in any circumstances to be established during the five years after the War. The point arises as to what is meant by the word "bank." There is not, so far as I know, any very clear definition of this word, but we certainly do not intend, in using this word, that it shall be interpreted as probably the general public understand it, as simply meaning a banking institution carrying on ordinary current accounts. We want a great deal more than that, and we intend far more than that by the word "bank." We intend to make it impossible for any financial undertaking to be established in the United Kingdom for the five years after the War, which is carried on mainly or wholly for the benefit of or under the control of subjects of present enemy countries. We are proposing to deal with this particular point by making rules which will define what we mean by "bank." These rules will be prepared in agreement with the Treasury.

Yes. Clause 3 is intended to deal with what is the greatest defect in the principal Act. There were in existence at the outbreak of war businesses carried on by partnerships, where the partners were naturalised enemy subjects, and also enemy subjects resident abroad or carrying on business abroad. Under the law as it stands to-day these partnerships are automatically dissolved by the outbreak of war—that is, so far as the business here is carried on. Our practice during the War has been to vest the enemy subject's interests in the business in the Public Trustee, but that leaves the business in this country to be carried on by the remaining partners. It does seem somewhat of an anomaly that a business which immediately before the War was carried on mainly or wholly for the benefit of or under the control of enemy subjects should be allowed to be carried on during the War, and it is, I think, desirable that the Board of Trade should take power, if it be deemed expedient, to wind up these businesses, as is done with other enemy controlled businesses where, the partners being resident here, there has been no bar to their coming within the provisions of the present Act. I agree that there are probably not many businesses which would come within this Clause; still there are some.

I think it would be true to say that it may not be desirable to wind up all these businesses. There are probably instances, perhaps numerous, where one of the partners is a British subject resident in this country, and carrying on the business in this country, whose partner or partners were subjects of and resident in enemy countries. As a partnership or business arrangement that was quite permissible before the outbreak of war. In so far as the enemy interests in that business are concerned they have been vested in the Public Trustee and the British subject has been allowed to carry on the business, and so long as the Board of Trade is completely satisfied that that business has been carried on not in the interests of enemy subjects, but in the interests of this country, there appears to be no reason why in a case of that kind the business should be wound up. But there are other instances where the facts are not the same. There are instances of businesses where one of the partners is a naturalised enemy alien—a naturalised German before the War—and the other partner or partners are subjects of an enemy State. There the interests of the enemy subjects have been vested in the Public Trustee and the business is allowed to be carried on by the other partner, who may be a naturalised German. I think there is a certain prejudice, and I think rightly, against that business being continued. The presumption is, and I suggest that it is a fair presumption, that that business having been carried on wholly or mainly in the interests or under the control of subjects of enemy countries would in all probability, if it were allowed to be continued, resume that relationship after the War. I think that where it can be shown that the business has not been carried on prior to the War in the interests of this country, unless there is very good reason to be shown to the contrary, this business should be wound up.

Sub-clause (2) of Clause 3 deals with clubs, friendly societies, and kindred institutions of that kind. The object of introducing this Sub-section is because there is some doubt whether we can legally include institutions of this kind under the definition of businesses. Therefore, in order to make this point perfectly clear, it is provided that the Board of Trade shall have power to make a Winding-up Order where these clubs and institutions which may operate, not in the interests of this country, but for propaganda and for other improper purposes, have been carried on wholly or mainly for the benefit or under the control of enemy subjects. In those cases we desire to have the power to immediately wind up such institutions. There is only another point and that is with regard to paragraph (c) of Clause 5. Under the existing legislation when a business is wound up non-enemy creditors are dealt with in priority to enemy creditors, and it is suggested that when we wind up a company as well as wind up the business of the company the same procedure should apply, namely, that non-enemy creditors should have priority with respect to the assets of the company, just as they have priority with respect to the assets of the business of the company. The other points of the Bill are minor points of a rather technical character, and I think it might confuse the principal issues involved in the Bill if I attempted to give any description of these detailed points, but I shall be prepared to give any further explanation of any Clause which may be desired.

I have listened with pleasure to the interesting and clear statement which my right hon. Friend has given of the objects of this Bill. His speech had a ring of conviction about it. He seems to me to be a believer in the policy which he is recommending the House to adopt. He is not, if I may say so, a conscientious objector to the policy, neither is he a conscript to the policy. He is, I hope, in every sense of the word a volunteer. Therefore we shall look forward with interest to the manner in which—as I hope he may be in a position to do—he carries into force the powers which he asks the House to give him. Let me make one preliminary criticism of this Bill with respect to legislation by reference. I know the Bill has been drafted very quickly, and we are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the prompt- ness with which the Bill has been produced, but I would suggest to him, and to all Ministers, that the time has come when it ought not to be necessary for Members of Parliament to go to the Library to rake through the shelves in order to understand a measure before the House. This is an old custom which has been complained about very often, and there is no change, so far as I can see, on the part of this or any other Ministry. Why cannot we do away with legislation by reference? If it is necessary to refer to a particular Act in the Bill, let that Act, if it is not very long, be printed in a separate Schedule at the end of the Bill, so that Members can see exactly what is meant by the references in the Bill.

6.0 P.M.

In regard to the first Clause, the chief importance with respect to the winding up of enemy businesses is that it will remove the rather cumbersome policy of having to go to Court in order to wind up an enemy concern. In future the Department will have the power, without the necessity of having to get the sanction of the Court to take the necessary proceeding in regard to enemy businesses when they are convinced that they are enemy businesses. That is all in favour of more expedition, and, so far as that is concerned, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One of the most important provisions of the Bill is the proposal in regard to enemy banks. That was one of the recommendations of the Committee with which I had the honour to be associated. I have seen it suggested in some quarters that the departure which is now being made in putting the enemy banks into the hands of a liquidator as distinct from the present position of being in the hands of a controller is not a matter of great importance, and that the position is very much the same. I hope that my right hon. Friend will disabuse the mind of the House of that idea, and that we shall understand clearly that handing the banks over to the liquidator means that in a comparatively short time their whole affairs will be wound up, that, in fact, the banks as separate entities will cease to exist from the day the liquidator is appointed. At the present time the banks are allowed, we know—though they have not been doing a big business of late—to continue to exist as banks, and to declare on their notepaper that they carry on certain businesses within a certain defined limited authority as inter- preted by the Controller, Sir William Plender. Once the liquidator is appointed I understand that there will be no delay in distributing the assets, and if he will be expeditious in the matter, as I am assured, if he is under the surveillance of my right hon. Friend, he will be, it ought to be possible within a very short time, measured by a few months, to bring the whole matter to an end. I hope that my right hon. Friend, if he takes any further part in the Debate, will tell us his estimate of the time when that state of affairs will be brought about, and will make it quite clear that no matter who the liquidator may be it is entirely out of his power to keep those banks alive.

I would like him to make quite clear whether the Bill is going to refer to the fullest extent to what are known as discount houses in this country. The mere fact that they may put a name over the door and declare themselves to be a bank—the word "bank," I think, very often is misleading—ought not to give them any special advantage over the other private houses, because the other private houses are doing in many cases exactly the same business as the banks are doing, though the larger part of their business probably deals with accepting bills and discounting them. As the right hon. Gentleman is providing that for five years after the War discount houses under enemy control shall be prohibited from carrying on business, I would like to ask him, does his Bill ensure that these houses cannot carry on business at the present time? If it is objectionable that these discount houses and banks should operate for five years after the War, it is equally objectionable that they should operate at the present time. I hope that my right hon. Friend will explain clearly his position on this matter. The Bill as it stands, in my opinion, will not deal with enemy aliens who purchase controlling interests through nominees in existing British banks. That is a matter perhaps more for the Committee. But, as I read the Bill, I do not think that that is so. I should be glad to have an assurance that that possibility will be entirely removed by the Bill, because in these days of bank amalgamations one hardly ever knows who may be the controlling persons in any of the interests which are being united. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has made it necessary that the Rules should lie on the Table of the House of Commons for, I think he said, twenty days before being put into operation, and I would suggest that, if possible, the Rules should be embodied in the Bill before it leaves the House of Commons, because otherwise nothing can be done for a considerable time. If the Rules have to lie on the Table for twenty days after the House meets, that would mean, at the earliest, for twenty days after the 8th October. There are some minor points which I intend to raise in Committee, but for the moment I thank my right hon. Friend for the Bill. It is a much better one than I had really hoped for, and I trust that it may have a speedy passage into law.

I have had the rather special experience during the War of liquidating a certain number of enemy firms in Egypt, including, as it happened, the Deutsche Orient Bank, one of the great instruments for Germanisation in the Near East, and it revealed a most complicated system of holdings, including the Dresdner Bank, one of whose branches is in question this afternoon. I shall be careful, in the course of my few remarks, to reveal nothing that I learned in the course of my official experience in Egypt, bat at the same time I may look at the matter from one or two angles that happened to have been mentioned in the course of the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen. It is very important to remember that this Bill is more far-reaching in one sense than at first sight appears, because throughout the whole Empire the legislation adopted by this House in these matters is generally imitated, and sometimes that legislation is put into operation by the Foreign Office, and sometimes, I suppose, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and sometimes on the initiative of local legislatures. I would like, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken any steps in regard to uniformity in these matters? It would be extremely awkward if in some parts of the Empire they had not made an arrangement of the same nature for stopping enemy banks for five years after the War as is indicated in this Bill. Then I would ask whether uniform measures are being taken in this matter as between ourselves and the Allies? What is the exact business of these enemy banks which we are preventing from operating here for five years after the War? I suppose that if you were to state it in a sentence you would say that they were acceptors for value received, and they have come to this country for the business reason that this country is the main discount market of the world, the clearing house of the world. That is, I presume, owing to the fact that we have the gold standard that was established under the Statutes of 1819 and 1844. But who comes next in the running after us? I presume it is New York. Therefore, it might be likely, if these institutions are not allowed to operate here during five years after the War, they might transfer their business to New York, and pro tanto we should find our status diminished as the principal discount market of the world. I feel sure that our gallant Allies do not wish to take any such advantage of us, but it might be right to ask them if they will go a step with us in this matter, and whether, if we take this action in London, they will not take similar action in New York.

Our own banks, I suppose, have some considerable advantage from the fact that their rivals will be excluded here during five years after the War, and I would ask whether in furnishing that advantage to our banks we cannot make some stipulation or agreement with them as regards any action which they may adopt in financing German businesses after the War. What I mean to say—and I draw it from my own experience—is this. I have liquidated in Egypt several German export or import houses. Those houses would export goods to, or import them from, Germany or other parts of the world. They were financed in a great measure by English banks. Therefore, it seems to me that some stipulation might be obtained from these banks, if we give them the great advantage which we are conferring under this Bill. And that is not all. Side by side with these German institutions in Egypt are English institutions and English import or export firms, and those English firms deal quite indiscriminately with Germany or with England. But again, who finances those English firms? English banks. Therefore, again English banking is used as a direct medium of English firms abroad financing and helping trade in so far as those firms are conducted by Germans. Therefore, it seems to me that after granting to our banks this advantage relations should be established with them on these important matters, all the more since we see that they are amalgamating at a very rapid rate, and are to have the advantage of these amalgamations. There is another question which has not been mentioned before, nor in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, on which I should very much like to have an answer. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade does not attach much value to the Report of the Committee over which Lord Balfour of Burleigh presided. That Committee investigated this question in great detail and with great care. In paragraph 165 of that Report they state that they had paid particular attention to this question of the banks, and they proceed to say:
"In view of the importance of maintaining the financial position of London and the complicated nature of international trade, it would have been impracticable and inexpedient to impose any restriction and discrimination as regards the use of London credit."
The plan the Committee propose as alternative to the plan now submitted to the House—and whether this alternative is wise or not I would like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about it—is that, instead of stopping these banks here for a period of five years after the War, there should be a system of licensing, the licences to be issued annually to banks, and should any of these businesses or banks show that they were in any way under enemy control, then the licence should be extinguished. The Committee adduced the further argument in favour of their proposal that by this means we should be able to bargain for reciprocal facilities. A further question I should like to have answered, before we assent to this measure, is as to what view the Government take of the subject, and what arguments have induced them to adopt this limit of five years after the War. These are the three or four questions I should like to have answered: first, as regards uniformity in this matter throughout the Empire; next, a uniform policy as between ourselves and the Allies; and, third, whether we could not bargain a little with our banks in this matter of enemy trade and enforce the alternative system of licensing?

I have listened with interest to the well-informed speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I think some of his suggestions are well worthy of consideration when we come to the Committee stage, more especially his suggestion which would limit the utilisation of British capital through the banks of this country for financing German industries in the manner in which they have been financed in the past. As regards the Bill itself, I think the country will be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought it forward. I think it will be a valuable measure, and perhaps all the more valuable when it has been discussed in Committee and possibly amended. I hope my right hon. Friend will not consider it ungracious of me if I say that I greatly regret that it was not produced a very long time ago. As regards some of the main recommendations in the Bill, they were brought before the notice of my right hon. Friend by a Committee of this House over which my hon. Friend the Member for Chester presided. The Report of that Committee was produced as long ago as February of last year, but perhaps we ought to be grateful for what we have got in the general provisions of this Bill for winding up German banks and businesses and bringing them to an end. As regards the provisions for dealing with the German banks, they seem to be satisfactory. In the first place, they not only make the Winding-up Order, but they bring the business to a close. Up to now they have been under German managers, under the control of Sir William Plender, but Sir William had no power to make the German managers do anything he desired. In future the liquidator will have power to do what is right, and I hope as quickly as possible, in the way of winding up these businesses.

But to wind them up and bring them to an end for the time being obviously is not sufficient in itself, and therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman is very well advised in the provision which makes it impossible for them, so far as legislation can make it impossible, to be revived for at least five years after the War. For my own part, I hope that after those five years have elapsed we shall reconsider very carefully the extension of that period of five years, unless in the meantime the German people and their military governors have very materially altered their character and their methods. A question I should like to ask my right hon. Friend is this: Up to now there have been a good many creditors of these German agencies and banks who have not been paid, and there has been some reluctance in the administration to pay these German debts, because it was said they could not obtain from Germany sufficiently good evidence of the existence of the debts. I gather that Clause 7 of the Bill will remove that difficulty, and that the High Court will be in future prepared, on satisfactory evidence, to pay neutral, Allied, and British traders. This is not an unimportant matter, because, as my right hon. Friend knows, there is something like £5,000,000 of German debts.

As regards the point raised by my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I do not know how far it may be possible to control the operations of English banks or English discount houses. I can see difficulties myself, but the position is one for which possibly a remedy could be found. What has happened is this: The British joint stock banks have materially financed German industries, both in this country and abroad, by discounting bills drawn in Germany and by British credit supplying the raw material—namely, money—to carry on these German industries. This was done through the agency of the German banks; bills were discounted by these German banks in London and discounted by our joint stock banks. That operation will not go on any more, but the question is, Will these bills, drawn for financing German industry, be discounted in future by British joint stock banks? I hope not. If the right hon. Gentleman can discover any method by which that can be impeded, if not completely arrested, he will be conferring a benefit on British industry. There are two other provisions of the Bill to which I wish to refer—namely, the power given to the Board of Trade to wind up a company as well as close the business. That was one of the recommendations of the Committee over which my hon. Friend the Member for Chester presided. I think it a most valuable provision, because under it not only do we wind up the business, but we bring it to an end and pay the creditors. You get these companies dissolved after all the assets have been dealt with, and the businesses are ended. In Clause 3 there is a provision which is also based on the recommendation of the Committee, and the case I put to my right hon. Friend is a very simple one. It is that of two partners in a business, one an unnaturalised German, who is the predominant partner, and the lesser partner a naturalised German. On the outbreak of the War the partnership was dissolved, and what has been done up to now is that the remaining partner was allowed to carry on the business during the War, and no doubt the unnaturalised German partner, living in Berlin, had the benefit of the profit made in that way. I am glad to think that the provision of Clause 3 will ensure that such a business will be wound up in future, and that there will be an end of it.

There are only two other points to which I wish very shortly to draw attention, and on which I think the Bill will require strengthening. The House knows that the Board of Trade when they wound up a business under the Act of 1916 got the report of an Advisory Committee as to whether it came within the scope of the Act. In order to ascertain that, the Advisory Committee had to ascertain a certain number of facts, and they have had difficulties up to now in getting the necessary facts, because they had no power to compel witnesses to give them. Persons who were carrying on a business which it was sought to wind up were not likely voluntarily to give evidence in support of that object. It is, I think, essential, in order to effectuate these windings up more easily and speedily, that there should be power on the application of the Board of Trade given to the Court to compel witnesses to appear before the Board of Trade or its Advisory Committee to give evidence on oath and to produce documents. That is a power which will hurt no one, and will only make the provisions of the original Bill and of this Bill more effective.

There is one other point which I think will have to be dealt with in Committee. There have been a good many cases since the War where this sort of thing has happened. They happened largely before the Act of 1916 was passed, and I think they have happened since. What was done was this: There were, say, two enemy subjects or more carrying on business here. They foresaw that it might be made unpleasant for them when the country woke up to what they were really doing and that their businesses might be wound up, so they entered into contracts, more or less fraudulent, to transfer their businesses to some compliant gentleman with either an English nationality or an English or a neutral name, or it may be a neutral nationality, who would quietly carry on these businesses, ostensibly for his own purposes, but really under some secret agreement by which he should hand the profits made during the War and the businesses themselves back to the original Germans after the War was over. I believe that has occurred in a good many cases. How many it is, perhaps, hard to Bay, because we have not had the power hitherto of examining these people on oath to find out what really did happen. Under the Act of 1916 the Board of Trade has the power to cancel agreements made with enemy subjects for the transfer of businesses, "but only where it appears to them that the contract is injurious to the public interest." It is very difficult to say always that for a German to sell his business to some one who will carry it on during the War and hand it back to the German afterwards is against the public interest. There is no great international question concerned, but it is a very fraudulent thing all the same, and a mode of evading the Act, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should provide in this Bill that all agreements for the transfer of these enemy businesses made since the War should be void unless they are made bonâ fide and for valuable consideration and are consistent with public policy. I would go a step further in order to tighten it up, because I think in these matters you do not want any loophole for fraudulent gentlemen, and I should suggest that the onus of proof of a business being bonâ-fide transferred should be placed upon the man who has transferred it during the War. These are suggestions which I trust my right hon. Friend will consider, but I wish to thank him very heartily for the Bill as it stands. I think it is a most valuable Bill, and with a few necessary Amendments I think it will carry out the objects which the country desires.

I yield to no one in this House in my detestation of Germany, and I should like to see them all cleared out, but I am a business man, and I know something of banking, and I know that this Bill will achieve no good so far as the banks are concerned. I do not think that hon. Members who have been so excited about these banks really understand what has been done by them. In the first place, these are branches. They are not the Dresdner Bank, nor the Disconto-Gesellschaft, nor the Deutsche Bank. They are only branches, and how are you going to wind up a branch? It is quite true that by this Bill you may go to the Court, which hitherto you could not do, because the Court had no jurisdiction over a foreign bank or one of its branches. The Court could not make an order, but they can now, that these branch businesses, whatever they are, shall be wound up. Why this haste to close them? My right hon. Friend spoke of dissolving them, but does he know what the danger is? Suppose there are any outstanding assets which you want to recover to pay to the Scottish, English, Welsh, or Allied creditors in a general clearing up of all these assets. You destroy your title, and anybody that owes money in Germany will snap his fingers at you. The company is dissolved and has no entity. Let me point out that there is a difference between an English company and a private bankruptcy. In the case of an English company, when it is dissolved, anybody who owes it any money can escape and any assets cease to belong to the creditors altogether. It is different altogether with a private bankruptcy, where an official assignee continues trustee ad infinitum. Let me give a case in point. A German merchant has an agency in South America, and he comes to the German banks in London and says, "Give me credit, so that I may draw bills against it." The banks say, "Very good; we will accept the bills when they come here, but you must put up securities." What security does he put up? German securities, of course, and very likely German bank shares. These bills come forward. The Disconto and the Dresdner have accepted them and paid them; but what about the securities they have got to get from their debtor in Germany? They cannot realise them. I hold in my safe now German bank shares which were very valuable at one time, but I cannot sell one of them, and never shall until after the War; and if you appoint a liquidator he could do no more. He has a tremendous lot of German securities which he cannot realise until after the War, and the fact of your dissolving a business destroys all the value of these assets. The German people will simply laugh at you. So wild were some of my hon. Friends that they said, "Destroy the papers and the books and records—burn them." That is not the way to deal with a question of this kind. Do you want to wipe away all these assets and to destroy them? It is most absurd.

In answer to my hon. Friend, I have never suggested that any company or firm should be dissolved until it is wound up; that is to say, until the assets are got in and the debts paid.

Very well, then; but you must wait until after the War. I say that you will never be able to fulfil my hon. and learned Friend's proposition that when all the assets are got in you can dissolve it. I tell you that you cannot in any of these cases where there are German or Austrian securities dissolve them before the end of the War, and it should be noted that there are also a lot of Scandinavian securities which you cannot realise at present A great many of our Allies are so mixed up in them that they cannot be realised until after the War. So that to talk about dissolving them before the War is over, to a man who knows anything about it, is silly and stupid. Then, what about this five years' business? I have no objection, but are you not sitting here in judgment on the economic situation which may be settled at the Peace Conference? Are you going to the Peace Conference with this tied round your neck, that nobody is to be allowed to carry on and discount German bills after the War? Look at it as business men. Our trade with Germany alone was almost £70,000,000, and are you going to drop all that? Is the Peace Conference going to drop it?

Yes, but are you going to wipe it out after the War? Is the Peace Conference going to say that the Allies shall never have anything to do with Germany? If they do, well and good, but are you not prejudging the case? You cannot stop it even then. My right hon. Friend must know that the ramifications of business are so subtle that what you cannot do direct with Germany you will have to do through Switzerland, through Danish, Swedish, or Norwegian merchants, and even through American merchants. When the War broke out we would not use German sugar when it was offered in the market, any quantity of it. But we did buy it ultimately, mostly through America. People imagine that you can cut business in that way, but any man who knows anything about it knows how subtle its ramifications are and how they permeate in all directions. This five years' business is a deliberate attempt to prejudge the conditions of peace. When you get to deal with a question of this kind, to say that you are not going to have anything, for five years after the War, to do with Germany simply means that you are not to allow any trade to go on between us and Germany. Will the Allies agree to that? Will America agree to that? If France does not agree to it, or Italy, or America, where are we? We are tied up while these people are doing the business which we in this country might be doing, and of course the whole idea is absurd. We shall have to buy the commodities which we want in Germany through America or through Norway, because if we want them we must have them, and if we have to do it in that way are we not rather foolish, is it not silly, and what will your hankers say? You cannot shut them out, and neither can you shut out the trading of a discount nature. You cannot do it. Bills are offered to a man, and if he takes them are you going to prosecute him? If an ordinary merchant, a broker in Mincing Lane, accepts a bill against goods shipped to Hamburg, are you going to prosecute him? What nonsense!

The Bill may do some good. I do not think that the German banks will ever put branches here again themselves, because I think the feeling will be so strong against them that they will not want to come here. My hon. Friend suggested that an unnaturalised person might sell his shares to an Englishman or a Scotchman. How is he going to stop a thing like that? Besides, what is the value of stopping it, unless it is buying or selling German goods? Would you stop a German from buying or selling English or Scottish goods? Let the House be sensible. You cannot dissolve these branches until you have realised all the assets that those branches have, to meet the general fund that has got to be distributed. You cannot dissolve them without danger and loss, unless you are perfectly certain you have realised every possible asset you can, and I say with knowledge you cannot do that until securities, which are tied up by the War, become soluble and realisable after the War. My hon. Friend here speaks of the public interest. What public interest is being served by forcing assets which cannot be realised? That is not business, and I am prefectly certain that this Bill must be, to a large extent, a dead letter. It is not a fact that any fresh business has been done. Not a particle of fresh business has been done since the War, except for the purpose of realising the assets. That being so, there is no earthly object in hurrying a dissolution. If you can get liquidation going on steadily, you can preserve your assets, and not squander them. Therefore, I do not think that this Bill is really going to do very much good. It is a sentiment, which is really unworthy of Englishmen, that has got abroad.

That is just the sentiment that is pleasing and amusing the Germans at the present time. They say Englishmen are rattled. Why should we do this? You have the assets in your own hands. You have the grip of the men. What more do you want?

I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson) with sadness. He twits the Government after four years of war with showing great haste to close the enemy banks and wind-up and realise their assets. He tells us he has special knowledge of business and banking. He is not the only Member of this House who has special knowledge of business, or even special knowledge of banking, and, even with the knowledge he has, I can assure him it is quite possible to wind-up companies, and to wind them up quickly without losing any of the assets. I do not think it comes well from a Member of this House, who informs us he is hoping to realise his shares in the German banks after the War, to be the one to urge the Government—

At any rate, the hon. Member told us they were in his safe, and we were not unfair in assuming that they were his shares. Anyhow, I withdraw that. He says that five years after the War is no use, or is too long. In my opinion, it might be made longer, and I hope before the Bill leaves the House my right hon. Friend will agree to increase the period to seven or ten years. I welcome the Bill. I believe the Bill is an honest attempt to bring the legislation on this subject up to date, and to enable the Board of Trade to deal promptly with the many difficult problems they have had to deal with, and in dealing with which there are legal difficulties at present. I believe it is speeches like the speech of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire which show that not only is it necessary to dissolve companies quickly, but which show the necessity of bringing this House more in touch with the feeling of the whole country. Therefore, I hope the Government will lose no time, when the new Registration Bill comes into force, in appealing to the country, and in giving the country an opportunity of expressing its opinion on a speech like the speech we have had from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire. I hope no Member will return to the House and stand up here after the next General Election, and make a speech such as that to which we have just listened. I have very much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

I did not share the hon. and gallant Gentleman's sadness in listening to the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. J. M. Henderson), for I listened to it with delight. I think it was the first speech of sanity I have heard from that side for some considerable time. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was quite entitled to express his regret at the speech of my hon. Friend, but he did not show us in what way it was unsound or inapplicable. I thought the speech was, if I may say so, sound and conclusive. It was not rhetorical. My hon. Friend gave us most admirable and business reasons for his criticism, and it has not yet been shown that he was wrong with regard to what he said about not being able to wind up these institutions as such. You can stop a branch from doing business, and I certainly entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) that everything in time of war should be done to eliminate all trading with the enemy, and to wind up or close those branches, and that it should be done quickly. At the same time, we should pause before invalidating the claims of British creditors by doing anything to prevent them from getting these assets or being repaid after the War. Anyone conversant with the City knows these concerns are really being carried on for the benefit of the British creditors. Anything that will tend to allay suspicion, which I quite agree may exist, certainly will have my hearty support. Anything that can be done in this Bill to stop trading with the enemy, or having any communication with the enemy, will certainly have the unanimous support of this House.

7.0 P.M.

This Bill may be divided into two parts. The part which relates to trading with the enemy, or having connection with the enemy in a business or financial sense, certainly ought to receive the unanimous support of the House. But I venture to say that where many Members will join issue with the promoters of this Bill is when you come to deal with post-war legislation. We are entitled to assume that the War will not be brought to a close until we have obtained a satisfactory and an honourable peace, and we have to project our minds forward to the resumption of the arts of peace and the building up of the structure of world commerce, which has for the moment been largely destroyed. Yet we are met here with a provision which is to prevent all enemy institutions, discount banks, trading and finance concerns of any character, from having any connection, trade, or commerce with this country. It does seem almost incredible really, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that we should do that now. In the first place, we probably should do it very much better if we were to delay it until that peace, which we all hope to attain, has become an assured fact. We are doing this blindly. If you eliminate all financial connection with the Central Powers, and with the Balkan Peninsular, and all our enemies, how can you carry on trade? What, after all, constitutes the money market? Do not these foreign institutions, with the capital they bring, add to the strength of that market? If we could discriminate between desirable and undesirable aliens, and if we could keep out the undesirable aliens, it would no doubt be a good thing. But before we legislate in the way now proposed we ought to look at the advantages we have derived from throwing our ports open and from having brought within our shores many of these foreign institutions. I have had some experience in the City of London, and I wish to pay my tribute to what the great British houses have done, but anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the City of London must know that some of the greatest finance houses there have been of foreign extraction. The Rothschilds and the Speyers both came from Frankfurt, and when you remember what has been done by those houses, when you bear in mind how they helped to reorganise the American railways and how the very tubes on which we enjoy travelling in London, and which are such a great improvement on the old underground smoky atmosphere, were organised by Speyers, we should pause before passing legislation of this kind. We talk of the "menace of peaceful penetration." I have often wondered where the "menace" comes in.

Of course, these financiers and discount brokers do not come here for the benefit of their health; they come here to derive profits, but they also bring with them enormous profits and skill, without the aid of which many operations could not be carried through by British firms. We are bound to look at the enormous business which they bring to London. These foreign exchanges have houses in Berlin, Vienna, Paris, and Frankfurt. Do hon. Members remember what all that means? Is it desirous to cut them all off? I notice an hon. Member says, "Hear, hear!" Has he any knowledge of the business of the City of London? Let me put this to him: You have these large houses in these different centres; think of the aggregate population they represent, think of the population alone of the Central Powers. The hon. Member cheered the idea of cutting them out. He apparently would cut off all the commercial trading and financial connections of this country. Will anyone get up in this House and suggest, always assuming that we have obtained a satisfactory and honourable peace, that it is sane to say that the British people should have nothing to do with these people in any shape or form in trade, commerce, or finance? If you cut off all your finance you will not have any trade or commerce, and I am sure that the hon. Member who last spoke (Sir Owen Philipps) will agree that banks exist for the purpose of facilitating the carrying on of trade and commerce. A demand has been made that these German banks should be immediately wound up because after peace has been declared they will be ready to "pounce" on British trade and industry. But banks do not do such things as pounce on business or trade; they exist for the purpose of facilitating trade and of discounting traders' bills, and it shows ignorance of the ordinary A B C of trade to suggest otherwise. Do not let us, in our indignation against the Germans, lose our wits and make ourselves ludicrous in the eyes of the world. Do not let people say that the great British nation, which has in the past held the primary position in the money market of the world, are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. From the very first I have been foremost in my detestation of the atrocities in Belgium. I am in full sympathy with those who have given expression to that detestation; but still, my detestation of those atrocities is not going to affect my thinking powers to the extent of making me do something foolish.

We are here to legislate. We are not dealing with the enemy just now. Everyone is agreed, of course, that now there must be no trading in any shape or form with the enemy. But we have to consider what will be the position after the War, and I do ask the Government to pause before agreeing to a measure of this kind, which may only be the forerunner of many similar measures, taking us on the downward plane as far as this country is concerned. Let us not forget what these foreign banks have done for British trade in the past. If one of these houses has obtained a concession it has come with it to the London money market, to which all the nations of the world bring their capital, thereby swelling the short loan money market as it is to-day. These finance houses, whether they have their headquarters in Russia, Austria, Germany, France, or Italy, if they get a concession for a South American railway or mine, bring it to the London money market. It is said that trade follows the flag. I would suggest that trade follows the loan, and if the loan is brought out here by foreign bankers the proceeds of that loan go out to South America in the form of locomotives and steel rails and other commodities which are of benefit to this country, and the more you attract to the London money market these foreign firms the more you induce them to do their financial business in London, the better it is for British trade. It is quite a delusion to imagine that you can cut out a large section like the Central Powers; they would have to do their financial business somewhere, and they would do it either in Switzerland or New York, and that would militate against us. It is necessary we should proceed with care in this matter. I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade is animated by a desire to benefit British trade. But this Bill would not have that effect. It may benefit a few individuals, it will perhaps give them a larger share of discount business, but it will not benefit Great Britain in the aggregate, and it is the general interest of Great Britain that we have to study. I therefore urge the Government to pause before they proceed with that section of the Bill which deals with post war finance.

The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. D. Mason) began by saying that he had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson) with delight. That is exactly what I would expect from him. I, however, listened to it, like my hon. Friend beside me (Sir Owen Philipps), with a great deal of sadness, and the reason why I think we take such very diverse views is this: the hon. Member for Coventry and the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire speak, as it were, in a different language to that which many of us use in approaching these questions. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire spoke of the silliness and absurdity of this Bill. I am not surprised. From his point of view it is absurd that we should approach this question in the way we do. I hope the hon. Member for Coventry will not take it in an offensive sense when I say that he and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire remind me very much of the description I once heard given of a business man. I heard it said of him, "He is such a good business man that he would sell his mother's grave for a sovereign." That is indicative of the difference that exists between the views of the hon. Members and of those who agree with me. No doubt what I am going to say will sound to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire foolish and silly in the extreme. He spoke as an expert in banking, and that is, of course, his business point of view. But I do not regard this as a business proposition at all, and consequently the speech of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mason), however able the arguments it contained, could not make any impression on my mind, simply because I do not regard this as a business proposition. I look on it as a moral and spiritual question. I suppose it is inconceivable to the hon. Members to talk about foregoing profits or foregoing money for an ideal. The whole of his argument, and that of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire, was that under this Bill or under the policy which some of us recommend you might not secure the last farthing of the assets of these banks, and you might in the end possibly find there were some unsatisfied creditors. I dare say it is possible, but I do not care if it is. This proposition, I say, is to us a moral and a spiritual proposition. Apropos the provision that these banks are only to be closed for five years after the War, I say, Why that limitation? When you are building a house you do not build the house to be waterproof for five years. You do not construct your sewer system to keep out foul gases for live years; you try to keep them out for ever—at all events until some new invention is found which removes the noxious character of the gas. That is the way in which I look upon this Hun influence. It is not that I am able to contest the proposition that has been made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Aberdeen, for it may be that we shall lose money. If we do, I say we shall lose money in a very good cause and get very good consideration for it. We want to keep out, so far as we can keep out from our midst, and from our dealings, a race who have proved themselves not merely barbarians but a degraded race, contact with whom is contamination.

From that point of view, I say it is worth making a loss if we do, and to the extent we do, if we can preserve our people in the future from contact with such a people. I do not suppose that the hon. Member would speak as he does if, instead of looking at the thing from a national policy point of view, he were to think of it as a matter of personal policy. I do not suppose that the hon. Member would continue in business or social relations with a man who had murdered a good many of his relations, who had possibly raped two or three of his sisters, and had been guilty of every abomination of which social life is capable! I do not suppose the hon. Member would be willing after a short interval to go and shake hands with such a gentleman, ask him to his house, propose to do business with him, and sit down and dine at the same table. He would not do it. That is the point of view which we take as regards these two nations. We say, so far as it is possible to avoid it—I do not say it is possible in every respect—our object is to treat this German nation after the War, and after the revelation of their character, in the way which the hon. Member would. I think, treat an individual who has acted after the manner I have described.

May I interrupt to say that the point I desired to make was that you do not get at the individual in the way suggested, and you cannot frame an indictment against a nation? You do not get at the persons who committed the crimes.

I was only trying to bring the parallel of the individual into the national life. I do not care whether you can get at the individual or not. What I say is that the nation as a nation, and in every way in which a nation can express itself, by its Government, Press, professors, and preachers, the German nation, in this War, and certainly before this War—though that knowledge is now coming to us for the first time—has proved itself to be a degraded unit in the same sense in which I say an individual by shameful acts can prove himself to be unfit for decent society. It is from that point of view, and not from the purely business point of view, that we look at this Bill. Therefore I say that it is not surprising that those of us who take that attitude towards the whole question find ourselves at great divergence from the hon. Members who represent West Aberdeen and Coventry and who approach this matter entirely from the point of view of the balance-sheet. We approach it from a totally different standpoint. After a careful consideration of the Bill, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on having brought it in. I trust that it will become law with as little delay as possible.

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House that this is not a business proposition. I think it is a business proposition, and a very good business proposition, and such as I should expect to come from the eminent man of business who occupies the post of President of the Board of Trade.

I did not in the least mean to imply that the Bill was not also a very good business proposition. I agree with my hon. Friend there. I only meant that that was not the point of view from which I personally approached it and which seemed to me to be the more appropriate point of view.

I think I understand my hon. Friend. Hon. Members will remember how, when the War broke out, it was found that the strangle-hold of Germany upon Russia and upon Italy was evident, and that it had made great strides in this country, so that what was described as peaceful penetration really meant absolute bonds. The businesses of the countries in which Germany had obtained a foothold no longer belonged to those countries to which they nominally belonged. We have lately seen the result of the German business of penetration amongst our Allies. Is it possible that anyone can doubt that this Bill is not only business, but exceedingly good business? The House heard two speeches from different points of view. There is one from that eminent man of business the Member for Chester. He followed the hon. Member for West Aberdeen. I will undertake to say, as one who spends a part of every day in the City of London, and represents a Division of a great business city, that, while the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester would have been well received and applauded in any business company or business meeting in London or Nottingham, the speech of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen would have been wholly out of keeping with the spirit of the whole of his audience. I think it is desirable to say this, because the hon. Members who have addressed the House, those representing West Aberdeen and Coventry, have rather spoken as if they were the only business men in the House, or at any rate if not that, business men of such weight that what they said was especially entitled to the consideration of the House.

I venture to say that their speeches have been wholly at variance with the business spirit of the City of London. I firmly believe that to be the case. I was greatly disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Coventry again repeat those arguments which were put forward here when the Non-Ferrous Metals Bill was before the House. That Bill was hailed in business circles as a sign that the spirit of the country was being expressed by the Board of Trade. We had the old heresies trotted out about the advantages we derived from Free Trade, from free dumping, and all these other theories, the adoption of which has actually enabled our bitter enemies, the Prussians, to build up their armies and navies for our destruction. It is out of these very principles, by their adaptation and by their adoption, that we have enabled our enemies to wax fat so as to be able to meet us in a great superiority on the land, and even with something like equality at sea. I am bitterly disappointed to hear to-day, at this the fourth year of the War, the same worn-out shibboleths repeated to the House of Commons. My hon. Friend spoke as if this Bill was going to lead to the ejection of the Rothschilds from England. He actually mentioned their name. What in the world has this Bill, which is a business proposition, got to do in the way of interfering with a great business built up by generations and by families who have proved their citizenship. They have thrown in their part and lot with this country.

It was a very lucky thing on the part of the hon. Member the Member for Coventry that he addressed the empty seat of my tight hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University. If my right hon. and learned Friend who fills it had been here I think he would have had something to say when he was described as one wholly ignorant of the beggarly elements of business. And this a man to whom the greatest business men in the City of London go when they are in trouble to put them right, one whose voice is heard with admiration by business judges on the Bench! The hon. Gentleman's attitude towards these questions is, as it were, to say, "I am Sir Oracle; when I ope my mouth let no little business man bark!" It will not do. I believe it is totally at variance with the spirit of the City of London, which was admirably expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester. I think the hon. Member for West Aberdeen was rather betrayed into a sidetrack. He admitted that he was dealing with certain estates that he was administering. We do not want to be dealing with the administration of particular estates or the recovery of a particular debt. My hon. Friend who last addressed the House said we had to deal with the matter from a somewhat more lofty platform, though he did not dispute that the Bill is in itself a good business proposition that may be adopted by business men on business grounds.

I cannot understand the hon. Member for West Aberdeen when he urged that it is quite impossible to wind up the banks during the War without losing the greater part of the assets. I do not really think, so far as I can understand, that is true. Nor could I make cut what positive proof he gave of his statement, which, if it were true, would really prevent this country from getting rid of the incubus of the German banks at all. There is always in every liquidation some individual asset which we know is refractory and will not come into line with the others, like the ducks which will not come to be killed. There is always some item of that sort in every liquidation. But does the hon. Member for West Aberdeen really mean to say that the existence of some few accounts, or, if you like, many accounts, which cannot be settled during the War, is a sufficient ground for maintaining in being these hostile institutions which are assuredly designed to govern our trade? It is true that the ramifications of trade are subtle. They are not only subtle, but they are desperately dangerous. The ramifications of trade on the part of the Germans tends to the strangling of British enterprise all over the world. For my part, I think that the President of the Board of Trade has well expressed the feeling which exists all over this country in great volume, and in daily-increasing volume, in bringing forward this measure. I think that the post-war provision of five years is little enough, but it will be hailed with great satisfaction throughout the country. For my part—for what it is worth—I wish to bless the Bill, and to thank its author.

I do not propose to say anything on the general policy of the Bill, and certainly I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Augustine's into some of his animadversions on the Members for West Aberdeen and Coventry. The House is now dealing with a business proposition of the greatest importance, and although it may have for the Member for St. Augustine's purely moral and spiritual advantages, it has for very large numbers of business men considerations which are not entirely governed by those two categories. It is not, however, with individual business men that I am concerned this evening. I am much more concerned with the effectiveness of whatever policy is pursued by His Majesty's Government. It is by no means an easy matter to eliminate the financial influence of foreign houses from the international trade of the British Empire. We may attempt to stop one hole, and we may find we have only done something to divert the channel of trade without bringing to an end the enemy influences which have been used for the grossest purposes, not only in Italy and Russia, but to some extent in England. None of us can shut our eyes to the fact that the German banks which had important branches in London existed for other than purely financial purposes. They used their financial strength and knowledge for the main purpose of organisation in Germany in the years previous to the War, and for increasing their belligerent strength. Therefore it is no use viewing this matter as being purely one of economics, because it had something of the War quality about it even in times of peace which cannot be ignored. If we were to allow the spread of that sort of organisation in channels in England somewhat similar to the successful efforts made in the North of Italy, we might find ourselves at a great disadvantage if ever our present peril recurred. The Government should be sure that their policy is likely to be effective and complete, and at the same time they should see that it will not diminish the great value of London as the centre not only of our intern, but also of our foreign trade.

I rise to ask the Government if they will give us further information on the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spalding in the course of a speech based on knowledge and experience derived in one of the outposts of the Empire. The first question is whether, before bringing forward this scheme, the Government took the advantage of the presence in London of the Dominion Ministers to enter into an arrangement with them which will provide for dealing with these matters on a uniform basis throughout the Empire? I cannot imgaine that Australia is likely to take what the hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. R. McNeill) called a weaker course than will be taken by our own Government, but, whatever steps may be taken by this country, they ought to be in uniformity with the other portions of the Empire. That will cover not only the Dominions, but it must also affect the Governments of Egypt and of India, for it would be absurd for us to imagine that we were completely dealing with the task which lies before us if we were to leave Egypt and India out of our consideration. When I ask that, I have not by any means completed the range of uniformity which will be necessary if the policy of the Government is to be effective, and I must press my right hon. Friend, who is going to close this Debate, to tell us how far this policy is based upon arrangements made with our Allies.

The hon. Member for Spalding pointed out that the financial centres of the world are extremely delicate, and it might be possible for us, by making a mistake now to do a good deal by the diversion from London of an immense amount of financial business which is, of course, of deep interest in the City, and to every industry in the country which requires credit finance. I would not accuse the French or the American people of wishing to filch from us the position we have held as a financial centre of the world, but there are shrewd French and American business houses who, after the War, will be quite prepared to do their best naturally to retain within their own centres the facilities which used to be possessed by London alone. Paris and New York will be competitors of ours. We must not shut our eyes to the fact that with the tendency of the low value of money during the last few years and the immense burdens we have been under here in this country, and the fact that too many people are blind to the fact that we have long since parted with the gold standard, has led to the predominant position of London as the financial centre of the world being severely shaken.

It may be that we shall be so wholly indebted to America after the War that we shall be paying a great tribute to America year by year, and if we are to avoid making an error which will only become apparent when the War is over, I submit that it is necessary, before proceeding further with their scheme, that the Government should make sure that the arrangements with the Allies will not tighten things up in London and leave them comparatively slack in Paris and New York which might tend, in the case of New York, to that country capturing the financial business which has been the main characteristic of London for practically the whole of the nineteenth century. I am not saying this in the interests of the financial houses, but I would suggest, in the interests of business as a whole and in the interests of our manufacturing and exporting businesses it is essential that we should do nothing to injure London as the great finance centre of the world. The fact is that London paper is currency now everywhere. London is really the clearing house for all bills of exchange and for matters of large extent the London cheque was accepted everywhere. Every merchant has realised that from his own experience, for he has had London cheques coming back after long periods, with perhaps the signatures of forty or fifty different houses upon them. When that happened there was a great deal of money here, and this tended to produce a cheaper money market than you would find anywhere else. A cheap money market is not only of importance to our merchants, but also to our manufacturers, who require cheap money for the promotion of their businesses, otherwise they would not have been able to compete with their competitors abroad.

London in the past has been the financial centre of the world, and we made up in this way for certain disadvantages in our banking system which was provided for by the German bankers, who supplied many of their merchants in business houses. It is incumbent upon right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are responsible for our industry and commerce—and I would suggest particularly to my right hon. Friend who is now the head of the Department charged with foreign trade after the War—that they should make sure that no step is taken now which might tend to the financial facilities of London becoming less advantageous to our people, and the danger of the financial centre passing to America being accelerated by our own legislation. I press for an answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Spalding—namely, have arrangements been made now, or will they be made before this Bill becomes law, with the Allies for the uniform treatment of enemy financial houses? That is a pertinent question to which I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us a reply.

There is only one other point I wish to mention. There were some business houses which used the German banks for their own purposes in the days before the War. I think they were foolish in using the German banks, for I believe they could no doubt have got equally good facilities from English bankers, but they used them because the German banks had more ramifications abroad, or else because they could get their money more cheaply than from some of the English houses. I think those who have had dealings with the German banks have bitterly regretted that they ever dabbled in their affairs at all, but if you are to close the London markets against these three or four or five or more enemy banks, is it incumbent upon the Government to see to it that in these days when banking amalgamations are going ahead and when there is a great agglomeration of capital under the control of a small number of groups of banks that they should do something to make sure that while they are cutting off such facilities as were given in the past they are going to use this opportunity for extending facilities or asking for the ex- tension of facilities from these very groups of banks which will now have control of practically the bulk of the deposits of this country, and by their influence over industry and commerce may have a deciding voice upon many industries in the future. These are practical business questions apart from the spirituality or the morality points which are so dear to the heart of the Member for St. Augustine's, but they have a practical bearing upon the commercial affairs of our people and upon the future which we must all look forward to with great interest. I ask my right hon. Friend to clear up some of these important points before the Bill passes through its further stages.

I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that a number of very interesting points have been raised with regard to the Bill now before the House, but broadly speaking the discussion has centred around the question of the German banks and around financial questions connected with them. One or two speakers, the hon. Member for York, for example, have referred to some of the other provisions of the Bill which are of course an important part of it, and which were concerned with the Amendment of a former Trading With the Enemy Act. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to these points in the first instance. The hon. Member for York made one or two suggestions with regard to the Bill as to some additional powers which he would like to see given to the Government and some additional provisions which he would like to see inserted in the Bill. One, I think, was that there should be power to compel witnesses to appear before the Advisory Committee to give evidence on oath. Another was that power should be taken to deal with colourable contracts for the sale of businesses. I can only say to my right hon. Friend that as regards the first I do not see any very great objection, but perhaps it will be sufficient if we consider those points when we come to the Committee stage, because they are really much more suitable to that stage where we can deal with them in detail than on the occasion of the Second Reading.

The greater part of the discussion has centred round this question of the German banks. I would like to clear away one or two of the more detailed points before I deal with the most interesting and important question raised first of all by the hon. Member for Spalding and then by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Runciman). The question raised is as to whether, if this Bill is passed, it will not be still possible for German financial institutions, whether it be the Deutsche Bank or the Dresdner Bank, or any other German bank, to still pursue their policy of penetration in London under a cloak by means of purchasing shares in a British institution or some similar method. The answer to that question is really quite plain. It is that there is every power of investigation given us, and it can be ascertained whether there is such colourable use of British institutions by the purchase of their shares. The hon. Member will also realise that anyone who is found guilty of such a practice is subject to very severe penalties which are provided for in the first Sub-section of Clause 2. Therefore, I think that particular point, which he quite rightly raised, is fully covered. I am sorry that I was not in the House when he made an allusion to the undesirability of legislation by reference. I do not think that it is a very serious point. He referred to defining enemy controlled companies as those within the definition contained in the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act, 1918. If it is necessary, probably on the Committee stage, the actual definition can be given. It consists of the four main points in the Schedule to that Act which can quite easily be inserted in this Bill to make the meaning quite clear, if, in the opinion of the Committee, it is better to insert it. Lastly, if it is possible by the Committee stage, I am sure that there will be no hesitation whatever in producing the Rules and letting the Committee see them, even if they are not actually inserted in the Bill. It is really a question of time. The hon. Member will realise that such definitions are not very easy to draw, and it is all a question as to the period of grace before which they can be produced. There is, however, every wish to lay them, so that every Member of the House can see them with the greatest freedom.

I now come to some of the criticisms of the Bill itself. There was one which was raised by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire (Mr. Henderson), which perhaps I ought to mention, even though the hon. Member is not here, because he dis- covered, I think, a mare's nest. In the hon. Member's opinion, under the system of winding-up which will be enacted in the Bill if it passes into law, the assets of a company will be lost. I can assure him and the House that there is really no foundation for any such apprehension. If the assets to which he refers are assets belonging to the German banks, well, the Deutsche Bank is not wound up by this Bill, nor are the other great German banks. Those assets are still there. If, on the other hand, they are assets belonging to British companies incorporated in this country which are wound up under the Bill, there is an express Sub-section which deals with the point, and in which it is said, if not only the business, but the company is wound up, that the Official Receiver, who, ex officio, becomes Liquidator, may take proceedings in his official name for the recovery of debts and property, notwithstanding the dissolution of the company, and he can deal with such assets when he has got them in such manner as the Board of Trade may direct. Consequently, that fear on which the hon. Member laid so much stress is really groundless.

I turn now to the main financial problem, which was raised in his most interesting speech by the hon. Member for Spalding (Major Peel) and by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Runciman). First of all, as regards actual uniformity of practice with the Dominions and with foreign countries: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree, when he comes to examine the question, as, of course, he has known in his experience before, that it is not possible to get textual uniformity of measures even with our own Dominions. What really happens is this: We communicate to them the text of a measure, and, although no one can claim that Australia, Canada, and the other Dominions should precisely follow it without any alteration; yet, as a matter of fact, legislation in the Dominions does practically take parallel lines to that in this country. That is not what I call textual uniformity, but it is practical uniformity, making some allowances for differences of conditions in the different Dominions. Therefore, as regards that matter there is no reason for any apprehension.

Of course, the really important point is that which concerns the position of London as a financial centre and the relation of London to the other great centres of the world. May I assure my right hon. Friend that before this measure was brought in we consulted the leading bankers in the City, and it has been brought in—the same is true with regard to the question of prohibition instead of licences—with their approval as being suited to the case and as not prejudicing the financial position of London. Of course, the problem that we have got to face, and the problem that the right hon. Gentleman had to face in his time at the Board of Trade, is really this: There is no question whatever that the whole object of Germany in peace time was by their methods of finance to penetrate foreign countries and to subordinate them not only for purely commercial purposes, but for other ulterior purposes as well to their own policy, and its great instruments of penetration were the banks. In this country they no doubt pursued them through the branches of the Deutsche and other banks. In Italy, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, they pursued them through other institutions than their own national banks. In the first place, it is quite impossible at the present moment to expect that all the Allies should take precisely similar steps. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman requires that. The problem before Italy, for example, though similar in some ways, is different in others from the problem before this country. If I may say so, it is being dealt with in a very remarkable manner, which I am sure commands the admiration of this House, by the Italian Finance Minister, who is here in London at the present time. The position, however, differs from that in this country, and the methods taken differ accordingly. Let me again come to the question of whether the position of London as a financial centre is likely to be hurt. We have two things to consider. Before the War there was no question that, besides their penetration generally, the Germans exploited London as a financal centre in a systematic manner attempted by no other country.

Of course, they paid interest. Everyone knows that. They borrowed money on the London market. The London market was open to anyone to borrow money cheaply, and the hospitality of the London market was offered to the Germans as to everybody else, but, as far as I can ascertain, after a good deal of inquiry, they systematically exploited the London money market in order to use our own capital to undercut British enterprise and to beat us in foreign markets. They did that quite systematically, and that is exactly what has to be guarded against.

Perhaps I may be excused arguing this case sentence by sentence with the hon. Gentleman who interrupts. As a matter of fact, before the War British industry and British finance were never systematically organised for this purpose in the way that German industry and finance were organised. We did not deal with affairs in the same way as the Germans. To return, however, to my main point, no one wants the London money market to lose its position. At the same time, consistently with that, after the War, especially when capital will be very scarce, no one wants the London money market to be exploited against us in the way that it was before. Therefore, the whole question is whether a measure of this kind will be any danger to the London money market? The closing of the German banks will not endanger the London money market in the very least. The real question is whether this measure in itself will be sufficient to attain its object? In itself it can do no harm. The more serious question is whether it will achieve the whole result necessary. If you are going to achieve the whole result required, and if there are to be any further measures, then I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that the most extreme care must be taken to see that the very valuable position of London is not endangered. I can assure him quite categorically that before any measures are taken which might conceivably injure the position of the London money market every possible care will be taken and all circumspection will be used. The whole of that question has been and is still subject to very careful investigation indeed.

I do not wish to detain the House longer, except to mention one or two points which were raised. We were told that a measure like this is a symptom that the British are getting rattled. To my mind, precisely the opposite is the case. We were told that we ought not to prejudge the terms of peace in a measure of this kind. I would ask the House to consider what it would mean if such advice as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire gave us were followed. It would mean that we must take no measure for going forward, because other terms might be agreed upon when peace was settled. If we were to hang back in every case of this kind, surely the obvious inference to the Germans would be that we were apprehensive of the result! The best way to deal with all these cases is the way in which the matter is dealt with in the present Bill, namely, to go quite steadily on—it is no sign of being rattled; quite the contrary—tightening up wherever we can, so that our enemies may know that we are going forward with our object and that the longer the struggle the tighter will the strings be drawn against them. That seems to me to be the plain moral, and not that which was drawn by the hon. Member. He further said what practically amounted to this, "Do not do anything for fear that the business previously done with you by the Germans may go to your Allies." That is quite a different exhortation from the one which bids us beware not to prejudice the position of London. That type of exhortation of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire really presupposes that the Allies are to be jealous of one another. On the contrary, there is growing, I trust, complete co-operation for all these matters, and the real answer to my mind is for each of the Allies, communicating with one another, so that if there is not exact uniformity there may be similar action suited to the circumstances of each country, to go forward with measures of this kind, so that the Germans may know perfectly well that the longer the struggle is continued the more steadily will their influence be utterly rooted out.

8.0 P.M.

I desire to thank the President of the Board of Trade for this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Runciman) hit the mark when he said that the Germans used their banks in this country not for trade purposes only. I can bear testimony to the use they made of the London market in financing loans and railway operations in China. They very nearly dragged us in to supplying the money to build the Bagdad railway. We all know for what purpose that railway was meant. As to the doubts in the mind of the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. D. Mason), whether the German banks followed this practice for their own convenience and not for ours, I would point out that they discounted bills given by their traders in Germany in London, where money was cheaper, and they used that money to build up their industries and to cut out our manufacturers in this country. The hon. Member need not be alarmed that, if we curtail the transactions of the Germans, we are likely to lose any of our profits. I should like to back the Bill up, because I was a member of a Committee appointed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dewsbury to go into the question of German penetration. That Committee is still in existence. When one realises the way in which the Germans put their tentacles round us, it is highly desirable that we should use what powers we can to prevent a recurrence of similar treatment. There is no doubt that they began the penetration of this country and an economic war against us in 1879. They carried it on with great skill and judgment, using our elastic and easy-going laws most successfully. I do not want to enter into the contention between the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill) and the hon. Member for Coventry about there being a moral side to trade. I think the hon. Member for Coventry will admit that trade is not pure materialism, but that it also has a moral side, and that the Germans have violated it in every way. The essence of business is credit. The Germans have by their actions done more to destroy law and custom than anybody has ever done. They did it with their treaties, and I have no doubt they will do it with their contracts. I would thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking the precautions proposed by this Bill to cleanse us from the German influence, from which we have suffered for so many years.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[ Sir A. Steel-Maitland.]

Public Works Loans Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

I think we should have from the Minister in charge of this measure some explanation of it before the House is asked to pass the Second Reading. The Bill deals with considerable sums of money. Clause 1 provides for the loan of sums not exceeding £1,000,000, and for the loan of further sums not exceeding £250,000 to Ireland, for public works, the latter sum being a larger proportion than Ireland deserves. Clause 2 is more interesting, and requires some explanation. It provides for the writing off of debts which are owing to the Exchequer. I am sorry to see that one of those bad debts has been incurred in Scotland, and that another has been incurred in Ireland, while there is no sign of a bad debt having been incurred by the Department in England. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how those bad debts have been incurred, particularly the one due from the Port Ness Harbour Trustees. There is no explanation of that in the measure itself. The Eyemouth Harbour Trustees' case may be explained by some shortage of the Herring Fishery Branding Fund, but no explanation is given of the debt owing by the Port Ness Harbour Trustees, amounting to £1,900 out of a total of £2,100. The items with regard to public loans in Ireland seem to be interesting. The Treasury is losing as bad debts a very large proportion of the money that has been advanced. These are points the House would desire to have explained before passing the measure.

In the first place, I would remind my hon. Friend that although in the first Clause of the Bill there is a sum named which seems to him, not unnaturally, a large sum, it does not follow that the whole of that amount is to be expended as a maximum sum beyond which loans will not be advanced. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that out of the £1,000,000 sanctioned last year as a maximum, no obligations beyond the sum of £125,000 have been entered into, and that of the £300,000 which was allotted to the Irish Board of Works, £90,000 only has been earmarked since the passage of the last Bill. With regard to the writing- off that had to be made this year, I am sorry my hon. Friend has not possessed himself of a most admirable White Paper which was issued some little time ago and which gives the fullest details of the Port Ness case. I do not think he would like me to go into them here, because he can read them there. Briefly, that case is one where money was advanced to a harbour very many years ago, where trouble arose at an early date between the contractors and the harbour trustees, where a lawsuit was started between the contractors and the harbour trustees and where the harbour trustees had to surrender their undertaking into the hands of a liquidator before the work for which the money had been advanced had been completed. The harbour since that time was destitute of funds. It silted up and never received a certificate from the Board of Trade, and for the last twenty-four years no money has been received by the Exchequer by way of repayment of principal or payment of interest. There is no income out of which these sums can be repaid, and the only thing, at the expiration of this time, is to write them off as a bad debt. We ask the leave of the House to do that in bringing in the Bill this year.

The Irish case to which my hon. Friend referred perhaps deserves one word of explanation. It is a unique case. It is a case in which under the Land Act, 1885, a property was brought in 1889 subject to a head rent of £30 a year. The head rent was paid for many years, but after the passage of time there came a general rivalry among the tenants as to who should pay it. While they were quarrelling among themselves as to whom should pay it, the time went by when it ought to have been paid. Although they were helped out of their difficulty by the Land Commission once, the second time it occurred events took their natural course. The nobleman to whom the head rent was due, not receiving it at the appropriate time, obtained an order of ejectment against the tenants and they were thrown out of their holdings. The result is that they forfeit the money they have already paid in redemption, which will amount to something like one-quarter of the sum advanced to them, but there is no particular hardship in that, as they have been enjoying the use of the land at a rather less rate than if they had paid rent. It would be monstrously unfair if we had tried to compel them to make further payments on account of land which is no longer theirs. We had no means of obtaining the money from them, and there seemed no other course open to us, after investigating this case, than to remit the balance, which amounts to about £2,600 on this small estate, and to write it off. The case, as my hon. Friend has probably discovered, is quite a unique one. There is no case like it in Ireland, and no similar case is at all likely to arise. I hope the explanation I have given will be satisfactory to the House, and that they will allow the Second Reading of the Bill to proceed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[ Mr. Towyn Jones.]

Asylums Officers' Superannuation Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

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

This is a Bill to make further provision for the application of the Asylums Officers Superannuation Act, 1909, to officers in certified institutions for defectives, and to provide for the aggregation of service in asylums and in such institutions. The Bill is intended to remedy certain defects in those Sections of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, which provide for the superannuation of officers in certain institutions managed by local authorities, the chief defect being that Section 45 of the English Act of 1913 does not make provision for the aggregation of services for pensions when any officer is transferred from an asylum to a certified institution or vice versa. This is a real hardship, and it is a pressing public necessity that something should be done to deal with the problem. It is urgently necessary to rectify this defect, because of the difficulty of providing a nucleus of trained officers or trained staffs for the new institutions for defectives unless experienced officers can be drawn from the asylums. Under the law as it stands, if officers move from an asylum to a certified institution, they start, as regards his or her pension as if they had no experience or no service whatsoever. It was very natural that an officer would not be disposed to be transferred from an asylum to an institution, which would mean the loss of his or her accrued pension rights, and this Bill is simply a measure for the aggregation of the pensions so that the transfer may be made quite easily and that we shall have a nucleus for the new institutions that are being and will be established to staff them in a proper way. I therefore hope the House will give us the Bill without any delay.

I do not for a moment oppose the Second Reading of the Bill as I think it is a very valuable measure, and that the House will do its duty if it thanks the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Office for having brought it in. I know that officers who are removed to certified institutions from asylums have a marked grievance in suffering as they have done from that transfer. As the right hon. Gentleman has indicated they were reluctant to be transferred to certified institutions and the patients in the certified institutions suffered. I therefore congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his Bill, but I would not have risen to say that alone. I desire to ask him if he is able to explain to me whether under Clause 2, Sub-section (2), a change is made in Section 36 of the Mental Deficiency Act (Scotland), 1913? I have been unable to take the opportunity of turning up that Act to see what Section 36 enacts, but I rely upon the right hon. Gentleman having that information, although perhaps he is not very conversant with the law of Scotland. But still I think he may be able to state whether this Bill cancels Section 36 of that Act. I think the House ought not to pass any measure until it knows clearly what its effect may be.

In a sentence, it simply means that a transfer after this Bill becomes law can take place between Scotland and England and between England and Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[ Lord E. Talbot.]

Small Holding Colonies (Amendment) Bill

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1—(Increase In Area Of Lund Which May Be Acquired By Purposes Of Section 1 Of 6 And 7 Geo 5, C 38)

Subject to the provisions of this Section, Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Small Holding Colonies Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the purposes of that Section, shall have effect as if forty-five thousand acres were therein substituted for four thousand five hundred acres, twenty thousand acres for two thousand acres, and sixty thousand acres for six thousand acres and paragraph ( c) of Section eleven of the principal Act, which limits the area of the land which may be acquired by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland for the purposes of the said Section one, shall have effect as if twenty thousand acres were therein substituted for two thousand acres:

Provided that where land which is to be acquired for the purposes of the said Section one could not, if this Act had not been passed, have been acquired for that purpose without making the total area of the land for the time being so acquired exceed the amount authorised to be so acquired, the land shall not be acquired otherwise than by taking the same on lease or by purchasing it on the terms that payment shall be made therefor by way of a rent-charge or other annual payment.

Lords Amendment: After the word "acres" ["six thousand acres"], insert the words,

"Provided that for the purposes of the acquisition, equipment, and settlement of the area hereby authorised to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board may, as respects any county with the consent of the council of that county, employ that council as their agents and vest in them all the powers hereby or by the principal Act conferred upon them in addition to those vested in such council by virtue of the Small Holdings Act, 1908."

Lords Amendment read a second time.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after the word "all" ["all the powers"], to insert the words "or any of."

We have no objection to the Lords Amendment so far as it goes, but its acceptance must not be taken as any indication that the Board of Agriculture has at present any intention of delegating the management of these colonies. With that proviso, we propose to accept the Lords Amendment with one slight alteration.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."

I am glad the Government propose to accept this Amendment, for I certainly think that the county councils would be extremely valuable agents in carrying out the purposes of this measure. Those bodies already have done a great deal in promoting the provision of small holdings. They have the equipment, they have the agents, they have knowledge of the circumstances of the county and of the local requirements. I feel confident they will effect the desired objects and purposes of the Bill far better than any other agency could possibly do. But I did not quite catch the Parliamentary Secretary's remark. I hope he did not imply that the Board of Agriculture do not propose to give powers to the county councils to carry out the measure, because I certainly think that, subject to the over-ruling power of the Board of Agriculture, the county councils should be empowered to carry out the Bill. I know the chief purpose is to provide colonies. I think it has a very much greater prospect of making suitable provision for returned soldiers and sailors through the county councils than it would have through farm colonies. I believe that, in the first place, the county councils would be the means of settling men in the districts from which they came, and the men would greatly value the opportunity of becoming smallholders in the district in which they were born and bred, and in which probably their families had lived for generations. More than that, the advantage of small holdings for these men, suitably spread over the country, would, I think, afford them very much better prospects of success than would be the case if they were concentrated in large colonies. The men, many of them, would have a pension, and with 10 or 20 acres of ground would be able to keep a few cows, produce pigs and poultry, and carry on the various offices of husbandry in a small way, and would be able to utilise any surplus time they might have in earning wages in the employment of larger occupiers. It would be a mistake to suppose that these men will be able to make a living simply on 10 or 20 acres of land, except perhaps in the immediate vicinity of towns. But, generally speaking, they must have some other means of augmenting their livelihood. It would be a false kindness to plant these men on 10 or 20 acres of ground only. These men, to many of whom the country owes a debt of gratitude, which we all acknowledge, would be unable to support even a small holding unless some money could be advanced on loan by the county council to enable them to secure stock and make a start on the holding. I hope the intention of the board is that the county council shall have some funds from Imperial taxes for this purpose. It is a national liability and a national responsibility, and surely these bodies, which are elected and representative of the people, can be trusted to use Imperial funds, subject to the sanction of the Board of Agriculture, to the best advantage in promoting the interests and well-being of these men.

I think much greater success will attend the settling of soldiers and sailors through the county councils on the land than will be the case with very large colonies. To obtain land for large colonies means the dispossessing af a large number of farmers from their holdings. That is a very great hardship. No man likes to be turned out of the holding which he has acquired on the principle of supply and demand, and which he probably would be farming in a very proper way, but if the county councils are used as the agents that difficulty will be avoided. They would be able to acquire portions of land here and there for the purpose of providing small holdings, and although no farmer likes to part with a part of his farm, it is a much smaller grievance for him to have to part with 10 or 20 acres than to be turned out of his holding in order to get land for farm colonies. So that from every point of view, with that earnest desire to see that settlement of soldiers and sailors comfortably on the land, I firmly believe that it would be much more successful if carried out through the county councils than if we adopt the policy of farm colonies. This is certainly a step in the right direction. I hope this concession, if it may be so called, to local feeling through the county councils will not be made by the Board of Agriculture in any grudging spirit. I believe these bodies, in the way they have provided small holdings hitherto, have shown judgment and tact and a very fair amount of success. That entitles them to be trusted by the Government to do this great work, and I hope the Government will, from Imperial funds, provide the money, and then I believe there is every prospect of our soldiers and sailors being comfortably settled in small holdings. The one advantage in congregating men in colonies is that they will be able to co-operate. There is something in the British nature which makes us prefer individuality, and I am confident that these men will be happier on their 10 or 20 acres under their own management, with the utilisation of their pensions and the opportunity to carry on any other little industry, and they will be able to make a living and will be able to bring about that which we have been yearning for for many years—the increase of the rural population. We have been deploring the movement of the rural population into the towns—

I do not quite see how that arises on this Amendment. It is quite a limited one, the hon. Member will, on reflection, agree. I cannot allow him to pursue that topic any further.

I am very glad the Amendment has been accepted, for I am sure it will contribute to the successful provision of small holdings very much better than any other proposal that has been mentioned.

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the Amendment, but I very much wish he had not accepted it in the way he did, because it seemed to me that, having accepted it, he is not going to take much further notice of it. We who support it are just as anxious as anyone that all soldiers and sailors who have fought for this country and want to live on the land should have an opportunity of doing so. The whole point between us is the best machinery and the best and cheapest way to get them on the land and keep them there. And it seems to me, when you have county councils, which have been doing this work now for some years, while if you use the Board of Agriculture you would probably need a whole host of new officials—when the county councils have local knowledge of the needs of agriculture in the different counties, they are the bodies ready to hand to take on this work and will do it much better than it would be done by any board in London. I sincerely hope, though we have to thank the hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment, that he will think better of the proviso and that he will allow the county councils to manage these small holdings.

I am delighted to hear that the Board of Agriculture has decided to accept the Amendment, it being one which I myself put down for the Committee stage, but unfortunately I was not present to move it. I am just as anxious as the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that this experiment in small holdings and colonies under direct Government management should be given a fair trial and, if possible, be attended with success. But two years ago, when the original Bill was before the House, it was stated explicitly and repeatedly that this scheme was merely an experiment, and that it would not be largely extended until its success had been demonstrated. The time has certainly not arrived when we can say with full confidence that the success of this colonisation experiment is fully assured, and in attempting to multiply the number of acres originally contemplated by no less than ten, it must be admitted that we are carrying the scheme beyond the experimental stage, possibly involving the country in a considerable expenditure, possibly setting up a somewhat expensive machine which does not at present exist, and possibly also not meeting altogether the requirements of the ex-soldiers and ex-sailors in the matter of land settlement. My anxiety with regard to this Amendment is founded upon the fact that I do not want to see our ex-soldiers fall between two stools. The powers of the county councils are at present suspended. We none of us know when they may be revived. In spite, I believe, of considerable pressure on the part of the Board of Agriculture, the Treasury has not yet seen its way to allow these powers to be revived, and, assuming that this scheme is not a success, the whole of our expressed aspirations for the future land settlement of our soldiers and sailors serving overseas will have been blown to the winds, and surely we shall have been guilty of something very much in the nature of deception of those who are dependent upon our efforts to provide them with the land settlement scheme which so many of them are looking forward to.

The Amendment comes to the House with the strong backing of the County Councils Association, and with, of course, a full realisation on their part of what has been achieved during the last ten years, allowing for the interruption of their powers during the War, and also the strong backing of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, both bodies of considerable experience and both very anxious that the county councils should, if necessary, be allowed to take up this work if the Government finds that it cannot with success carry it through without their intervention. The word "may" is a permissive word that does not involve the Board of Agriculture handing any of their powers under this Bill or the previous Bill over to the county councils if they feel they can successfully carry through their schemes without their agency. But it does give that alternative, without which the well-known desires of many of our ex-soldiers may not be satisfied. It gives that alternative which enables the existing agencies, which have grown up largely on the initiative of my hon. Friend, and the success of whose work is far above my anticipations, and, I imagine, his anticipations, an opportunity of carrying out the work for which they are well fitted on delegation from the Board of Agriculture, and to provide in a way for the ex-soldiers, which the ex-soldiers would infinitely prefer to the way contemplated by the Bill.

The House is in a peculiar position in dealing with this particular Amendment, because the Government have recommended its acceptance by the House, but saying at the same time that they do not intend to act upon it.

As I understood the hon. Member, this Amendment enables the Board of Agriculture to utilise the county councils as their agents and to vest in them all the powers they have got. The hon. Gentleman accepts this Amendment, but tells the House that the Board of Agriculture will not carry this out and that they will not delegate any of these powers to the county councils. Therefore, they are proposing to accept the Amendment and at the same time telling us they will reject it in action. In face of that the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on behalf of agriculture have expressed their delight at this Amendment being accepted, although it is not going to be carried out. One hon. Member who drew attention to the point I am referring to said that if the Board of Agriculture started this system themselves instead of deputing it to the county councils to act as their agents there will be a new set of officials set up who will not only be new, to the job, but will have to acquire knowledge, while at the present moment there are in the employment of the county councils officials who are doing these duties who have had experience in the past, and who are much more likely to be more efficient than any new officials who may be set up. It may be possible yet for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture to withdraw what he said as to the intention of his Department not to carry out this Amendment, and to tell us quite frankly that he has changed his views, and that he proposes to have the county councils as agents in this matter and to utilise them and their officials.

As I understand this Amendment, it will lead to a little more elasticity in the working of this measure. If the county councils become the agents to carry out these powers, I think it is possible that the county councils may go different ways and have different ideas. I was rather sorry to hear from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Watt) that the Government have set a face of adamant against any experiments by the county councils; but I was reassured, because the Parliamentary Secretary shook his head, and I took it to mean that he did not intend that this should be a dead letter. The reason why this commends itself to me is that some of the more progressive and enlightened county councils may set up a small holding colony to deal with tuberculous persons. The Parliamentary Secretary remembers that when the Bill was before the House I urged upon him that at any rate one of these colonies might well be devoted to the question of tuberculous soldiers.

I think if you had listened—[HON. MEMBERS; "Order, order!"]—and had allowed me to pursue my point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I do not mean any discourtesy, and I am surprised that any hon. Members should think that for a moment. My point is that one of the county councils which has got this question in hand and is spending money upon it, if they exercise the powers vested in them, could establish a colony for tuberculous soldiers. That is why the Amendment commends itself to me. There is an opportunity, if this Amendment is sanc- tioned, for an experiment to be carried out. It will enable us, instead of having to go to the Board of Agriculture, to go to the county council as the agent and appeal to them to exercise the power vested in them. I am very hopeful that, at any rate, one of the county councils may be found enlightened enough and progressive enough and anxious to serve the public interests to utilise this Clause and the power which this Clause gives them in order to set up a colony for tuberculous soldiers. I do not wish to suggest that the whole of these small-holding colonies should be devoted to that purpose. I have always been modest in my requests, and I ask that one county council—

I have allowed the point to be raised, but I cannot allow the subject to be enlarged upon.

I am thankful to you for allowing me to make a passing reference. That is the only reason why I support the Amendment. If I thought that there would not be a county council likely to do this, I should vote against this Amendment. Therefore, I think the point I am raising is quite relevant because it influences my vote and I daresay the vote of other Members. It is because I see an opportunity for some county council to put in force these powers in the way I have suggested, which I think would be successful, and would lead to great reform, that I am glad the Government have seen their way to accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "on the terms that payment shall be made therefor by way," and insert instead thereof the words "in consideration of the grant."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I think we are entitled to know what is the exact bearing of this. Is it to be a drafting Amendment?

Yes. I move that we agree with the Lords Amendment because it is purely a drafting Amendment.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: After the word ("payment") insert the words ("or by taking the same in feu").

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I would like to be quite clear as to what this means. Is it introduced simply for the purpose of providing for Scottish conditions? Because if it were to apply to England, we have no knowledge of feu duties or similar Scottish expressions.

I have merely mentioned the matter so as to be satisfied that this is in fact the exact equivalent of the rent-charge contemplated under the English provisions, because it is obviously right that the conditions should be the same in both parts of the United Kingdom.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: At end of Clause 1 add the words,

"Provided also that no portion of the additional land authorised by this Act to be acquired by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall be so acquired except after consultation with the chairman of the council of the county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate, or with a committee of that council."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It is quite clear that this is not a drafting Amendment. It is an Amendment of some substance, and we are entitled to an explanation from the Government as to why they accept it. Was this introduced as a Government Amendment in another place or how did it come to be accepted? It does not seem to be of any value. Very often in a county there are many more men interested in agriculture than the chairman of the county council, who may be a coal-owner, an engineer, or a tradesman. Why this distinction should be made, except as a sop to the county council, I cannot understand. I am never in favour of these things that are put in merely to get a Bill through or to silence somebody, or with some object of that kind. The only effect which this could have, it seems to me, would be to delay matters. To comply with this provision, I take it there would have to be some documentary evidence to show that this consultation had taken place, and that would mean correspondence, or something of the kind, which might delay matters.

I expected that the Under-Secretary would have answered the ques- tions of my hon. Friend. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman recommends the House to accept this particular Amendment. It seems extraordinary that the Board of Agriculture should consent to a consultation with the chairman of the county council of a county in which the land proposed to be acquired is situated before they proceed to take the land. The effect, of course, is delay. It is hard to find any reasons for accepting this Amendment. It limits the powers of the Board when we are anxious to get ahead. Probably the other House was determined to have this particular Amendment, and the Board of Agriculture thought that rather than have a disturbance with that House they would let it go; but the effect is certainly to weaken the measure. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has a remarkable gift for silence. In that respect he differs from his chief, who has an extraordinary gift of fluency. Between them they strike a very happy average, but silence can be carried too far, and in this case I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to give an answer to my hon. Friend.

Really, the reason for this Amendment is plain. If county councils are at any time to be asked to look after these colonies, surely it is a reasonable and sensible thing to take them into consultation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2—(Short Title)

This Act may be cited as the Small Holding Colonies (Amendment) Act, 1918, and the principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the Small Holding Colonies Acts, 1916 and 1918.

Lords Amendment: After "1916" insert the words "and otherwise to amend that Act."—Agreed to.

Deputy-Lieutenants Bill Lords

Order for Second Reading read.

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

The object of this Bill is to get rid of the property qualification which has been in existence for a very long time. It existed if I remember aright, before the year 1757, when the Militia was under the Home Office. It was reaffirmed in the Militia Act, 1882, when it was made quite plain that unless you had a very substantial holding in the county you could not be appointed to be a deputy-lieutenant of that particular county. When Lord Haldane, who was then Secretary of State for War, introduced the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act in 1907 he made provision for constituting the lord lieutenant of each county to be the president of the Territorial Force Association for that county. He also obtained His Majesty's assent to the rule that nominees for the appointment of deputy-lieutenant should be qualified either by ten years' commissioned service or by good service as members of the County Association. All this was done to encourage the Territorial Force and to encourage recruiting for that particular force. During this War it has been found that the restrictions precluded the appointment of gentlemen not possessing the necessary statutory qualifications who had in other ways rendered exceptionally valuable services to the military forces of the Crown in connection with recruiting, Red Cross, and the volunteer movement.

Accordingly in April, 1915, the King commanded that existing qualifications should be extended, in order to provide for the recognition of such special services. The foregoing rules, namely, those of 1915, and the provisions made in connection with the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907, secure the nomination of suitable candidates for the appointment of deputy-lieutenant, but it appears that there is difficulty in rendering them effective owing to the fact that gentlemen otherwise eminently qualified to become deputy-lieutenants do not always possess the statutory property qualification. In such a category are found many officers of the naval and military forces, whose incomes are derived from salary, pay, etc. We also found among officers members of the professional classes and others dependent on their earnings, many willing and able workers in the national cause—many business men, who had really no great property qualification at all, but who did reside in the county. The Government therefore thought it wise and proper that these men should have the same right to be appointed deputy-lieutenant as other people who happen accidentally to possess the property qualification, and it is really to give us the right to appoint as deputy-lieutenants such men who reside in the county, and who have done good service, whether they have the property qualifications or not, that this Bill is now introduced.

9.0 P.M.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on having brought in this measure, which does not make the property qualification necessary for the appointment of deputy-lieutenant in counties. It was a good thing, I think, that the position of deputy-lieutenant was confined to men who have given military service either in the Army or the Territorial Forces, or in the Navy. Now conies the question of dealing with deputy-lieutenants in two ways. The first is to exclude the property qualification, and the other is to appoint men who have held positions connected with the Naval, Territorial, or military Forces. I think the right hon. Gentleman has erred in two matters, on which I propose to move Amendments in Committee. He said it was desirable that a deputy-lieutenant should be resident in the county. Several times during his speech he used the expression, "resident within the county," whereas this measure goes outside the county, and men who are resident within seven miles of the county may be appointed to the position of deputy-lieutenant. That is one of the points to which I object. I should say that there is not a single county in the country where men suitable for this appointment would not be found within the county, and there is no necessity whatever for going outside to appoint someone resident within 7 miles. In Committee I shall move to leave out the words "within seven miles thereof." The other point to which I object is in paragraph (b), which says that men may be eligible for the position of deputy-lieutenant where they have acted in a civil capacity in connection with the naval and military services. I submit that they ought not to be included, and that the position of deputy-lieutenant should be confined to men who have been in the Army, Navy, or Territorial force—that is, the position should be confined to military men. That was set up in the Act of 1907, and it has been a great success up till now. From what my right hon. Friend says, not only military men would get these posts, but clerks associated with the Navy or Army, and men who have in any way done work for the Services, would be eligible for the position. I submit these words, which include the appointment of civilians, should be deleted, and in Committee I will move an Amendment with that object, so that the appointment will be confined to men who have rendered military service and who have residence within the county.

When I first read this bill and before the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it, I must say that I thought it had nothing to do with the War, and I was prepared to make a protest on that ground. But my right hon. Friend has shown that while it may not be a military measure it has arisen out of the circumstances of the War, and, therefore, I quite admit that there is a case for bringing in the Bill at the present time. I would like to thank him for removing the property qualification, and I only wish to make one criticism in support of my hon. and learned Friend behind me. I shall take the opportunity in Committee of supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment. If a man has simply made money through services he has rendered in connection with the Army or Navy I do not think such a case should be included. I cannot think that my right hon. Friend wants to give the privilege to a man who has simply been manufacturing munitions or has been doing something for which he has been handsomely remunerated. I do not think that such a service should qualify a man in some special way for this post. As the Bill is worded we might have men who would be considered as having been connected with the forces, but who had really occupied some lucrative civilian post or had done some business in connection with the Army. If the idea is that a civilian has really served the forces by doing something very effective, and which has not been the means of his making money or profit in so doing, then I see no objection to it. One thing that I wish to warn the House against is that it is exceedingly unpopular in the country that men who have cottoned themselves up to some Government Department and made large profits by so doing then receive Orders, or become qualified for posts, for which they would not otherwise be eligible. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to satisfy us in Committee that there is no intention of regarding as a qualification for a deputy-lieutenancy the fact that a man has had a lucrative post with the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force. Generally speaking, I welcome the Bill.

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on introducing this Bill? We all know, I think, that since the commencement of the War there are many gentlemen resident in the counties who have done very loyal and valuable service to the Crown in recruiting and in many other ways connected with the War, and I personally welcome as a step in the right direction that these men, although they may not have the property qualification, are yet to be eligible for this recognition, which is an honourable position which some men covet. I am quite at one with the terms of the Bill, and think that the 7 miles radius outside of any particular county should be preserved, because I know of my own knowledge of gentlemen who have done the services to which I have referred who may have their place of business in the county and have done the service in the county, and who might not quite be resident within the four corners of the county, and would thus be debarred if the 7 miles radius was struck out of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[ Mr. Pratt.]

Solicitors (Articled Clerks) Bill Lords

Order for Second Reading read.

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

This is a Bill designed for the benefit of articled clerks of solicitors. It is intended in two ways to modify in their interests the provisions of the existing Solicitors Acts. In the first place, the Bill provides that an articled clerk may reckon as time duly served under his articles any time which since the commencement of the War has been served in the forces or during which he has been detained as a prisoner or interned in an enemy or a neutral country. In the second place, the Bill provides that the Lord Chief Justice or the Master of the Rolls, in circumstances arising out of the War, may exempt an articled clerk from his intermediate examination.

I quite admit that this is made necessary to some extent by the circumstances of the War, and I fully appreciate the good objects of the Bill, but at the same time I think one might point out that in business circles similar unfortunate experiences occur for which the Government are not providing any remedy.

No; but, on the other hand, grievances just as unequal are occurring every day in business, and yet the Government are ruthlessly taking people up to fifty years of age, utterly regardless of individual hardship. I admit that that is not a valid argument against this Bill, but it is another instance of the tenderness with which the Governments of this country and the House of Commons are inclined the view any difficulties in the legal profession. Here a hardship has been pointed out, and the Government at once bring in a Bill to put it right. I am not going to vote against it, but I think we ought to point out that there are a hundred more instances of exactly the same hardship occurring in the business community, for which I, quite agree one cannot suggest a remedy. One should not play the dog in the manger, and say that because you do not find a remedy in one case you shall not in this case. But, at the same time, I think the House should realise that suffering is taking place every day in business circles which the House is passing over without any concern.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[ Mr. Pratt.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir D. MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

Clause 1—(Reckoning Of Time Of Service With The Forces, Etc, At Service Of Articles)

Notwithstanding anything in the Solicitors' Acts, 1889 to 1917, any time after the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen (whether before or after the passing of this Act), during which an articled clerk has for the purposes of the present War served in any of His Majesty's Forces, or in any public service connected with the present War of a character approved by the Master of the Rolls, or has, in consequence of the present War, been detained as a prisoner, military or civil, in any enemy country, or been interned in an enemy or neutral country, shall, on the Law Society being satisfied as to the fact and length of such service, detention or internment, and that the articled clerk has in other respects complied with the said Acts be reckoned for all purposes as time duly served under his articles of clerkship.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I do not think we had any notice that this Bill was to be taken in Committee. I do not like to move to report Progress, but I understand that no indication was given that an attempt would be made to pass this Bill through all its stages, and I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has got some ground for doing it. At present no suggestion has been made that this needs to be rushed through all its stages in one day.

My answer is quite short. This Bill is a perfectly simple, obvious, and modest Bill. It has been passed through all its stages in another place. It explains itself. There is no objection to it, and there is no reason why it should be postponed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 2 (Power To Exempt From The Intermediate Examination) And 3 (Short Title And Extent) Ordered To Stand Part Of The Bill

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

I wish to raise a protest. The Government are in possession of the whole time of the House, and they do not allow private Members to put down a Motion or bring in a Bill of any description, and that has been so for a very long time. It is all very well for my right hon. Friend to say there is no objection to this Bill. How does he know? No Member of the House can put down an Amendment to the Committee stage until after the Second Reading, and in the old days, when a controversial Bill passed the Second Reading it was a very familiar sight to see a file of Members waiting to hand in their Amendments, and that could not be done until after the Bill had been read a second time. There are no members of the legal profession at present in the House, apart from those on the Government Bench, whom we are glad to see, although they come so seldom. I am sure that other members of the legal profession in the House were not aware that the Bill would be taken beyond the Second Heading. It might be that some of them would have put Amendments down, but no chance was given. My right hon. and learned Friend might have satisfied himself. If he can assure the House that he has some means of knowing, of course I will give way, but I do want him to recognise that, when the Government has the whole tune of the House, and has been spending days and weeks upon matters which have nothing to do with the War, and cannot come into operation for years after the War, it is not unreasonable to ask them to adhere to the Rules of the House, and take Bills stage by stage. I can quite understand that if, on the Committee stage, there is no Amendment, and, of course, in that case there is no Report stage, we may take the Third Reading, but I cannot understand rushing through the stages after the Second Reading without giving any chance for Amendments to be put down. It may be that my right hon. and learned Friend is quite convinced that the Bill meets with unanimous acceptance. If so, I will accept his assurance.

It is said that no indication was offered that this Bill would go through all its stages to-night. I might point out that no indication was offered that anybody would think it night upon this Bill to raise any objection. This Bill is simple, clear, and obvious, and I am not going to repeat what I said upon the last stages. I cannot conceive that there is any Member of this House who, except for mere purposes of controversy, or for mere purposes of wasting time, or for the mere purpose of hearing his own voice, would raise any objection to this reasonable relief to the articled clerks of solicitors.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly road the third time, and passed.

Corn Production (Amendment) Bill Lords

Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time." This Bill proposes to continue the powers that the Board of Agriculture now possess under the Defence of the Realm Act during the War, instead of bringing in on the 21st August Part IV. of the Corn Production Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Corn Production Act was introduced in another place. It was accepted by the representative of the Government who had charge of the Bill. It was adopted in this House. It was part of a Parliamentary bargain. Therefore, I fully agree that we ought to show some good reason why the powers that we then gave up should be continued. Of course, the main reason is that we still are acting in the stress of emergency. But there are three reasons why I hope the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill. The first is this: If Part IV. of the Corn Production Act comes into operation on the 21st August the Board loses possession of some 40,000 acres it is now cultivating, on which it hopes to harvest its crops, and, more than that, it loses possession also of some 300,000 allotments, which have been obtained under the Defence of the Realm Regulation. We should have no resource but to turn out those allotment-holders and pay them compensation, on the 21st August. The second reason is this: Under the Defence of the Realm Act we have the power to obtain with great rapidity land for allotments. That demand comes mainly from urban districts, and it is a very insistent demand. If Part IV. of the Corn Production Act comes into operation on the 21st August, we shall have no means of satisfying that demand for allotments, except under the procedure of the Small Holdings Act, which, to say the least, is somewhat slow and cumbrous.

No argument was raised in another place against the Bill on those two grounds. It was, indeed, said that we might have introduced a Bill dealing specifically with allotments, but that would not have met the case of the agricultural land of which the Board is in possession, and also this is the simplest way in which we could effect our object in obtaining and retaining the land for allotments. The third reason for which we want the Amendment is that we desire to retain powers of prompt action with regard to enforcing proper cultivation where the land has been neglected. If Part IV. comes into operation, if we issue an order upon a man to clean his field, he has the right of appeal and the Order itself is a seasonal operation which must be performed at once, or probably it is of little or no use for another year. The question of delay, therefore, at once arises. Moreover, if we want to get rid of a farmer, who neglects his land because he has not the means, or the skill, or the capital, we cannot do it under Part IV. except by the ordinary notice to quit, which may not operate for a year and a half. I do not think in the present emergency it is safe for the Board to abandon these powers under the Defence of the Realm Act, and, therefore, I hope that we shall be allowed to retain those powers as regards the enforcement of the specific acts of cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry.

In another place certain Amendments were made. Two out of the three we propose to accept, but the issue rises solely, or almost entirely, upon this question, whether we are to have the right of enforcing specific acts of cultivation with or without an appeal? In those cases the real question is, what are the customary methods of cultivation adopted by good farmers in the district? We think that the best farmers in the district, many of whom are sitting on these war agricultural committees, are as good judges on that subject as any surveyor in the neighbourhood can be. We also venture to think that the war agricultural committees have deserved well of the country by the way in which they have carried out their public duties. We want to preserve their prestige and authority. We want them, to continue working and we want to show them all that we have confidence in their judgment and experience. We think, therefore, it is quite necessary they should be able to issue these specific notices with regard to the acts of cultivation to which I have alluded, such as cleaning foul land and hoeing thistles. We think they should be able to issue these notices within the limits of the class of orders and without any appeal. On that point there may be a difference of opinion between ourselves in this House and another place. The important point for us to remember is this, that we have to make good to Parliament the reasons why we are asking for this Amendment. The reason is, in the main, as I have said, the emergency crisis in which we are working and the danger of parting with some of our powers. I have already explained to the House that we do not propose so long as the labour situation is what it is at present, to issue any more orders to plough up grass land and in any case whenever these orders are renewed they will be subject to appeal. It is only for the limited class of cases to which I have referred that we want these powers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what particular words he proposes to disapprove in this Clause?

The notice requiring any land in the occupation of the farmer shall be cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry.

I should like to offer a warm welcome to this Bill in its modified form with the exceptions that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. This Bill as it first came before another place appeared to me to be rather a serious breach of what the right hon. Gentleman has called a Parliamentary bargain, and in view of the great rapidity with which extensions of the arable area have been made, thanks to the patriotic efforts of the war agricultural committee, it did not appear to me, at any rate, to be a sufficient justification for what might be regarded as a breach of faith. I am open to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we are by no means at the end of our food anxieties, and, for all we know, it may become necessary to provide once more more active powers for the war agricultural committees in extending their arable area beyond what it is at present. For my part, I feel that the Board is justified in asking that the powers under Part IV. of the Corn Production Act, 1917, should be continued for a longer period, even until the end of the War; but this should be limited to ensure that good husbandry should be carried out upon the existing arable area of this country. So far as that is concerned, I should deprecate there being an appeal against the decisions of the war agricultural committee, because, as the right hon. Gentleman very properly says, it seems that the operation of cleaning the land has to be carried out with great rapidity, and by the time the appeal came to be heard it might be that the time had passed when the occupier of the land could properly or reasonably be expected to carry out the work demanded of him. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to agree with the Lords in their provision that, as far as deprivation of possession and as regards the extra ploughing of grass lands, there shall be an appeal such as was provided for under the principal Act. I agree that prompt action continues to be necessary in connection with cases of bad husbandry, and I almost wish there could be included in the Agricultural Holdings Act, by Amendment, a provision which would enable the county war agricultural committees to take action in the best interests, not merely of the food supply of the country, but of the tenant farmers themselves, to see that the land is not allowed to slip back into a neglected condition, with the result of a reduced production of food, sometimes, indeed, becoming little better than prairie land, to the detriment of all concerned. If powers could by an Amendment of the existing Act be conferred on some local authority to keep land in its present state of cultivation, producing for the country the largest possible supply of food, it would be a good thing. Subject to the modifications announced by the right hon. Gentleman, I give my hearty support to this Bill.

I should like to support this Bill. I am not an agricultural labourer, nor a landlord, nor a landholder, nor an agriculturist, but I am very interested in allotments and in what is being done by allotment-holders. Very considerable anxiety has been expressed during the last few months as to the action of the Government with regard to allotment-holders throughout the length and breadth of the country. These people have increased now to quite remarkable numbers, and I am very glad to be able to testify that the interest in allotment work has not decreased. We may claim that allotment-holders have sensibly improved the food situation, especially in the neighbourhood of large industrial centres, and have been able to make considerable contributions to the food supply which have proved of incalculable value. They feel that their tenure is in a rather precarious position. I understand it is to come to an end in August of this year under the old Corn Production Act. They are anxious, therefore, for a Bill which will give them security of tenure as is provided by Clause 1 of this Bill. I believe by that Clause their tenure is made secure until the termination of the War or six months after.

I was not aware of that fact. I now understand that the Presi- dent is bound by the promise he has made that it should be for two years after the termination of the War?

Not exceeding two years. Under the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1916, Section 1, it is so provided.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. At all events, it removes any immediate cause for anxiety that the allotment-holders may have had. They will now be secure for two years after the War. I should like to urge the right hon. Gentleman to give them a definite place in his great scheme of land development. Let it not be said that they were treated merely as men who could be of assistance during the War, and then, after the War, their exertions were forgotten and their good work was neglected. I am quite sure that is not the wish of the President of the Board of Agriculture, for we know from what he has said and done that he takes very great interest in allotment work. I trust it may be possible next Session to introduce a small Bill giving further opportunities to allotment-holders and making clear what their position is. At the moment, if I understand it rightly, they are protected by certain Orders, and by this Bill, when it becomes an Act, they will be further protected. But apart from such protection they do not know where they are at all, and it does seem to me it would be advisable to further regularise their position when opportunity offers, as it may offer before very long. I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance he has given that for two years after the War they will be safe in their tenure of the land they now hold.

I do not want to detain the House at this time, more especially because I had not the good fortune to hear the beginning of this Debate. I did not know that this Bill was coming on so soon, otherwise I should certainly have taken steps to be here when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture was speaking. My only object now in rising is to express some regret that anything is being done, at this time, to weaken the powers of the agricultural executive committees. I was one of those who regarded the appointment of those committees with a great deal of apprehension. I must say from the experience I have had of their working in my district that I am filled with admiration at what they have succeeded in accomplishing in the short period. Speaking, as I hope I may, as a practical agriculturist—and I have now had a farm in my occupation for over four years—I notice hon. Members smiling, but I may say that this has brought me into personal contact with these committees—and they have given me real assistance. I can also assure hon. Members that my contact with the members of these agricultural committees have been uniformly pleasant; they have given me advice and help, they have hired horses out to me, and, on the whole, I have nothing but praise for the work which has been done by them. For that reason I confess that I am inclined to take sides—if there is any controversy—with Lord Lee, because I have seen in my own neighbourhood the immense change for the bettor following on the work of the Food Production Department and the agricultural committees. Nothing is more certain, I suppose, to those who take an interest in matters agricultural than that before the War—even to-day—the land of this country was not, and is not, producing anything like the amount it might produce under proper conditions of cultivation.

The agricultural committees have done something to remedy the deficiency. I know, however, that in my own district, in spite of all the efforts which have been made, there are still farms which are disgracefully under-cultivated. At a time like this, when the production of food is of such vital importance to the country, I confess it seems to me a pity that any machinery should be introduced which will have the effect of delaying the application to the tenants of such farms of the powers possessed by the Food Production Department. Only a few days ago I remember speaking to a man who was doing some steam-ploughing in my neighbourhood. I was asking when he was going to bring the steam plough to my farm. Not knowing I had any special interest in the matter, he described to me one or two of the farms at which he had lately been at work. He said, with intense conviction, having been round all the farms in the neighbourhood, that there were men who had no business to hold the land they do hold. In time of war I must say I have very little sympathy or pity for men who hold land and do not cultivate it to its fullest extent. Therefore I frankly confess that I regret that anything should be done to alter or impair the powers of the agricultural committees to enforce the proper cultivation of the land in the district.

At the same time, I gather that we are not—I hope I am right in this!—really going to have a change of policy. Personally, I greatly regret the resignation of Lord Lee. Though I have always differed from him politically, I recognise—and I think no one can fail to recognise—the immense amount of energy and of real initiative he has put into the work of the Food Production Department. If the report which I see in to-day's papers be correct, I think my hon. Friend opposite—I think I may so call him—the Member for the Wilton Division (Sir C. Bathurst) is likely to occupy that position. I trust if that be so that he will do his best to support the agricultural committees. Certainly, whoever takes the place of Lord Lee, I cannot help feeling will have still a great deal of very important work to do if we are to make the cultivation of the land of this country at this time what at really ought to be. Therefore, I hope I am not exceeding the bounds of order if I say that, whatever the result of this Debate on this Bill may be, that we may still feel that the agricultural committees, who have done gratuitously a rather difficult and thankless task, who no doubt have made mistakes, but who, on the other hand, have done excellent work, will still have the encouragement and support of the Government in the work they are doing.

I expect many Members of this House will, with the last speaker, feel that it is regrettable that powers should be taken from the war agricultural committees. Because there is, I believe, that feeling, I want, in a few sentences, to say how excellent, on the whole, this Bill seems to be. The position the President had to face was one of obvious difficulty and one opening up a very wide field of controversy unless carefully handled. I confess it seem to me he has shown in this particular Bill all the skill and dexterity of touch with which we were so familiar last year when the main Bill was under consideration. What we really have to balance is two different factors—justice to the tenant and cultivator of the soil on the one hand, and, on the other, speed of production. The balance which is made by this amending Bill seems to me to be exceedingly perfect. Obviously, where you have the right of appeal you must, to some extent, slow down operations, but I believe you will get a corresponding advantage in the sense of a lessened feeling of grievance on the part of the cultivators. Let me give one quite simple fact, for example, of the sort of thing which would be prevented by this right of appeal, the sort of thing which we all know has occurred; for we all know cases where, well on in March, orders to plough and to sow oats were sent. The weather happened to be good, and, with luck, you got the thing done in some sort of way. The issuing of such an Order without any preliminary notice was a thing which only those who had to do with land can realise. If there is a right of appeal against an Order of that kind, then the Committee will make up its mind some time in advance, and they will probably decide that the executive committee is right. With regard to the right of appeal on questions of cultivation according to the rules of good husbandry, I felt that was going too far, because it introduces delay when you really want it to speed up things, but as the President says he proposes to omit those words, I hope the House will accept this measure.

I agree with the Member who has just spoken in deprecating any limitation of the powers of the agricultural committees. I also deprecate the resignation of the Director of the Food Production, who seems to some of us to have been somewhat premature. I would call the attention of the President of the Board to the fact that the provisions in the Corn Production Act, 1917, that Part IV. should come into force either at the end of the War or twelve months from the date of the passing of this Act was in the nature of a bargain, and it was a provision accepted by the right hon. Gentleman on account of a certain amount of opposition from those engaged in agriculture to some of the proposals in the Bill. They wanted Part IV. to come into effect at once. The position at the present moment is that under this Bill that bargain is being done away with, and the appeal which was given to owners and occupiers is to be taken away, so far as the Orders or notices concerning good cultivation are concerned.

That is the point of view of the owners and occupiers. They think they should have that appeal as from the 21st August next, and I do not think they like this Bill inasmuch as it takes away that right of appeal. From the point of view of the agricultural committees they think there should be no appeal because they feel if there is going to be an appeal against their decision their authority will be lessened, and they will no longer have the influence they have had in the past. It seems to me time that another bargain should be come to between the parties concerned. I would suggest for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration a provision under which the right to compensation given by this Bill should be extended, and that the procedure of the Corn Production Act, 1917, with regard to the claiming and assessing of compensation should be brought into force as from February, 1917. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree to some such provision as that, I know it will go a long way with the Executive Committees' Federation and the executive committees, and the owners and occupiers concerned. I do not want him to answer me this evening on that point, but I hope he will consider an Amendment providing that the procedure under the Corn Production Act, 1917, regulating the assessment for claims for compensation should be made retrospective as from February, 1917. I think that would go a very long way in the direction of causing those inclined to oppose this Bill to withdraw their opposition.

There is one thing which has been said by several speakers which, I think, requires some comment, and it is the assertion that this Bill will have the effect of weakening the powers of the war agricultural committees. That statement has already appeared in the newspapers as being the reason for Lord Lee's resignation, but from the point of view of a certain number of the war agricultural executive committees there is no reason why that should have been the result. If there had been an appeal from all the Orders issued last year, I think it would have been absolutely fatal to the work which those committees have done. Their work was done at very great pressure. Many of the Orders were issued very late, but that was not the fault of the executive committees. If those orders had not been carried out, a great deal of what is now in some counties a good corn crop would not have been produced. Some of the land which is most in dispute has produced some of the very best crops, and that shows that if the appeal had been enforced in those cases the country would not have had now this extra corn. I think the right hon. Gentleman has adopted a most excellent compromise in this matter, because the appeal which he has granted is not one which is going to effect any congestion; and obviously there will not be the same number of instances as in the previous winter. In any case, there will not be the same congestion.

If an appeal had been granted in matters of cultivation or bad farming, I think that would have been a very serious weakening of the Bill, and I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is going to omit that. I think there is a danger of some people, when they hear of the great success of the working of the agricultural committees, weakening their efforts and not regarding production as urgent, but I hope that is not going to be the feeling throughout the country, for this may lead to many of them not using the efforts which are still necessary for the national advantage. I hope all these people will make an effort to do a little bit more, and that they will not be diverted from taking that course by the statement that the action of the executive committees is being weakened by the Bill now before the House. I hope their action will not be weakened. On the contrary, I hope their hands will be strengthened and that the very good work they have been able to do up to now will be increased.

I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will give some indication as to who will be the arbitrator in case of a dispute arising as to whether a farm is farmed well or not. Will it be possible to say who will be the arbitrator? I think it might be more satisfactory inasmuch as the object of the Bill is to promote cultivation and increase production; we must all feel deep sympathy with it. I wish to bear testimony to the great and valuable work rendered by the war agricultural committees, but, after all, we cannot forget that the great success of this scheme has been due to the master mind of the President himself in devising it. It is true that the war agricultural committees have loyally carried it out. It should not be forgotten, however, that the loyalty and perseverance of the farmer, together with remunerative prices for crops he has produced, have contributed to the great success which has hitherto attended this increased production. We all want to see it carried on. The better the land is farmed the better it is for the farmer, for the landlord, and for the country, and, inasmuch as this Bill will help to produce that, I am sure that we all wish it every success. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) has just told us that he has gone in for farming during the last four years. I only wish that he had done so a little earlier, and had experienced some of the times that the farmer has passed through. Still, he will get them by and by, and he will be a valuable help in this House in dealing with agricultural questions. He must not, however, form all his conclusions from his experience of the last four years, because if he does I am afraid that they will be rather erroneous conclusions.

If the right hon. Gentleman could indicate who will be the arbitrator, I should be glad, because these disputes cause a good deal of ill-feeling. There is often very great difference of opinion as to what is good farming, and a fanner very much resents any interference with his system of management, especially by brother farmers who are on the war agricultural committees. I cannot help thinking that it would be desirable that we should have a recognised authority to settle any disputes. It would avoid some of the bitterness which springs up when members of the war agricultural committee come down on a farmer and say, "You are not farming right." He would be glad to be able to turn to an impartial tribunal to decide whether the charge was justifiable or not. We all agree that the land ought to be farmed up to its highest capabilities, and the war agricultural committee ought to have a remedy, but, in case of dispute, it should be decided by an impartial arbitrator, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will provide for an impartial tribunal in his Bill, I think it will avoid friction.

The arbitrator is the arbitrator who is appointed under Part IV. of the Corn Production Act, namely, an arbitrator appointed by the Surveyors' Institute.

10.0 P.M.

Unfortunately, I did not hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but from what I have been able to gather the Bill is going to be accepted by the Government, subject to the alteration that there shall be no appeal from the war agricultural committee in cases where there is supposed to be bad farming. I am very sorry to hear that, because, though there may be cases in which the war agricultural committees are judges of good farming, I am quite certain from my knowledge of them that in many cases they are not judges of good farming. I happen to know a committee, a prominent member of which is a solicitor who has never had anything to do with land at all. I do not know how on earth he got on to the committee, but he is quite incapable of judging whether farming is good or not. Supposing the war agricultural committees are composed of farmers, you are setting one farmer to judge of the farming on another farm. All farmers differ with regard to the best methods of cultivating their lands and all farms differ. Farmer A on his farm A may cultivate his land very well, but he may not be a judge of what farmer C on farm C ought to do. You do not know how to cultivate the land until you have tried it and until, after some years' experience, you know what each field grows. It is impossible for any man, however capable, to go round the country and by merely walking over a field decide whether or not it is being cultivated in the proper way. I do not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Barkstone Ash (Major Lane-Fox) that all these experiments are successful, if what we desire is the production of food. I am assured every day, and I know from my own experience, that the result of this ploughing up of grass land has been that other arable land has been neglected. There is not the labour.

You cannot have arable land without labour, whether yon farm better or worse. There may be sufficient labour in Yorkshire, but there is not in other parts of the country. I defy any war agricultural committee, sitting in a county town, to decide whether or not a given person is able to single out his roots or keep them clean. Agricultural labourers can earn quite sufficient now without piece-work, but when you come to hoeing roots, unless it is done on piecework you do not get it done in the time in which it ought to be done. That is one of the results of the Corn Production Act. Instead of more work being done, there is less work done. I do not see how you are going to get over that difficulty. It is a very great power to put into the hands of these people. I do not know how the war agricultural committees are selected. I have never been able to find out. There are three or four ladies on the Wiltshire War Agricultural Committee. I happen to know one of them. She is a very nice lady, but I do not think she knows anything about farming. I really do not know why on earth they were put on the committee. In law cases, whether you go before the magistrates at the Petty Sessions or before the High Court, there is always an appeal. Why should there not be an appeal from the decision of these particular people, who are not elected, who are chosen somehow or other—I do not know how—and whose decisions in many cases are extremely bad? I sincerely trust that this Bill, which has been very carefully considered in another place, will be passed without any further Amendments. It must be remembered that the Corn Production Act would never have become law unless this Clause had been brought in, and it does seem to me that it is more or less a breach of an agreement to alter it as soon as it has come into operation, in what many of us consider to be a vital respect. Unless I am very much mistaken the Government in another place accepted these Amendments. I have read the Debate which took place there very carefully, and I think all these Amendments were accepted by the Government. But I am not quite certain about that. There was one Division in which the Government were beaten by two. However that may be, I sincerely trust that the Bill will be allowed to pass without Amendment.

Before the Second Reading is passed, I should like to quite clearly understand what is the effect of the Bill? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me if I am right in construing the effect of the Bill as accepted by him. Is it really to abolish the right of appeal in regard to bad cultivation? If this Bill had not been introduced, the Corn Production Act would have come into operation, but the powers exercised under the Defence of the Realm Act comes to an end by this Bill. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman make his statement, but I am informed that the effect of the Bill is merely to abolish the right of appeal in respect of bad cultivation. Is that the whole effect of it? Is it quite clear that no person can be deprived of his right to the occupation of his holding or any part of his holding for the purpose of allotments or any other purpose without his having a right of appeal to an arbitrator? If the effect of the Bill, with the Amendments which were passed in another place, is merely to abolish the right of appeal in regard to bad cultivation, then it is rather unnecessary to pass the Bill at all. I quite appreciate the good work that has been done by the war agricultural committees. My own private opinion is that the position of these committees would be materially strengthened if there were an arbitrator to whom matters of dispute could be referred. I do not believe there would be one appeal in 999 cases out of 1,000. There would only be an appeal in a case which is a proper subject for appeal. If the right of appeal were given in respect of bad cultivation, that would strengthen and not weaken the position of the war agricultural committees. I shall be much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would answer these points before we pass the Bill.

This Bill is quite different from the original Bill. I understand the Government proposes to strike out from the Bill as it has reached us that part of the proviso which establishes a right of appeal in regard to bad cultivation. With regard to the right of appeal against an Order for the ploughing of grass land, I have had considerable experience of the working of an agricultural executive committee, and I do not think that right, if granted, would materially weaken the operations of the committee. As the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Major Lane-Fox) said, the late coming of the ploughing Orders was not altogether the fault of the war agricultural committees. If the grass land is marked out for ploughing, the Order should be given in time, and there would be no loss to anyone from any point of view if the right of appeal were given in that case. Many cultivation Orders are matters of great urgency, and the right of appeal would render the execution of those Orders of no avail, because the time for carrying them out would pass, and the mere fact of appealing, in a vast number of cases, would mean that the Order would be set on one side. The war agricultural committees still have a great deal of work to do. As one goes about the various counties he cannot help noticing that a great deal of land is not being cultivated to full advantage. That applies not only to arable land but to grass land also. The war agricultural committees have still a great deal of useful work to do in giving advice and sometimes bringing pressure to bear with regard to the cultivation of land. Anything which would weaken their authority in that direction would be disastrous to the best interests of the country. War agricultural committees are only a temporary device for promoting the interests of the country in certain urgent directions. Their powers are too drastic to be continued in peace time. This is a war emergency measure and the powers can only be justified under that head.

I differ from some hon. Members who have spoken, because I confess I look with considerable alarm on an appeal against the war agricultural committees entering into the occupation of land as they can do now, subject always to the appeal to the Board of Agriculture where the persons concerned refuse to carry out the Order or where the farm generally is badly cultivated. In some cases the occupier is unwilling to do it, and in every district, however excellent it may be, there are always one or two contumacious persons who resist authority. They set a bad example to the whole countryside. If there is the right of appeal and great delay in carrying out these Orders it will be found that drastic action will have to be taken, and some persons dispossessed of their land who, under the present conditions, would not be dispossessed of it for the reason that the authority and the powers of the war agricultural committees are now well understood, and, in the final issue, it is known that they have power to get their Orders carried out either by the occupier or by themselves entering into possession in order to execute the Order, the employés becoming servants of the war agricultural committee. If it is wide-cast over the country that the powers of the war agricultural committees and of the Board of Agriculture are going to be weakened, you will have people trying to find out what the position is, and drastic action will be necessary where the matters are now carried out easily by negotiation. The better line of action would be to improve the war agricultural committees where they are at fault or use their powers without discretion or where they use them with partiality or ignorance. No doubt they are in some cases capable of improvement, and I would suggest that where the Board of Agriculture or the Food Production Department is not satisfied with the work of a war agricultural committee they should take steps to strengthen that committee with the amount of knoweldge and discretion which is necessary in a public Department. With the Amendment the President has announced I welcome the Bill, although I think there will be a certain amount of friction when the new conditions are established, and the result will be that some persons will be dispossessed of their land.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[ Mr. J. Hope.]

Public Works Loans Remission Of Debts

Committee to consider of authorising the remission of certain debts in pursuance of any Act of the Present Session relating to Local Loans—( King's Recommendation signified)—To-morrow.—[ Mr. Baldwin.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 13th February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

With regard to the rest of the Orders on the Paper, I beg to ask whether there is any intention to take the Juries Bill before the Recess? I presume when it is taken that the Minister in charge of the Bill will come down in good health and good temper. I would like to ask whether, in view of the fact that it is very controversial, and cannot be passed through both Houses before the Adjournment, we shall have some assurance that it will not be taken before the holidays?

No, Sir; it is intended to take that Bill before the holidays.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Ten o'clock.