Before the House agrees to that Motion, I should like to say that there are many Members above and below the Gangway who will be anxious to know from the Chief Secretary whether he has had an opportunity in the interval of communicating with the Treasury?

That would more properly come on the Committee stage of the Bill.

Are we not entitled to point out the extreme inconvenience and unusual character of the Motion on the Paper which we are now asked to pass in respect to a very important Bill which ought to have been introduced at an earlier stage, so that we might have an opportunity of addresseing all-important matters to the Chief Secretary during the later stages of the Bill?

The remaining stages of the Bill, according to this Motion, are to be taken to-day instead of Monday. That is all that this Motion means. The merits of the Bill can hardly be discussed upon that. When we get into Committee on the Bill there will be ample opportunity to discuss the merits of the Bill, or again on the Report stage, or again on the Third Reading stage.

Would it not be open for us to discuss all these matters on the question of urgency in bringing this Motion on to-day, because the right hon. Gentleman has Monday and Tuesday at his disposal for the purpose of passing the remaining stages of this Bill, assuming that he gets his Committee stage to-day? If he has not already communicated to the Treasury the views expressed by hon. Members of all shades of opinion from Ireland on this question last night, it would enable him to do so if he would agree to postpone the Third Reading until Monday. I do not see what great necessity there is for getting all the remaining stages of this Bill to-day. I should have thought the Committee stage to-day would have advanced the matter sufficiently, and he could get the Third Reading, which should not take very long, on Monday.

It would be necessary in that case to have the Report stage on Monday and the Third Reading on Tuesday.

A Motion in similar terms to the one now on the Paper could be placed on the Paper in respect of the Third Reading on Monday.

I hope that the House will now agree to this Resolution. It is very important that this Bill should be passed at the earliest possible moment. I am very anxious that the Bill should not be dropped. There can be no reason why this Resolution should not be passed. If in the course of debate it appears to be necessary to postpone the Third Reading until Monday, that can always be done.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now the result of his interview with the Treasury?

With regard to this Bill there is an all-important point in dispute. On one side are all the representatives of Ireland without a single exception, and on the other side are the Chief Secretary and the Treasury. This attempt to rush the Bill through all its stages to-day looks very much as if they want to close off discussion. It is our duty to keep the matter open as long as we see any hope of getting what is undoubtedly justice for a body of men in a defenceless position. The right hon. Gentleman can get the Committee stage to-day, the Report stage on Monday, and the Third Reading on Tuesday, as the House is going to sit until Wednesday. There is no question of a long discussion, as it cannot last more than half an hour or an hour on each stage. We are bound to stand upon our rights and to continue the discussion as to whether we cannot leave the door open for the Chief Secretary to see the Treasury and endeavour to get this measure of justice done.

Is it not a fact that under the ordinary Rules of the House an ordinary Bill can be taken through all its stages if there is unanimity, but that a Bill founded on a Money Resolution, as a matter of practice, cannot be taken if any Member of the House objects? And in view of the fact that all the Members from Ireland have been urging on the Treasury that they should adopt a certain course, and have been trying to get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman as to what the Treasury have done, they object to this proposal until they have got an answer. The point is that according to the practice of the House, as I understand it, we cannot possibly take all the stages of a Bill founded on a Money Resolution.

You cannot take any two stages of a Bill founded upon a Resolution of the House on the same day. If no Motion accelerating the Bill is passed by the House, it means that to-day we shall discuss the Committee stage, that there will be the Report stage on Monday, and that the Third Reading will be taken on Tuesday. What will happen to the Bill after that, heaven only knows!

May I point out that this matter is not so simple as the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo would indicate. If this were the only Bill, it is quite likely that this course might not be necessary, but, with his experience of the House, the hon. Member knows that there is great danger at the last moment of the Session of Bills being dropped. All we ask at this stage is that it should be optional, if the House so agrees, to take all stages to-day. Of course if, in the course of the discussion, there is any evidence that any advantage would be gained by postponing the Third Reading, that would be carefully considered. But I may point out that it does not settle the question because all the Members from Ireland are agreed.

Question put, and agreed to.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "on or after the first day of September, nineteen hundred and eighteen," and to insert instead thereof the words "previous to the passing of this Act."

This raises the general question of bringing within the ambition of the measure existing pensioners and the widows of exising pensioners. The Chief Secretary knows the views which are held very strongly on these benches and on the benches above the Gangway as to this proposal, and I hope he will see his way to accept the Amendment.

I regret that I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment which is clearly part of the subject which has been discussed both on the Money Resolution and on the Second Reading. The question is not one which relates only to Irelaind, but is one which really covers the whole of the United Kingdom, and a very large number of different classes of pensioners. It involves very large interests both in this country and in Ireland, and if one claim is granted all must be granted. The cost involved would be exceedingly great, and it cannot be done in a Bill such as this. The proposal jeopardises the Bill. No doubt it deals with a number of deserving persons whose case has been pleaded, but it is quite impossible that such a proposal could be introduced in this Bill. The whole question was before the authorities and considered in connection with the English Bill, and it is impossible for me in this Bill to do something for Ireland different from that which is being done in the case of England. In this matter the Irish pensioners are being treated in exactly the same way as the English pensioners of all classes are being treated. The passing of this proposal would inevitably involve the postponement of the Bill and the subsequent Clauses until all corresponding English questions had been settled. I do not want the Bill jeopardised. It is of the greatest importance to thousands of men who are waiting for this deserved increase of pay. The other question must stand or fall with all the corresponding English interests in English Bills, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman does not deny the justice of the demand, and I do not think his arguments have any very great weight. He relies principally on the argument that if he accepts this Amendment the same principle would have to be applied all round. I venture to differ from him. There have been many occasions on which English individuals have received increases of pay and pensions, while similar increases have not necessarily been granted to corresponding individuals in Ireland. I do not think it is a good answer against this proposal to simply say that it would necessitate further expenditure. The position of affairs is this: A widow whose husband happened to have died on a certain date is in an infinitely better position than a widow whose husband happened to die some little time earlier. That is not fair, and if hon. Members below the Gangway push the matter to a Division I shall certainly support them.

I was very pleased to note the line taken by the Chief Secretary in this matter. I think when the Government makes a stand against the perpetual claim on the part of all sorts of people to put their hands in the public purse, that independent Members ought to express by word of mouth their support of the Government. Apparently people have now got the general impression that you could make everybody happy by handing over public funds to them. [An Hon. Member: "So you could!"] So you could, but only for a short time until we began to discover that the State had become bankrupt. These persons have no real claim what-even to get an increase in their pay. A pension, as I understand the matter, is not a gratuity or charitable donation, but payment for services rendered or deferred pay, and is part of the contract of service. If you increase pensions you do so not as a consideration for services to be rendered, but simply out of goodwill, and you are really making an eleemosynary donation to the person concerned. I venture to say that it is entirely wrong to revise pensions after the service is over, and I think it is very wrong indeed, having regard to the very serious position in which the nation is, to try and raid the Exchequer for everybody, especially on the eve of a General Election.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 15.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ( Allowances to Widows of County Inspectors or District Inspectors ) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Alteration of Enactments Relating to Pensions and Allowances and Gratuities.)

(1) In calculating the amount of the weekly allowance that may be granted under Section one of the Irish Police (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1915, in respect of a married member of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police who, being a Reservist, has been called out, or, not being a Reservist, has joined His Majesty's naval or military forces for the purposes of the present War, the weekly amount which that member was receiving from police funds at the time of his being so called out or joining shall, as from the first day of September nineteen hundred and eighteen, be computed as if the rates of pay authorised by this Act had been in force at that time, and as if any war bonus granted to the police force had then been payable, and the amount of any such weekly allowance may be altered so as to give effect to this provision.

(2) In the application of Sub-section (2) of Section three of the Act of 1914 to any pension, allowance or gratuity granted after the first day of September nineteen hundred and eighteen, any reference to any Schedule to the Act of 1914 shall be construed as a reference to the corresponding Schedule to this Act, and any reference to the commencement of that Act shall be construed as a reference to the first day of September nineteen hundred and eighteen, but nothing in that Sub-section as so applied shall affect the operation of Section two of the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915.

(3) Section four of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1908, which authorises pensions to be granted in certain circumstances to constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary, shall, with the substitution of the chief commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police for the inspector-general, apply as respects constables of the last-men- tioned force in like manner as it applies as respects constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary.

I beg to move, at the end, to add the words

"Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, all existing pensioners and widows of pensioners of both the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police shall be entitled to all and every increased pensions, gratuities, and allowances granted to members of both police forces by this Act."

This, again, raises what we regard as the main question of the pensions to existing pensioners of both forces. I do not like to detain the Committee because their case has been so frequently put on the earlier stages of this Bill, but in view of the fact that we all went home last night—happily, I am entitled to speak at this moment for hon. Members above the Gangway as well as for those on these benches—in the confident hope that the Chief Secretary would communicate this universal view of Irish Members to the Treasury, and would come down here this afternoon and tell us that these poor old pensioners—because many of them are very old men—would be included. Assuming even it did involve a considerable additional charge on the Treasury—I have heard it stated it would be something like £120,000 per annum—it could not possibly remain at that figure for any lengthy time. In a very short time the maximum sum involved would be considerably reduced, and ultimately would entirely disappear. This is the last opportunity that we shall have of appealing to the right hon. Gentleman. We know his sympathies are with us, and he has told representatives of both forces who have been here as a deputation that he is very anxious—I do not wish to exaggerate his position in this matter, but certainly, speaking for myself, I came to the conclusion that we have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman, and that the Treasury alone blocked the way. I do hope, therefore, that he will now tell us that the pensioners of both forces will be included in this Bill.

This is really exactly on the same footing as the last Amendment. The objections to it are exactly the same. The difficulties in the way are exactly the same. As the hon. Gentleman himself has said the case has been put before in Debate, and it has been explained before that the Government do not see their way to grant this request, or to accept this Amendment. I regret that anything I said or did last night should have raised any undue hopes in my hon. Friend's breast, for if I did that by what I did say, goodness only knows what hopes might have been raised in his breast if I really had put forward any hope! We have said all along that it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. I do not therefore think I could possibly have led anyone to believe anything to the contrary last night, or that the Government were likely to alter their minds between last night and to-day. Every object, every difficulty existing in respect to the last Amendment exists also in respect to this. For that and other reasons which I have expressed before, I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to, stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 ( Reckoning of Service in Naval, Military, and Air Forces ), 7 ( Amendment of 37 and 38 Vict. c. 80, s. 5), 8 ( Interpretation ) and 9 ( Short Title and Amendment ), and First and Second Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

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

1.0 P.M.

This Bill is rendered necessary from the fact that in the various Bills which have been passed during the War a great number of phrases are used of varying kinds—I believe thirty in number—which refer to "the cessation of hostilities," "the termination of the War," and so on. The matter was examined in great detail by an important Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Atkin, and they made recommendations on the subject, which were submitted to a Select Committee of this House. That Select Committee has presented an interim Report, and the substance of the recommendations of it are embodied in the Bill before us. It is necessary, so far as possible, that some definite date should be fixed, because the matter really affects the termination of a very large number of emergency Acts passed during the War, and uncertainty is to be avoided in the interests of all. The Bill suggested by Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee has been modified in one respect owing to the state of affairs in Europe. As the recommendations of the Committee stood the principle suggested was that the date of the termination of the War should be on the date of the ratification of peace. That was clearly a practical and definite suggestion. Owing, however, to the state of affairs in Europe at present, it is quite conceivable that there may be difficulties in saying what is the date, for you may have treaties with different States. It is quite possible that there may be treaties concluded at different times with some of the new States which have arisen. These are difficulties, and it is these emergencies which we are endeavouring to provide against in the Bill. It will be observed that in one of the paragraphs of Clause 1 it is provided that certain specified powers shall, if it is considered expedient, possible to dispense with exceptional powers before the date of the ratification of the treaties we should be able to do so. I am sure everybody will be in agreement, in respect to these purely war powers, that we should dispense with them, if possible, before the date of the ratification of peace Then the point I have mentioned in respect to the different Powers or States that may arise is covered by the provisions of Subsection (2) of Clause 1. This states:

I think, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, that this is a most unsatisfactory Bill, and I must say that the way in which this matter has been treated is really a scandal. This Bill is being hurried through in the last two days of the life of Parliament, and yet we are dealing with a matter of the greatest possible importance to the liberties of our fellow subjects. I really do not think that there should have been this tremendous hurry about the Bill and that we should be forced to rush the matter through at the last moment, instead of being allowed reasonable time for consideration in Parliament. Just look at this Bill. It really is another example of what is so objectionable—legislation by Order in Council. We should have had a proper Schedule setting up the Acts which are terminated, how long one Act is to be extended, and how long another is to be extended, and Parliament should have been invited to express its opinion as to the continuance of particular Acts and the discontinuance of others. The Government themselves recognise, by the second paragraph of the first Sub-section of Clause 1, that it is desirable that different Acts of Parliament should be terminated on different dates. But why is Parliament not to be consulted? Why are the people of this country not to be allowed to express an opinion as to which Acts ought to be discontinued at once and which should be continued for a longer period? There is no reason except that the Government want an election in December. Because, forsooth, they want to play an electioneering game and terminate the life of the present Parliament, and for no earthly reason except that Parliament is deprived of an opportunity of expressing its own opinion as to what is to be done to the continuance of special war measures.

Look at some of the Acts which come to an end with this War. Perhaps the Act likely to affect the largest number of people is the Military Service Act, which comes to end, I think, with the present War. We are not to be allowed to discuss in Parliament at what stage the obligation to serve compulsorily in the Army is to be discontinued. Apparently the Government do not intend to let us discuss that if they can help it. Another Act in everybody's mind is the Defence of the Realm Act, which we are apparently not to be allowed to discuss. Yet surely anybody can see that these two important Acts are Acts which might easily be discontinued on totally different dates. The necessity for keeping soldiers in the field may exist, when it is perfectly unnecessary to have any regulations about freedom of speech and freedom of printing, and yet we here are not to be allowed to discuss these things. I want to ask the Government, if I may do so, to explain what force the Defence of the Realm Act would have? As I understand it, the Defence of the Realm Act stipulates that they may issue Regulations for securing the public safety or the defence of the realm. All the Regulations have to be for those two purposes. Now, if we have an Armistice carried out on the terms that have been announced to us, and that we are openly told will make it absolutely impossible for the enemy to renew hostilities, how can it be said that Regulations are made for public safety or defence of the realm? On the face of it that would be untrue, because it would be publicly known that the realm was not in any danger. So far as I can read it, and a learned Friend in this House—a very learned Friend—tells me my construction is correct, directly you have secured an Armistice, then, although the Act does not come to an end, the power to make Regulations is suspended. Surely these are points we ought to be allowed to discuss! It is the Commons of England, surely, who are to decide and not the Government!

The right hon. Gentleman has not told us a single word as to the policy of the Government. We have not been told how they propose to exercise these powers. We have had no kind of assurance what Acts are going to be discontinued or even the general character of the Regulations they propose to discontinue. Of course, the Defence of the Realm Act is dealing with an immense multiplicity of subjects. We have not only this question of the publication of news, but this objectionable Regulation on venereal disease, which everybody knows is very much objected to, and the whole of the Regulations, many of them ultra vires , dealing with the fixing of prices and controlling of supplies. These are matters which go to the very root of the common life of the people of this country. Why are we not to discuss them in this House before the General Election? I will give another instance of the sort of matter which is being dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act, and we do not know in the least how the Government propose to continue after they have got this measure. There are those bodies limited in the charges they are able to make which are authorised by the Defence of the Realm Act to levy charges above their statutory powers in order to pay the wages the Government has compelled them to pay. The Government are bringing in a Bill—they have brought in a Bill—to compel those wages to be paid. What are they going to do with the powers they have got under the Defence of the Realm Act by which they are authorising people to make charges which were not lawful? This greatly affects the commercial community because it strikes at the financial stability of bodies like the Port of London Authority, the Clyde Trustees, and) people of that sort. The Government comes forward and says, "Give us a Bill to do what we like—to discontinue the Regulations at any moment we please." It is all very unsatisfactory, and I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do at a later stage of these proceedings. I suppose he will try to get all stages to-day?

No.

The Committee?

No.

Well, that is all right. It at least gives us an opportunity for putting down Amendments. There is another question, and that is when the termination of the War comes about for private contracts. That also might have been a subject of legislation at the same time. I do not know that we can very well object to this Bill passing and it is probably better than no Bill at all, but I think we ought to protest against the manner in which the Government have treated this important subject, and we ought to object altogether to this proposal even now, when the worst of the hostilities are over, because it proposes that the ruling of our own destinies should be taken out of our hands and handed over to the Government.

I cannot agree with the arguments which are put forward by the last speaker. The phrase "termination of the War" can only mean the ratification of peace, and this Bill gives the Government power to relieve us of our fetters earlier than would otherwise be the case. In the course of the War this House has deliberately decided that Acts shall have validity until the end of the War, and without this Bill they will certainly go on longer. As one who desires very strongly that the liberties of the country shall be restored as soon as possibly consistently with the public welfare, I welcome the provision this Bill provides for the earlier termination of the Acts than would otherwise be the case. There is one point to which I wish to raise an objection. It is, perhaps, rather a Committee point, but I should like to give the right hon. Gentleman notice of it. It is all very well to fix the date when the War shall be deemed to have stopped, but this Bill does more. A great many of these emergency Bills relate not only to the period of the War, but to a fixed period after the War: sometimes it is six months, and even twelve months. In those cases Parliament deliberately said that the conditions which prevailed during the War were likely to prevail afterwards, and they extended those powers for a given period after the end of the War. Clause 1 gives the Government power not only to anticipate what would normally be the end of the War, but it gives them a further power. Let me give an example. The Munitions of War Act provides that Part I. of this Act shall continue to apply for a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present War to certain industries. Part I. of that Act sets up the machinery by which the Board of Trade intervened in cases of dispute. Therefore we clearly decided that those provisions were to last for a year after the end of the War. Is it right that we should now give the Government power by a mere Order, in response, perhaps, to pressure, to override the deliberate decision of this House, and to say that those provisions shall have no validity beyond such a date as they may fix, even before the War has ended? I think this point can be met by making an alteration by the inserting instead of the words "termination of those powers" the words "on the termination of the War." I make this suggestion for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration.

This Bill provides that "His Majesty in Council may declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of the present War." I wish to say a few words about the trade situation and particularly the trade of merchants and importers from foreign ports into this country. A Bill was introduced earlier in the Session called the Imports and Exports (Temporary Control) Bill, and in that measure it was provided in one of the Clauses that the continuation of all the Orders in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act were to be handed over to the President of the Board of Trade, and that he would be at liberty to put his pen through any portion of those Orders, and say that the time has arrived when they are no longer necessary. The difficulty now is that the different Orders in Council, all being based on the Defence of the Realm Act, the right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly declare that the Defence of the Realm Act is cancelled without cancelling all those Orders in Council. The position the Government will be placed in is this: The Food Controller may say, "You can on no account cancel the Defence of the Realm Act, because if you do all my powers are cancelled and the feeding of the nation would go into chaos." The other section of the business community may demand that a number of those Orders shall be immediately cancelled, because they are preventing British merchants from taking their due place in the business world.

Let me give an instance in my own case. I appeared before the Controller in reference to an article called resin, and I asked for permission to send a cable ordering a quantity of resin from abroad, but I was refused this permission, because the Order in Council provides that no English merchant may make provision for future stocks and requirements by purchasing in foreign markets. Naturally, we want these Orders in Council, which curtail the action of merchants by cable, rescinded, because we cannot even send a cable to our agents abroad to inquire about certain matters. It seems to me that we must have some starting point from which Orders in Council are going to be cancelled, and how it is to be arranged it is difficult to say when a Bill is introduced suddenly like this. Surely our great chambers of commerce and other bodies of merchants and traders interested in business all over the world should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to how this point might be overcome! Neutral countries, finding that there are only limited stocks of certain raw materials in different parts of the world, will immediately purchase, and yet we are not permitted to send even a cable. We are restricted and bound, and in many cases are not even allowed to make inquiries of people, or to ask for a quotation. We are bound so absolutely under certain parts of the Defence of the Realm Act, especially in regard to products which are in war looked upon as military products, and which in many cases during the War have been military necessities, but which in times of peace are only used for ordinary manufactures, that I would put it to my right hon. Friend that it would be advisable, if possible, to create a power by which Orders in Council under the Defence of the Realm Act may be cancelled at an earlier date than the declaration of peace.

That is exactly what we do.

I am very glad if it is so, but my first reading of the Bill is that until this one date is fixed the Defence of the Realm Act will not cease to operate. I am certain the pressure from the Ministry of Food will be so great that it will be impossible to cancel the whole of the Defence of the Realm Act. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Minister of Food can continue his action if he does not take it under the Defence of the Realm Act? If that Act is not cancelled by the Declaration of an Order in Council, I do not see how it is possible by any subsidiary Clauses in this Bill to give power to the Government to cancel orders of the nature which they think should be immediately terminated. I have no doubt that in the further discussion of the Bill we shall get a little more light thrown upon this point. We have only had an opportunity to hurriedly examine the measure, and we have had no chance of talking it over with men whose judgment on these points we value highly. I have no doubt whatever that this House will give the Bill a Second Beading, but I hope at the same time that in Committee we shall find it possible to amend and improve it.

I agree with the last speaker that we ought to give this Bill a Second Reading. It has been rather hurriedly sprung upon us, and the views of the financial and mercantile world will be required to be considered by those in charge of the measure. Some of the great financial and trading corporations will desire to put in a clause that after a certain period—say three years—after the signing of peace with Germany debenture holdings may be converted into ordinary shares. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Government have in view the possibility that instead of making peace with great Powers such as Germany and Austria were they may have to conclude a number of different peace articles with the Republics into which those Empires have been split. In these circumstances power should be given to announce a date on which these financial transactions will be allowed, and I would be glad if this Bill in Committee can be so amended as to deal with that particular point.

In the early months of the War we rushed War Emergency Bills through this House at an unprecedented rate, and at that time I raised a question as to what was to be the date of the termination of the operations of these measures. The then Attorney-General on behalf of the Government gave a pledge that a solution would be found by the fixing of a statutory date. I am sure the view of the House will be that a result of that kind is very desirable, and in my view the commercial and social interests of this country would consider it immeasurably preferable to have such a method of dealing with this question. The seriousness of the matter is, I think, the greater because, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill to-day, the Minister of Reconstruction gave the House no sort of even a shadowy kind of indication as to the date or series of dates present in the mind of the Government. They have not given us the least indication when the country may look for a discontinuance of the operations on various measures, some of which press very harshly indeed upon the legitimate liberties and freedom of action of our people. The right hon. Gentleman said—I have no doubt with all sincerity—that no one would desire to continue in force these war measures, and particularly war restrictions, an hour longer than was absolutely necessary. The House must remember that after more than four years' experience the continuance of these particular powers and restrictions may be a matter of very great convenience to the Departments and Ministers concerned, and I am bound to say that at this time of day after four years actual experience I am not prepared to accept the expression of a benevolent thought such as that as a sufficient guarantee for the restoration of the vital liberties and freedom of the people of this country. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have considered the probable effect upon a very large section of public opinion in this country of measures of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman must know that there is at the present time in this country a vast amount of passionate feeling, and reasonably so, against the continuance of arbitrary restrictions, the raison d'être of which must have disappeared with the signing of the Armistice. Are the Government quite sure that the effect of this measure on public opinion, interpreted or misinterpreted as the case may be in the course of a General Election, will be negligible? Are they really unconscious of its possible mischievious and even disastrous effects on an inflamed public opinion? I would give the fullest possible support to any organised protest at the coming election against the maintenance of the restrictions under the Defence of the Realm Act, and the refusal of the Government to name a specific date for their termination. If there be an organised move in the country in connection with the General Election to demand that the Government shall fix a specific date, will it not be difficult for Ministerial candidates to withstand the pressure brought to bear on them? I would counsel the Government, in their own interests, to reassure public opinion concerning the speedy termination of some of these resented measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) referred to certain individual measures, amongst them the Military Service Acts. I am satisfied that if the Government are playing for safety at an unprecedentedly critical period in European history they will find it wise to reassure the country as to the speedy termination of the powers enforced under that Act. I am rather alarmed when I observe the complacent attitude which powerful organs of the public Press, Ministers, and the average citizen are taking to-day towards the revolutionary spirit and feeling which are covering so wide an area in Europe. Are the Government so fully satisfied in their own minds that there is no danger in this country from that same movement? I believe that we are immeasurably nearer that danger in our social and national life than anyone at the present moment imagines.

You ought to be ashamed to say it!

I do not understand either the philosophy or the objection of the hon. Member. When I state frankly my view of what is taking place in Europe, and when I ask the Government to take measures to reassure the country so that there may be no danger of an outbreak of that spirit here, I am performing a patriotic duty, and I am not saying anything to which the hon. Gentleman is entitled to shout "shame."

I understood the hon. Member to say that the spirit of Bolshevism was nearer than any of us thought in this country.

I said that I was amazed at the complacent view which was taken, that the danger which is making itself manifest on the Continent of Europe is not a practical danger in this country. I am so alive to the way in which this spirit spreads and so conscious of the lessons of history and experience that I beseech the Government to give reassurance to the country where it can give reassurance, and so prevent an unnecessary and calamitous outbreak of the same spirit here. I maintain that in giving that warning I am uttering the truest patriotism. There is the danger, and it is because I apprehend the danger that I make my appeal to the Government on the floor of the House to-day. The right hon. Gentleman practically assumed that the provisions of this measure are almost tantamount to the recommendations of Mr. Justice Atkin's Committee. The right hon. Gentleman frankly recognised that the recommendation was that the date for the termination of the War should be synonymous with the exchange or deposit of the ratifications of the treaty of peace, but he said there was a practical difficulty in adopting that recommendation literally, because probably the exchange of ratifications might vary with different nations and different people. That is no obstacle to fixing a specific date. You can fix a specific date with a special provision in your Bill, giving you power to anticipate it if circumstances warrant the anticipation. It is because I feel that the country is so tired of these blind powers given to an Executive and so tired of legislation by reference to Orders—they have suffered all the hardships and restrictions entailed in this form of procedure up to now- that they would be suspicious of a Bill framed in terms such as these that I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government between now and the Committee stage to reconsider the matter, and to discover whether it is not possible to give greater and more specific reassurance concerning such matters as freedom of speech, freedom of literature and publication—matters of which a great deal will be heard in the country in the coming weeks—than is contained in the Bill.

The value of this Bill depends entirely upon how it is going to be administered. I would not quibble as to how the provisions are going to be carried out if only the industrial people of this country could feel that the right hon. Gentleman as Minister of Reconstruction and the Government will seriously take the earliest possible step in their power to free the industries and trades of the country from the Regulations which hitherto have obviously been so necessary. The administration of this Bill affects the whole problem of Reconstruction. It affects very closely the danger, whatever that danger may be, of industrial difficulties, and if, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield mentioned, there be any danger of a revolutionary nature in the country, the administration of this Bill will have a very great effect upon what may happen. I know that my right hon. Friend appreciates that fact, but I want him to realise that it is vital that the business men of the country should know at the earliest possible date when they are going to be freed from one or the other of the many Regulations that they have had to obey. I have direct knowledge of the fact that orders for some machinery went last Saturday to the United States, although the Americans have never had them before, because they are not tied as our people are tied by permits and regulations of different kinds. Manufacturers in countries like the United States are much freer at the present moment than the manufacturers of this country; and it is obvious that the people throughout the world—in this case it was Japan—will place all their urgent and valuable orders in such countries as are free, and that we shall lose them. Of course, that is obviously exceedingly important. Many business men fear very seriously what they describe as the danger of bureaucracy. We have necessarily had very large de- partments at work where individuals and officials have had a great deal of power and influence, and we want to feel that if there is any tendency on their part to raise obstacles, or to retain their working power longer than necessary, the Minister of Reconstruction will keep a very keen eye on the main chance of reconstruction and will get freedom for manufacturers, in spite of any departmental or official opposition with which he may be confronted. There is a great deal of anxiety on this matter, and it is desirable to make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman and those connected with him that it is vital to the immediate interests of this country that the Government should free every industry at the earliest possible moment.

We are indebted to the hon. Member for the Hexham Division (Mr. Holt) for having raised this Debate, and I agree with him and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) as to the seriousness of the position. There is no doubt that by this Bill we are withdrawing from the elected representatives of the country enormous powers and handing them over to the King and Council. I fail to see why it is necessary to anticipate the views of the new Parliament by bringing in this measure before the Dissolution. We have various Acts most stringently affecting the liberty of the subject, and it seems to me that it would have been more reasonable to have allowed the newly-elected Parliament to decide when these stringent Regulations should be suspended rather than the Parliament now going out of office. I desire to ask one question which has not yet been referred to in this Debate. I am most anxious to know what the latest date is? The House will observe that the date which is to be declared is referred to in Sub-section (1) as follows:

"His Majesty in Council may declare what date is to be treated as the date of the termination of the present War."

Sub-section (2) says:

"The date so declared shall be fixed with regard to, and shad not be later than, the date of the exchange of deposit of ratifications of the treaty or treaties of peace, or such later date, if any, as may be fixed by the treaty or treaties as the date of the termination of war."

It does not necessarily follow that the date of the ratification of the treaties is going to be the latest date. His Majesty in Council has an option. If in the treaties there is any mention of a later date, that will take the place of the date of ratification. It is important that we should really know what that means, because, first of all, who will decide that question in the treaties? I do not know what proposals the Government mean to bring forward with regard to the deciding of the treaties of peace. Is this House going to know the terms of such a treaty? Quite apart from the general importance of that question, it seems to me that if we are going to allow His Majesty to insert in the treaties a provision which will still further extend the disabilities that affect the people of this country beyond the date of the ratification—I presume there is some idea of doing it, otherwise it would hardly have been put into this Sub-section—we are really withdrawing from the representatives of people a very important function. I do not know whether the Government have considered this. I hope that before the Bill reaches the Committee stage we shall really know what is proposed to be done with regard to this particular point. It is absurd to say that the date shall not be later than the date of the deposit of the ratifications, and then to take away half the value of that by saying that if in the treaty which may be made with any particular country or particular people the date is altered, then there is no limit at all. So far as I can see, there would be no limit at all. Of course, the limit will depend upon the terms of the treaties. I hope the Government will pay attention to this particular point.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. Is it intended under Clause 1 of this Bill that successive and various Orders in Council shall be made, or is it the intention that there shall be only one Order in Council? If a number of Orders in Council are to be made dealing with specific Acts, or Orders in Council, or Proclamations, I can well understand that the power taken in Sub-section (2) would be really innocuous. But if it is intended, as on its face the Bill would appear to declare, that one comprehensive Order in Council is to be made, I can see some difficulty about the right hon. Gentleman securing the passage of Sub-section (2). I should have thought that the intention was that a number of Orders in Council were to be made. If the right hon. Gentleman will make that abundantly plain, I think he would remove most of the grounds of the criticisms that have been put forward. Obviously the critics could fairly say that an Order in Council should probably be made before the treaty of peace is made or signed and exchanged. Then the difficulty is raised that by the mere treaty of peace those persons who were responsible for it would be able to legislate by the extension of a certain number of Acts of Parliament. I do not believe that this House or the Ministry has any intention of giving that authority to those persons who are considering the treaty of peace. As the Bill stands, suggesting one magnificent Order in Council which is to be operative for all Acts of Parliament, Orders in Council and Proclamations, there is ground for that opinion. If the right hon. Gentleman would make it plain that he intends to issue a number of Orders in Council and, perhaps, to issue some Orders in Council as soon as we have passed this Bill, a great difficulty would be removed. Then we should have confidence that the matters dealt with under the Defence of the Realm Act and Proclamations would be removed in the course of a very few weeks. Others might have to continue for a certain time in regard to certain matters which would be of an international nature, such as the treatment of aliens and the protection of our shores from invasion by some of our enemies. They might properly be left over as matters to be dealt with by the treaty of peace, because it is at that moment we shall be able to impose our will on our enemies, and it would be an unfortunate thing if legislative effect were not given immediately to enforce what is right upon those who are our enemies. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an answer upon this point.

I am quite certain that the great mass of the working people of this country will be disappointed if this Bill passes as it is now. If the right hon. Gentleman had been at the Central Hall yesterday, he would have heard a strong demand for the immediate repeal of Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act. I am satisfied that while the working classes of the country have accepted the restrictions put upon their liberty and the interference with their freedom of speech and what not, yet if those Regulations are continued very much longer we shall have such industrial unrest in the country that the Government will have to pass another Act of Parliament for meeting the wishes of these people or for suppressing the action they have taken. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) has suggested that the Government ought to consider fixing in this Bill a definite date, with power to anticipate the repeal of Regulations which the state of affairs at any given moment would justify them in repealing. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that the form in which a Bill of this kind would meet with the approval and support of the working classes of the country would be to make it quite clear that some of these obnoxious Regulations are to be repealed at the earliest possible moment.

Those Regulations can be repealed at any time.

I do not think it is a definite date. Therefore I hope that between now and the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to the suggestion that has been made. We do not want any more industrial unrest in the country than we have now. I am quite satisfied that the position is serious enough, without giving those who perhaps are irresponsible any more reason for pressing their arguments, policy, and views upon the country. I seriously warn the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that if they do not follow the course suggested they will have great difficulty in dealing with the industrial situation in this country. I therefore hope they will give consideration to the points raised.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this Bill is being passed for the purpose of restoring the personal liberty and freedom of the Press sooner than would be the case if it were not passed? If that is so, and we can get an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman to that effect, it would help him to get the Bill through. It is not only the working classes who want the restoration of freedom of speech and freedom of the subject. We all want it. Therefore if the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that this Bill is intended as a preliminary to at once restoring liberties that have been taken from us by the necessities of the War, I feel it would be one of the most popular Bills the Government have ever brought forward.

The remarks of the right hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir W. Dickinson) are of a technical character, and those of the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell) and my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Mr. T. Wilson) have caused me no little puzzle. They ate suggesting seriously that when we have to deal with the complexity of business with which we are confronted, having to deal with the cessation of the operations of various Regulations and Statutes, covering within their cycle thirty-eight closely printed pages, the House of Commons is to discuss each one of these questions and decide when these things shall come to an end in order that we may expedite the discontinuance! Because we knew perfectly well that you cannot deal with all this mass of legislation individually which we had collected together, and on which, as hon. Members know, high judicial advice has been taken, and in order to carry the House with us and meet the wishes of the House, we remitted it specifically to a Select Committee of this House, and have introduced this Bill to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee. What do they recommend? They say:

"Or shortening." We have specifically given the different papers and points raised by different Departments on this large mass occupying this long document in order to put before the Select Committee the whole case in respect of the different Regulations and emergency statutes and the Select Committee advise us, having looked at it, that the first step necessary is to pass a Bill of this kind so that they will have a definite date to guide them. Hon. Members are anxious to restore the liberty of the subject. So am I. But they say before you do that you are to go through each one of these things individually and state in different Acts what you are going to do. A more impossible and unbusinesslike suggestion it is impossible to imagine. If you want to promote dissatisfaction in the mercantile community, that is the way to do it. We are seeking the power as explained by the hon. Member behind (Sir R. Newman), for whose intervention I am most grateful, so it shall be possible to deal with specific matters promptly, and he desired that an assurance should be given. Now let me reply to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) who proposes this impossible and dilatory method. What have we done? The Armistice was declared on Monday. On Tuesday we released a considerable number of things, and we have released more every day since then, and at the Standing Council on Priority, which is composed almost exclusively of merchants, traders and business men, and is sitting daily with the sole purpose of getting rid of any embarrassing regulations which may be in restraint of the development of trade, we have released various commodities, and they were released in every case within a few hours of their recommendations. I am content that we should be judged on our record since Tuesday morning last as to whether we intend to continue embarrassing Orders any longer than the state of affairs compels. We have already released a great many things, and I am just as anxious as the hon. Member for Hexham that we should get rid of these embarrassing restrictions as fast as we can, and all I have to say is the way he proposes would mean that the House would be in constant session for the whole of next year. He understands Parliamentary procedure as well as I do.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us when the Committee is going to report on the second part of its reference?

I do not know. But we shall expedite matters if the Committee has not reported. If we obtain power to declare for an earlier date it will be all in the direction the hon. Member wants, and I am still very puzzled to find out on what grounds he bases his objection, because we are doing the very thing he wants us to do, namely, to expedite the abrogation of a number of these embarrassing recommendations. The hon Mem- ber for Huddersfield and the hon. Member for St. Pancras wanted to be reassurred on various points. I am afraid I cannot reassure them on particular details, and I do not think it can fairly be expected of me, but our general desire is to get released as soon as we can consistent with the national interest. We have already shown our good faith in the last three days in that respect, and with respect to the abrogation of the Military Service Act, and so we shall do. The hon. Member for Huddersfield suggested that we were guilty of sloth, although as he is well aware the Orders under the Ministry Service Act were suspended on Tuesday morning. I believe telegraphic notices were sent out, and the operation of calling up, at any rate, ceased at that time. I shall not be expected to go through a long catalogue of things. Our desire is to obtain power to get rid of these embarrassing restrictions as soon as we can. We can get that power in anticipation of a date mentioned in this Bill, and I think in so doing we are serving the very thing which hon. Members, with me, so anxiously desire.

Is it proposed to modify or abolish the censorship before the General Election?

I do not know anything about those Regulations. I must ask for notice. I have not the faintest idea what they are.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to Committee of Whole House for Monday next.—[ Dr. Addison. ]

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

This is a temporary measure to enable the Commissioner of Works to take possession of premises on behalf of the Ministry of Labour by an extension of the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act, under which the possession of lands and the buildings thereon can be taken to meet war emergencies. We are advised that they cannot be taken for purely peace purposes such as demobilisation, and it has been necessary to come to Parliament direct for the purpose. It is therefore proposed that under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations may be made by Order in Council enabling the Commissioner of Works to take premises for the purpose of Employment Exchanges and other purposes of the Ministry of Labour. The powers given by the Bill will, of course, come to an end at the same time as the other Defence of the Realm Regulations. The Committee, on termination of war legislation, was of opinion that the power to issue Regulatons under the Defence of the Realm Acts only existed during the continuance of the present War. The effect of the Bill will be to give this temporary power so long as this state lasts. Any person whose premises have been taken will, during the operation of the Orders, be entitled to compensation for direct loss or damage assessed by the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission.

The first object of the Bill is to enable the Ministry to secure premises for Employment Exchanges. The present staff of the Employment Exchanges is approximately 6,000, and the Exchanges ordinarily deal with some 4,250,000 workpeople. It is anticipated that during the demobilisation period the Exchanges will have to deal with some 14,000,000 persons, and practically the whole of the working classes will be brought within the unemployment benefit scheme. It will be necessary, therefore, to make a corresponding increase in the staff of the Employment Exchanges, and it is anticipated that it may at least have to be trebled. It is obvious that the present accommodation is totally inadequate for this purpose, and moreover the need is instant and urgent and the possibility of obtaining premises at present engaged by other Government offices cannot therefore be taken into account. The necessary premises will, wherever possible, be acquired by agreement, and the compulsory powers will only be used as a final resource. We have already been promised the use of town halls and other public buildings, and our present view is that we shall require to use these powers very slightly; but there are certain congested districts in which we have been unable to secure buildings by agreement, and I am sure everyone will acknowledge that nothing must stand in the way of the task of demobilisation being carried through as speedily and as smoothly as possible.

The second object of the mil is to enable the Ministry to take premises for other purposes. These other purposes are mainly the provision of offices and accommodation for the staff of the Appointments Department of the Ministry. The Appointments Department has been established to deal with the resettlement in civil life of officers and other ranks of like standing and education, and similar persons who have left their work or business to undertake war work. It is intended to provide advice and assistance where necessary with a view to resettling these persons in civil life. The country is divided up into a number of separate local districts, each of which will have a head office with a staff of about 100 persons. Several branch offices will also be required in each district. I think I can rely on the general concurrence of the House that we ought to have these powers.

I have no objection whatever to the powers my right hon. Friend is asking for, but I should like him to say how many buildings he proposes to take and how many centres it is proposed to take over to establish new Labour Exchanges. At present there is an enormous number of Labour Exchanges throughout the country, and some may be taken while others are not. I should also like him to say whether it is proposed that the Office of Works shall take over any premises occupied by other Government Departments now which will become vacant at an early date. I ask that in the interest of economy, because some of these Departments—the Food Control offices and the National Service offices—are already furnished, and would suit the purpose admirably. It would be extremely unwise on my right hon. Friend's part to take fresh buildings for Labour Exchanges purposes when there are already offices fitted up at the expense of the nation which would suit his purpose equally well.

I do not rise with any hostile intention against the Bill, but it is rather a significant commentary upon the discussion that has taken place on the previous Bill, for which the main argument was that it was really designed to shorten the period of the continuance of the powers now held under Defence of the Realm Act, that we should be immediately confronted with a measure for further extending the existing powers, for this is a proposal in effect to extend the powers now granted to the Government under the Defence of the Realm Acts. It is only a matter of months since a Committee of this House was asked to vote to the Labour Ministry a large sum of money for the purpose of providing additional premises for Employment Exchanges. Are we to understand that this is a power additional to those conferred by that grant of money? I indicated at the time that the sum asked for was a very considerable one, and we were asked to vote it without any indication of the purposes for which it was to be used. The Minister of Labour assured me then that it was to be used for the purpose of acquiring and enlarging existing Employment Exchanges. I take it this is an application for a power over and above that very considerable extension of accommodation which was granted only some weeks ago. I was very much impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that because a large number of additional classes of the population are to be brought within the ambit of the responsibility of these Departments—quite properly so—a corresponding increase of accommodation and staff was required. It does not necessarily follow—and the conduct of all large businesses is evidence of this—that because you have a vast extension of your clients therefore you require a corresponding extension of staff or premises, and, having regard to the perfect recklessness which Government Departments have hitherto displayed in the acquisition of public buildings and the multiplication of staffs before they have taken anything like a proper review of the scope of their work, I hope we are not to have, in reference to this measure, a repetition of that very unfortunate and extravagant experience. The work on which the right hon. Gentleman is engaged is work of profound importance, with which every hon. Member will be in entire and sympathetic agreement, but since we have had so many lessons of perfectly indefensible and reckless extravagance in our recent past I hope he will not construe the fact of the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill as giving him a blank cheque for such extensions of staff and such further requisitions of premises as he may be advised or may think are proper in connection with the work of his Department. He told us that the compensation to be given where premises were compulsorily acquired was to be compensation as determined by the War Losses Commission. He must be perfectly aware that in the past a considerable amount of injustice has been done in cases where Government Departments have compulsorily acquired premises under the Defence of the Realm Act and have refused to acknowledge any obligation for the rent of those premises. That may be permissible—I doubt if it is—but it is conceivable that it is permissible in time of war. But there can be no justification for action of that kind on the part of an executive Department in time of peace. The Government, now that the restraint of patriotism is relaxed, may find themselves in legal difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman may or may not be aware that at any rate other members of the Government are aware of, or are being made aware, that the Government has no legal power to-day to requisition property at anything less than its value in the market at the moment of requisition. An owner of property that has been requisitioned under conditions such as that has only to proceed by petition of right to upset the Government's terms at once, and I counsel the right hon. Gentleman to have security for his own position and to see that procedure as regards compensation for premises compulsorily acquired does not leave him open to the embarrassment of proceedings. Individuals who have for patriotic reasons refused to proceed against the Government while the War was raging are not in the same position now and the same sort of restraint will not obtain now as in the past.

My hon. Friend directs attention to the fact that two months ago powers were taken for the extension of the Employment Exchanges, but I would point out that owing to war conditions it has been absolutely impossible to carry out that scheme and to erect new buildings or to make any considerable alterations, and the emergency of demobilisation has come upon us much more rapidly than we contemplated at that time. Therefore, the proposals in this Bill are not really additional to the plans which we then submitted to the House, but are really emergency substitutes for those plans. I can assure my hon. Friend that I am fully conscious of the desirability of administering my Department as economically as possible, and I hope that is the policy I have consistently pursued; but he will realise that in this emergency it may not be possible to carry things on so strictly businesslike as if we had time to gradually create a staff and in course of time to perfect it. There is a very heavy responsibility thrown very suddenly on the Department, and it must be enormously extended in order to deal with the problem. I have listened to the observations of my hon. Friend with respect to the question of finance, and I appreciate the spirit in which he has spoken, and certainly it will be my business to see that money is not wasted and that it shall not be expended unnecessarily in any shape or form. It is the urgency of the problem which requires that we should ask the House to give these powers. In regard to compensation I am aware that the procedure and practice of the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission have not given universal satisfaction, but I believe that an improvement has taken place of late, and that much of the dissatisfaction that at one time ensued from that practice has been removed. I recognise that justice ought to be done, and that a Government Department ought not to act arbitrarily against the interests of anyone.

My hon. Friend (Mr. Tyson Wilson) asked me if I could state the number of premises that it might be necessary to requisition. It is not possible for me to do that. He said we have Employment Exchanges in nearly every large town throughout the country. That is quite true, but he will realise that if we are to deal satisfactorily with the large numbers of men who will be released, first of all the civil war workers and then the Armies, we shall need more accommodation than is provided by the ordinary Employment Exchanges, because those buildings are designed to deal with the ordinary amount of movement of employment. Here we shall have to deal with an unprecedented movement of labour, and it is requisite that we should have larger premises temporarily. I think it would be a very sorry sight if the civil war workers, and certainly the soldiers, were unable to get into the premises and had to stand in the street in queues wailing to be attended to. I am sure everybody will agree that the powers we ask are reasonable. Whether they are put in proper form or not is always a debatable point, but the power to acquire sufficient accommodation for our purposes is one which will carry the general assent of the House. My hon. Friend (Mr. Tyson Wilson) asked me whether we would not be better advised to take over the premises now in possession of the Government authorities? Of course, if there are suitable premises now in the occupation of other Government Departments of which they have no use, or even a declining use, we should certainly avail ourselves of those premises. I can assure hon. Members that I will endeavour to administer these powers as economically as possible and to do the work with a minimum amount of staff and accommodation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.— Mr G. Roberts.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words

"Any Order made under the Bastardy Laws Amendment Act, 1872, or this Act may be varied at any time either by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction which made the order or by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the place where the person who is entitled under the order to receive the payment resides."

I move this Amendment because the late Home Secretary said he would consider it. Possibly the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will deal with it now. It really means giving applicants an opportunity of having the case heard in the district in which he resides. It is an important matter, because sometimes a mother may change her place of abode, and if she happens to go some distance away she gets out of touch with the local bench, and there is a difficulty also sometimes in procuring witnesses who may be necessary perhaps to prove the financial position. It seems to be more reasonable that the question of the variation of the Order should be decided entirely by the bench where the applicant lives. You can hardly place before this Amendment the objection that the matter will not come before the same bench again, because very rarely have you the same bench dealing with the fresh applications. As the law stands at present, it will come before a bench in the same neighbourhood, but the magistrates who decided the case in the first instance probably will not be sitting when it is brought forward for review. Therefore, as there is a change of magistrates in any event there is no objection to the application being made to magistrates in the district where the applicant lives.

I second the Amendment with very great pleasure. It covers ground familiar to all who are acquainted with this subject. I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brace) whom we are very glad to see here, in place of his recent chief who introduced the Bill, will accept the Amendment.

The Amendment means very much more than what my hon. Friends says it does. He proposes also to amend the Bastardy Acts, which is a very much more important matter than the small Bill now before the House. This Bill is a simple proposition to give an opportunity for advancing the money from a maximum of 5s. to a maximum of 10s. if the Court so desire. There is the power which my hon. Friend has in his mind existing under the present law, and therefore there is no necessity to put into the present Bill a repetition of the law as it at present stands. For that reason I must resist the Amendment which is quite unnecessary.

I understand that by the law at present those applications must now be made before the same Bench. My proposal was that they should be made before the bench where the applicant resides.

That would be quite unfair. This Amendment stands in two Departments. The one proposes that the woman should have the same right which she has now. The second is that she should have the right to make the application before a Court in the neighbourhood in which she resides. That would be quite unfair, because many circumstances have to be taken into consideration in reference to the increase of payments from 5s. to Vs. 6d. or 10s. That is a very narrow issue and could be done. But if there is an alteration in the payment, say, of 2s. 6d. or 3s. a week, to 5s., 6s., or 7s. a week, it would be quite unfair to allow another Court in a different neighbourhood, who would have no knowledge of the facts or circumstances of the case, when the order was made to make the inquiry. We, therefore, think it right that cases of the kind should be settled by the same Court, or a Court in the same petty sessional division. Those are the reasons why, after careful consideration with my advisers, we feel ourselves unable to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, at the end, to add

"(3) The collecting officer to whom payment under any existing order is to be made shall give to the person who is entitled under the order to receive the payment notice in writing of his or her right to apply under this Act to have the amount of the payment increased, and on the request in writing of that person may make in his name as such officer on behalf of that person an application under this Act for the variation of the order.

Where an application is so made by a collecting officer, the liability of the person on whose behalf the application is made for all costs properly incurred in or about the application shall be the same as if the application had been made by that person."

This is an excellent Amendment. It grows out of the Amendment, which I moved in Committee, which the Home Secretary promised to consider. He has not only considered it, but he has greatly improved it. As I have complained of the inaction, or the mistaken action, of his Department, it gives me all the more pleasure to compliment it upon an excellent Amendment, which makes this Bill far more useful than I expected it would be. I am rather tired with myself for not having seen the point which is here introduced, namely, that every person who might benefit out of this is going to be informed, and that this Act is not going to be, and cannot be, a dead letter. I am surprised at myself that I did not realise this point, and I am very glad to have had the part which I have had in calling attention to the possibilities of the collecting officer under the Act and in bringing the matter before the Home Office in such a way that it makes sure that the Act is not going to be a dead letter in any individual case. On behalf of a great number of people who will never be able to thank anyone for the benefits arising out of this Act, I desire to express my gratitude to the Home Office, and especially to my right hon. Friend. The addition to the Bill makes it three or four times as valuable as it would otherwise be.

Amendment agreed to.

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

"(3) Nothing in the last foregoing Sub-section shall take away or diminish any power to amend an order which might have been exercised if that Sub-section had not been enacted."

This is a legal point. If proceedings were taken, say, on 20th December of this year and adjourned and the order not made until next year, I take it that such a case would not have the benefit of the Act, as the order was actually applied for before it became operative. I think the words are necessary, and they can certainly do no harm.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am advised these words are wholly unnecessary and that it is not a good practice to insert unnecessary language in a Bill.

In withdrawing may I say I do not take responsibility, and if the words should be found to be necessary, it is not my fault.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

This is a really excellent Bill, and I hope it will not be the last which the right hon. Gentleman now responsible will have in connection with the question of illegitimacy. The Bill, while it does a great deal, only touches the fringe of the very great question which has been too long neglected, and I hope the Home Office will still remember there are many important questions in connection with the status of the illegitimate child and who is responsible.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed.

May I ask whether this is an Amendment of real substance? My impression is, having examined it, that it is merely fulfilling the original intention of this House.

I can give the hon. Member the assurance for which he asks. The Amendment does not go beyond the intention of this House, and simply makes it clear.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Powers to Inspect Plans of Mines.)

For the purpose of ascertaining the geological conformation and the position, direction, and dip of strata, any officer of the Minister of Munitions shall have the same rights as to the production and examination of plans and sections kept at a mine in pursuance of Section twenty of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, or Section nineteen of the Metalliferous Mines Act, 1872, as are by those Acts conferred on inspectors, and those sections shall apply accordingly.

Lords Amendments:

Leave out the words "the geological conformation and the position, direction and dip of strata," and insert instead thereof the words,

"on behalf of the Minister of Munitions the position of the workings, actual and prospective, of any mines or abandoned mines through or near which it is proposed to sink any shaft or borehole for the purpose of searching for or getting petroleum."

—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "of the Minister of Munitions," and insert instead thereof the words

"appointed by the Director of the Geological Survey."

—Agreed to.

Leave out the words "at a mine."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "Section" ["Section twenty"], and insert instead thereof the word "Sections."—Agreed to.

After the word "twenty," insert the words "or twenty-one."—Agreed to.

Leave out the word "Section" ["Section nineteen"], and insert instead thereof the words "Sections fourteen or."—Agreed to.

At the end, insert

"(2) Any person entitled to sink a shaft or borehole for the purpose of searching for or getting petroleum shall before commencing to sink the same give notice in writing of his intention to the Director of the Geological Survey and shall keep a journal of any such shaft or borehole, and shall retain for a period of not less than six months such specimens of the strata passed through as may have been obtained in the course of the sinking thereof, either as cores or fragments, and shall allow the Director of the Geological Survey or any officer appointed by him to have free access to any such shaft or borehole whilst in process of being sunk, and to inspect all specimens so obtained and kept and the journals of such shafts and boreholes, and if any person fails to comply with any obligation imposed on him by this provision he shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."

—Agreed to.

After Clause 1, insert,

NEW CLAUSE.—(Records of Petroleum Gotten.)

(1) Any person acting on behalf of His Majesty or holding a licence under this Act who gets petroleum shall keep and furnish to the Minister of Munitions a record of any petroleum gotten by him and made available for use, distinguishing the amount gotten from each separate borehole, and if any such person fails so to keep and furnish any such record, or knowingly furnishes a record which is false in any material particular he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

(2) The records so furnished to the Minister of Munitions in respect of any particular borehole shall be open to inspection by any person interested in land in the neighbourhood of the borehole.

—Agreed to.

We must not have an Education Bill coming back from the Lords with out some understanding or explanation. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the nature of these Amendments?

The first four Amendments are merely of a drafting character. The last Amendment is a small Amendment of substance, but it is one with which I am sure the House will be readily-disposed to agree, and when we come to that Amendment I shall be very glad to explain it.

May I express my regret that these Amendments are not available in the Vote Office, although there is one Amendment of substance?

That is the Amendment to which I have referred. I shall be very glad to explain it.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Re-employment of Teachers.)

(1) If a teacher in receipt of an annual superannuation allowance is again employed as a teacher in recognised service, the allowance shall cease as from the date on which he becomes so employed, without prejudice, however, to the power of the Board under this Act to grant to him subsequently a fresh annual superannuation allowance.

(4) If a teacher in receipt of an annual superannuation allowance is employed in any Government employment or in the employment (otherwise than as a teacher in a Grant-aided school) of a local education authority, then, if the salary and emoluments received by him in respect of the employment are not less than his salary at the date on which he ceased to be in recognised service, the superannuation allowance shall be suspended during the employment, and if they are less than that salary then only so much of the allowance shall be paid to him as with the salary and emoluments of the employment is equal to that salary.

For the purposes of this Section the expression "Government employment" means any employment the remuneration of which is paid cut of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1) after the word "employed," insert the words, "at whatever age."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section (4), after the word "teacher" ["If a teacher"], insert the words "of any age."—Agreed to.

In Sub-section [4) leave out the words "a Grant-aided school," and insert thereof the words "recognised service."

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

May we have an explanation of this Amendment?

This is only a drafting Amendment, which has been necessitated by the fact that, in consequence of the Amendments made to the Bill, not all the recognised service is service in a Grant-aided school.

I am entirely satisfied, and very glad that the improvement has been made.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 15, insert,

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of Governing Bodies to Comply with Conditions.)

Notwithstanding any provision regulating the trusts or management of a school, the governing body of the school shall have power to fulfil any conditions which may be required to be fulfilled in order that service in that school may be recognised service for the purpose of this Act.

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

Might we have an explanation?

This is the small Amendment of substance to which I have referred. The object is to make it possible for schools which are regulated by trust deeds to do anything that is necessary to comply with the conditions of recognised service in spite of any provision to the contrary in their trust deeds. For example, it may be that the trust deeds of a school prescribe that the governing body shall be so constituted that no popular element of any kind can be introduced into it, and it is desirable that we should enable them to modify their trust deeds in order to introduce that element of public management which may possibly be a condition of the recognition of pensionable service. Now it would be possible for these schools to put themselves right under the Charitable Trusts Acts by amending their schemes, but, as the House is aware, that is a very lengthy, cumbersome, and an expensive process, and it is wholly unnecessary to put them to that trouble. This Amendment has been based on a precedent in Section 99 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, which is in almost identical terms, and enables managers of any elementary school, notwithstanding the provisions of their trust deeds, to fulfil the conditions required in order to obtain a Parliamentary Grant. There was another Act passed in 1903, the Education (London) Act, which enables governors of schools, notwithstanding their trust deeds, to add governors appointed by the local education authority, if such a condition is made a condition of a Grant by those authorities. I suggest that the Amendment has a reasonable object, and I trust the House will accept it.

I hope there is nothing subterranean or suspicious in this Clause. It looks all right, and I hope it is all right, but it is not at all desirable to have a new Clause—a really very effective Clause—without our having the text before us, and it is not at all necessary at this stage, as it could be put off till Monday. I shall not, however, oppose it, in view of the exigencies of the Session, and the good faith we have in Ministers—not in everything, but in this—which enables me to say I welcome the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.