Commons Sitting of 10 September 1914

Preamble
The House, being met at a Quarter before Three of the clock,
The CLERK AT THE TABLE (Sir Courtenay Ilbert) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's sitting.
Whereupon Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

MALICIOUS INJURIES (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 9th July; Mr. Rupert Gwynne]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS ACT, 1914.
Copy presented of Patents and Designs (Temporary) Rules, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Designs (Temporary) Rules [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Special Order, dated 5th September, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Normal Rate of Remuneration) Provisional Order (No. 2), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 468.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  CURED HERRING TRADE.
  Mr. COWANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received the reply of the Russian Government to the suggestion placed before it by His Majesty's Government that, in order to facilitate the importation of cured herrings from the United Kingdom into the Russian Empire through Archangel, the Import Duty on such fish should be temporarily removed; and, if a reply has been received, whether he can indicate its nature?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): No definite reply has yet been received from the Russian Government. I do not know whether they will see their way to removing the present Import Duty on herrings, as I understand from His Majesty's Ambassador at Petrograd that there are already large stocks in Russia which have paid full duty, and which would be placed in unfair competition with supplies entering free of duty. Herrings are not, I gather, an article of food required by the Russian troops.
  Mr. COWAN: Could not the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Russian Government that by granting a rebate to Russian merchants who already hold stocks of cured herrings, this difficulty might be met?
  Sir E. GREY: I will consider that point. I am quite aware of the importance of the question, and of course we are anxious to get everything done we possibly can.
  Mr. KING: Has the change of name of St. Petersburg to Petrograd had confirmation to the Foreign Office?

  HAGUE MINES CONVENTION.
  Mr. HEWINSasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Colombian amendment to the Hague

  619
  Mines Convention, which amendment forbade the employment of submarine mines except for the protection of a belligerent coast, was in the Third Commission, which settled the Convention, supported by sixteen votes against fifteen negative votes; can he explain why it was that this amendment was nevertheless rejected; why the British delegate subsequently voted for the Convention, which he described as imposing no restriction whatever on a belligerent as to placing anchored mines wherever he pleases; and whether His Majesty's Government were aware of this amendment when they advised His Majesty the King to ratify it?
  Sir E. GREY: The Colombian amendment was supported by the British delegate. The Austro-Hungarian and German delegates objected on the ground of the difficulty of distinguishing between attack and defence, and on a division sixteen States voted for and fifteen against the amendment, six abstained, and seven were absent. As the majority was not absolute, the amendment failed. The attitude of the British delegates will be found described in the declaration made by Sir Ernest Satow at the 8th Plenary Meeting of the Conference, for which I would refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary Paper, Miscellaneous No. 4, 1908 (Cd. 4081), pages 54 and 55. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

  BRITISH LEGATION AT MUNICH.
  Mr. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether information has reached the Foreign Office of acts of violence committed against members of the staff of the British Legation at Munich; and whether he can give particulars of breaches of diplomatic privilege committed at and after the outbreak of the War there or elsewhere?
  Sir E. GREY: Acts of violence were committed by police officials at the British Legation at Munich, but not by persons of high authority. The question of laying Papers showing the treatment of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Representatives in Germany and Austria-Hungary is under consideration.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS IN GERMANY.
  Mr. F. HALLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he can state what steps have been taken through the Embassies representing Great Britain in Berlin and Vienna to ensure the protection of British subjects remaining in Germany and Austria; and if the steps taken by the German and Austrian Governments in the matter correspond with the action taken in this country in regard to German and Austrian subjects?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): Since the outbreak of war with Germany and Austria the interests and protection of British subjects in those countries have been entrusted generally to the United States Diplomatic and Consular Officers. Special enquiries as to the treatment of individuals or groups of British subjects in Germany and Austria are forwarded to the United States Ambassador in London for whatever action may be possible by the United States authorities abroad.
  No details have been received from the United States Ambassador as to the measures which have been adopted either by the United States or by the German and Austrian authorities for the protection of British subjects, and I think it is obvious that we cannot, for the moment, expect to receive a full report on these measures, in view of the overwhelming quantity of work which has fallen upon the United States Embassies in the belligerent countries.
  Mr. HALL: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise the importance of this matter, and will he communicate with the American Ambassador to see if he can get any satisfactory answer to the question?
  Mr. ACLAND: This and kindred matters have given me a very great many hours work during the last three or four weeks, and I do most fully recognise the importance of the subject, but I do not quite see my way to pressing the United States to give us detailed answers with regard to every case on which they have made representations to the German or Austrian authorities.

  LOCAL INDUSTRIES.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), if he will say what action the Department is taking to remind local councils and committees of the industries for which their respective districts are suitable, the special opportunity for a successful effort which the present European situation affords, and the technical advice or other assistance which the Department is willing to render; and whether he will have copies of circulars of this character communicated to the local Press in each case.
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department is taking all the steps indicated in the question of the hon. Member, and its officers are busily engaged in the work of conferring with and assisting by technical advice and in other ways those anxious to co-operate in industrial development.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the Department taking the measures which are indicated in the last part of the question?
  Mr. RUSSELL: No, Sir; we are communicating directly in both instances.

  BRITISH TRADE (TARIFES).
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will approach the Governments of the Dominions to suggest that, with a view to helping British trade over the next six months of exceptional difficulty, the tariffs levied by them should be temporarily reduced to one-half on British manufactured goods in trades which may be specified as suffering from exceptional distress?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): No, Sir; I am not prepared to make such a suggestion, more particularly at a time when those Governments are incurring heavy military expenditure on behalf of the Empire.
  Mr. HEWINS: Is it not the fact that most of the self-governing Dominions have already extended the free list?
  Mr. HARCOURT(indistinctly heard): I have no official knowledge.

  BRITISH DOMINIONS AND COLONIES.

    GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN ALIENS.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether the Government have invited the British Colonies and Dominions to subject German and Austrian aliens resident therein to the same restrictions as the restrictions imposed in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The only communications which I have sent on this subject are to the following effect:—On 7th August—that His Majesty's Government have decided that all enemy reservists, naval or military, should be detained as prisoners of war, and that steps should be taken accordingly; and later (on the 9th August) that care should be taken not to arrest any persons whose known character precludes suspicion or who are personally vouched for to the satisfaction of the Government, provided that they are prevented from leaving the territory of the particular Government; further, that all prisoners are to be shown every consideration compatible with safety.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether it will be necessary to insure those persons to whom temporary employment is given on account of their being in need of assistance owing to the conditions caused by the War?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The question whether the persons referred to are insurable depends on the conditions on which the work is undertaken in each case. If the relationship of master and servant exists, or if the person in question is employed as an outworker as defined in paragraph (c) of Part I. of the first Schedule to the Act of 1911, the employé will be insured.
  Sir C. HENRY: May I ask if the Insurance Commissioners would take into consideration those who were employed, on account of the War, by organisations like the Queen's Women Workless Fund?
  Mr. BENN: I could not answer that question without knowing precisely the circumstances.
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether a person ordinarily outside the limits of the National Insurance Act (Part I.) comes within the limits on joining the Army under the three years' enlistment scheme and has 1½d. per week deducted from his pay?
  Mr. BENN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Bill introduced and read the first time yesterday. The Bill provides, inter alia, that men in the New Army who have not been insured in civil life will have the option of remaining uninsured during the War if they so elect. No deductions will, of course, be made on account of insurance from the military pay of persons so electing to remain uninsured. A leaflet is in preparation, and will be issued at the earliest possible moment.
  Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether an employed person ordinarily outside the limits of the National Insurance Act (Part I.) comes within the limits because his rate of remuneration is now less than £160 per annum, through a temporary reduction on account of the War; and, if not, whether the Government will take steps to make this known so that contributions shall not be deducted from wages?
  Mr. BENN: If a person ordinarily employed at a rate of remuneration in excess of the statutory limit has his remuneration in respect of the same employment temporarily reduced by reason of the War he is not thereby brought within the scope of compulsory insurance while such temporary arrangements continue.

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what steps the Government now propose to take in regard to companies the capital of which is either owned or controlled by German or Austrian aliens?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I would refer the hon. Member to the terms of the
  624
  Trading with the Enemy Proclamation No. 2 and of the Bill to make provision for penalties for trading with the enemy which was introduced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General. I shall make a further statement very shortly.

  IRISH RAILWAY EMPLOYES (RECRUITS).
  Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether all the Irish railway companies are giving the same guarantees as to remuneration and re-employment in the case of recruits as are given by English railway companies?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have asked for information as to the attitude of the Irish companies in this matter, but I have not yet received all the replies. The Dublin and South-Eastern, Great Southern and Western, and Midland Great Western Companies have informed me that they will reinstate men called to the Colours or enlisting, and these companies also make allowances to their dependants.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that men on Irish railways who join Irish regiments get the same terms as recruits from English railways?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: When I have got the whole of the information from the Irish railway companies I will consider the whole situation.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that the Irish railway companies follow the lines of the English companies in both matters?

  INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the provisions of the various International Conventions with regard to international copyright, and particularly the Berlin Convention of 1908, hold good as far as books originally written and published by an alien enemy are concerned?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am advised that the copyrights conferred upon the works of

  625
  alien enemies in accordance with the provisions of the Berlin Copyright Convention of 1908 or the Austro-Hungarian Copyright Convention of 1893 are not destroyed by the mere fact of war.

  STEAMSHIP "KONINGIN LUISE" (NAVIGATING OFFICER).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the navigating officer of the "Koningin Luise" had been captain of a ship running between Bremen and London and held a pilot's certificate for the Thames; and if so, whether, in view of the extended use of mines against commercial shipping as well as naval shipping in the present war, he will take steps to introduce legislation at an early date to prohibit the granting of pilot's certificates for any port in the British Isles, whether commercial or naval, to any person not of British birth and parentage?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am making inquiry as regards the first part of the question. As regards the latter part the Admiralty already possesses power under Section 24 of the Pilotage Act, 1913, to make an Order prohibiting the grant of pilotage certificates to alien masters and mates in districts where they think it desirable, and they have made such Orders for the London and several other districts. I do not think that further legislation on the point is necessary.

  POST OFFICE BULLETINS.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Home Secretary who is responsible for posting the bulletins at the Post Office on Sundays; whether he is aware that they usually consist of information already published the previous day; and whether, in the event of such communications as have been published by the Press Bureau from the Secretary of State for War usually on Sunday afternoons being continued, he can arrange for summaries of these to be posted particularly where no Sunday papers are published?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The matter is in the hands of the Post-
  626
  master-General, and I would suggest that the question should be addressed to him.
  Mr. HOGGE: Has the Postmaster-General any special means of getting war information?
  Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend will address his question to the Postmaster-General he will give him a full answer.
  Mr. HOGGE: I beg to give notice that I will ask the Postmaster-General this question to-morrow.

  GERMANS, AUSTRIANS, AND HUNGARIANS IN UNITED KINGDOM.

    POSSESSION OF ARMS OR EXPLOSIVES.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Home Secretary the number of German and Austrian aliens who have registered under the Alien Registration Act in the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the number thereof who reside in London; and whether such aliens have been searched for arms and explosives capable of doing damage to persons or property
    Mr. McKENNA: The number of Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians registered in the United Kingdom is 66,773, as I stated yesterday. Of these, 37,457 are registered in London and 949 in Ireland.
    No alien enemy is allowed to be in possession of arms or explosives without a permit from the police, and the most vigorous steps have been taken to enforce this provision in the interests of public safety.
    Mr. TERRELL: May I ask for an answer to the second part of the question: Whether such aliens have been searched for arms and explosives?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
    Mr. TERRELL: They have been searched?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes.
    Mr. HUNT: If a German or Austrian is naturalised, is he allowed to carry a pistol or gun?
    Mr. McKENNA: If an Austrian or German is a naturalised British subject, he has the full rights of a British subject.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are letters from those persons through Holland to Germany subject to supervision?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not know that it is desirable to reply in precise terms, but of course letters are censored by the military authorities?

    POLICE RESERVISTS (ALLOWANCES) ACT, 1914.
    Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, provides for constables whose time as Reservists has recently expired, but who have felt it their duty to resign their position as policemen in order to rejoin the Army; and, if not, what provision is to be made for them?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Bill, which was introduced yesterday.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Does this Bill cover the point asked in ray question?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, I think it does. It does not wholly cover it, but the hon. Gentleman will see what its effect is.

    POLISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether, following the example of the Russian authorities who are treating prisoners of war of Polish nationality with special consideration, he can so mitigate, without risk to the public safety, the rigours of the Aliens Restriction Order that aliens who are of Polish nationality may be relieved from some of its most burdensome conditions?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is not at present possible in law to recognise "Polish nationality" as distinct from the nationality of the Sovereign State of which residents in the various parts of Poland
    628
    are subjects. But in the administration of the Aliens Restriction Order, all possible consideration will be shown to those persons of Polish race who, though technically "alien enemies," are in fact friendly to this country.

    LICENSING CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1910 (COMPENSATION CLAUSES).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the Government will introduce a short emergency Bill for the suspension of the compensation Clauses of the Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910, until the War is over, and so prevent those who have to leave their houses shortly from joining the ranks of the unemployed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not feel justified in asking Parliament to extend its emergency legislation in the direction suggested.

    CIRCULATION OF FALSE NEWS ABROAD.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether any steps can be taken to expedite the action of the Press censorship and to counteract the effects of inaccurate and interested information published in neutral countries by German official agencies?
    Mr. McKENNA: All proper steps are being taken to secure the object referred to in the hon. Member's question.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been drawn to the fact that an organised system exists for the spreading of false reports in neutral countries of an anti-British character, and whether he will consider the advisability of taking such steps as may be necessary for the prompt and official denial of such reports as speedily as possible after publication?
    Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the systematic dissemination of false reports attributed to German agency in neutral countries. Steps were immediately taken to counteract the evil. Summaries of official news are regularly telegraphed to His Majesty's representatives in neutral countries,

    629
    where they are given wide publicity, and are much appreciated, and special denials have been given to the more scandalous statements which have been published. We are informed that this has already had an excellent effect in many instances, and that the campaign of false reports against us is becoming discredited. His Majesty's Representatives in the principal countries concerned have been authorised to obtain such assistance as they may require to deal with this question thoroughly and expeditiously.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY ALLOWANCES AND PENSIONS.
    Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if a separation allowance will be granted to the wives and families of the newly-formed Naval and Marine Brigades?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am afraid I can at present add nothing to the statement which I made yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for the Ludlow Division, to the effect that the question of granting a separation allowance to the wives of seamen is under consideration.
    Mr. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his letter the First Lord said that this body should have the pay and conditions of the Regular Army, and is that not going to be carried out?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Under existing law the Marines on shore will have a separation allowance. With regard to the other Naval Section or Brigade I say that the question of a separation allowance is engaging serious consideration.
    Mr. FALLE: The words of the First Lord were that the pay and conditions of service will be identical with that of the Regular Forces. There can be no escape from that.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have told the hon. Gentleman how the case stands.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Are we to understand that as long as the Marine is on shore there is the right for his dependants to get an allowance, but if he is taken on board ship
    630
    his dependants lose that right altogether, and do not recover it until he is put on shore again?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If he is on shore away from headquarters on certain duty his wife can get an allowance. If he is afloat, he gets what is called an afloat allowance, which does not mean quite the same thing, but is an element. The whole matter is receiving careful consideration.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under present circumstances the afloat allowance exists only as long as the man is alive?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not suppose it was in existence when he was dead.
    Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: Is the question of separation allowances to soldiers 'wives and pensions to soldiers' widows also under consideration?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a question for the War Office.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government would be willing to take the opinion of this House at an early date on the question whether the nation ought to make provision on a much more liberal scale than at present for the dependants of our soldiers and sailors on active service, both by way of separation allowance during absence and of pension in the event of death or incapacity resulting; whether the additional taxation ought to be graduated or otherwise arranged so as to fall chiefly on the richer classes; and whether he would propose to the House the appointment of a small representative committee to draft definite proposals and report to the House when it next meets?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I shall be glad if the hon. Member will postpone this question.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: If the Prime Minister is in a position to give an assurance that the matter will be dealt with in this House at an early date, I shall be glad to postpone the question.
    The PRIME MINISTERwas understood to indicate assent.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: Then I will postpone the question.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Department has received complaints of non-receipt of allowances by the wives of soldiers, and, if so, what steps are being taken to promptly remedy this state of affairs?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): I am aware that there has been delay in a good many cases. This has been due in part to the fact that on mobilisation we were necessarily without information as to wives married off the strength, and in part to the great influx of recruits. Arrangements were made at the beginning of the War that, pending receipt of Government allowances, the families of soldiers should have their necessities met through other channels; and all possible steps are being taken to remove delay.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether all non-commissioned officers and men married off the strength, if separated from their wives by military duties, are now entitled without exception to separation allowances?
    Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir, except in cases of misconduct, which are considered on their merits, and cases in which men have married subsequent to 13th August without permission.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Would the hon. Gentleman have that circulated amongst the commands?
    Mr. BAKER: I will see if that can be done.

    MINE LAYING ON HIGH SEAS.
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how he proposes to treat the question of the placing of mines on the high seas in the routes followed by merchant shipping; and what steps will be taken against any persons captured whilst engaged in laying such mines?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can assure the hon. Member that this important question is engaging the earnest attention of the Admiralty. More than that it would not be in the public interest to say, except this—that all persons caught laying mines under a neutral flag will be tried by court-martial.
    Mr. COWAN: Has the First Lord of the Admiralty considered the desirability of manning the vessels engaged in mine sweeping with German prisoners?
    Mr. FELL: May I ask if those men will be specially treated, or if they will be treated as ordinary prisoners of war engaged in legal warfare?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would say generally in this, as in all other matters, we will proceed with a strict and scrupulous regard for established Law.

    COURTS (EMERGENCY POWERS) ACT, 1914.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Attorney-General when and where the rules or directions under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, will be published?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The rules were sent to the Stationery Office for publication on the 8th inst. I have inquired, and I am told that they will probably be available for the public to-morrow.
    Mr. BOYTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware copies of the Bill are not available in the Vote Office, and if we want copies we are referred downstairs?
    Sir J. SIMON: I should imagine that copies of the Bill, as passed by this House, were the same as copies of the Act, and either will do for the purpose, but I will make inquiries?
    Mr. BOYTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Bill as passed in this House was not printed and that we have to refer to the Act?
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Attorney-General whether, seeing that a landlord cannot distrain during the moratorium

    633
    because the rent is not due, and cannot under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act distrain when the moratorium has expired and the rent has become due without leave of the Court, thus enabling fraudulent tenants to occupy premises for an extended period without paying rent and to remove their goods to avoid distress, there is any power or provision to make it illegal for tenants taking advantage of the moratorium to remove their goods, or in what respect is reasonable protection given, or proposed to be given, to landlords, especially to those who are owners of buildings of flats and offices on which they have to pay rates and taxes which are not covered by the moratorium, whereas their tenants have the full advantage of it?
    Sir J. SIMON: The moratorium postpones the date when rent under agreements entered into before 4th August becomes due, but if a tenant took advantage of the postponement to remove his goods in order to avoid the consequences of distress, this would appear to be a good ground for the Court to refuse any relief under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act.

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS' FAMILIES (BIRTH CERTIFICATES).
    Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that in the case of wives of soldiers and sailors with three or four young children that certificates of birth are asked for in each case, and that the full charge of 2s. 1d. is asked for in each case by the registrar, whereas in the case of such certificates for factory employment only 6d. is charged; and whether he can make any different arrangements?
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will endeavour to make arrangements whereby applicants for grants from the Soldiers 'and Sailors' Families Association can obtain birth certificates of their children at a nominal fee?
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that in the case of the wives of soldiers called to the front before the separation allowance is paid in the case
    634
    of young children a birth certificate is demanded in each case; whether he is aware that 2s. 1d. is being charged for each such certificate; and whether, in view of the hardship inflicted where there are three or four email children, he will make some other arrangements or endeavour to arrange for the certificates to be obtained at a lower rate?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Arrangements were made some time ago for avoiding expense in obtaining marriage or birth certificates in such cases. When evidence of birth or marriage is not already in the possession of the officer in charge of the records, application for a certificate should be made to the local superintendent registrar. Most registrars accept at the present time a reduced, or nominal fee, in cases of the kind referred to. Where a registrar declines to accept less than the statutory fee the Registrar General at Somerset House will, upon application, verify the particulars free of cost, and this verification will be accepted by the authorities concerned. These arrangements were set out in a circular of the Local Government Board dated 3rd September, copies of which I am sending to the hon. Members.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman have copies of that sent to the various soldiers' and sailors' families?
    Mr. WARDLE: Will he also have copies sent to the registrars? I am told that they are not carrying it out.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The registrars have been communicated with by the Chief Registrar, with whom I am myself in communication. But I will communicate with him as to the necessity of taking further steps.

    CABLE COMPANIES (CODE MESSAGES).
    Mr. COWANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the cable companies, while making largely increased profits by the prohibition of code messages, show no disposition to consider the public convenience by reducing rates or otherwise, he will consider

    635
    the desirability in the public interest of the Government taking steps to assume entire control of all British cables during the continuance of the War?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): My right hon. Friend has asked me to take this question. The Government are now considering proposals which have been made by certain important cable companies for the reduction of cable rates during the continuance of the present prohibition of code messages.
    Mr. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the prohibition of the use of codes entitled the cable companies to refuse to transmit messages to abbreviated addresses?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The transmission of telegrams by the cable companies is under regulations of the War Office and the Admiralty. I, as far as my capacity is concerned, am merely a transmitting agent.
    Mr. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the question of the use of abbreviated telegraphic addresses before the cable companies?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps I can make my meaning clearer. It is not a question of bringing it before the cable companies; it is a question whether the Censor, who acts under the direction of the Admiralty and the War Office, will agree to the transmission of code addresses.
    Mr. COWAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any reason why abbreviated telegraphic addresses should not be used?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am told by the Admiralty and the War Office that there are excellent reasons. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to know what they are, he must address his question to those two offices.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, as soon as code messages were prohibited, the companies abolished also the cheap half-rate?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The matter was brought to my notice yesterday, and, as I have said, certain proposals are now under consideration with the various cable companies for the future transmission of messages and cablegrams.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to the public that cable companies should be allowed to take advantage of military necessities to double their rates?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am afraid I cannot make myself responsible for the morality of commercial companies.

    PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that Members are anxious to make arrangements for meetings to encourage recruiting, he can say whether the House will be adjourned or prorogued before next week?
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister if he will state, for the convenience of Members, when the Session is likely to end?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that it may be possible to bring the Session to a close next week, but I will make a full statement on Monday.

    WHEAT SUPPLY.
    Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, if not against the public interest, he would say what provision the Government have made for ensuring the necessary amount of wheat and other necessaries for next year till our own harvest for that year is gathered in?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. It is not desirable at present to disclose the details of the arrangements, which the Government have good reason to think will effect the object which the hon. Member has in view. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has

    637
    asked me to mention that the Government scheme for the insurance of vessels and cargoes is having the desired result of ensuring the continuance of our imports of grain and other necessaries.
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister what objection, if any, the Government have to guaranteeing to farmers a price of 40s. per quarter for all wheat harvested and sold in this country in 1915–16; and whether he will ensure an increased area of wheat being sown this autumn by immediately making public such a guarantee?
    Sir HARRY VERNEY: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Wilton on this subject yesterday.
    Mr. STANIER: Is it not a fact that the question of straw has nothing at all to do with preserving the wheat in ricks for the future supplies of this country as he states?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

    CONTRACTS WITH ALIENS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet had time to consider the proposal that the Law, Officers of the Crown should, for the benefit of the commercial community, publish their considered opinion as to the position of contracts with aliens entered into before the War began and the legal definition of which cannot be decided by the Courts until the War is over?
    The PRIME MINISTER: In normal circumstances I could not consider any such suggestion, but under existing conditions, though there are serious practical difficulties in the way of its adoption, it is being carefully considered.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May we hope for a decision before the Prorogation?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I hope so.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has the Prime Minister noted that the last decision of this subject is sixty years old?

    ACCOMMODATION FOR RECEUITS.
    Mr. HAMILTONasked whether the Government will take steps to utilise the services of some civilians to organise the feeding, equipping, and accommodation of new recruits reporting at various military centres where congestion at present exists?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Officers in charge of depots have full powers to make all arrangements for the comfort of recruits in respect of such questions as accommodation, food, and the local purchase of necessaries. They have recently been reminded of their responsibilities in this matter, and it is hopel that further cause for complaint will not arise.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that eligible married and other men are hesitating to join the Army because, while their employers are promising to keep their situations open, they have no assurance that in case of being incapacitated for work through loss of limbs provision would be made for them by the State? Would he say what is proposed to be done in such cases if they arise?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I have only just received the hon. Member's question. In the case of all wounded provision will be made.
    Sir IVOR HERBERT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to make any statement as to the measures which the War Office propose to take in regard to the matters to which I drew attention yesterday; and whether he will state in particular what course is being taken in regard to men enlisted on or before Friday last, who have been improperly transferred to the Reserve?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already answered a question on this point. As regards the men alleged to have been improperly passed to the Reserve, inquiries are being made, and I shall be glad to look into any cases of which the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars. The following telegram was sent between 3 and 4 p.m.

    639
    yesterday to all General Officers Commanding-in-Chief, Officers Commanding districts, and Officers Commanding depots:—
    "From numerous complaints which are being received at the War Office, it would appear that all officers in charge of depots do not realise that they have full powers to make all arrangements for the comfort of recruits by billeting, local purchase of necessaries, arrangements for cooking, etc., etc. Understand that you have full powers and will be held responsible for exercising them, so as to prevent continuance of these complaints. If you require assistance and cannot obtain it locally, you should apply to the Headquarters of Command. Lord Kitchener holds all officers in command of commands, districts and depots, personally responsible, and he trusts there will be no recurrence of these complaints."
    May I point to the hour at which this was sent? It was between 3 and 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon, before my hon. and gallant Friend asked his questions.

    LEVIES ON BELGIAN TOWNS (RECOUPMENT).
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to introduce legislation to enable them, out of the property of German and Austrian aliens in this country, to recoup the Belgian Government for levies which have been made by Germany on Belgian towns?
    The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government do not propose to introduce legislation such as is suggested by the hon. Member.

    SIR JOHN FRENCH'S STAFF.

      PREPARATION OF DISPATCHES.
      Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Prime Minister whether the extra officers attached to the staff of Sir John French for the purpose of increasing the information regarding the War will be permitted to send messages descriptive of the fighting which the public will be capable of
      640
      understanding as often and as expeditiously as possible, or whether they are simply to be used for the purpose of compiling a military account of the War which will not be published until the end of the operations?
      Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. Yes, Sir. The purpose is to secure as far as possible the object mentioned in the first part of the question.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. FALLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, seeing that there is a shortage of labour in certain districts, he will consider whether old age pensioners may be allowed to take on work without losing their pensions?
    The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I fear I cannot adopt the hon. Member's suggestion, which would require legislation to carry it into effect.

    NATIONAL PENNY BANK.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the destitution and suffering caused to the depositors in the National Penny Bank, Limited, now in liquidation; and if, in view of the difficulties caused by the present crisis, he will consider the desirability of a loan by the Treasury to the liquidator to enable the immediate distribution of a dividend, even though this step might involve the passage of a short Act of Parliament?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Provided that the affairs of the bank are placed in the hands of the official receiver the Bank of England will be prepared at once to make an advance sufficient to enable a payment of 5s. in the £ to be made to the depositors, and to consider the making of further advances as the liquidation proceeds.

    INDIAN LOYALTY.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any steps are being taken, or will be taken, to

    641
    counteract the organised efforts of Germany to arouse Pan-Islamic feeling against England in India and other British Possessions possessing Mahomedan populations?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): As regards India, the loyalty, good will and right perception of the princes and peoples of India of all races and religion, as described in the Viceroy's telegram read in the House yesterday, make it clear that any action such as the hon. Member suggests would be superfluous. As regards other British Possessions, I would refer the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and to the Colonial Secretary.

    SOLDIERS' CLOTHING.
    Mr. JAMES HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether offers of socks, shirts, etc., have been declined for the use of soldiers at the front; and whether this means that soldiers on active service are having all wear and tear on clothes made good without any charge to them?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. HOGGE: The second part of the question is the only part that wants answering: Whether this means that soldiers on active service are having all wear and tear on clothes made good without any charge to them?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes.

  LORD KITCHENER'S NEW ARMY.

    RECRUITS (AGE LIMIT).
    Mr. F. HALLasked if it is anticipated that all the additional men required for the Army will be obtained under the present age limits; and, if this is not certain, whether, as a precautionary measure, the Government will consider as to the formation of a Special Reserve, with a higher age limit, who would at once undergo preliminary training, so as to obviate delay should their services ultimately be required in this country or abroad?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no present intention of doing this, but the suggestion will not be overlooked.
    Mr. F. HALL: Have the War Office considered the advisability of raising the age limit for ex-Territorials and ex-Volunteers, the same as they have done with regard to old soldiers?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, that is being considered.

    RECRUITING FORMS.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will consider the advisability of issuing recruiting forms of a less complicated nature than those at present in use, seeing that at least twelve official signatures are required for each recruit, causing unnecessary delay in completion; and whether it is necessary for one of the forms to be in duplicate?
    Mr. TENNANT: This is a matter that is receiving the attention of the War Office. Whilst it is no doubt very desiraable to reduce clerical labour connected with enlistments to a minimum at the present time, it must be remembered that there are certain legal formalities to be complied with, and that in order to enable us to deal with claims that will certainly in many cases arise in the future, it is absolutely necessary to record on every recruit's document at the time of his enlistment certain items of information as to himself and his family.
    Mr. GWYNNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered this, bearing in mind the fact that the delay is largely caused by the fact that the recruiting officer himself has to sign these documents eight or nine times for each recruit?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. WORTHNGTON EVANS: Would the right hon. Gentleman say why, if it is necessary to have these forms, they should not be in duplicate, and so save a great deal of trouble?
    Mr. TENNANT: I should have thought the duplication might be done by manifold process.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman authorise the

    643
    officers to do that, because at present they cannot? May I also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would authorise a rubber stamp to be used for signatures?
    Mr. TENNANT: I imagine that there are difficulties in connection with the possible fabrication of signatures by rubber stamps; at the same time I will consider what the hon. Member has said.
    Mr. HAMAR GREENWOOD: Would the Under-Secretary for War consider the desirability of altering the King's Regulations to permit recruiting officers and other officers affixing their signatures by means of a rubber stamp as is done by every business in England?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have just said I will consider it.

    RECRUITING COMMITTEES (TERRITORIAL ASSOCIATIONS).
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that recruiting committees have in some instances been obliged to engage clerks to help in recruiting work under recommendations from the Territorial Associations; and if he will take steps to issue permits to and provide the necessary money for Territorial Associations to meet these necessary but not excessive expenses?
    Mr. TENNANT: Any necessary expenditure incurred for this purpose may be defrayed by associations. If the latter find that funds are short, they will doubtless represent the position to the War Office.

    NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (AGE LIMIT).
    Mr. FALLEasked whether the age limit in the senior ranks of non-commissioned officers will be extended, seeing that men of this class have risen by their superior abilities and are difficult to obtain?
    Mr. TENNANT: The age limit for service at home and abroad is already fifty in the case of ex-Regular warrant officers and non-commissioned officers above the rank of sergeant. For service at home
    644
    only there is no age limit in the case of ex-non-commissioned officers of any branch of His Majesty's Forces. The only qualifications are medical fitness and suitability for the employment.

    BRITISH CASUALTIES (OFFICERS).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many names of officers, out of the 15,000 British casualties mentioned in the Press Bureau's official communication of last Sunday, have been made known to relatives or next of kin, and how many of such names have been given out to the Press for publication?
    Mr. TENNANT: The names of killed, wounded, missing, and sick officers have, after verification, in all cases been notified to the next of kin where known, and except in the case of sick officers have been given to the Press. The publication is purposely delayed for a short interval in order to ensure that the notification first reaches the next of kin. The names of officers reported sick are not published.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the particulars I ask for?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is impossible to give those particulars at present.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what steps are being taken to notify the relatives of the soldiers?
    Mr. TENNANT: All steps are being taken.
    Mr. JOHN WARD: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that he mentioned clearly "officers."
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how it is that wounded officers invalided home from the War frequently arrive at their homes in this country several days before their names appear in the printed casualty lists?
    Mr. TENNANT: After reading the despatch from Sir John French, published in last night's "London Gazette," the hon.

    645
    Member will realise that there have been difficulties in rendering complete casualty lists. I think the military authorities at the base have the right in deciding that it was not necessary to keep back wounded officers for whose transport opportunities offered until it had been ascertained whether their names had been included in a casualty list. The fact that wounded officers have returned has been reported as soon as possible to their next of kin.

    BRITISH PRESS BUREAU.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the probabilities and surmises in connection with the military operations abroad, as set forth in the Official Press Bureau communications, is prepared and supervised by the highest military authorities, or is only the expression of the views of the Press Bureau gleaned from information received?
    Mr. TENNANT: All opinions and facts given in communications from the Press Bureau are official.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the War Office can see their way to give out for publication the official despatches of General Sir John French regarding the progress of the War in his own words when such despatches can be published without detriment to the military operations, as used to be the case in former wars, so that the public can know that any expressions of opinion in such despatches are the direct opinion of an officer on whose opinion the country can rely, as it is difficult under the present system to distinguish between the opinions of General Sir John French and that of the writer of the official communications of the Press Bureau?
    The HON. MEMBER added: The first part of the question does not now arise.
    Mr. TENNANT: I was going to say, a long official despatch received from Sir John French yesterday afternoon was published in last night's "London Gazette." There is no intention to depart from previous practice, and further despatches when received will be similarly published.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the very general misunderstanding of his reference to his position in relation to the Press Bureau and the statement in the "Globe" of last evening that he had taken over its administration, he will state precisely what, if any, change has been made in the position of the right hon. Member for the Walton Division in relation to it, and exactly what duties have been assumed by the Home Secretary?
    Mr. McKENNA: As I stated yesterday, I have, at the request of the Cabinet, accepted responsibility for the work of the Press Bureau. The term "Ministerial responsibility" in its ordinary use is well understood, implying a general charge of the work of a Department, and I used the term in this sense. I am glad to say the right hon. Member for the Walton Division is retaining his position as director of the Bureau.

    WOUNDED SOLDIERS (ARRIVAL FROM FRONT).
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked if there is any reason why, when possible, the port and probable time of arrival of wounded soldiers returning from the front cannot be notified to the Press, so that such soldiers can be given a respectful and suitable welcome by the neighbouring inhabitants, as by these means the realities of war could be brought home to the people and help recruiting?
    Mr. TENNANT: I recognise the desirability of the objects the hon. Member has in view, but I think there would be difficulties in carrying out his suggestion in all cases, and that it is more seemly that the first news of the return of wounded officers and soldiers should be given, where possible, to their next-of-kin individually, as is the Army Council's practice.

    SERVICE BOOTS.
    Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, in cases where Territorial units or units of Lord Kitchener's Army are in immediate demand of service boots, he will permit Territorial associations which have

    647
    already been asked to purchase and provide uniforms and equipment for such units to obtain such boots, and undertake wherever possible their immediate supply?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer is in the affirmative. General instructions are about to be issued on this point.

    EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (COMPOSITION).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will, as soon as the public interest will allow, publish a statement as to the composition of the Expeditionary Force?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: When does "Yes" mean?
    Mr. TENNANT: As the hon. Member says, "as soon as the public interest will allow."
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is that a reason why the public should not know the regiments comprising it?
    Mr. TENNANT: Well, Sir, I have given my answer.

    WAR OFFICE (ORDERS FOR HOSIERY).
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the orders for hosiery for the War Office have been fairly distributed between the chief trade centres in this behalf in the Midlands?
    Mr. BAKER: Orders have been widely distributed and have not been confined to the Midlands, but in each case it is necessary to consider the quality of the goods, the deliveries which can be guaranteed, and the prices quoted. Subject to this, every endeavour is made to increase the sources of supply.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are some cities in the Midlands who have been overlooked in this distribution, and will he kindly look into the matter again?
    Mr. BAKER: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has not considered my answer: "In each case it is necessary to consider the quality of the goods, the deliveries which can be guaranteed, and the prices quoted."
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in all these particulars there are some places which are absolutely on the top plane, and they have not received any orders?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question must be definite.
    Sir J. D. REES: I could mention Nottingham, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

    RAILWAY PRIVILEGE TICKETS FOR SOLDIERS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether return tickets are issued at a single fare for soldiers permitted to return home on short leave; whether, if so, such privilege tickets are issued at all railway booking offices or only on certain lines and on strict conditions; and whether he can state the terms of such tickets in a way to make these facilities known as widely and clearly as possible?
    Mr. TENNANT: The privilege ticket system is already in operation throughout Great Britain. It is believed that in certain cases full advantage of the provisional arrangements may not have been obtained, but fresh instructions are being issued which will, it is hoped, remove any possible misunderstanding.

    VACCINATION.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that, on objecting to be vaccinated a Territorial belonging to the 24th County of London Regiment was recently court-martialled for disobeying a battalion order; and whether he will take steps to prevent pressure of this kind from being applied to deprive Territorial recruits of the exemption to what they are by law entitled?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned. On the other part of the question I have nothing to add to the answer given on the 26th August.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that typhoid is a disease due to insanitation and preventible by proper sanitary measures, that anti-typhoid inoculation produces illness which disables men for days, and would therefore weaken our forces, that many men object to being inoculated, whilst medical opinion is divided as to its value, he will refrain from enforcing it upon unwilling soldiers, thus leaving them fit for their duties in the field?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension—anti-typhoid inoculation, whilst encouraged on account of its undoubtedly immense value, is not compulsory in the British Army.

    ARMY BANDSMEN.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the places of civilian musicians who have enlisted are being filled by Army bandsmen, thus depriving other civilian musicians of employment; whether he is aware that the band of the 1st Life Guards was engaged to play at Burnley on the 6th instant, although a dispute is in progress there and a great deal of unemployment exists; and whether, during the present crisis at all events, steps will be taken to prevent Army bandsmen in receipt of Army pay depriving civilians of their means of livelihood?
    Mr. TENNANT: No report is available regarding the circumstances mentioned, and the Army Council have no knowledge that Army bands are depriving civilians of their means of livelihood. Perhaps the hon. Member will furnish me privately with details of any cases he has authenticated.

    NATIONAL RESERVE (BOUNTY).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office
    650
    if he can now say whether the bounty of £10 will be paid to men in Class 1 of the National Reserve who enlisted and did not wait to be called up?
    Mr. BAKER: It has been decided that the bounty cannot be granted to those men who were not called up by proper authority.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the meaning of that is that those men who have enlisted out of the National Reserve will not get the bounty, and that those who have waited till called up will get the bounty, and can he say for what reason the distinction is made?
    Mr. BAKER: The bounty was given in order to induce men to register, and in the view of the military authorities, if they are not there when required, the whole purpose of the bounty and the registration is gone.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that these men were registered in Class A, and when the call was made they answered it at once without waiting to be called up?
    Mr. BAKER: When the National Reserve was called up by the proper authority they were not there.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Would the hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?
    Mr. BAKER: The position is that these men were induced by the bounty to register, and then when they were looked for they were no longer there, and thus the whole purpose of the bounty has been frustrated.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON EVANS: Only because they had enlisted.
    Mr. BAKER: I will see if there is any ground on which the decision can be reconsidered.
    Mr. R. GWYNNE: Was any notice given to the men that if they did not readily respond they would get the bounty?
    Mr. BAKER: I do not think any such notice was needed.

    DEFENDED AREAS (COMPENSATION FOE LOSS OR DAMAGE).
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any system has yet been adopted for assessing the compensation to be awarded to householders and others who have suffered loss or damage through the action of military authorities in defended areas; and, if so, can he state upon what conditions and on what principle the compensation will be paid?
    Mr. TENNANT: I cannot yet make a statement on this, but the matter is receiving careful consideration.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are many poor people who have been turned out of their houses and have no means, and urgently require relief?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. I will certainly bear that in mind.

    UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISTRESS.
    Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he can make any statement as to the extent of unemployment and distress due to the War, and as to the measures which are being taken for the prevention and relief of distress?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Information has been collected from a large number of sources by the Board of Trade, by the Home Office, and by the Local Government Board, with regard to the extent to which employment has been affected by the War, and this information has been carefully collated. The reports received indicate that while there has been considerable contraction of employment, this has been largely met by working short time, and that the number of men entirely out of work is not a large percentage of the whole.
    Lancashire and the adjoining cotton districts are considerably affected. Employment at the ports and fishing centres on the East coast has been severely curtailed. Unemployment has also been acute in the tinplate trade and in the anthracite collieries. In London the furniture and allied trades and certain branches
    652
    of the clothing trade, dressmaking especially, are affected. The building trade in London is also depressed.
    Generally, unemployment is more prevalent among women than among men. The large number of men who have joined the Colours has, of course, contributed to the reduction of unemployment among men.
    There is no evidence at present of any widespread distress. Apart from sporadic cases, such distress as exists is principally confined to some of the ports, and to some of the cotton districts.
    With regard to the measures taken for the prevention and relief of distress, I would refer the hon. Member to the White Paper which was issued yesterday.

    NAVAL PENSIONERS (POSITION IN RANKS).
    Mr. FALLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that Naval Pensioners (not Reservists) are, when asked to volunteer, placed in positions inferior to that which they occupied on leaving the Service, inferior as regards position and pay, and further that the embarkation allowance of 8½d. per day promised for the test mobilisation has not been paid?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not clear, having regard to the expression "when asked to volunteer," whether reference is made to the recent test mobilisation or to the actual mobilisation ordered on 2nd August. At the test mobilisation all pensioners were allowed the ratings which they held in the active Service. On mobilisation, the instructions for mobilisation (Article 85) provide that pensioners shall be given the pay of the ratings in which they serve and actually do duty, but as far as the exigencies of the Service admit they are given ratings not inferior to those they held on being pensioned. It is therefore possible that certain men may have been given ratings inferior to those they held in the active Service. The embarkation allowance of 8½d. a day is paid for voluntary service in the Fleet during manœuvres, etc. (which would include the recent test mobilisation), but is not payable for compulsory service when called out by Proclamation.

    RESERVISTS RANK ON REJOINING.
    Mr. B. FALLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Reservists' sergeants and non-commissioned officers of Territorials are, rejoining at the call of duty, taken on as privates and on privates' pay, and if there is any reason that these men should lose their rank, and if this matter will be put right?
    Mr. TENNANT: Every man who enlists, whatever his former rank, must do so in the rank of private. Immediately after the enlistment, if he is an ex-non-commissioned officer, of any branch of His Majesty's Forces, he will be promoted. An ex-non-commissioned officer of the Territorial Force, if not more than forty-five years of age, will be given the rank of corporal; if more than forty-five years of age he will be given the acting rank of corporal. Further promotion in either case may follow if he is proved capable. Acting rank carries with it full pay of the rank.

    COMMUNICATION WITH WOUNDED AND MISSING.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary for War whether it is the fact that arrangements have been made whereby the captured enemy can communicate with relatives. Whether he is aware that in a large number of cases no information can be obtained by the relatives of British officers and men who are reported as missing or captured, and whether he will cause representation to be conveyed to the proper source in order that the same facility which has been granted to the captured enemy shall be at once extended to British wounded and captured?
    Mr. TENNANT: Arrangements have been made for the transmission to Germany of letters written by German prisoners in this country and for the official communication of information in regard to such prisoners in the event of reciprocity being granted. I am aware and I much regret that information as to British officers and men reported missing or captured is not at present obtainable. Every effort is, however, being made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to obtain such information.

    RECRUITING OFFICERS' PAYMENTS.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a sum of money is payable to the person other than recruiting officers successful in obtaining a recruit for the Regular Army while no similar or any sum from public moneys is payable on an enlistment for the Territorial Force, and whether, in view of the fact that in the majority of cases the terms of enlistment are now identical for both the Regular and Territorial Forces, the non-payment of such recruiting money places the Territorial Force at a disadvantage in obtaining recruits?
    Mr. TENNANT: County Associations are permitted to pay recruiting rewards not exceeding 1s. 6d. out of their surplus funds. It does not appear to be necessary to offer any further inducement.
    Mr. NEWMAN: Seeing that most of the Territorial Associations have no funds, how can they give such money?

    MOTOR CYCLIST DISPATCH RIDERS.
    Sir JOHN SPEAR: I desire to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War: What is to be the pay of motor cyclist dispatch riders, serving with the Territorials, now that the War Office has purchased their machines?
    Mr. TENNANT: I received this question only a few minutes ago, and perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to communicate with him?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members, wherever it is possible, to put down their questions. I have given instructions that for the present the Rule requiring two days' notice should be abrogated, and questions can be answered on the following day.

    DEBATE ON MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether for the remainder of the Session he would consent to the Motion for the Adjournment of the House being moved before the ordinary

    655
    Government measures on the Order Paper are called, and thus provide a fuller opportunity for private Members to raise any question of an urgent character than is possible in an half-hour's Debate?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will give my right hon. Friend's suggestion full and sympathetic consideration—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—but I wish first to ascertain the feeling of the House. I am quite sure that the House does not desire to enter into any unnecessary discussion, and hon. Members will, no doubt, bear in mind that it is particularly difficult for Ministers to answer questions without adequate previous notice.

    DEBATE ON MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

      Dublin Metropolitan Police.
      Dr. ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if Police-constables Gleeson and O'Neill, of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, have been reinstated; and, if not, when steps are likely to be taken in the matter?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have no doubt that the reinstatement of these men will very shortly take place, but I cannot say more at this moment.

      Post Office Employés.
      Mr. BOWERMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that employés of the Port of London Authority, with wages ranging from 30s. to £2 2s. weekly, are being employed in the Post Office in the capacity of auxiliary postmen or sorters; and whether, in employing extra labour, he will give precedence to men who are unemployed?
      Mr. HOBHOUSE: Certain employés of the Port of London Authority have been employed as auxiliary postmen and auxiliary sorters for many years past, and I am reluctant to disturb these men, who have been trained to the work required of them. So far as is known, no men in full-time employment have been engaged for auxiliary duties since 1907. I am now in communication with the Labour Exchange as to the possibility of obtaining reliable unemployed persons for part-time duties.

      Importation of Arms (Ireland).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that Customs officials have no instructions to tamper with goods going to Ireland, he will say by whose orders, and on what authority, cases of sporting cartridges ordered from Birmingham by Messrs. Nooney and Son, merchants, Mullingar, in the ordinary course of their business, were last July examined, disturbed, and delayed at Holyhead, and again at North Wall, and a charge made for each examination, amounting in all to 10s.; and whether he will have this money refunded and an apology tendered?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member has now asked this question at least six times, and I can add nothing to the full explanation which has already been given.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why he persists in an answer which this receipt in my hand proves is untrue, and whether the money mentioned in the question, for which this is the receipt, will be refunded?
      No answer being given,
      Mr. GINNELL: I beg to give notice that I will repeat this question on Monday next.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot keep on putting down the same question. He may be dissatisfied with the answer, but having had his answer, there is an end to it.
      Mr. GINNELL: Is a Minister entitled to give an untrue answer to a question?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There may be a difference of point of view.

      Questions to Ministers.
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand that it will be a great convenience to Ministers if hon. Members, at the time they hand in their questions, would send a copy of them to the Ministers concerned, so that they may have a longer time to deal with them.
      Mr. HUNT: May we put questions down for Friday?
      Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it is understood that Ministers will answer questions on Friday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: I wish to ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take to-morrow?
The PRIME MINISTER: If we get, as I hope we may, the Orders down to No. 9, it will not be necessary to sit to-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDITIONS TO BRITISH ARMY.

    PROGRESS OF RECRUITING.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 500,000 all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, in consequence of the War in Europe, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915."
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The House of Commons voted earlier in the Session, before any outbreak of War was anticipated, under normal conditions, under Vote A, 186,000 odd men for the Regular Army. It is perhaps not necessary to point out, but it may be convenient to put it on record, that the total men under Vote A does not include either the Army Reserve, the Special Reserve, or the Territorial Force. When we come to vote the financial provision under Vote 1 of the Army Estimates, which is consequential upon the passing of Vote A, we make provision not only for the 186,000 men already sanctioned for the Regular Army, but also for the Army Reserve. In the subsequent Votes 3 and 4 provision is made for the Special Reserve and the Territorial Force. The Army Reserve and the Special Reserve are not called upon to serve until, under the regular constitutional machinery consequent upon the outbreak or imminence of war, they are summoned to do so. It may be convenient to the Committee to know that at the time when War broke out, and when the Reserves were called to the Colours, the state of things was this: Parliament had voted 186,000 odd men—call it roughly 200,000—under Vote A, and the Army Reserve and the Special Reserve then became available as part of the Regular Forces of the country, amounting also, roughly speaking, to another 200,000 men. They made altogether 400,000 men.
    664
    On 6th August, after War had been declared, I made a Motion in Committee, which was assented to in Committee and by the House on Report, for the addition of 500,000 men to the Regular Forces. These 500,000 men, assuming them all to have been raised, would, in addition to the 400,000 I have just mentioned, amount to a total of 900,000 men. I think it will be interesting to the Committee, before I state the reasons for which I am going to ask them to make this further Vote, to know what has actually happened in consequence of the Vote of 6th August. The number of recruits who have been enlisted into the Army since the declaration of War—this, of course, is exclusive of those who have joined the Territorial Force—is 438,000, practically 439,000. That is up to the evening of 9th September. The Committee will therefore see that, having sanctioned, as it did very little more than a month ago, an addition to the Regular Forces of the Crown of half a million of men, we are now within some 60,000 of having attained that total. The numbers enlisted in London since Sunday, 30th August, have exceeded 30,000 men, and the stamp and character of the recruits has been in every way satisfactory and gratifying. The high-water mark was reached on 3rd September, when the total recruits enlisted in the United Kingdom on one day was 33,204. I may mention—I am sure it will be gratifying to hon. Members on both sides who represent Lancashire constituencies—that on that day 2,151 men were enlisted at Manchester alone.
    That is a very satisfactory result, but it by no means exhausts the requirements of the case. The response to the call for recruits has been in every way gratifying, but I am aware, not only from a discussion which took place in the House yesterday, but from communications which reached us from various parts of the country, that there are complaints and grievances causing, legitimately or otherwise, deeply-felt dissatisfaction at the manner in which some parts—I say, advisedly, only some parts—of this operation of recruiting has been conducted. I should like the Committee to realise what were the conditions of the case. We have been recruiting during the last ten days every day substantially the same number of

    665
    recruits as in past years has been recruited every year. I suppose our annual recruiting amounts to about 35,000 men for the Regular Army. As I pointed out a moment ago, on 3rd September we recruited 33,200. No machinery in the world which man has ever contrived or conceived could suddenly meet, in an emergency and under great pressure, the difficulty of bringing into the Colours and making adequate provision in a day for that which, in past experience, we only had to provide in the course of a year, and that, be it observed, by a Department which during the whole of this time has been engaged in superintending and executing an operation, I believe unexampled in the history of war, namely, the dispatch to a foreign country of an Expeditionary Force—I will not give the exact number, but roughly of 150,000 men—which has had to be, as the Committee I am sure is well aware, in consequence of the necessary and regrettable losses caused by the operations of war, constantly repaired by reinforcements of men, guns, supplies, transport, and every other form of warlike material.
    If our critics—I do not complain of legitimate criticism even at times like this—will put themselves at the point of view and try to imagine themselves equipped with the machinery which was possessed by the War Office at the time the War broke out, and then consider, side by side with the smooth, frictionless, and most successful dispatch of this Expeditionary Force which left these shores and arrived at its destination—I am speaking the literal truth—without the loss of a horse or a man, the wastage day by day and week by week that has had to be repaired in men and in material, repaired often at a moment's notice, and the necessity of keeping constantly in reserve, and not only in reserve but ready for immediate use, the materials to replace further wastage as days and weeks rolled on—I think when you remember that was the primary call on the War Office and that side by side with that it has had to provide for recruits in the course of these few weeks of no less than 430,000 men, he will be a very censorious and, I venture to say, a very unpatriotic critic who would make much of small difficulties and friction, and who would not recognise that
    666
    in a great emergency this Department has played a worthy part. My tenure at the War Office was a brief one, but no one who has ever had the honour, as I have had, to preside over that Department can possibly exaggerate the degree of efficiency to which it has been brought under the administration of recent years. Everything, as the experience of this War has shown, was foreseen and provided for in advance, with the single exception of the necessity of this enormous increase in our Regular Forces.
    4.0 P.M.
    What provision has been made for dealing with this influx of recruits? In the first place, and I think very wisely, my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War appealed for the assistance of the County Associations which rendered such great and patriotic services in connection with the Territorial Force. The great bulk of these county associations have responded to the call, and enormously facilitated the work of providing for this large body of new recruits. Next, he, in conjunction with his advisers, has largely multiplied and is continuing to multiply the various training centres. There has been unfortunately—no one can deny it—a congestion of men ready and willing to recruit and actually enlisted at particular places which has produced for the moment, at any rate, a certain amount of discomfort and a certain amount of difficulty in the provision of food and of the other requirements of such a body. But in that connection I should like to make an appeal—although I think the difficulty is now being almost got over I should like to make an appeal very strongly to local authorities, to county councils, town councils, and to urban and rural district councils that when a situation of this kind arises in consequence of a national necessity, they should show themselves, as I am sure they are most willing to do, not only zealous but able to provide accommodation for the moment in the public buildings which are under their charge. I think a great deal of the congestion which has taken place could have been avoided if more liberal use had been made—I am not making a reproach on anyone; the circumstances were exceptional and the pressure very great—if more liberal use had been made, as could be made, of the public buildings, town halls, schools,

    667
    and other edifices which are under the control of the municipal and county authorities for the purpose, at any rate at the moment, of relieving the great pressure of recruiting. I am quite sure that appeal will not go unheeded. But we recognise fully, and no one more fully than my Noble Friend (Lord Kitchener) the necessity of facilitating this process, and rendering it more easy.
    We do not think the time has come when we ought in any way to relax our recruiting efforts, and when people tell me, as they do every day, "These recruits are coming in by tens of thousands; you are being blocked by them, and you cannot provide adequately either for their equipment or for their training," my answer is, "We shall want more rather than less; let us get the men. That is the first necessity of the State—let us get the men." Knowing, as we all do, the patriotic spirit which always—now, of course, with increased emphasis and enthusiasm—animates every class of the community, I am perfectly certain they will be ready to endure hardships and discomforts for the moment, if they are satisfied that their services are really required by the State, and that in due course of time they will be supplied with adequate provision for training and equipment and for rendering themselves fit for taking service in the field. With that object, a few days ago a very important step—and the process is now in complete operation—was taken, which, I am sure, will be generally welcomed by the Committee and by the country, at the depots. Whenever it is necessary, we allow men who are recruited and have gone through the processes of attestation, medical examination, and actual enrolment—so that they are not only potentially but actually members of the Regular Army—we allow these men to go back to their own homes until the occasion arises for them to be called upon for actual training. In that way we hope to relieve, as we shall, and indeed relief has already been given and will be given more amply in the near future, to the undoubted block and congestion which has taken place in certain districts to the natural disappointment of the men who, coming forward under an impulse of public duty to serve
    668
    their country, have found themselves sent back home and put for the time being in reserve, and have felt perhaps that their services were not duly appreciated by the country. That, I think, the Committee will agree is a very important step in advance.
    I have to announce another step which, I believe, will give universal satisfaction and will go a long way to solve practically the difficulty, such as it is. We propose from to-day that there shall be given to those recruits for whom we are unable to find accommodation for the time being in barrack a sum of three shillings per day, which is not an extravagant proposal or in the nature of a bribe. A shilling a day is their pay. [An HON. MEMBER: "1s. 3d.!"] I am speaking in round figures; a shilling is the traditional figure, and we will call it a shilling. Then if we take the value of what we may roughly call the board and lodging of a soldier receiving a shilling a day when accommodated in barracks, and price that at two shillings, I do not think you are putting it extravagantly high. We think that those men who have come forward to join the Colours and have been actually enrolled, and are, in fact, members of the Regular Army, for whom we cannot make immediate provision by way of accommodation, shall be no worse off than they would be if they were actually in barracks, and I believe the provision of that three shillings a day for these men will put them in a position in which they are entitled to say not that they are out for gain or anything of that sort, but that they are not being prejudiced or penalised by their patriotic desires.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: And their return fares?
    An HON. MEMBER: And their separation allowances?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The separation allowance does not begin at that point. But as the hon. Member has interjected that phrase, I may add—seeing that hon. Members generally have been very good in not pressing us in regard to the separation allowances for soldiers who are actually serving—that that matter is receiving our daily and constant

    669
    consideration, and I hope, before the Session comes to an end, to be able to make a further announcement. But it does not arise with regard to this Vote. Having made that defence, if defence were needed—I do not think it was—that statement of what has actually been done by the War Office in these very anxious weeks, and also indicating in those two important respects that we are endeavouring to facilitate the process of recruitment and to remove any possibility of hardship, either to the individual recruit or to recruits collectively in a body, I hope the Committee will agree to pass the Vote for another 500,000 men. I am perfectly certain, if they do so, the response will be no less keen in spirit and no less ample in its scale than it has been in the days which have just gone by. We shall then be in a position, as is apparent from the figures I have already read, to put something like—I am not giving exact figures—something like 1,200,000 men into the field.
    Mr. WALTER LONG: Does that include the Indians?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, it is entirely exclusive of them.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And the Dominions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This is the provision made by the Mother Country, and of course it is exclusive of the Territorials.
    Mr. F. HALL: And of the National Reserves?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am pointing out to the Committee that exclusive of the Territorials, exclusive of the National Reserve, and exclusive of the magnificent contributions promised from India and from our Dominions, we here in these Islands, this Mother Country, will be in a position to put into the field, enrolled as our Regular Army, something like 1,200,000 men. That is an effort which it is worth while making great sacrifices to attain. As regards money, I am perfectly certain that this House will be ready, willing and eager to grant it if and when occasion arises. What we want now is to make it clear to those who are showing all over the Kingdom this patriotic desire to assist
    670
    their country in one of the most supreme and momentous crises in the whole of its long history, that they are not going to be treated either in a niggardly or an unaccommodating spirit, but that they are going to be welcomed, and every possible provision is going to be made for their comfort and well-being, so that under the best possible conditions they may take their place and play their part in that magnificent Army of ours, which, as everyone who has read the moving dispatch of Sir John French, published this morning, will realise, has never done its work better, never shown itself more worthy of the long centuries of splendid traditions than in the last fortnight. I ask the House to pass this Vote for 500,000 men.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman, in the statement he has just made, has left me nothing except to express our hearty support of all the measures which the Government are taking in this crisis. From the point of view of the Government and of this House we welcome the putting down of this Vote as showing that both the Government and the House of Commons are determined, whatever the cost, whatever the sacrifice, to see this thing through. I can only say in regard to that, that I agree entirely with the words which I heard the Prime Minister use in another place the other day, that in what has taken place so far we have every ground for encouragement and every reason to feel pride in what is being done by our troops. I agree entirely with what the Prime Minister has said about the action of our soldiers on the field of battle. It does not surprise us. We knew that the old spirit is there still, but I think it has, to some extent at least, surprised our enemies. But while we have reason to be gratified by the action which the Government has taken and this House is supporting them in taking, I think, as a nation, we have quite as much reason to be proud of the spirit which is shown by our countrymen in rushing to the standard as we have even in what has been done by our soldiers on the field of battle. I never sympathised—I always resented—with the view expressed at one time that our citizens were holding back. There was no justification for it. At the outset they did not realise what it means,

    671
    but from the moment they did realise it they have shown that they are prepared to do their share to fight the battles of their country.
    I am not going to say anything about the difficulties in connection with recruiting this great force to which the Prime Minister has referred. No one could have doubted that difficulties of that kind would arise, and that hardships would occur. Criticism, I am sure, is not deprecated by the right hon. Gentleman, and ought not to be, if it is framed entirely with this view: to make sure that everything that can be done is being done not to do away with but to minimise the hardships and difficulties with which the authorities were confronted. As the Prime Minister said, the machine was not framed to deal with an emergency like this. No one could expect it to deal with it smoothly, but we have a right to expect that the difficulties are understood at the War Office, and we have the right also to ask that since they cannot be met by the central machine, every effort shall be made in the direction of devolution, and that the difficulties shall be met where they locally arise. I am sure it is a satisfaction to the House, as it was to me, to find that before the discussion arose yesterday not only had Lord Kitchener realised the difficulties, but that he had taken every step possible to meet them, and that the step which he did take was in the direction which we all feel is a wise one—putting the responsibility on those at a distance from the War Office, and expecting them to do it.
    I do not think there is anything more worth my while saying. One thing, however, I should like to say. Many of us have been asked to take part in helping recruiting. When I was asked to join in that I had in my mind the feeling, to which I gave expression the other day, that I was not satisfied that too much sacrifice was not being required from those who were going to fight our battles, and that the full share of the sacrifice was being borne by those who remained behind. I gave expression to that view-then. I am not going to make any proposal. It is not necessary. But this I do say: Nothing could be more unfair than that this country should expect all the sacrifice to come from the men who are
    672
    actually going to risk their lives on our behalf. We know with what splendid spirit they are coming forward. I could, I suppose, as every member of this Committee could, give instances which would surprise us all.
    Perhaps it would be interesting to the Committee if I gave one that occurred the other day. The son of a friend of mine, who is well on, had been writing to the War Office and taking every step to try to be accepted in order to fight. He was a partner in a big business in Glasgow with splendid prospects. He threw them all up. He came and hung at the doors of the War Office as if he were seeking for some fat job, when all that he wanted was to be placed, not as an officer but as a private, in one of the most dangerous branches of our Service. That is a spirit that is universal. I do not say in what way further provisions should be made, but I am sure the Committee welcomes the statement the Prime Minister has made that they are going to reconsider the whole question of the separation allowance to the families of the men, and of the pensions which are to be given. I am not going to criticise what the Government has done, but I am sure of this, and I am expressing not the view of our own party at all, but the view of the whole of the Committee, that the country realises that When these men risk their lives for us they are making a big enough sacrifice, and the country will be glad that in every way possible generosity, at the expense of those who remain behind, should be extended to those who are fighting for us.
    Sir IVOR HERBERT: I wish in as few words as possible to express the great satisfaction with which I have heard the statement of my right hon. Friend, and I am sure that that satisfaction will be shared by everyone in this Committee. My right hon. Friend will believe me when I say that there is no one in this Committee who would be less inclined to belittle or to fail to appreciate the immense, indeed, gigantic work that has been done by the Staff of the War Office in sending abroad the great Expeditionary Force. It was not altogether wonderful that with such a work on hand there should have been a failure to appreciate and realise the great work that has to be done here also in preparing for the

    673
    creation of the New Army of the dimensions of that which has now been created.
    It was obvious from the very beginning that the creation of an Army of 500,000 men must demand very great preparation, and it is regrettable that such preparation should not have been adequately considered. I do not wish to criticise them severely or to judge them severely, but I merely state the fact as a fact, and I am sure the very fact of its having been brought to the public notice will have a very sensible effect in directing the minds of those charged with the administration of this country to the immense importance of that which is, perhaps, a less striking work than the work of sending an Army abroad, but which is nevertheless equally important. The failure here was to realise that in this country there existed a great administrative machinery which was at hand and of which use might have been made. I was delighted to hoar the words which fell from my right hon. Friend showing that now it is realised that these administrative bodies—these town, urban and district councils—which exist for other purposes in peace time, are now going to be made use of, and will gladly respond to the call which will be made upon them to act in conjunction with the military authorities of the country. I can only say from my experience of the past month that the patriotism of these bodies has been beyond all praise.
    With regard to the provision that is to be made for men now being enlisted, I am delighted to hear that so adequate a provision is being made. With such a provision as has now been announced by my right hon. Friend, an end will be put to many of the difficulties which have arisen. There is one point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for War, because it did not appear very clearly from the statement of the Prime Minister, namely, whether those men who were enlisted before or on the 4th August and who were subsequently sent to the Reserve on the reduced scale of pay will benefit by the arrangement that is now announced. The Prime Minister used the words "from to-day." I think it will have to be retrospective in order to cover the case of these men. Again, I welcome the statement of
    674
    the Prime Minister that the question of separation allowance is receiving further consideration. In all my experience of the last few weeks I have found hesitation as to whether to enlist or not arising from one cause, and one cause only—a doubt in the mind of the man as to whether his family was adequately provided for. Where it could be shown to him that by means of the separation allowance then existing, supplemented by other private benefactions, his wife and family would be well and satisfactorily provided for, there was no hesitation, and the man at once gave way to the natural impulse to serve his country. I can assure my right hon. Friend that no one appreciates more than I do the work that has been and is being done by the men with whom I have had the honour of being closely associated in the past, and who, I am quite sure, will vindicate in every way the high positions to which they have attained in their profession.
    Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: I wish to thank the Prime Minister for the announcement he made this afternoon. I have been engaged in recruiting for Lord Kitchener during the last month in Yorkshire, and I know the great difficulties that have arisen with regard to the congestion at certain depots. I should like to pay a tribute to the recruiting officers, who have worked night and day, and worked extremely well; also the mayors and corporations of the different towns, who have given us every help in their power. The one thing wanted was to deal with the congestion of those who were called up and who had not adequate means to support themselves. The announcement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon that they are to have 3s. will give the greatest satisfaction and enormously relieve congestion at every depot, and I thank him heartily for having adopted the suggestion, which will make recruiting a great deal easier.
    Mr. HAMILTON: I should like to ask the Prime Minister one question. He said that where necessity arose the military authorities at the depots or elsewhere could use school buildings. I know one or two cases where it has been desired to use school buildings, but the education authorities have objected, and we have

    675
    not been able to use the schools. In most cases the schools would only be used temporarily, and I hope the prime Minister will make it clear that where great congestion does occur the education authorities must allow the schools to be closed temporarily and used for military purposes.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no power in that matter at all. I only made an appeal to local authorities.
    Mr. HAMILTON: An appeal to education authorities?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, to all authorities.
    Mr. F. HALL: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to members of the National Reserve. I know a battalion of 2,500 who have already sent over 800 men from Classes 1 and 2 to join the Colours. I have brought this matter before the Under-Secretary for State. The point is that many of these men are getting more or less tired of hanging about and having no duties to perform. All the expenses are borne by the officers themselves. Some statement should be made in this House to satisfy the large body of National Reservists and the officers who are attending to them, and who are training two or three times a week to my own knowledge. A little encouragement from the right hon. Gentleman, or some statement as to when their services are to be used, would be very acceptable to the National Reservists.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): In replying to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I would say, as he knows, for I have informed him on the subject, I am placing myself in communication with the General Officer Commanding the London District, asking him whether he would be able to utilise the services of those most patriotic men who have enrolled themselves, particularly in the South and South-East of London, in order to be able to place their service at the disposal of the State. Sir Francis Lloyd informed me this morning—and I can state it to
    676
    the hon. Member most completely—that he was quite certain these patriotic citizens would be called upon at the earliest possible opportunity, and that he had no doubt in his own mind their services would be utilised in very large numbers. I would, therefore, ask the hon. Member to inform his constituents, as I believe them to be, that their offer and their attitude of mind is very much appreciated by the authorities, and that full use will be made of their services in time. They must not be impatient. Naturally every man wants to serve his country at this moment, but it is not possible to utilise the services of everyone all at once. Perhaps he will tell them that we recognise their patriotic offer and certainly mean to avail ourselves of it. I trust he will be able to allay the doubts which some of them feel.
    Mr. HALL: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Ivor Herbert) spoke to-day in a spirit which I desire to recognise. I am able to give him the assurance that he asks for, that those members of the British Army who enlisted recently and who have been placed in the Reserve will receive the bounty alluded to by the Prime Minister. I was interrupted yesterday in a speech in which I was defending my Department. I do not wish that to be an unspoken speech. I think I might be allowed to say that the telegram which I read out at Question Time to-day was sent before my hon. and gallant Friend spoke, and I should like to emphasise that in that telegram from the War Office we say it would appear that all officers in charge of depots do not realise that they have full power to make all arrangements for the comfort of the troops by billeting, etc., thereby demonstrating quite obviously that they have had that power in their hands before, and that where arrangements have broken down it was the fault of local officers who were not able to take full appreciation of the situation and the resources at their disposal.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  SUPERANNUATION ACTS.

    COMPASSIONATE GRATUITIES TO DEPENDANTS.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]
    Resolved, "That it is expedient to amend the Superannuation Acts and to make further provision, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, for the grant of compassionate gratuities to the dependants of persons dying whilst in an employment to which Section four of the Superannuation Act, 1887, applies; for the grant of superannuation and other allowances and gratuities to persons who have forfeited their right thereto by reason of transfer to non-pensionable service; and for the increase of the amount of pension, superannuation, and other allowances and gratuities payable in cases to which Section two of the Superannuation Act, 1909, and Section seven of the Superannuation Act, 1887, apply."—[Mr. Montagu.]
    Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

    POLICE CONSTABLES (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time"
    Mr. CAVE: I want to raise a point on Clause 2. The first Sub-section of the Clause provides for constables who have been non-commissioned officers and who re-enlist, and the second Sub-section provides for constables who have not held any rank in the Army and enlist. That is confined to those who have special qualifications. I do not quite understand why it is so confined. I quite appreciate that it is not possible for every constable to leave the police force, and for that reason the whole Clause is dependent upon the consent of the chief officer. If that consent is given I do not quite see why there should not be power given, at all events, to provide pensions for any constable who enlists in the Army or Navy, even though he is not bound to have any special qualification.
    Mr. DENNISS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the word "constable"
    678
    in Sub-section (2) means any constable, or constable as mentioned in the first Subsection, which states clearly that it only applies to those who have been petty officers or non-commissioned officers? That is in the principal portion of the Clause, and it will probably be held by the Courts to govern the rest of the Section, and each judge will probably construe constables there as meaning those who have been petty officers or non-commissioned officers. I think it will be advisable not to let that danger remain in the Bill if by any simple Amendment you can make it quite clear.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Ellis Griffith): It is quite true that Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 is limited to those who have not yet taken any part in either the military or the naval force. The real principle behind the Clause is that we do not think the ordinary police force is a proper recruiting ground; therefore Sub-section (2) is limited to those who in the opinion of the police authority have got special aptitude. If they have special aptitude or special qualifications, even if they have never served in the Army or Navy, they come under the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, "That this House doth immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

    POLICE CONSTABLES (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.

      CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of Section 1 (2) of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914).
      The following Sub-section shall be substituted for Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914:—
      (2) If a man dies or is disabled whilst employed on naval or military service the police authority shall have power to grant to his widow and children or to him pensions and allowances equal to one-half the amount payable out of naval or military funds in pursuance of any Royal Warrant, so however that the total amount receivable from the police authority when added to the

      679
      amount payable from such funds as aforesaid shall not in any case exceed the maximum amount which could have been awarded under the Police Act, 1890, as amended by any subsequent enactment, if the injury had been received by the man in the execution of his duty as a constable without his own default and the injury had not been accidental.
      Amendment made: Leave out the word "a" ["if a man dies"], and insert instead thereof the word "the."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]

      CLAUSE 2.—(Application to Constables who Re-enlist, etc., of Certain Enactments Relating to Police Reservists.)
      (1) If with the consent of the chief officer of police of the force to which he belongs a constable who has been a petty officer or non-commissioned officer reenters the Navy or re-enlists in the Regular Forces for the purposes of the present War, the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, as amended by this Act, Sub-section (5) of Section four of the Police Act, 1890, and Section four of the Police (Superannuation) Act, 1906, shall, subject to the necessary adaptations, apply to him in like manner as they apply to a constable who, being a man belonging to the Naval Reserves or the Army Reserves, has been called out for service during war or any emergency or, as the case may be, on permanent service.
      (2) A police authority may, if they think fit, by order extend the privileges conferred by this Section to any constable who, for the purposes of the present War, enters or enlists in any of His Majesty's naval or military forces, if the police authority are satisfied, after consultation with the Admiralty or Army Council, that the constable possesses qualifications not possessed by ordinary recruits for rendering special service in the Navy or Army, and thereupon this Section, subject to the necessary adaptations, shall apply to the constable.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "re-enters" ["re-enters the Navy or re-enlists"], to insert the words "or has reentered."
      The object of this and the next two Amendments is to put those who have
      680
      already enlisted upon the same terms and the same advantages as those who enlist after the passing of this Bill. Those who are patriotic enough to enlist before the passing of the Bill ought, at any rate, to have the same advantages as those who join after the passing of the Bill.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: After the word "re-enlists" ["re-enters the Navy or re-enlists"] insert the words "or has re-enlisted."—[Mr. Ellis Griffith.]
      In Sub-section (2), after the word "enlist" ["enters or enlists"], insert the words "or has enlisted."
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Bill reported.
      As amended, considered.
      Mr. CAVE: I beg to move, in Clause 2, Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "if the police authority are satisfied, after consultation with the Admiralty or Army Council, that the constable possesses qualifications not possessed by ordinary recruits for rendering special service in the Navy or Army."
      I think these words ought to come out, otherwise the Bill is a deterrent and prevents constables from enlisting.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH(indistictly heard): The object of the Bill is to encourage police officers to enlist. A Bill was passed about a week ago dealing with this subject which did not go far enough in the matter of gratuitous allowances and pensions. This measure extends the Bill of last week, first of all from Reservists to non-Reservists, and it extends it to those who have never been in the Army at all, subject to Sub-section (2). The object of the Amendment is to give the police authority no voice in the matter at all.
      Mr. GAVE: Their consent must be obtained under the first line of the Clause.
      Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not want any consultation with the Admiralty or Army Council. Our view is that although in a certain sense the police force makes an admirable recruiting ground, if a man has never served in the Army or Navy he

      681
      should have some special aptitude or special qualification. We could not have the police force denuded entirely. It would be a very difficult thing to introduce practically a new police force.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Resolved, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
      Bill read the third time, and passed.

    RATES (PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. ROBERT PEARCE: I find that Clause 1 (Extension of Time for Taking Proceedings for Recovery of Rates) ends with the word "unable."
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I shall move an Amendment with respect to that.
    Mr. R. PEARCE: It seems to me that the Clause will not be useful to the rating authorities. I do not see how anyone as the rate-collecting authority can under this Clause postpone proceedings for the recovery of rates. I gather that what we have to contemplate is that the ratepayer would not be able to pay. But if a man is able and willing to pay, this time limit should not operate. I shall be glad to know what answer is to be made with respect to the application of the Clause, for it seems to me that a man who can pay ought to be sued.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If a ratepayer is able to pay, of course he will pay at the proper time, and no question as to making use of the provisions of this Bill will arise. What the local authorities will have to do, if the Bill is passed, will be to give notice to the ratepayer that after a certain time they propose to proceed under the Act, and if there is no reply made to that, proceedings will be taken to prove that this Act would not properly apply in the case of one who is able to pay.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state what would be the effect of the provisions of this Bill in respect of disfranchisement for non-payment of rates?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That question does not arise yet. Before next year's Parliamentary Election comes on a number of points will have to be considered, such as the effect of the receipt of Poor Law relief, and also the effect of non-payment of rates, which under the present law are disqualifications for voting.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Am I wrong in thinking that the Bill would have the effect of immediately disfranchising voters who do not pay their rates within the proper time?
    Mr. DUKE: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the first Clause of the Bill would be a little less ambiguous than it strikes me as being now if the occasion which provides for the extension of the time for proceedings under the Summary Jurisdiction Act were deferred at the request of the ratepayer. As the Clause stands here it is quite certain that there would have to be a trial on a matter of fact, and it might be possible for people to escape payment of rates because it was thought they could not pay. If the right hon. Gentleman would introduce words indicating the reason for the nonpayment of rates, there would be an incontestible definition to which the local authority could easily give effect.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I have endeavoured to follow the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, but I confess that I do not even now quite understand the object of the Bill. It is an exceedingly complicated one. Would not the whole object be gained by taking out a summons and adjourning it for the necessary time? If the local authority does not take proceedings within six months, it has to prove that they were not taken because they were allowing time to persons who were, on account of the War, temporarily unable to pay. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered what would be the effect on the collection of rates in a particular district where the local authority took no steps at all to recover the rates.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In answer to that question I desire to point out that local authorities are most unwilling to take out summonses at the present time in cases where they know that persons are not in a position to pay rates, and I am informed by the Municipal Corporations Association and others that in many cases they would prefer to forego the rates rather than seem to take action against people in their own town who are quite unable to pay rates on account of unemployment in consequence of the War. Therefore the postponement of the summons would not meet that particular case. With respect to what was said by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Duke), his suggestion, as I understand, is that the Bill should provide for the postponement of proceedings at the request of the ratepayer. If that were put into an Act of Parliament I am afraid there would be a presumption in the mind of the local authority that if a request was made by a ratepayer then proceedings ought to be postponed. We have to be exceedingly careful not to allow people who ought to pay to escape payment. We should be very careful not to give them an opportunity of claiming that, on account of the War, they were not in a position to pay. The essential thing is to get in as much from the rates as possible, and this Bill has been drafted with that important consideration in view. The mainspring of the Bill is that it should be proved that the institution of proceedings has been deferred, that is to say, by the local authority, for the purpose of allowing time to persons who are unable, for the reasons specified, to pay rates for the time being. If you transfer the moving force from the local authority to the ratepayer you might be doing a great deal of harm from the point of view of the financial stability of our local authorities, and that is the reason why the words in the Bill do not give an option to the ratepayer.
    Sir FREDERICK LOW: I think the real difficulty in the matter raised by hon. Members on the other side arises out of the use of the word "proved." I would suggest that Clause 1 should be amended by leaving out the word "proved," and that it should refer only to the determination of the local authority to defer proceedings.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I think this Bill follows on the Bill recently passed with regard to the relief of tenants as to payment of rent. In that Bill relief was given to tenants as to payment of rent, and when we discussed it the other evening the Attorney-General promised that the matter of rates would be considered. I take it that this Bill is the result of that consideration, that is to say, that where a tenant does not pay rent, then, if the owner of the property proves that such rent has not been paid on account of the War, he can claim relief from payment of rates for the time being. In the usual case the owners of property are sued for payment of rates, and a very large number are summoned as a matter of course. I should think that relief from payment of rates would be given under this Bill in cases where the owners of property can show that they have not received rent in consequence of the tenant not being able to pay—in other words, the payment would be deferred beyond the six months. I should like to have the view of the Attorney-General or the President of the Local Government Board on this question. Does the Bill mean that where the owner of property does not receive rent in consequence of the tenant being unable to pay rent on account of the War, and that where he can show, when summoned, if he is summoned, that such rent was not paid, he can get relief from payment of rates? In many cases which I know corporations, rural district councils, and urban district councils would not issue summonses in that case. I believe they would take the circumstances into consideration and postpone the putting of pressure on the owner. Since the discussion took place recently a very large number of people, owners of property, have been considering the legislation passed by Parliament. A very large number have become alarmed with regard to the former Bill. Although they do not object to the principle of the Bill, they think that where rents are not paid in consequence of the War consideration should be given to them in the meantime as to the non-payment of rates, and also in regard to non-payment of Income Tax. I think this Bill will meet the point with regard to the payment of rates, and I should like to hear from the Attorney-General whether it does so or not.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to move, "That this House doth now resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: In my view we are making a mistake in proceeding with too great haste with these emergency Bills. The true course to have taken in this case would be to have repealed the Bill passed lately and brought in a proper Bill this week. Instead of that the course which we are pursuing produces all sorts of patchwork legislation which will lead to confusion later on. It is the undue haste with which we are proceeding that produces the necessity for these amending Bills.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would suggest that in the strictest sense this is an emergency Bill. If it is to be passed at all it must be passed either to-day or within the next few days, for the reason that certain rates become payable in a very short time from now. The rates struck in April are now payable, and the local authorities will either have to take proceedings within the six months which the law allows them or they may have to forego their chance of getting the rates altogether. The matter is a very urgent one. It would arise in municipalities throughout the countries within a very few weeks from the present time. This Bill simply puts the district rates on the same footing as the poor rates. The limitation of six months within which proceedings must be taken does not now apply to poor rate.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALY: The circumstances are different in Ireland.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: This Bill does not apply to Ireland. There is not the six months' limit in Ireland. It is urgently necessary so far as England and Wales are concerned. In reference to the municipal franchise, the scope of the Bill does not allow it in any case to be dealt with under this Bill. In any case no one can be worse off from the passage of this Bill, because the worst that can happen to anyone would be that proceedings against him for the payment of rates will be postponed, and, whether this Bill is passed or not, I am inclined to think that a person
    686
    is entitled to vote in a municipality if he is on the register. The register for the next municipal election is now being made up, and this does not affect it. Before next year's register is made up it will be necessary to consider this and several other points.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I do not propose to discuss the municipal franchise, but I think that this Motion is an abuse of Parliamentary procedure. I think that it ought to be an extremely rare Motion, made only when the Government are satisfied that the national safety urgently required the House to dispense with its customary form. The Explosives Bill, 1882, was the last Bill passed in this way. There is no reason why Bills of this kind should be dealt with to-day and should not go through their ordinary stages, taking the Second Reading to-day and the Committee stage to-morrow.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: There is no sitting to-morrow.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: The Committee stage can be taken on Monday. There is no reason why the ordinary procedure should not be followed. It is not a question of the defence of the Realm. The Motion which is now proposed is one which should not he brought forward, save in very exceptional circumstances, when the public safety urgently requires it.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order. As the right hon. Gentleman has just stated that there will be no sitting of the House to-morrow, you yourself, in reference to Supply, said "Report to-morrow." I have understood the practice of the House to be that that amounted to an Order fixing a sitting of the House for the day in question.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It means that if the House sits to-morrow those matters will be on the Orders of the Day, but it does not prevent the House subsequently determining to adjourn from to-day until Monday. If it does so, of course those Orders will be automatically put on from to-morrow till Monday.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Then the old practice of the House has changed.
    Mr. KING: I support the point of view of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford

    687
    University. It seems to me quite unnecessary to proceed with the Committee stage of this Bill at present. We have got several days before us. I would like especially to point out that it may affect in a very important way the registration of voters. That is a matter which should not arise and it is quite unnecessary.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The Government has been proceeding with these measures under a somewhat exceptional procedure with the general concurrence of the whole House, and as apparently three hon. Members desire this Bill to be postponed until Monday and perhaps other Members of the House also desire this course to be followed, and as I cannot in candour pretend that it is necessary to pass this Bill to-day rather than on Monday, I will gladly meet the wishes of the hon. Members in question and withdraw the Motion now before the House.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Gulland.]

    CHARITIES (EMERGENCY) BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: When this measure was introduced several hon. Members asked to be furnished with a list of charities which were to be affected. I have been in further consultation with the Charity Commissioners upon the subject. They have informed me that there are in this country probably over 50,000 charities, a number of which—how many I cannot say—are probably derelict, the reason in most cases being that the conditions which were embodied in the original trust cannot now be fulfilled owing to circumstances having changed with the lapse of time, and that the funds, often very small, are not now being applied to any purpose at all. They are accumulating in many cases. When these charities come to the notice of the Charity Commissioners they propose new schemes. It always takes a con-
    688
    siderable time to make new schemes. The suggestion was that, in the interval, the incomes from these charities, where the charities can be ascertained, should be devoted to the Prince of Wales' Fund. That seemed to me to be a very good proposal. They say now, however, that they cannot state how many of these charities are concerned, or where they are situated, because it is only more or less by something in the nature of a public advertisement that they get into communication with the trustees to ascertain which of these charities should be dealt with under this Bill. I have suggested to the Charity Commissioners that, in my view, it would meet the desire of the House of Commons if, instead of passing the Bill first and ascertaining the charities afterwards, they were to ascertain the charities first by means of some public communication, such as they thought of making if the Bill passed, and that then, when we saw precisely what was the scope of the operation concerned, we should then proceed with the Bill. The Charity Commissioners have readily acceded to that suggestion, and I propose, therefore, not now to proceed with this Bill. The Charity Commissioners will make their inquiries, and when the House meets again—this is not, of course, an urgent matter—I hope that they will be in a position to furnish us with more complete information, when no doubt the House of Commons will be ready to enact the legislation that may be properly required.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: I was very glad to hear the statement of the President of the Local Government Board. I might call attention to a rather strange thing in the Bill. The opening of Clause 1 says:
    "In the case of any charity not being a charity for solely educational purposes."
    If the charities which it is contemplated to deal with are really derelict, there is no use in saying that charities solely for educational purposes should be omitted. If the reason given for this Bill is that the money cannot be used for any other purpose, and that therefore it should be given to the Prince of Wales' Fund, why should we have any exception in favour of educational charities? Ill-natured people may have their suspicions aroused by a Clause

    689
    like that. If the Bill were proceeded with I should not be prepared to admit that educational charities are the only ones which should be omitted. Either the Charity Commissioners intend to lay hands on money which is not theirs, and give it to this charity, or there is no meaning in excluding educational charities. If they want to exclude educational charities there is no reason why they should not exclude all charities.
    Mr. KING: I expect that the reason why educational charities are excluded is because they are under the Board of Education and not under the Charity Commissioners. That compels me to ask whether a similar Bill is in contemplation for educational charities. The point is a very important one, because at the present time there are many educational charities which are inapplicable owing to the legislation of 1902. A few years ago there was a Departmental Committee of the Board of Education which recommended legislation to deal with these charities, which are now free to be used for educational purposes. That legislation has never been brought about, and at the present time there are charities amounting to something like £50,000 a year under the Board of Education, many of which are being accumulated. I think that we ought to know from the Treasury Bench whether any legislation in reference to these charities is also contemplated.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the course which he has taken. I agree with him that there is no real emergency about this Bill, and that, therefore, we ought to proceed carefully with this. I would point out a little error into which I think he has fallen. He stated that the object of this Bill was to dispose, for the time being, of certain incomes from charities. If he looks at the Bill he will see that it includes the accumulation; and, further, it says any income which
    "cannot usefully be applied."
    That is a very vague phrase. It goes very far beyond derelict charities. If passed in its present form the Bill would give the Charity Commissioners and trustees power to use an income which in their opinion could not usefully be applied to the charity
    690
    and the accumulations thereof. That is going a great deal too far. As the right hon. Gentleman proposes to postpone proceeding with the Bill, perhaps he will think over the point which I have raised, and consider whether or not it cannot be remedied.
    Mr. DUKE: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether it is consistent with the public interest at the present time to discharge an obligation which falls upon the country now by reason of our existing circumstances—by spreading a wide net and drawing in money from sources which were never intended to be applied to our present necessities.
    Mr. PETO: I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that these local charities, which are said to be in many cases derelict, have one common feature, that they were intended, for the most part, for the relief of local distress. Therefore, instead of putting in the words "Prince of Wales' National Relief Fund," I think you would be more likely to get a ready response in regard to these local charities if you worded the Bill so that it would provide for the relief of local distress under the Prince of Wales' National Relief Fund. If the Charity Commissioners are going to make use of those charities they should make it clear that they will be used for the relief of local distress in accordance with their original object. I agree with the observation which has fallen from other hon. Members, that we ought to be very careful, in carrying out legislation of this kind, to see that, so far as possible, it complies with the intention of those who founded the charities and made the original benefaction.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I approve of adjourning the consideration of this Bill, and I hope that we have heard the last of it to-day. There is a certain amount of humour in some of these emergency Bills, which cast an extraordinary sidelight on certain Government offices. Here we have the Charity Commissioners telling us that there are some 50,000 charities, a large number of which—they cannot say how many—are derelict, and of which the income has been accumulating. They cannot give the names of those charities nor

    691
    where they are. It has been said that a large number of people are interested in them, and they want to avoid their getting into the clutches of the Charity Commissioners. It looks suspiciously like as if the Commissioners desired to get hold of these charities, of which they do not know the names nor the trusts, and therefore are anxious to have this Bill passed. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University asked why education charities were to be excluded. The reason is that if they were brought in they would not come within the domain of the Charity Commissioners at all, and they would come under the Board of Education, which apparently has not joined in this proposal under the Bill. I think the Charity Commissioners should show a greater knowledge of the 50,000 charities, and that we should know a little more as to why these funds are to be taken. I do not think that advantage should be taken of this emergency to bring forward such an extraordinary Bill as that which is before us at the present time.
    Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
    Question put, and agreed to. Debate accordingly adjourned; to be resumed upon Monday next.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNER: I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether he will consider Clause 3; which gives power to the Board of Trade to apply for a receiver in certain cases. I wish to urge upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the propriety of the Board of Trade consulting with those for whose business a receiver is to be appointed as to the character of the appointment to be made. No doubt, in some cases, these businesses will be bonâ-fide businesses carried on for the benefit of our country, and it is important that the appointment of a receiver should be so carried out by the Board of Trade as to result in securing somebody who is approved by the company, and who has some
    692
    knowledge of its business and how to carry it on, paying due regard to good administration and the interests of all concerned. I would like to know whether it is possible to put in words which would ensure that object being achieved.
    Sir J. D. REES: I desire to ask a question, the answer to which may render it unnecessary for mc to move a new Clause. The question is, why there is no definition in the Bill of "alien enemy," and why it excludes an alien enemy resident and exclusively trading in this country? There are before the country two definitions of "alien enemy," and it seems to me, under present circumstances, that it is somewhat inconvenient. By Sub-section (2) of Clause I the matter is to be dealt with by Proclamation, but the draft of the Proclamation did not accompany the Votes this morning. I understand the document is to be found in the daily papers, but a Member of Parliament is not bound to read the daily papers or take one in, and he should know from official sources what are the intentions and powers of the Bill. I understand that trading with an alien enemy is to be trading in this country if such alien enemy has received a licence. If I am right in that, would it not be desirable to have a definition of the words "alien enemy" in the Bill?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): The hon. Member for the Everton Division called attention to Clause 3 of the Bill, and pointed out that, in regard to the powers to be exercised by the Board of Trade under that Clause, cases may arise where it is desirable that the receiver to be appointed should be a person thoroughly conversant with the business in respect to which he is appointed, and a proper person to discharge the duties of receiver. Under a proper Clause I think that would be so. Obviously, we must take security that the person appointed is a person who will be able to discharge his duties properly under the Clause. I certainly will make it my business to communicate this view to the Board of Trade, in order that all proper steps may be taken to see that the person appointed is not necessarily, or always, one of a comparatively small list of persons whom the Board of Trade are

    693
    accustomed to appoint, but will include a wider circle of equally responsible and equally experienced persons, who may command the confidence of the particular business which is sought to be administered. I think that would be a fair way to deal with that. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) did not do justice to the efforts which have been made to meet the convenience of Members of the House. If his memory serves him, he will recollect that I pointed out that there was one Proclamation in actual existence at the present time, and that the second one, at the time I was speaking, was being issued, but that it would not be possible to circulate it with the papers. However, I stated that the document would be found first thing this morning at the Vote Office, and I took steps to get some 500 copies sent there for the convenience of hon. Members. In the second place, the hon. Gentleman spoke as though this Bill used the expression "alien enemy." The Bill contains no such expression, on the contrary, it avoids it; we have been careful to avoid using it, and have confined it to the use of the word "enemy." We cannot define it further for this reason. I am sure that those who have considered the matter will agree that if we are going to maintain the common law it is better not, at the same time, to try to define it, and I have not the slightest doubt that the common law will be found to apply to trading with the enemy, and I do not see any other way of doing it. I quite sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's desire to get the matter made definite and clear, but I do not think it can be done by introducing a comment or glossary on the common law of this country.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is it not a quite unusual thing to have nothing whatsoever in the Bill of what may appear in the Proclamation?
    Sir J. SIMON: That is also a matter which was gone into yesterday. I do not think it very unusual. I think it was generally agreed by the House that a matter of this sort, involving consequences so important to the application of the machinery of our trade, is best dealt with by reserving a power of adjustment which may be varied from time to time.
    694
    Of course, no prosecution can take place under this Bill unless the Attorney-General approves, and I hope it will be taken from me that there would be no proceeding on a mere technicality under a Proclamation which may not be clearly known to the public. In view of the difficulties I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider this the best course to be taken.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: This Bill has only just been printed, and a very important Bill it is, and as far as it goes I think it may be considered all right; but it leaves out one of the very most important things which is exercising the minds of the people in this country at the present time. It leaves out of consideration altogether the case of the limited company which if trading as a private firm would be absolutely alien and a company with which no one in this country could deal, but by registering themselves as a company they continue to carry on business. If we are to carry on war against any nation ruthlessly because that nation is carrying on war against us, then we ought to attack their trade in every form we can. I think that must be common sense, for the sooner you destroy their trade the sooner you destroy their army. One is as important as the other, and one leads a great deal further very often than the other The Bill deals with firms or companies which immediately before or any time since the commencement of the present War were subjects of or carrying on business in a State for the time being at war with His Majesty. And it deals also with the case of a company more than one-third of whose issued capital immediately before or at any time since the commencement of the War was held by persons or subjects of any State for the time being at war with His Majesty, but there is no dealing at all with limited companies where the preponderating shares are held by that alien company. There is no provision for the case of a limited company where the whole of the shares, except perhaps the necessary signatures, are held by that company.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: "Held by a foreign company."
    Mr. POLLOCK: A slight verbal alteration is all you want.
    Mr. HENDERSON: This Bill makes no provision for what I want to see done.
    Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps the hon. Member would be kind enough to indicate what it is he wants done, and then I shall understand.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I think this Bill ought to provide for the stopping of fresh business, the same as was done in the case of the Dresdner Bank, and the Deutsche Bank. I will take an example. The Allgemeine Electricitas-Gesellschaft, the biggest electrical company in the whole world, has the principal contract for the electrification of the Brighton Railway. About the time of the War that company registered a company in England with 30,000 shares, of which they held 29,993, and they registered this company for the express purpose of keeping their business alive here. I protest. Here is an alien company, and an alien firm, and I say if the Dresdner and Deutsche Banks are to be stopped doing business, though, of course, a receiver is put in, it must be right in the case of this other company. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] Why not? Here is a limited company of foreigners, though technically it is not so, since they have covered themselves by this process to enable themselves to do that which as a private firm they could not have done. Therefore, I say I shall put down an Amendment, and I hope there will be a full House to support it, that the same measure may be meted out to this company, the overwhelming bulk of whose shares are held in Germany, as has been meted out to the Dresdner and Deutsche Banks. The whole business of this company, or a large portion of it, is honeycombed with this thing. This company have protected themselves by registering, while the bulk of the shares are held in Düsseldorf, Berlin, and other places in Germany. If it is right that the German banks should be stopped from trade, then it is equally right that this company, which is absolutely and undoubtedly simply a German company which has covered itself by registration under the Limited Liabilities Act, should also be stopped.
    I shall put down an Amendment to see if that cannot be done, although I dare say it may be a little difficult to do, but it was
    696
    done in the case of the two banks. It may be said that no profits can go now. It is not necessary for the profits to go. The Attorney-General said yesterday or the day before that if profit was accruing it was equally the same thing. I will tell the House what Germans are doing with regard to that. I saw to-day a letter from a German firm saying, "You owe us £26. We know we cannot collect the money, but be kind enough to sign this document that the amount is owed by you." That is enough, as it is as good as any cheque, and they take it to the bank and get credit for it. They are very, very artful. Another part of this Bill refers to trading with a foreigner directly. I will tell you what they have done. At the present moment this country has never declared copper to be contraband of war, and yet copper is as much contraband of war as lyddite or any explosive. You cannot make a shell without a copper ring, not one. The annual consumption of copper in Holland is 600 tons per year. There are 1,600 tons of copper going in through Holland at this moment—and where are they going? Transhipped on to barges on the Rhine and sent to Düsseldorf, and on to Krupps, where they cannot make a single shell without copper. We ought to be able to stop that. If you stop the making of ammunition you help just as much as by defeating a battalion or an Army Corps. This Bill ought not to go through to-day. I shall not oppose the Second Reading, but I shall put down an Amendment which will deal with firms which are practically and ostensibly, and without any concealment, German firms carrying on business in this country under the aegis of our Limited Liabilities Act just as much as if they were private firms.
    Mr. DUKE: One cannot fail to appreciate the impulses which have moved the appeal of the hon. Member, but I hope His Majesty's Government is not going to be moved by those impulses into doing something which if the hon. Member's proposals were carried out would be a tremendous blow at industry and employment in this country. I will give the House one or two instances. The hon. Member has referred to one instance, but there are many others. One of the companies engaged in the electrical industry in this country employs more than 1,000, or, I

    697
    think, more than 2,000 workmen, or, at all events, an enormous body of British workmen. It is carrying on its industry in this country for the purposes of this country. It is an existing organisation, and I think it may be truly said, if you confiscate the property, the alien interest in the property, and destroy the trade as it exists now, the sole result would be to dislocate, for the time, at any rate, a critical time, the industry of the company in which the sole concern of this country is that it should be carried on here, that it should be prosperous here, and that it should provide employment here.
    I will give the House and the hon. Member, without the name, another case which is within my own knowledge, and which offends grossly against the principles the hon. Member proposes to lay down. I have in my mind the case of a company carrying on a manufacturing business in England which was organised originally by Englishmen, and in which the business was acquired by German capital, and in which all that exists at the present time of a British character is the incorporation. The incorporation is a mere shell for an organisation in which German capital down to the time of the War, and German management, and German control were all in all. The hon. Member's proposal, as I understand it, would be to make that an illegal undertaking and to destroy it, and, I suppose, to confiscate it. I am not sure whether the hon. Member proposes that we in this country should confiscate that industry, and that it should become public property, or whether he proposed that it should be summarily stopped.
    Mr. HENDERSON: I want to propose that it be stopped the same as the Dresdner Bank. You did not confiscate the property in that case, you only stopped the business.
    Mr. DUKE: It may be said that during the War it would be stopped, but you cannot in an ordinary business stop the business for the period of a war, for that is an end of it. The immediate result of a stoppage, and the only result during the War would be to put in this particular case 1,400 skilled workmen living here in London out of their employment.
    Mr. HENDERSON: It would give employment elsewhere.
    Mr. DUKE: Is the hon. Member ready to offer these skilled workmen that employment, although he does not know their whereabouts or the industry in which they are engaged. I am not sure that his speech was not actuated by as great readiness to undertake untold liabilities. To undertake an operation of that kind I am quite sure would be contrary to the public interest, and would not be consonant with the objects which the hon. Member or any of us have in view. What is the position with regard to these concerns. Proclamations have been issued prohibiting, as the common law does, all kinds of communication between those who conduct this business in this country, and those beyond the seas who, down to the time of the War, were the proper controllers of that business. The business is as isolated from them as though they were put out of existence. The common law lays it down, and the Proclamation makes it plain to every person concerned that to communicate any matters of business to those who were the controllers of that concern beyond the seas, or to communicate any money or any goods to them would be a criminal offence, and nothing of the kind will be done. What is the state of things? While the War goes on, this business will be carried on as an English concern. If this Bill becomes law, His Majesty's Government may step in promptly and may ascertain all the transactions of that concern, and by means of an English receiver exercise control over it to see that if the Englishmen who were and are legitimately in charge, were neglectful of their duty as citizens of this country, then the State should see that no harm was done by the carrying on of that which is a necessary business. That is the state of things during the War. The business is carried on as though it were an English business. The common law, reinforced by this Statute, will prevent any proceeds of that business going out of this country. I sincerely trust that His Majesty's Government will have the courage to go a little further in the same direction.
    It has occurred to me, and probably to many others, that in the present state of public affairs His Majesty's Government

    699
    might well set at rest many questions by providing by Statute or otherwise an administrator of all these alien interests, by seeing that those alien interests are for the time being under the control of the Grown, which is entitled to control them, which has, as I believe, and I think lawyers generally believe, a latent power to appropriate to public uses in this country everything concerned in these industries belonging to alien enemies, Nobody desires to go to that desperate and extreme length, at any rate at this time, but His Majesty's Government might take a course of that kind consistently with this Bill. This is an emergency Bill. It is directed to assist, not alien enemies, but business men in this country, those who advise and control manufactures and industries, and to make the road clear for the carrying on of British industry. I view the Bill with great satisfaction. I believe it has been prepared with extreme care. No man can say after one or two readings of a document of this kind that there is no point requiring further consideration; but the care of the law advisers of the Crown and the draftsman is conspicuously present in the Bill. It is a measure which I believe when hon. Members consider it will be seen to be directed not to protecting, sheltering, and nourishing any enemy, whether at home or abroad, but to the necessary uses of commerce and industry in this country, and the necessary guidance of business men. I hope, if I may respectfully say so, that His Majesty's Government will be encouraged in the passing of legislation of this kind.
    Sir FREDERICK LOW: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) that it is of great importance with regard to industries carried on in this country, that no feeling of patriotism or feeling that it is necessary to suppress every kind of foreign interest, should imperil the employment of people working here. There are, to the knowledge of every person with any experience of business, a great number of undertakings in this country which are being carried on under foreign control, and to a large extent with foreign capital, but which still give a vast amount of employment here. The Bill as prepared, I
    700
    think, fully covers these cases, and I am glad that it is not of the confiscatory nature that some speakers would seem to desire For my part, I entirely welcome the Bill. One or two points may require further consideration, but, as a whole, I think the Bill most admirably provides for those matters which, in the present position of affairs, have to be provided for in relation to the question with which we are dealing.
    Mr. PETO: This is a matter in regard to which I particularly desire to ask the Attorney-General some questions. First let me thank him for having had copies of the Proclamation placed in the Vote Office. I only wish that the Bill were as plain and as easy to understand as the Proclamation is. It would be very much easier for the trading community. I know that this question concerning companies in which there is a preponderating enemy shareholding is exercising a great many legal minds. I am quite sure that the public at large are most anxious to do nothing that would entail the wages fund of those companies being stopped, diverted, or interfered with. But there is naturally a great deal of anxiety lest, when orders are placed with a company in which 90 per cent. of the shareholding is in the City of Berlin, it should be possible, sooner or later, in meal or in malt, by deferred payment after the War, if not during the War, for these wealthy shareholders in Berlin to get the profits of the industry which accrue during the War. I have read Clause 2 with a good deal of attention, and I find the case dealt with under Sub-section 2 (b)—
    "In the case of a company, that more than one third of the issued share capital or of the directorate of the company immediately before or at any time since the commencement of the present War was held by or consisted of persons who were subjects of, or resident or carrying on business in, a State for the time being at war with His Majesty."
    That is quite clear. What happens? It appears to me that in such a case the Board of Trade takes special powers to make a short cut, without the intervention of a magistrate, to investigate affairs, and no more. What are they going to do? What is the policy of the Government? Have they any means in mind by which

    701
    they believe they will be able to secure the wages to people in this country and yet prevent the profits from going to the enemy? That is really what we want, but Clause 2 does not do it. It says how the investigation is to be made, but it does not give us the slightest idea of what the Government are going to do if they find that 90 per cent. of the shareholders are in Berlin. It is an incomplete Bill unless we have some indication from the Attorney-General that he has in mind some practical steps which will secure to the working classes the wages with which we do not want to interfere, and at the same time make sure that the profits which accrue during the War will not go to the benefit of the enemy.
    Mr. BOOTH: I hope the Government will not yield too readily to amendments such as my hon. Friend (Mr. J. M. Henderson) has suggested. To stop immediately the work of German electrical firms, as the hon. and learned Member for Exeter pointed out, may inflict great damage upon working people here. I have a case before me where a German firm is erecting a machine, the first of its kind in this country. It is almost finished, but can only be finished by German skilled workmen who know the machine. No English workman knows it, and there is no completed machine working in this country to be taken as a model. For anyone to say that that must be stopped, and that the thousand workmen who will be thrown out of employment must go to my hon. Friend to find work—
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I must protest. I did not include any existing contracts. I referred to future business.
    Mr. BOOTH: The hon. Member used the illustration of the banks. That is to stop business instanter.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Banks are not made to stop business instanter. A receiver is put in to see that they do not take any fresh business, but only finish the contracts which they had taken up before the War.
    Mr. BOOTH: My hon. Friend may think that in the case to which I have referred the putting in of a Government official, receiver, or liquidator will finish this
    702
    German machine, but it will not. It requires one or two German experts. What is the object of getting the machine finished? Not to send money to Germany; it will not be sent. The finishing of that machine in the West Riding of Yorkshire is vital to the employment of hundreds of men whose families have to be supported. I put that as a case in my knowledge. I think we are much better in the hands of the Government, the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke), and the hon. and learned Member for Norwich (Sir Frederick Low), than in dealing with manuscript Amendments suggested by my hon. Friend.
    6.0 P.M.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I hope the Attorney-General will proceed with this Bill to-night. There seems to be very common agreement that the Bill is necessary, and I do not think that the suggestions of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen ought to make us hesitate to pass the Committee stage to-night. This Bill is really the complement of the Proclamation issued last night and published this morning. In order to carry out the Proclamation to its logical and legitimate conclusion we ought to pass this Bill as rapidly as possible. I appreciate the point put by the hon. Member, but he is looking at only one aspect of the matter. Provided the business is done by a company which is an English company, although the capital may be owned by Germans and its directors may be largely Germans, if it is an English business filling up a gap in the present commerce in England the business ought to go on. If there is any attempt to remit to the enemy any money from that company that is met by the Proclamation of this morning, and the result will be that the German masters, or German shareholders, will not be able to get the fruits of the business. Many concrete cases have been given. If you do not pass the Bill in its present form, if you attempt to stop business which is now carried on, you will take away the possibility, not only of private persons, but of the Government themselves being supplied with very necessary material for providing details of muniments of war. I am familiar with at least two or three concerns in the county of Warwickshire where a large number of workmen are employed

    703
    to make detailed portions of electrical apparatus which have to be passed on to other electrical apparatus makers to be completed. If you stop the work done in Warwickshire, you will necessarily stop the completing work carried on in other parts of the country. The shares of a particular company that I have in mind are very largely held in Germany, and a good many of the directors are probably Germans. If you stop that, you only clog wheels which require to run as smoothly as possible, and actually prevent munitions of war being obtained by this country. That is an aspect which must not be forgotten. While you regard with natural patriotic dismay the prospect of the enemy hereafter reaping any reward from commercial activity, you must remember that at the present time it is essential to carry on business and not to put difficulties in the way of commercial activities which are largely required and fostered by the Government themselves. The point which the hon. Member for West Aberdeen has raised may be met by a very slight Amendment in Committee, and inasmuch as the Clauses which are possibly subject to Amendment are very few, I hope the Attorney-General will proceed at once, in order that we may pass this Bill, which, as I have said, is the necessary compliment to the Proclamation.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is a Bill which is limited to making provision in respect of penalties for trading with an enemy, and for purposes connected therewith. The main object of the Bill is to provide for easy penalties, and an easy means of enforcing the law, as it is outside the Bill, The law outside the Bill is partly common law, and partly the result of the Proclamation which has been issued by virtue of the Royal prerogative. The very interesting question raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, which has been debated, is as to what constitutes trading with an enemy. This is a subject outside this Bill, important though it be. This is a Bill which, in my humble judgment, simply recognises the existing position in this country, and proposes certain remedies to enable the Government to apply the Proclamation and the common
    704
    law of the land. I submit that it is highly desirable that this Bill should be proceeded with. It is very simple in its character, and very limited in its scope, and it should be forthwith disposed of to-night. If the subject which was raised is one that ought to be dealt with, it should be dealt with in a different Bill, and after further explanation.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I take it that the hon. Member's point of Order is this: Will it be an order in Committee to alter the Bill in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdeen?
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: In effect, Sir, it is that, because I was under the impression that the Attorney-General was going to defer to the suggestion that this was a subject for discussion in Committee, and was therefore not going to take the Committee stage to-night. If my point of Order is right, the matter is outside the Committee stage?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That point of Order must be taken in Committee when that stage is reached. But for the information of the House I think I may say, that so far as I understand the question of the hon. Member, he is quite right; the title of the Bill precludes Amendment arising on the point.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: It is, I think, within the scope of the Bill to say that this Bill shall only apply to certain businesses existing at the present time, which would meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen. This is a Bill which deals with procedure undoubtedly, and which gives exceptional power to the Government to deal with offences against the common law, and it would be an order to limit, if necessary, that power to certain offences, and not to the whole of the offences at common law at the present time.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: On Second Reading we are, I think, entitled to take rather a wider range than that allowed in Committee, and perhaps the point of Order raised should be left as you suggested just now, and the further points taken in Committee?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Whoever may be Chairman of the Committee can

    705
    deal with the matter, but the House appears to require a little guidance on the broad question. We do on the Second Reading of the Bill, allow suggestions to be made that something ought to be in the Bill which is not in it, or that it goes further than hon. Members like, but when we come to the Committee stage the Chairman cannot accept Amendments which are outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: There are two points of the Bill to which I want to refer shortly. The first is in regard to the points discussed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leamington, in regard to these companies which are English companies, and the capital and directorate of which are mostly held by alien enemies. I am perfectly clear that nobody wants to stop business being carried on; no one in this House wants that. But the question which I directed to the Board of Trade was not in any sense directed towards stopping English works. My point goes a little bit further than the point raised by the hon. Member for Leamington. He seems to think it is sufficient if under the Common Law, or under the provisions of the Proclamation, dividends are not sent out of this country. I think that we want to go a step further. In regard to some of these companies, I think you require to be perfectly clear where public work for the War Office or for the Admiralty is being done, not that the profits only are not taken out of the country, but that official secrets are not taken out of the country; that the work being done will be properly done—with German brains, if you like—for I am quite willing to take advantage of German brains in this vast electrical industry—and I would be one of the first to admit all that our country owes to German brains in this respect.
    When, however, we know that several of these large electrical engineering firms which to-day are doing work for the British Admiralty are in touch with the secrets of the inside of our ships, it is essential that the Board of Trade should go a step further, and that Clause 3 of this Bill should not be utilised merely by the appointment of a receiver, and the prevention of the dividends going out of the country, but that where there is reason
    706
    to suppose that Government business is being done by these thinly veiled German firms—however desirable it may be from the workman's point of view to keep them in existence—that there should be a receiver, or some control, or a Government official of some kind appointed to take charge of these concerns, working through the existing management to see that nothing detrimental to the interests of this country is done. That can be easily done without interfering with the work, as suggested by the hon. Member for Pontefract just now, for no one wants to interfere with the workmen, but we do not want Government secrets and ideas to get out to our alien enemies at the present time. The next point is one which arises both on the Bill and on the Proclamation. The Bill, I take it, is to provide for the punishment of offences under the Proclamation, and, of course, under the common law. If the learned Attorney-General will look at Clause 5, Sub-section (6) of the Proclamation, dealing with the question of insurance, he will see that it reads:—
    "Not to make or enter into any new marine, life, fire or other policy, or contract or insurance with or for the benefit of an enemy; nor to accept or give effect to any insurance of, any risk arising under any policy or contract of insurance (including re-insurance) made or entered into with, or for the benefit of, an enemy before the outbreak of war."
    The House, of course, knows that an enormous business is done by our insurance companies with re-insurance companies in foreign States, and more particularly in Germany. I do not know whether the House knows that what are called treaties are made as to the actual risk, that in the books of the English company it is entered that such and such a risk has been put into the treaty, and the German company thereby admits, and foreign re-insurance companies admit, merely on the production of the English companies books, that that risk has been taken.
    Mr. BOOTH: And vice versa.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, and the other way about. But under the provisions of this Proclamation, Clause 5, Subsection (6), it seems to me to be perfectly clear that no English insurance company

    707
    having at the moment a treaty with an alien insurance company can do any more insurances of risk with that foreign country. I take it that that is clear. But when I get to the end of the Proclamation and read Clause 6, I find it says:—
    "Provided always that where an enemy has a branch locally situated in British, allied, or neutral territory, not being neutral territory in Europe, transactions by or with such branch shall not be treated as transactions by or with an enemy."
    I want to know what that means? I want to know whether that does not really cut away the whole foundation of the policy of the Bill and of the Proclamation? Nearly every one of these big alien insurance companies have got some kind of branch or office in this country—a mere office with a few clerks, it may be. If these are to be considered as a branch office of the insurance company, and are to go on writing these risks, in accordance with the original treaty made by the alien enemy, the whole use of the earlier part of the Proclamation seems to be out of court. I suggest to the learned Attorney-General that that is a very important point in connection with insurance practice at the present time, and I ask him, in view of the promise of the Prime Minister this afternoon, to explain exactly what is meant by that second part of the Proclamation. Does the Government really desire that English insurance companies are to be able to go on reinsuring their risks with alien companies for the benefit of those alien companies, and that, sooner or later—when the War is over, if you like—the profits of that business, whether accumulated in this branch or not, or whether retained in the coffers of the English company till the War is over, are to be sent to these alien enemies' companies?
    It is a point of vast importance to the City. I will not say that this Bill has been rushed, but the insurance companies have not had much time to look into it, and I do ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a perfectly plain statement as to what the position is. I should like to go further, and impress upon him to make either now or shortly the statement asked for yesterday as to what is the
    708
    legal position in regard to these contracts with aliens. Perhaps he will forgive me for saying that I think he treated my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead rather brusquely yesterday. Doubtless he may have made the remarks he did with his bright smile, but that does not appear in the cold print of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It really looks as if he had told my hon. Friend that he might go outside, and get outside the best advice—
    Sir J. SIMON: No, I was referring to his next-door neighbour.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is not apparent in the OFFICIAL REPORT who that next-door neighbour was. But every lawyer in the City of London, and nearly every commercial man who trades with Europe, is to-day in doubt in regard to this question. There has not been any precedent at all provided us. The unfortunate lawyer—and I am quite sure my barrister Friends will agree with me—has no precedent in England, though there are a few cases in regard to the American War sixty years ago. I have asked the Prime Minister—doubtless the right hon. and learned Gentleman saw my question—that the Law Officers of the Crown should on this occasion go quite outside their usual province and should offer guidance to the vast commercial community of London, who do not know what their position is under these contracts. I have asked that in view of the present situation they should make a statement, so far as they are able to do so—I do not ask the Attorney-General to go further than that—as to what the law is. It is quite clear that the commercial community cannot get any decision from the Law Courts until the War is over; therefore the whole business of London, so far as it concerns alien contracts entered into with German and Austrian merchants prior to the beginning of the War, is to be held up unless we can get some decision of this kind. The Prime Minister this afternoon very kindly said that though it is quite outside the ordinary scope of the Law Officers' duties, he is considering very carefully whether they cannot make some such statement. I venture to appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should create a precedent on this

    709
    occasion. We all know his knowledge of the law, and we should all be perfectly content to be guided by it in the City of London. It would be an inestimable advantage, instead of forcing the commercial community to go to hon. and learned Gentlemen either on this or that side of the House, and get perhaps diametrically opposite opinions, if the Law Officers of the Grown would get together and give to the commercial community the benefit of the very best opinion they can on this very difficult question.
    Sir J. SIMON: With the leave of the House I should like to say one or two words before the Second Reading is put from the Chair. As regards the last matter, to which the hon. Gentleman opposite has referred, I would remind the House that at about a quarter past three the Prime Minister told the hon. Gentleman that the matter was under his consideration, and that being so, he will not expect me, in the absence of the Prime Minister, to make a further statement on that subject at a quarter past six.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is the second question that was asked. Ten days ago it was under consideration.
    Sir J. SIMON: That, obviously, is not a matter that I should be expected to deal with now. Although very important matters have been raised in this Debate, I do not think there is any difference of opinion about this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire put some points which occurred to him. I do not at all take the view that his object and intention are in any way different from the objects and intentions of the rest of us. I am sure he will agree with me that we want, on the one hand, to take every security proper and possible to prevent, in those times of war, the enemy profiting by transactions hero, and, on the other hand, we do not want to take any steps which are going to interfere with British interests or handicap British commerce and employment. My hon. Friend is of the same view. He suggests that certain business which he has in mind might perhaps be dealt with in the manner in which certain foreign banks in London have been dealt with. I shall see that his suggestions are carefully considered. But the foreign banks are not
    710
    dealt with under this Bill or the Proclamation. They are dealt with under the Alien Restriction Act, which the Home Secretary carried through the House a short time back, and therefore the suggestion he makes, if adopted, would have to be carried out under that Act, and do not come within this Act at all. On the other hand, this Bill does go a long way, I think, to give the necessary security. Really, there is not only no disadvantage, but there is a good positive advantage, from some points of view, in treating an enterprise in this country, even if it has got considerable enemy element in its composition, as British. You have this great advantage, that if you are prepared to treat it, since it is established in this country, as British, then if it enters into any commercial transaction or dealings with its parent enterprise in a hostile country it is committing a crime, whereas if you regard it as a foreign enterprise you cannot treat it in that way.
    We cannot lay down the rule that every company registered in this country is to cease business because its directors in a large way are Germans, or that its list of shareholders is largely German. We would rather do this: We treat it as required to observe the same strict law as we observe ourselves, and consequently, if it enters into financial or commercial dealings with the enemy country, it will come under the same penalties as we impose upon another under this Bill. I suggest that is the best way to approach the matter, and in order to carry that out we have, as my hon. Friend has observed, taken power in the Board of Trade to examine books and documents of any enterprise in this country against which such suspicion may arise, and more particularly where its composition is predominantly foreign, in order that we may make quite certain what is the nature of the business which it is carrying on and whether there is any real ground for supposing that they are keeping up communication with the enemy firm; and in the third Clause of the Bill we have taken power to get appointed in proper cases a representative or receiver or manager, or whatever you may call him, who will have the power of seeing that the enterprise is carried on in the way in which it ought to be carried on. I do not think

    711
    this principle ought to be disputed. My hon. Friend's suggestion is one well worthy of consideration, I well understand that he, and everybody else here, puts suggestions forward in the public interests with the real desire to see that our national interests are safeguarded, and I will have them carefully considered from that point of view. If my hon. Friend's suggestion was to be followed out, it would not be under this Bill but under the Aliens Restriction Act. I do not know whether the House will think it right to allow me to get the Committee stage of this Bill now. If there is any opposition in any quarter I should not persist in it, but it would be a convenience to get it now. There is a great deal that has to be done, and if this was out of the way we would be free to deal with other matters, but if there is any opposition I will defer it, because the whole merit of this legislation is that it should command the universal assent of the House. I shall ask for the Second Reading of the Bill now, and unless objection is taken I shall also ask for the Committee stage.
    Mr. PETO: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me whether I am to understand that he does not see any means of preventing profits made by these businesses ultimately going to shareholders who are enemies?
    Sir J. SIMON: I should be very slow to say at present that it would be right either to say or do anything in the nature of confiscation of what is, after all, the private property of others. After all, the adoption of that policy its capable of provoking considerable reprisals. I would rather set the example in the matter by being careful to preserve such property, in order that when the time comes we may be able to come forward with clean hands and inquire what has been the German attitude to our interests in the enemy country. That is my suggestion to the hon. Member, and for that reason it seems to me we do not need to make any change in the Bill in that way. An hon. Member asked a question about insurance. I had my attention called to that difficulty. It may be necessary to make some special prohibition about profits in connection
    712
    with re-insurance, and if the hon. Gentleman will take that answer now I assure him the matter shall not be overlooked.
    Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to a point I raised yesterday. He said yesterday that in contracts for transference of shares which had been entered into before the War it would be possible to make a difference, but the Proclamation definitely says no transaction with regard to shares whenever entered into can be completed. It expressly forbids the completion of transactions with regard to shares. That, therefore, would prevent the completion of the transference of shares. With regard to the question of insurance and the common method by which fire insurance companies work and by which they get a share of the premium of risk, the Proclamation says that new contracts for insurance are not to be entered into. The Attorney-General suggested yesterday that learned counsel might be consulted with regard to what was in the contract of insurance, and whether permanent treaties under insurance were or were not valid after the War. Numbers of eminent counsel have been consulted, and large fees have been paid for their opinions, and they have differed toto cœlo, and I think the Proclamation should be made clear as to whether there was a treaty or whether it is a new contract. If it is an old contract they would be entitled at the end of the War to receive premiums. It is an extremely important point and is exercising the minds of insurance companies all over the country, and it would be a great advantage to have the Attorney-General's opinion on the matter.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I say candidly, and in public, that I have already advised that those re-insurance treaties are dissolved, and that the existence in this country of the agent of the foreign country makes no difference. The business cannot go further on the ground that it is dealing with the enemy, and each new risk is a new contract, and what I call the particular attention of the Attorney-General to is that if this is a sound view Article 6 of the Proclamation must be altered.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Resolved, "That the House doth immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Sir J. Simon.]
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY BILL.

      CLAUSE 1.—(Penalties for Trading with Enemy.)
      (1) Any person who during the present War trades or has, since the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, traded with the enemy within the meaning of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall—

      (a) on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding twelve months, or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine; or

      (b) on conviction or indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven or less than three years or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine;

      and the Court may in any case order that any goods or money in respect of which the offence has been committed, be forfeited.
      (2) For the purposes of this Act a person shall be deemed to have traded with the enemy if he has entered into any transaction or done any act which may have been prohibited by or under any Proclamation issued by His Majesty dealing with trading with the enemy for the time being in force, or which at common law or by Statute constitutes an offence of trading with the enemy:
      Provided that any transaction or act permitted by or under any such Proclamation shall not be deemed to be trading with the enemy.
      (3) Where a company has entered into a transaction or has done any act which is an offence under this Section, every director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company who is knowingly a party to the transaction or act shall also be deemed guilty of the offence.
      (4) A prosecution for an offence under this Section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General:
      Provided that the person charged with such an offence may be arrested and a warrant for his arrest may be issued and executed, and such person may be remanded in custody or on bail notwithstanding that the consent of the Attorney-General to the institution of the prosecution for the offence has not been obtained, but no further or other proceedings shall be taken until that consent has been obtained.
      (5) Where an act constitutes an offence both under this Act and under any other Act, or both under this Act and at common law, the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either this Act or such other Act, or under this Act or at common law, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence.
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "traded" ["traded with the enemy"], to insert the words "directly or indirectly."
      My point is that a great deal of trade is done indirectly through other agents. It is a very common system to employ a Dutch agent to carry out the business of a trading company when the goods are being carried ultimately to the German Empire.
      Sir J. SIMON: If my hon. Friend has got a copy of the Proclamation, he will see, I think, that these words are not needed. There is a distinction. Trading with the enemy in the Bill so far as it depends upon the common law cannot be altered. I cannot alter the common law, but, so far as it depends upon the wording of the Proclamation, it says not only directly or indirectly, but trading for the benefit of.
      Mr. HENDERSON: I have not seen the Proclamation. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "may have been" and to insert instead thereof the words "was at the time such transac-

      715
      tion or had." This is merely a drafting Amendment. The words "may have been" would, perhaps, prove to be ambiguous, and I think it would be much more precise in the way I have suggested.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (4). I wish we had in this country a procurator-fiscal, whose duty it is to take action instead of having to persuade him. A great many prosecutions are dropped altogether by reason of the difficulty of persuading the Attorney-General to take action.
      Sir J. SIMON: If I consulted my own convenience I should accept the Amendment forthwith. It is true that it throws an extra burden upon the Attorney-General, and, of course, I should be very unwilling to add unnecessarily to the list of offences which can only be prosecuted with the consent of the Attorney-General. I ask my hon. Friend, however, to consider that the accusation which would be made under this Bill is the very serious one of behaving treacherously to your own country at a time when everybody is anxious to act in a public spirited way. In such times is it right to allow any malicious person who is able to find a man of straw to start a prosecution, the mere suggestion of which may be sufficient to destroy the reputation and connection of a firm for the time being? Therefore I could not consent to there being no kind of test before such proceedings could be taken. It is for that reason that I think this condition should attach. I am quite certain that in practice there would be no difficulty in getting the consent of the Attorney-General in any case which is based upon a reasonable and businesslike basis.
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: After my right hon. Friend's eloquent address in regard to the duties of the Attorney-General I am convinced against my better judgment. Everybody knows that it is a very difficult matter to get the Attorney-General to move. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Inspect Books and Documents.)
      (1) If a justice of the peace is satisfied, on information on oath laid on behalf of a Secretary of State or the Board of Trade, that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Act has been or is about to be committed by any person, firm, or company, he may issue a warrant authorising any person appointed by a Secretary of State or the Board of Trade and named in the warrant to inspect all books or documents belonging to or under the control of that person, firm, or company, and to require any person able to give any information with respect to the business or trade of that person, firm, or company to give that information, and if accompanied by a constable to enter and search any premises used in connection with the business or trade, and to seize any such books or documents as aforesaid:
      Provided that when it appears to a Secretary of State or the Board of Trade that the case is one of great emergency and that in the interests of the State immediate action is necessary, a Secretary of State or the Board of Trade may, by written order, give to a person appointed by him or them the like authority as may be given by a warrant of a justice under this Sub-section.
      (2) Where it appears to the Board of Trade—

      (a) in the case of a firm, that one of the partners in the firm was immediately before or at any time since the commencement of the present War a subject of, or resident, or carrying on business in, a State for the time being at war with His Majesty; or

      (b) in the case of a company, that more than one-third of the issued share capital or of the directorate of the company immediately before or at any time since the commencement of the present War was held by or consisted of persons who were subjects of, or resident or carrying on business in, a State for the time being at war with His Majesty; or

      (c) in the case of a firm or company, that the firm or company were acting as agents for any person, firm, or company trading or carrying on business in a State for the time being at war with His Majesty;

      717
      the Board of Trade may, if they think it expedient for the purpose of satisfying themselves that the firm or company are not trading with the enemy, by written order, give to a person appointed by them, without any warrant from a justice, authority to inspect all books and documents belonging to or under the control of the firm or company, and to require any person able to give information with respect to the business or trade of that firm or company, to give that information.
      For the purposes of this Sub-section, any person authorised in that behalf by the Board of Trade may inspect the register of members of a company at any time, and any shares in a company for which share warrants to bearer have been issued shall not be reckoned as part of the issued share capital of the company.
      (3) If any person having the custody of any book or document which a person is authorised to inspect under this Section refuses or wilfully neglects to produce it for inspection, or if any person who is able to give any information which may be required to be given under this Section refuses or wilfully neglects when required to give that information, that person shall on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts be liable to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine.
      Amendments made: In Subsection (2) paragraph (b) leave out the words "more than."
      In Sub-section (2) paragraph (b), after the word "one-third," insert the words "or more."—[Mr. Leslie Scott.]
      Mr. POLLOCK: I beg to move, in Subsection (2) paragraph (c), after the word "were," to insert the words "or had been before the 5th August, 1914."
      I want to cover the case where the firm or company, although they have been acting, may have endeavoured to cover up that fact by cancelling the agency. I want to strengthen the Clause by introducing these words. We may get a real agency of a particular kind, and no agent should be able to change the agency by terminating it or pretending that the situation had not existed, which is precisely the state of things we want to get at.
      Sir J. SIMON: I doubt whether the words suggested by my hon. and learned Friend are an improvement, and I think they would have rather a narrowing effect. Before the War began you might have a firm notoriously the agent for some foreign firm, and it might be very proper for the Board of Trade to say that that was the state of affairs before the War began, and that that ought to justify us in investigating their books now.
      Mr. POLLOCK: I quite accept what the Attorney-General has said, and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2) paragraph (c), after the word "were," insert the words "or are."—[Sir J. Simon.]
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "information" ["with respect to the business or trade of that firm or company to give that information"], to add the words "in the case of a firm or limited company where more than two-thirds of the capital issued or of the directorate of the company immediately before or at any time since the commencement of the present War was held by or consisted of persons who were subjects of, or resident or carrying on business in, a state for the time being at war with His Majesty the Board of Trade may appoint an administrator whose duty it shall be to see that the business is carried on without danger to this country."
      I do not want to do away with work for anybody, but I feel that where a company is entirely foreign and alien, where it is all directed by an alien enemy, there ought to be someone to see that the business is carried on without any risk or danger to this country from the fact of the governing body and the initiation of the work of the company originating in an enemy country. The Amendment is designed to see that nothing inimical to the interests of this country is carried on. That is all I want.
      Sir J. SIMON: I hope that my hon. Friend will think that the Bill as it stands goes far enough. I really do not think it is right that we should go further at the moment. I have already pointed out

      719
      that it is possible for us, under the Alien Restrictions Act, to make Orders beyond the Orders that have already been made in the case of banks if it becomes necessary. We propose, in Clause 3, to take powers in certain cases to ask that a receiver should be appointed, and, while I am most anxious to consider the large question which my hon. Friend has raised, and, indeed, it is being considered, I think in a Bill which primarily deals with penalties against trading with the enemy we should not suddenly throw upon the Board of Trade what might practically amount to the public duty of managing every enterprise in this country which has got a predominating foreign directorate or shareholders' list. That is a very considerable addition to add to the work of any Department. If it becomes necessary, I am sure the Department will undertake it, but it is better that we should deal with the matter as far as we can plainly see light at present, and that we should not rather rashly and hastily confer upon the Board of Trade a power which will certainly come to be regarded by many people as an absolute duty to manage a great number of businesses which are very much better managed by the people who have been accustomed to manage them. Surely the real thing is to take adequate measures to prevent any enterprise in this country, such as my hon. Friend is thinking of, from having any communication with, or from contributing to the strength of, the enemy so long as the War lasts; and that, I think, is clearly and abundantly secured.
      Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I do not wish to delay the proceedings on this Bill, but I really want to emphasise that which I think the Government are not aware of, or that which at all events they do not take particularly to heart. There is one of these companies that had up to recent times a wireless station at their works, and for one and a half hours they communicated directly with Berlin every day. We know perfectly well that our enemy is unscrupulous, and all I want to be protected against is any machination of which you would not be able to get evidence by any company. The Attorney-General tells us that they are seriously considering the matter and that it comes
      720
      under the Alien Restrictions Act. If my right hon. and learned Friend assures me that they are carefully considering the question of applying this principle of the Alien Restrictions Act to companies other than the bank, I am content to withdraw my Amendment, because all I want is that this country should be protected against any machinations conducted—and they are quite capable of conducting them—by people living abroad who have complete control of companies in this country.
      Sir J. SIMON: I am very glad to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in recent days, in answer to questions, has said that the attention of the Board was being given to this matter, and I can say from my own experience in connection with the Trading with the Enemy Committee that if we are not aware of the subject it is not for want of communications from persons to whom it has occurred that it might be an important thing.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 3.—(Power of Board of Trade to Apply for Receiver in Certain Cases.)
      Where the Board of Trade are satisfied either that an offence under this Act has been or is about to be committed in connection with any business or trade, and that it is in the public interest that the business or trade should continue to be carried on, or that any business or trade which, in the public interest, should continue to be carried on is in danger of being discontinued owing to difficulties of management connected with the War, the Board of Trade may apply to the High Court for the appointment of a receiver of the trade or business, and the High Court shall have power to appoint such a receiver for such time and subject to such conditions as they think fit; and, subject to any such conditions, when a receiver is so appointed, business or trade may be carried on with and by that firm or company.
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move, after the word "War" ["owing to difficulties of management connected with the

      721
      War"] to insert the words "or due to the prohibition of trading with the enemy."
      This is a point of some importance upon which it is desirable that the Attorney-General should throw a little light. I am told that people in Liverpool are under the impression that it was the intention of the Government, under this Clause, to do something which the wording of the Clause, prima facie, confers the power to do, but which obviously it is not intended to do. I will read the words to which my attention has been directed:—
      "Where the Board of Trade are satisfied … that any business or trade which in the public interest should continue to be carried on is in danger of being discontinued owing to difficulties of management connected with the War, the Board of Trade may apply to the High Court for the appointment of a receiver."
      So read, prima facie, it looks as if the Board of Trade might apply for a receiver of an ordinary English business which was in difficulties as a result of the War. It is obvious that is not the intention. The intention of the Clause is to provide where the difficulties of the business arise as the result of the prohibition of trading with the enemy that the Board of Trade, if they think the business ought to be carried on, may apply for a receiver. Perhaps the Attorney-General will say whether that is the intention of the Clause.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY Of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): That is the purpose of the Clause: "Businesses in which the difficulties arise through the prohibition of trading with the enemy."
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I am much obliged. I am not at all sure that my words are the best words to make that plain, and, if the Attorney-General or the Under-Secretary has a better formula for expressing it, I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment. There are two classes of difficulties that may arise. The first may well be covered by the existing words. Supposing the board of management consists of German personnel, that personnel is gone and the business cannot be carried on. That position is adequately covered by the existing words. Then the business may be one maintained largely
      722
      or entirely by the supply of goods from Germany under definite contractual arrangements with German suppliers, and one which it is in the interests of this country should be carried on. I therefore propose to insert these words, which I put forward tentatively.
      Sir J. SIMON: I think we should be best consulting the interests which we all have at heart if my hon. Friend were to withdraw his Amendment now and we took this Clause as it stands on the Paper and did not take the Report stage of the Bill until Monday. That would make it possible for us to see how it looked. It is really undesirable that we should in a hurry put a thing in a form which, on reflection, we should not think clear. I think that would be the wise course.
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I cordially assent to the prudence of that course, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move, after the word "War," to insert the words "or if for any reason it is in the public interest expedient."
      This is simply a drafting Amendment to give the Board of Trade a much wider discretion.
      7.0 P.M.
      Sir J. SIMON: I am going to ask the hon. Gentleman to take the same course in respect of this Amendment as has been taken in regard to that just considered. Obviously the words are very wide, and I doubt whether it would be wise to put them in without further consideration, seeing that they would largely extend the powers of the Clause. It is one of the points we propose to consider.
      Sir CLIFFORD CORY: I hope it will be made clear who is to make representations to the Board of Trade with a view to application being made to the Court.
      Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I have two other Amendments to the same Clause for which I should like to ask consideration. In the first place, I propose to add the word "and" after the word "receiver"

      723
      ["power to appoint such a receiver"], and, in the second place, I desire to substitute for the words "as they think fit" ["subject to such conditions as they think fit"] the words "it thinks fit." It will then mean the Court. I suggest that in order to meet the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Everton (Sir J. Harmood-Banner), who was anxious to facilitate negotiations with the Board of Trade beforehand as to any agreement regarding who should be appointed receiver, enabling the parties concerned to bring to the attention of the Court reasons why the suggestions made by the Board of Trade might not be desirable, and why somebody else should be appointed—
      Sir J. SIMON: It would be better to substitute the word "Court" for it.
      Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I shall be willing to do that. What I want is that discretion shall be vested in the Court. Under the circumstances, however, I will not now take either of the Amendments, it being understood that they will be considered between now and the Report stage.
      Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

      CLAUSE 4.—(Short Title and Construction.)
      (1) This Act may be cited as the Trading with the Enemy Act, 1914.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I desire to move to add at the end of this Clause the words:—
      "In the application of this Act to Scotland the Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for a Secretary of State, and the Court of Session shall be substituted for the High Court; the court exercising summary jurisdiction shall be the sheriff court; references to a justice of the peace shall include references to the sheriff and to a burgh magistrate; and references to a receiver shall be construed as references to a judicial factor."
      The effect of the addition of these words will be to translate the wording of the Clause into terminology appropriate to the other side of the Border. I gave a copy of this Amendment to the hon.
      724
      Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger), and no doubt if he desires that any alteration shall be made, he will put it down on the Paper for Monday.
      Mr. BOOTH: I would point out that this Bill affects not only Scotland, but also the Isle of Man, and I should like to see some words inserted appropriate to that case.
      Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: After the words last added insert the words, "In the application of this Act to Ireland the Lord Lieutenant shall be substituted for a Secretary of State."—[Mr. Birrell.]
      Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
      Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 404.]

    PRIZE COURTS (EGYPT, ZANZIBAR, AND CYPRUS) BILL.
    Read a second time.
    Resolved, "That this House doth immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Sir J. Simon.]
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

    PRIZE COURTS (EGYPT, ZANZIBAR, AND CYPRUS) BILL.

      CLAUSE 1.—(Prize Courts in Egypt, Zanzibar and Cyprus.)
      If His Majesty is pleased to confer jurisdiction in matters of prize on any of the following Courts, that is to say:—

      (a) His Britannic Majesty's Supreme Court for the Dominions of the Sublime Ottoman Porte in Egypt;

      (b) His Britannic Majesty's Court for Zanzibar in Zanzibar;

      (c) The Supreme Court of Cyprus in Cyprus;

      the Court shall, in respect of the present War, have under the Naval Prize Courts Acts, 1864 to 1914, the jurisdiction thereby conferred on a Vice-Admiralty Prize Court, and those Acts and any Order in Council made thereunder shall apply accordingly, subject to such modifications (if

      725
      any)as to His Majesty in Council may appear expedient or necessary.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
      Mr. BOOTH: I understand that this Bill deals with certain places which do not come under the Colonial Office. Now it seems to me that the British settlement at Shanghai comes within that category, and I am somewhat surprised that all mention of it is omitted. Shanghai is a very important port in North China, and I should have thought it quite possible that prizes might be taken there.
      Sir J. SIMON: The three places mentioned in this Bill are places which, for administrative convenience, are found to require, or may require, Prize Courts. I do not know that we shall need to use all three as such. According to the view of the Foreign Office and of the Admiralty, Shanghai is not a place which will require such a Court, because, in the event of prizes being captured in the China Sea, they can be taken to Hong Kong. We do not want to multiply the number of Prize Courts unnecessarily.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.
    Read a second time.
    Resolved, "That this House doth immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Sir J. Simon.]
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE (ARMY AND NAVY) BILL.
    Read a second time.
    Resolved, "That this House doth immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Wedgwood Benn.]
    Bill accordingly considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    IRISH POLICE CONSTABLES (NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to make provision in respect of constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police who are Reservists and have joined the armed military forces of the Crown."
    The object of the Bill is to make provision so that the service of these men with the Colours shall count when they return to their police employment. It will also extend the same privilege to Naval Reservists.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. McKenna, Mr. T. W. Russell, and Mr. Birrell. Presented accordingly; read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 402.]

    ARMY PENSIONS BILL.
    Mr. TENNANT: I beg to move, "That leave be given to introduce a Bill to enable the Army Council to fix the mode of payment of Military Pensions."
    This is a Bill to enable us to pay pensions at shorter intervals than the present period, which is three months, and it is very desirable that it should be allowed to pass.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harold Baker and Mr. Tennant. Presented accordingly; read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 403.]

  MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.

    BRITISH PRESS BUREAU.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn till Monday next."—[Mr. Gulland.]
    Mr. SHERWELL: Before the House adjourns I desire to refer to a matter

    727
    arising out of the Home Secretary's statement yesterday concerning the Press censorship, which I had not the opportunity of doing, as I hoped to have, last night. I make no apology for bringing this matter before the House, because apart altogether from its extreme importance and the very considerable amount of public misgiving there is concerning the existence of a system of censorship, this is probably the last effective and secure opportunity we may have before the House rises of discussing this question, and, more particularly, of examining the statement made by the Home Secretary yesterday. I very much regret the absence of the right hon. Gentleman—I have no doubt for sufficient cause. He has been informed of the fact that the question was to be raised on the Adjournment to-night. [An HON. MEMBER: "He will be here!"] The House was very considerably relieved at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, but some of us might have felt more relief still if he had been at some pains to explain more fully the character of the proposed changes which he announced, and had been able to give this House some clear idea of the reorganisation which he indicated, and what the suggested reorganisation is intended to cover. We are, at least, glad to know that in respect of what I still claim to be a matter very vitally affecting the universal interests of this country—certainly the Press censorship must very vitally touch public interests at many points—that under the assumption of responsibility by the right hon. Gentleman this matter is, for the first time, regularised. May I be allowed to say, in passing, that in calling attention to this matter and in claiming that the new step taken does very happily regularise the position, I am very far from desiring to make any reflection whatever on the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Walton Division (Mr. F. E. Smith). I have always felt, as I believe the House felt, that in accepting that position on the conditions under which that appointment was made the right hon. and learned Gentleman was placed in a very false and also a very embarrassing position.
    The Home Secretary was good enough to state yesterday that, under the changes which are to be consequent upon his
    728
    assumption of direct responsibility, the methods and scheme of the Press Bureau and the Press censorship are to be reorganised. I should very much like to know what the right hon. Gentleman really means by reorganisation. It would resassure the House if to-night he could give us some indication of the lines of the suggested reorganisation. The only point upon which he did inform us was that under the new arrangements the Staff of General Sir John French was to be enlarged by the appointment of special officers who would devote attention to reports of actions. There are one or two points from which it is very desiraable that the House before it rises should have some clear information. I ask these questions and raise these points out of the fruits of experience we have had during the last few weeks. The first point I would put to the Home Secretary is this: Is the proposed scheme of reorganisation to secure us now and for the future uniformity in the application of the Press censorship? Within the past week—I am going to confine my remarks entirely to events which have arisen during the last few days—the Press Bureau in their application of the Press censorship seem to have swung round from one extreme to the other. While there was an extensive lack of discrimination in the censorship prior to the last few days, during the last two days, or within the last week, the Press Bureau seem to have swung round to the other extreme of rigidity of prohibition. Messages and reports have been censored, and are apparently being censored, without any attempt at other than an individual system of prohibition.
    May I give one illustration to point my argument? It is within the knowledge of the House that during the past weekend information was given by the Press Bureau announcing the loss, the very deplorable loss, of His Majesty's ship "Pathfinder." The message that was given from the Press Bureau was a very meagre message. I have no complaint to make upon that. There may have been sufficient reason. But the message was not only merely meagre; it suppressed all details of locality, and was a colourless message, apart from the acknowledgment of the unhappy loss of the vessel. It is

    729
    within the knowledge of the Press Bureau that other accounts, very much fuller and supplying details of locality, did find their way into the Press. It happened that on Sunday night last the editor of a very influential Scottish journal—the editor of the "Scotsman"—acting under a loyal desire to conform to whatever rules and honourable obligations might devolve, as a consequence of the Press censorship upon influential journals, applied direct to the Press Bureau and informed them that a definite statement had been made regarding the cause of the disaster which was at variance with the official bulletin, and asking whether he, the editor, had authority to contradict this report. At the same time he asked the further question whether he was at liberty to mention St. Abb's Head, which had been given in a Scottish evening paper on Saturday night as the scene of the disaster. Some three-quarters of an hour after this, certainly with very commendable promptitude, he received a reply in these terms:—
    "The answer of the Admiralty to both questions is 'No.' They want nothing said about 'Pathfinder' beyond the official statement."
    An hour after the receipt of this reply from the Press Bureau, a circumstantial descriptive account by an eye-witness of the disaster was received, which was put into print and submitted to the Press Bureau with a request to know whether they were allowed to publish it. They received in reply to that a peremptory prohibition of its publication, with the further intimation that no news beyond the official information was to be communicated. But there were a number of papers in Scotland and elsewhere which actually published this descriptive account by an eye-witness of this unhappy disaster, although the editor of the "Scotsman," acting under a very honourable obligation and sense of honour, did himself suppress the publication of an article under the prohibition of the Press Bureau. The significance of this incident lies in the sequel. On Monday night a representative of the "Scotsman" saw, I believe, the chief of the Press Bureau in London, and explained to him the history of this particular incident. After some discussion, this responsible reply was given to the
    730
    representative of the editor of the "Scotsman":—
    "The Bureau acknowledge the loyalty of the 'Scotsman.' They admit the 'Scotsman' has a grievance, but only against the other papers who did not submit this matter to the Censor. These other papers will be communicated with."
    I submit to the House that that official reply is a very extraordinary illustration of the apparent lack of perception on the part of the Press Bureau of the full responsibility and obligations of their office. It is to me an extraordinary suggestion that when an editor has submitted an article to the Press Bureau and has been refused permission to publish it he should then be told, when other journals have not submitted that article to the Press Bureau but have published it, that his grievance lies not against the Press Bureau but against the editors of those journals who have not taken the trouble to submit that report to the Press Bureau, but have published it on their own responsibility. The picture conjured up in my mind is this: that the Press Bureau, having had a particular report submitted to it—a report on a very important matter—censors that report and prohibits its publication, and then folds its arms and takes no step whatever to communicate to the entire Press of the Kingdom that what is prohibited to one journal is prohibited to all the journals. I cannot help thinking that the Home Secretary, in the new methods he has indicated as the working methods of the Press Bureau, should be able to give us an assurance that there will not be this unfair discrimination—unintentional discrimination, I am prepared to allow—between particular journals, and that when a report is prohibited for circulation, the prohibition should not be confined to a particular journal that has had the sense of honour to submit it, but that the prohibition should be made known to the entire Press of the United Kingdom. Under these conditions, and these conditions alone, can there be anything like equality of treatment among the journals of this country.
    There is a further question I should like to ask. As the House is aware, over and above and apparently independent of the Press Bureau itself, there is a Press censorship relating to the transmission of cable communications abroad. I want to ask the Home Secretary whether he is able

    731
    to promise us any change in the method in the application of this cable censorship? Is there to be reform in this important direction at the same time? It is well known that at the present time messages which have been published here with the approval of the Press Bureau are again and again censored by the cable censors, sometimes entirely suppressed, and sometimes refused, except in a mutilated form, to be allowed to be cabled to the newspapers of the United States and elsewhere. May I again take a single illustration to bring out my point. There was published in the London "Daily Chronicle" the other day what I venture to think, and far more competent critics will agree with the judgment, was the most brilliant article yet written, which was written by Mr. Philip Gibbs, describing the actual operations of General Sir John French's Army during the last few days. There is an arrangement by which Mr. Gibbs' articles are published simultaneously in London and by the "New York Times," and are cabled over to permit of simultaneous publication. Mr. Philip Gibbs' brilliant article was published without comment and criticism in the London "Daily Chronicle," but it was absolutely prohibited by the cable censor, and, so far as I know, it has not yet appeared in the American papers. I cannot help thinking that it is deplorable and disadvantageous to a very high degree that articles of that character, which cause every one who reads them to thrill with pride in the British soldier, should be withheld from the reading public across the Atlantic.
    I understand that Sir George Armstrong has been appointed Director of Naval Censors. It would be a matter of very great importance for this House to be informed whether the Sir George Armstrong who has been appointed Director of Naval Censors is the gentleman of the same name who was summoned to the Bar of this House and severely censured by Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: When?
    Mr. SHERWELL: A few years ago, I think.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: How long ago?
    Mr. SHERWELL: Only a few years ago. It was for the improper publication of a report affecting the privileges of Parliament.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: That was fifteen years ago.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I want to know whether this is the same gentleman, and if it be the same gentleman, I want to ask on what ground that particular appointment can be defended? It is surely not to be suggested by any Member of the Government that this gentleman, who has been heavily censured by Mr. Speaker at the unanimous desire of the House, has been appointed because there is no responsible editor among the whole number of uncensured editors who has the necessary qualification.
    May I turn back to the main point. What is required in order to make this Press censorship very much more effective, and very much more satisfactory than it is at present? I have already indicated that in my judgment the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) was placed in a very false and unfortunate position under the conditions and terms of his appointment. I cannot conceive how anybody responsible for the establishment of a Press censorship can hope to establish a satisfactory censorship without at least the guidance and counsel of responsible and experienced journalists. I should certainly have liked to see a number of responsible journalists appointed on the Press Bureau, but at least I would suggest to the Home Secretary that if he is desirous of making the Press Bureau and the censorship satisfactory to all interests in the community, he should at least consider seriously the desirability and the great advantage of occasionally conferring with a number of selected responsible editors and journalists, in order to secure from them some suggestions for his guidance, in conducting the Press Bureau in future. I have brought this matter before the House because I believe the Home Secretary may be assured that there is probably no single important fact in the great War in which we are now engaged, which is causing such serious misgivings and disquietude, and has already produced a heavier crop of grievances and injustices

    733
    than the present methods of the Press Bureau, and I hope the Home Secretary will be able to give the House some satisfactory assurance on this point.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I rise at once, because the detailed criticism will be dealt with, I hope, by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith). I want to say, in the first instance, what are the principles upon which we propose to act. I think it is only right that it should be stated at once that so far as I have been able to discover, after as careful inquiry as I can make from all sorts and conditions of men during the last forty-eight hours, overwhelmingly the greatest part of the complaint against the action of the Press Bureau in the past has been in respect of a matter for which the Press Bureau has not had the smallest responsibility. That is a strong statement, but one which it is very easy to establish. Amongst all the critics whom I have sought out and asked what is the chief complaint of the action of the Press Bureau I have had in every instance the reply, "The unnecessary suppression by the cable censorship of news which ought, in the interests of this country, to have been telegraphed abroad." Everyone is agreed that that has been the chief matter of complaint—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—so far as I have been able to discover.
    An HON. MEMBER: Suppression at home too!
    Mr. McKENNA: No, that is quite a different matter. It is not a question of suppression at home; it is a question of absence of information at home. So far as the suppression of information is concerned, the complaint has been that news which would be valuable in the British interests to have circulated abroad has been stopped by the cable censorship. The cable censorship until the last few days has not been under the control of the Press Bureau in any sense whatever. That has been one work of reorganisation which has been undertaken—to place the control of Press information passing over the foreign cables under the Press Bureau so as to ensure that the news or the articles which are published in this country, which have passed the censorship here, should be allowed freely to circulate abroad.
    Sir W. BYLES: Who appointed the cable censor?
    Mr. McKENNA: It was a military censorship pure and simple.
    Sir W. BYLES: Who is responsible?
    Mr. McKENNA: I really think my hon. Friend, by the implication of his question more than by the question itself, is a little bit over critical. The War broke out very hurriedly. Everybody would agree that some form of censorship had to be introduced over foreign cables. The duty necessarily fell in the first instance upon the military authority, and a very large staff had to be immediately appointed to censor all foreign cablegrams. It is not easy to institute a great staff of that kind, to set it at work, to give it the necessary instruction and to sec that this staff shall act upon principles which would recommend themselves to my hon. Friend. It is not easy to undertake work of that kind quickly. No doubt great mistakes were made, and in due course, when the question is raised, the blame has to be laid upon the right shoulders. The blame must not be laid upon the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) as he had no responsibility in that matter whatever. That I have found has been the chief cause of complaint. As to the other cause of complaint, my hon. Friend believes it to be the suppression of internal news. I am not dealing with a particular case like that of the "Pathfinder," which the right hon. Gentleman will deal with. I am dealing only with what is believed to be the general suppression of news from the front in this country. There has been no suppression.
    Sir W. BYLES: There has been a famine in news.
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend ought to be fair. When he speaks of a famine he suggests, and he means to imply, that that famine of news has been caused by the Press Bureau, and that the news was there but that in their discrimination the Press Bureau suppressed news, and he really believee—I suppose he must believe—that we have had continuous dispatches of a most interesting and valuable kind from the soldiers at the front, that they have been submitted to the Press Bureau, and have been one after another suppressed.
    Sir W. BYLES: I did not say all that.
    Mr. McKENNA: Unless my hon. Friend meant to suggest some responsibility for the Press Bureau suppressing news, what does it mean when he says that the Press Bureau has been responsible for a famine? Unless they had the news and suppressed it, what does he mean by saying they were responsible for the famine in news? Our troops were engaged in active operations, you may say almost within twenty-four hours of their arrival in France. Anyone who reads Sir John French's dispatch knows now what the nature of these uninterrupted fighting operations have been from the first. I think my hon. Friend might appreciate the extraordinary difficulty Sir John French's staff must have had in these circumstances in sending dispatches. The famine has been caused for the reason that no dispatches, except what have been published, have been received from the front, and I think Sir John French's dispatch now affords us an absolute answer to any complaint of the dearth of previous dispatches. The Prime Minister, who felt, naturally, as Leader of the House, very keenly the criticism which was directed from all quarters of the House against the military authorities for not giving fuller and more frequent information upon the military details of the War which could be properly published, stated to this House that steps had been taken in order to ensure that there shall be present on Sir John French's staff officers who, if the circumstances of the actual military operations permit, will be in a position to afford us more regular and detailed information which can be properly published. These steps have been taken, and we have only got to wait until those officers are in a position to give us the report which we expect to receive from them. I hope my hon. Friend is satisfied, from the really full statement of the case that I have endeavoured to give him, that such famine as there has been, a famine which we all admit and deplore, has been absolutely unavoidable in these circumstances, and has not been the work of the Press Bureau.
    On the contrary, I would appeal to my hon. Friend to consider the ordinary problems of human nature. It clearly would be the desire of the Press Bureau to
    736
    publish rather than to suppress. The Press Bureau receives applause for all the telegrams it is able to publish. When it does not publish news it receives censure. I think one or two dispatches—they have been able to publish very interesting and full dispatches—have been received with great thankfulness by the public. I think it might be fairly left to the Bureau itself to take every step, so far as it can, to ensure that full information shall be received, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will be my most earnest desire to see that as much information as possible is obtained from the front. Yesterday, in answer to a question, I explained how it was that correspondents could not be allowed with the troops, and I think the whole House was completely satisfied with the explanation given. I see that dissent comes from my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge), but with that single exception I believe the whole House is satisfied that this country, when acting with an ally, could not take up an independent course with regard to permission being given to correspondents. The first question asked by my hon. Friend was whether the supposed scheme of reorganisation will in future secure uniformity in the censorship. That was the point which I thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) dealt with very fully and conclusively in the statement which he made last week.
    Mr. SHERWELL: My point was, Will the Home Secretary tell us that when a particular report is censored the intimation that it is not to be published will be made universally throughout the British Press?
    Mr. McKENNA: The right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point so far as the particular case came before him. I think, on reflection, my hon. Friend will see that what he asks would be impossible. It would be impossible to say to the Press, "You must none of you publish a particular account of a particular event" unless you have told them what that particular account was.
    Mr. SHERWELL: When the report of a particular event has been refused publication by the Press Bureau, is no information to go from the Press Bureau to the Press generally that that has been prohibited?
    Mr. McKENNA: The only trouble would be that to intimate to the Press generally that that particular account was prohibited, you would have to inform them of what the account was. Of course, the subject-matter o£ the account they are informed of, generally speaking. I am sure my hon. Friend means something different from the only interpretation I can put upon his words. I see my hon. Friend's point. I do not see how in practice it could be carried out. As regards the appointment of any particular members of the staff, I would remind my hon. Friend that my connection with the Bureau is less than fourteen hours' old, and I would ask him to postpone any consideration of the question of the staff. On his fourth point, as regards the appointment of responsible journalists—or, at any rate, the appointment of responsible journalists to advise us on our proceedings—I am happy to be able to tell him that that course has been taken. Responsible journalists, both as members of the Committee in their collective capacity and in their individual capacity, are constantly consulted. It is absolutely essential for the proper working of the Bureau that we should be in harmony with the general Press feeling of the country. Every step will be taken to secure as far as possible—it is an extraordinarily difficult task—that general satisfaction is given to the Press as a whole, and that every man will feel that no preference is given to one paper, or set of papers, over any other paper, or set of papers. Every precaution will be taken in that matter. As to the earlier point of my hon. Friend, namely, the statement with regard to forbidding the publication in other papers of news for which permission to publish has been refused to an individual paper, I do not know that he meant to suggest that where news has been censored for one paper and the same news appears in other papers which have not been censored, punitive action should be taken against the offending papers.
    Mr. SHERWELL: The point I made was that the Press Bureau officially informed the editor of the "Scotsman" that no communication concerning the loss of the "Pathfinder," except the official communication of the Admiralty, was to be published. Does my right hon. Friend
    738
    suggest—I am sure he would not suggest—that it was impossible for the Press Bureau to acquaint the rest of the journals that nothing but the official report was to be published?
    Mr. McKENNA: That matter will be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend. I think I have said sufficient to assure hon. Members as to the way in which we propose to act, and I hope that my short acquaintance with the work of the Bureau, which is only recent, will be sufficient excuse for not now going into details. I think it only right to say this. Such experience as I have had of the working of the Bureau has led me to the conclusion that it is a marvel that they have been able to do as well as they have done under the conditions in which they work. I hope I shall be able to give them better housing and a larger staff, and, generally speaking, to provide a Bureau with conditions under which their operations, now very extensive, can be properly conducted.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I think my right hon. Friend who has just spoken has entirely justified me in making a clear distinction between the Press Bureau and the cable censorship. Up to a short time ago, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the work of the one was independent of the work of the other. I do not intend to comment upon the general work of the Press Bureau. I said before that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. F. E. Smith) has shown great public spirit, unselfishness, and zeal in regard to the work of the Press Bureau, and, so far as my observation is concerned, I think that journalists have met from him nothing but consideration and a desire to meet their views. But while making this statement one is bound to admit that there has been a lack of co-ordination. One censor apparently has come to one decision, and another censor has come to a different decision, with the result that the newspaper which came under one censor was forbidden to publish news which another newspaper, coming under another censor, was permitted to publish, as in the case of the "Pathfinder." There were special circumstances in that case. This lack of co-ordination must lead to different

    739
    decisions, and different decisions must lead to apparently different treatment of newspapers. There is the case which might be mentioned of a newspaper being allowed to publish a placard, when another news paper was obliged to sacrifice £200 or £300 worth of placards containing exactly the same statement.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: Will you tell me when that was? I do not think I stopped a single placard.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Well, there has been a placard stopped, and perhaps I had better leave the hon. Gentleman concerned to make a statement himself in regard to that matter. Of course, that must cause a feeling of discontent, and a sense of injustice, if it takes place. But I base my main criticism of the whole affair on the action of the cable censorship. On the very first day that question arose in the House I made a suggestion, which was that the cable censorship required above all other forms of censorship a large, well-instructed, and experienced staff, and I hold that the staff can only be supplied, so far as the preparation of the work is concerned, by trained and experienced journalists. I do not like to give further publicity to some of the statements which have been made, but everybody knows that in regard to the censorship of cablegrams there has been something like a scandal. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had no responsibility for the matter. In fact, as far as my knowledge goes, I think he has done his very best to reform the state of things. What occurred did not arise in connection with the office over which he presides. Still I am not quite satisfied. The reason why I have taken such a keen interest in the cable censorship is not merely a professional reason, but it is this: There is no public opinion in the world which ought to be so well informed with regard to the causes of this War, or the incidents of this War, or the principles of the War, as the opinion of the united States of America. I have regarded a proper supply of information regarding our case as not merely a question of journalism but as a question of the gravest political interest for this country.
    740
    The most desperate, and I think the most extensive, efforts have been made to poison public opinion in the United States of America by all kinds of false statements with regard to the origin and the incidents of the War. I think that none but trained journalists can appreciate this. In the first place, the expense of these cables is enormous. I am perfectly certain that I do not exaggerate when I say that a cable message of 500 words may often cost the newspaper which has got it as much as £500. A correspondent has been sent from the United States, and his expenses must be large in time of war. The expense of telegraphing from the seat of war must be enormous. Sometimes his messages have to be sent by motor cars running thirty, forty, or fifty miles in order to get to the telegraph station. This is an additional expense, and I repeat that I am perfectly sure a cablegram of 500 words may cost £500, or even £1,000, to the newspaper to which it is sent.
    When we come to the cable office what do we find? We find two, three, four, or five military gentlemen who were never inside a newspaper office in their lives, and many of whom have never written a line in their lives. You find them in a stuffy office with 40,000, 50,000, or 100,000 words before them. Does not everyone think that every word of the remarkable dispatch of Sir John French was transmitted by cable? I am sure that every word has been sent to America, and if there had been an opportunity of describing the battle in full detail, I am sure we would have found in the newspapers of New York, Boston, and Cincinnati as full a description as we have had here. But if 50,000, 60,000, or 100,000 words go into a cable office how can the staff exercise the censorship? Many of us have been in newspaper offices all our lives, and we know that there is no department more carefully manned with more experienced, discreet, and alert men than the sub-editor's room. Take the case of the "Daily Telegraph," where you may have eight or ten men sub-editing the news as it arrives. They get 50,000 or 60,000 words every day in their lives, and they have to compress them into 10,000 words. That cannot be done except by a large staff of competent

    741
    and thoroughly trained men, and to suppose that a number of military gentlemen, who have probably been put to that work because they have ceased, not through any fault of their own, to be able to undertake more active duty, can do that work in an adequate way is out of the question.
    8.0 P.M.
    Another point I wish to impress upon my right hon. Friend is the importance of time with regard to these telegrams. I have talked with correspondents sending cablegrams to the extent of 50,000 words. These cablegrams must have cost thousands of pounds. They are sent to the cable offices by correspondents who very often work at the risk of their lives. The men who sent these messages have, in their zeal for the performance of their professional duties, run through all kinds of perils every day they are engaged in the work. These messages of 50,000 words are held back five, ten, or forty-eight hours, and at the end of that time they are waste paper, after thousands of pounds have been spent in obtaining the news. I have spoken to correspondents on the matter, and I have communicated with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the complaints which have been made. I was rather surprised at statements which have been made to me as to the question of time. The correspondents were representatives of rival telegraph agencies. One of them had proposed that there should be a central office, and the other said, "That is all right for you, you are within five minutes from the central office. It is not quite the same for us, we are twenty minutes from the central office." One of the gentlemen who made that objection came round to me and said, "Do you realise that if one of our dispatches arrives later than that sent off by my friend, we hear by cable immediately as to the delay?" These are the conditions, and again I do press upon my right hon. Friend the vital necessity of keeping public opinion in the United States thoroughly well informed, through their newspaper, of our case and of the incidents of this struggle. Some reforms have been made. I understand that some journalists have been added to the staff of the cable censor. I am very glad to hear it. Perhaps I may take some
    742
    parental pride in that reform, but I do implore my right hon. Friend not to be niggardly in the addition of journalistic assistance to the cable censors on account of the vital importance of time and the saving of time by the expedition of the censor. Everybody is doing his best to relieve every class driven out of employment owing to the War, and I think I am entitled to put this consideration before the House. There is no class of the community on which the War has fallen more heavily than the newspaper profession. I could give to my right hon. Friend the names of a dozen experienced, excellent, trustworthy journalists who, owing to the exigencies of this War, have been deprived of the means of earning their livelihood. The War, of course, swallows up all other interests, and men who are not able to write about the War, but who, in one form or another, devote themselves to other departments of journalistic work are in many cases deprived of their livelihood by this War. I do not base the claim for an addition to the censorship staff on this ground, but I do say if the service of journalists are demanded, as they are demanded, that ought to be some additional reason for them not to be allowed to suffer any more than any other class of the community from the effects of the interference with their work which has been caused by the War.
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: I do not know whether it would be convenient to the House that I should make a short statement now. The change which I indicated in reference to the cable censorship became operative for the first time last night. So far as I know there has been no serious complaint made at all since last night, since the new system has been inaugurated. The Press Bureau has been elsewhere somewhat freely criticised, and I am at least entitled to notice with satisfaction that a very representative committee of the Press, representing a number of the most influential papers in London, asked unanimously that the functions discharged by the Press Censors should hereafter be discharged by the Press Bureau. That can be attributed either to the extreme badness of the Press censorship or the merits of our censorship, or it may be drawn a little

    743
    from both sources. On the occasion of our last Debate, the complaint made centred very largely about an incident which had its origin in South Shields. The hon. Baronet (Sir A. B. Markham) who introduced the subject to the House, and the hon. Gentleman who represents South Shields (Mr. Russell Rea) in this House, spoke of it. That was the occasion on which it was said that my hon. relative had used Teuton methods of reply. There was no incident in the Debate which attracted so much attention as that. No notice was given that it was going to be raised. When I got home I looked up the matter and went through the correspondence, and it was discovered that the gentleman in South Shields who had written, as far as we could discover, to at least five Members of Parliament describing his grievance and describing a prohibition which came straight from the War Office to the Admiralty as "idiotic," had actually written to us and expressed his recognition of the reasonableness of our decision before the Parliamentary Debate ever began.
    I may now say something about the "Pathfinder" which was referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell). May I point out at once that he really must not suppose that we are quite so foolish as to have attempted to start this Bureau without the idea of associating ourselves with the profession of journalists? The hon. Gentleman comes forward with the idea as if it were some brilliant inspiration that had occurred to him. The very first day that I was asked to take up this work, I went to the Representatives of the Press Committee of London and made a suggestion to them that they should appoint to the Bureau a journalist chosen by them. For reasons, into which I need not enter, that invitation was not at that time accepted. As I understand, what is proposed is that we should be reinforced by the presence of a certain number of journalists who possess sub-editorial experience which is the very class of experience in which we are lacking. Now I come to the "Pathfinder" case which is the only specific case now brought forward. I think that the hon. Member really misunderstood the facts. No regulation is more elementary
    744
    and none is more readily understood than the regulation which is not laid down by us, but is actually contained in terms in the Defence of the Realm Act, that nothing shall be published which would in any way disclose the position of the armed forces of the Crown, whether on land or by sea. I need not labour the necessity of this because it is obvious. When the incident of the "Pathfinder" happened this was the position: There was a definite rule that the position of a ship should not be mentioned or the position of an army if it could be of any assistance to an enemy. To have announced the position of the "Pathfinder" would have been of the greatest assistance to the enemy, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. When we recently announced the disaster to the "Pathfinder," we announced, because we believed it to be true, that it had come into contact with a mine. Very shortly afterwards there was reason for suspecting that it had come into contact with a submarine and not with a mine. Of course the Admiralty was most anxious that it should not be announced to the world that the injury had been caused by a submarine. It was quite obvious that otherwise the operation of catching and destroying the submarine might have been interfered with most vitally.
    The position was this: Under our general prohibition it was quite wrong for any paper dealing with the "Pathfinder" incident to make the least reference to the locality in which that incident occurred. The mere fact that our notice excluded any mention of the locality-showed that the policy of the Admiralty was that no mention should be made of the place where the disaster occurred. That was the position at the time the "Scotsman" made the application to us. In the view of the Admiralty at that time the time had not come for the removal of an existing prohibition of which the whole Press was aware. We did not even decide the application of the "Scotsman"—to show how careful we are—in our own Admiralty room, though there is a very competent officer, but we made inquiries in the trade room and the military room, and we were told that on no account could this prohibition be withdrawn. Every other paper knew, just as the "Scotsman" had known, that the prohibition existed, and it was because the "Scotsman" knew it

    745
    that they applied it to us. I think that there were two papers which published the news without coming to us for leave. They behaved extremely badly. They had no right to publish the news. They were communicated with at once, and it was pointed out to them that they had behaved badly, and they attempted to make no serious defence. The "Scotsman" must not complain to us. We could have done nothing else. The hon. Gentleman will see the futility of suggesting that if one newspaper comes to us with a piece of news and asks, "May we publish it?" we should tell all the newspapers not to publish it. Take, for instance, the proximate landing of a large number of men who have to be protected by the Navy, a case in which it would lead to a great public disaster if it was known that they were going to be landed. Can the hon. Member conceive that if a paper came to us asking, "May we publish so and so?" we should telegraph to every paper in England requesting them not to publish the information? That is absolutely impossible.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I quite agree as to the insuperable difficulty of the Press Bureau on its own initiative issuing broadcast a prohibition against a particular message the existence of which may not be known to other papers. That is not the point. My point is this: On the initiative of the "Scotsman," the Press Bureau had reason to know that certain papers were publishing an unauthorised report. The Press Bureau was already informed by the editor of the "Scotsman." The statement had already appeared in one paper, and then the Press Bureau find it necessary to issue an announcement to the "Scotsman" that nothing is to be published except an official communication of the Admiralty. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that if there was a misconception on the part of some editor as to the publication of the news, it was not desirable for the Press Bureau to remind the Press generally that nothing but the official communication was to be published?
    Mr. F. E. SMITH: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, so far as my recollection of the incident goes, when the "Scotsman" originally applied to know whether they could publish the information, I think I am largely right in saying that they said,
    746
    without giving the name of the paper, that a paper had published this news. As I understand—I did not see this particular document until the incident was over—what happened was that we asked for the name of the paper in order that we might deal with it. I have no doubt that, if the name of the paper had been forthcoming, then we should have sent a telegram to the paper stopping it at once. I think that the name of the paper was not forthcoming until the next day. When attention was called by the "Scotsman" to the fact that these papers had published this, we immediately dealt with them. Both the papers actually publishing this were disobeying a prohibition which was in force, and which they ought to have known was in force. The "Scotsman" knew when they were asking us for leave to depart from a prohibition which was at that time in force. I rejoice indeed that this is the most serious case which the hon. Gentleman has thought it necessary to bring before the House after five weeks of work of a new office for which there was no precedent, for which there was no staff, and for which there were hardly any arrangements. I make the hon. Gentleman an offer. I invite him to come to the Bureau himself, and he had better wait until we get into our new offices. The moment we get into our new offices I invite the hon. Gentleman to come there and spend a week, either day or night or both, and at the end of that week I invite him to come to the House of Commons to tell them what he thinks of our methods and in what respect he thinks they can be improved, and to say whether the work there is not done faithfully, intelligently, and cautiously.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: The matter to which I rise to call attention does not affect the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, but I should like to say that I myself appreciate what has been said by the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), as to the courtesy which the newspaper world has invariably received from the right hon. Gentleman. Though mistakes have been made, yet, at the same time, we should know that this is a new Department, started in a very great hurry, that a censorship bureau is a thing entirely foreign to this

    747
    country, and that, therefore, it was inevitable that some mistakes should be made. The gravest mistake, in my opinion, was the mistake of having two departments of the Press Bureau. It should have been in one from the commencement, with the assistance of thoroughly trained and responsible journalists. I think one result of the criticism in the House has been the reform which is now being carried out. The question to which I desire especially to refer is to some extent associated with the complaints that have been put forward. I desire to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in supplement to the question I put to the Foreign Secretary this afternoon, whether he is considering the question of taking prompt steps to deny misleading and lying statements which are being published in the leading papers of neutral countries? I do not think I need labour the point as to the statements which are appearing at the present time. I have a Swedish paper here in which the sinking of four battleships off Hull is described in the most graphic manner. An account is given of interviews with two witnesses, who go into the whole of the details as to how the operation was performed. Of course, that has a very great effect in a country like Sweden, where German influences at the present moment are exceedingly strong, and where they are trying to make them stronger. What I want to bring under the notice of the Home Secretary is that an organisation should exist which shall be able to give a prompt and final denial in Sweden or elsewhere to a statement of that kind before it can do any injury, which undoubtedly it would otherwise do.
    Another point is that we should arrange that the foreign Press, especially in neutral countries, should be able to obtain news, if possible, from London, and not from Berlin. I think the Under-Secretary is in full sympathy with that contention. Take the question of sinking the ships ort Heligoland. News was sent from Berlin to a leading paper in Italy—I have the paper here—and was published in Italy twenty-four hours before we allowed a telegram to go from London giving our version. They had twenty-four hours' start in Italy with their version, and it is
    748
    obvious that it must have had some effect on public opinion. I want the Under-Secretary generally, therefore, to give his attention to the question of giving as much attention as possible to the representatives of foreign journals in London, and especially to the representatives of American journals here. I think the representatives of American journals, or some of them, have grave ground of complaint in consequence of the manner in which they have been treated. I will not discuss the question to-night, especially as it has already been referred to by my hon. Friend. There is the question of delay, and there is also the question of preference. There is the case of a leading newspaper in New York, "The New York Times," which, I think, has very grave ground of complaint indeed in regard to the manner in which they were treated in respect of a recent matter. As to preference, hours make a great difference to competitive daily journals, and I ask the Under-Secretary to make a special point of affording every facility, in the first place, to representatives of foreign journals here; to arrange, if possible, that news should be allowed to go through without any undue delay, and that he should, further, arrange for prompt denial being given to damaging statements published abroad. It seems to me that that would have a very good effect, and if the hon. Gentleman himself will arrange, although I know he is very busy, to give this matter his personal attention, I can assure him it will be productive of a very great deal of good, not only to journalism, but to the best interests of the country.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): As I understand that this is the only question to which my attention is required, I rise to reply. I think the House knows that the Foreign Office has not been responsible for the cable censorship, the delay in which has caused, as my right hon. Friend has just said, the great bulk of the complaints that have been made. We have had to bow to the organisation just as other people have bowed, and we are just as grateful as other people that matters are now on a different footing. I am afraid that there is still a good deal of delay in getting telegrams through to

    749
    Italy, though that has been erroneously put down to the cable censorship here, while it has really been due to the partial breakdown and congestion of the lines through France. We have had delays of our own telegrams from Italy, due solely to the congestion and, breakdown of those lines, and that has no doubt been the case also in regard to telegrams sent the other way. It would not be fair to say that the delay—which has in fact resulted in news from Germany getting into the Italian papers there hours and days in advance of news from England—has been the fault of any person in our censorship offices. The delay, I believe, can to some extent be overcome by the use of a different route via the East, and I believe, already by using that other route, the delay of telegrams to Italy is a great deal less than it has been.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: But they were held up in London, many of them.
    Mr. ACLAND: I quite admit that there has undoubtedly been delay in the cable censorship department, but I only want to point out that the whole of the delay has not been due to the failure of the working of that Department. I have been asked particularly what we are doing with regard to facilitating the transmission of full and accurate news to neutral countries. We entirely recognise the very great importance of that. We were not prepared for what has happened in neutral countries. Germany, a country which represents itself as caught by surprise and attacked by its enemies, has itself a war Press machinery in neutral countries which has, with surprising readiness, been able to forward news. In England, though we are represented in Germany as adversaries who had caught them by surprise, we had made no such previous organisations in neutral countries, and therefore we were perhaps unprepared for this extraordinary campaign of misrepresentation and calumny used against us by the enemy in neutral countries. We have had to try and get up and take steps to deal with it. First of all we have taken to sending out quite regularly reports of authentic news which is issued in this country. We send out officially from the Foreign Office, both by day and night, statements summarising the news of
    750
    the day to our representatives in the neutral countries of the world. That has already, as my right hon. Friend stated at question time to-day, a very good effect, and has discredited the supposed news issued by agencies of the enemy, and is already in many neutral countries being relied on as the only really truthful material which can be thoroughly relied upon to present things in their proper light.

    Then we have foreseen that in those countries our representatives might require extra assistance in issuing this material which we supply to the different Consulates, to the newspapers, and in dealing with reports, enemy reports, and so on which appear in the Press of those countries. Therefore we have allowed our representatives in those countries to obtain journalistic or other assistance to aid them in dealing with those reports and in spreading about the truth with which we supply them. We have also instructed them to employ that assistance in collecting material which appears in their Press or in periodical or pamphlet form, and to send it to us regularly and amply, so that it may be dealt with on this side, and material supplied to the Press accordingly. We are taking steps to see that there is supplied to the Press in neutral countries not only war news, strictly so-called, but also news which we here take to be rather commonplace, but which is of real interest in other countries as to the condition of this country, and information with regard to trade, and with regard to employment and with regard to recruiting, and with regard to all such matters as to which the condition of this country is really of interest to our friends, and to our enemies abroad. We have taken steps to see that that should be supplied properly and abundantly.
    There is also the very important point about keeping in touch with the gentlemen here who represent the Foreign Press. Up to the present my right hon. Friend's principal private secretary has been in the habit of seeing a good many of the correspondents of the Foreign Press. His time is very fully occupied, but he has given such time as he could to that purpose. We recognise at a time like this, when the correspondents of the Foreign Press are very anxious in a most friendly way to

    751
    keep in touch with the Foreign Office, that my right hon. Friend's private secretary is not able to give perhaps sufficient time to that matter, which is one we want to do everything possible to arrange satisfactorily. Therefore as a temporary arrangement—and we shall see, of course, whether it answers or not—while the House of Commons is not sitting a Foreign Office official has been instructed to hold himself available for being interviewed, and seen by the representatives of the neutral Press, for two or three hours at any rate each day. He is the only Foreign Office official for whose complete ability and judgment I cannot vouch, as he will be myself, but I can vouch for his doing his best to give such information as is possible, and as much satisfaction as is possible to those gentlemen who may call. We very much appreciate their efforts to help us in the supply of reliable news to their countries. We very much regret, owing to the undoubtedly faulty machinery with regard to cable censorship, and perhaps other things in the past, that their efforts should so often have been frustrated, and we are genuinely looking after the matter, and, I may say, almost freezing on to the matter of seeing that the complaints they have had in the past shall not be repeated or justified in the future.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: As the Home Secretary made a reference to myself, I desire to say what is on my mind. I do not rise in the least to attack the Press Bureau. I think this Debate has been good for its health, and to the advantage of the public. My complaint is that in
    752
    this terrible War, in which the whole of the population is so intensely interested, there has been a dearth of news. We have had far too little news, and the public in that respect have been starved, so that patriotic spirit has lacked a stimulus which it otherwise would have had. My right hon. Friend, I understood, said that it was not the fault of the Press Bureau that they did not issue news, because they did not get it. The French Bureau gets the news, and the American papers are praising up the French Bureau censorship at our expense. I understood the right hon. Gentleman also to say that he has now made some arrangement by which he has sent to the front some military correspondents, who will transmit the news frequently and promptly. That is all to the good, and that is exactly what we have been aiming at, and desiring. I contend that the British people who send their brothers and sons to the front have a right to know what is happening. Nothing should be kept back from them that will not injure the military situation Nothing would help recruiting so much as vivid descriptions of the brilliant exploits of our soldiers. I am a great believer in publicity. Truth seldom does any harm, and it is a great corrective at any rate to untruth. It may be sometimes unpleasant, but it prevents a great deal of mischief arising from false statements. Let us have the truth, and, if not the whole truth, as much as possible of the truth, and certainly nothing but the truth.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven minutes before Nine o'clock, till Monday next, 11th September, at a Quarter before Three o'Clock.