Commons Sitting of 20 April 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Deaf and Dumb Poor Asylum Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Private Bills (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
London County Council (General Powers) Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Doncaster Corporation Bill,
Nottingham Corporation (Trent Navigation Transfer) Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Great Eastern Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time. Methodist Church in Ireland Bill,
As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Mersey Railway Bill [Lords],
Neath Canal Navigation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday, 29th April.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bridlington, Huddersfield, St. Helens, Scarborough, and Skelmersdale." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Cowes and East Cowes, Milford Haven, Southend-on-Sea (two), Stafford, and Worthing." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill.
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Hursley (Rural), Pudsey, Ruislip-North-wood, and Whitley and Monkseaton." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 53.]

EAST INDIA (EXCISE ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
Return [presented 15th March] to be printed. [No. 200.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
City of Chester;
Borough of Dudley;
Urban district of St. Anne's-on-the-Sea
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5431 and 5432 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SEAL FISHERIES (NORTH PACIFIC) ACTS, 1895 AND 1912.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 13th April, 1915, extending Sections 3 and 4 of the Act to Norfolk Island [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Emigration Statistics of Ireland for the year 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BANKING AND RAILWAY STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report on the Banking and Railway Statistics of Ireland for the half-year ended 31st December, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MILITIA ACT, 1882 (DEPUTY-LIEUTENANTS, IRELAND).
Copy presented of Returns of descriptions of qualifications of Deputy-Lieutenants lodged during 1914, as furnished to the Chief Secretary for Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of the Compensation for Gooseberry Bushes (County Meath) Order, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the administrative county of
150
Antrim altering the boundary of the Urban District Council of Portrush [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

IRISH LAND ACTS.
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Lords Justices under Section 23 (8) of the Irish Land Act, 1903, and Section 4 of the Irish Land Act, 1909 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1914.
Copy presented of Rules as to the constitution and procedure of the Registration Council constituted under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 201.]
Copy presented of Rules and Schedule containing the Programme of Examinations for 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 202.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) REGULATIONS, 1915.
Copy presented of the National Insurance (Joint Committee) Regulations, 1915, dated 15th April, 1915, made by the Treasury under Section 83 of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 203.]
PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Rule, dated 20th April, 1915, made by the Secretary for Scotland under the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, and the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877, with respect to remissions and punishments [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 204.]
TEMPORARY LAWS.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Register of Temporary Laws for the Fifth Session, Thirtieth Parliament, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [pursuant to the Report of the Select Committee on Expiring Laws in Session 1866]; to be printed. [No. 205.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GERMAN MISSIONARIES (SOUTH CHINA).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that German missionaries in South China have regularly issued a pamphlet since the War began for the circulation of erroneous and prejudiced statements against Great Britain; and, if so, whether steps have been or will be taken to restrain them from so doing by the friendly Government of China?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the matter is not one in which His Majesty's Government can expect the Chinese Government to interfere.

  PUTUMAYO ATROCITIES.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further legal proceedings will be taken at the instance of His Majesty's Government against persons charged with offences upon the Report of Sir R. Casement dealing with the Putumayo atrocities?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot deal with this question under present circumstances.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is Sir Roger Casement available as a witness, if necessary?
  Sir J. D. REES: Is Sir Roger Casement any longer regarded as a person upon whose authority the Government may properly act?
  Mr. KING: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers will he not say whether these charges were not fully gone into by a Select Committee of the House of Commons and generally accepted in their report?
  Sir E. GREY: Whatever the report of the Select Committee is—I have not referred to it recently—it is before the House and can be ascertained. I cannot
  152
  see that whatever Sir Roger Casement may have done subsequently invalidates their findings.

  CONTRABAND (RAW COTTON).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is intended to declare raw cotton absolute contraband?
  Sir E. GREY: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply returned to the hon. Member for the Devizes Division of Wiltshire on the 14th instant, wherein it was explained why cotton had not been declared contraband.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    TREATMENT IN GERMANY AND GREAT BRITAIN.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that the treatment of English prisoners of war in Germany shall be identical with the treatment of German prisoners of war in this country?
    Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to White Paper, Miscellaneous, No. 7 (1915), which shows the steps taken to improve the conditions obtaining in the camps in Germany where British prisoners of war are interned.
    Sir F. BANBURY: In view of the importance of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to give a day for the discussion of the White Paper?
    Sir E. GREY: That is a question which ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister when he is in his place.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to add the weight of his authority to the request that I am making; then probably the Prime Minister will accede to it?
    Sir E. GREY: Of course, I have no reason whatever, on the merits of the question, to object to a discussion in the House, and I should not think of depreciating a discussion of this particular Paper if the House of Commons particularly wished it, but the question whether the business of the House can afford time to give a day is one entirely for the Prime Minister, and should be reserved until his return.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked at what date the information contained in Major Vandeleur's letter or report in regard to his own treatment and that of other British prisoners in Germany was communicated to the British Government?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The date of Major Vandeleur's report is the 24th December, 1914.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Why was not this important document as to the scandalous treatment of British prisoners in Germany brought to light before the expiry of a period of three and a half months?
    Mr. TENNANT: The facts as disclosed in the report of Major Vandeleur were, of course, the subject of the most earnest and careful consideration on the part of His Majesty's Government, and through the American Ambassador the Foreign Office put itself at once in touch with the only possible method of trying to secure redress. It is only because we feel now that it is desirable that the information has been disclosed to the public.
    Colonel LOCKWOOD: Has no answer been received?
    Mr. TENNANT: Many answers have been received.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether any reply has yet been received by the United States Government from the German Government giving permission for a commission of United States officers to inspect the treatment of prisoners of war in Germany; and, if so, whether the commission of United States officers have commenced their inquiries, and how soon their Report may be expected?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Primrose): I would refer the Noble Lord to the correspondence published in the White Paper, Miscellaneous No. 7, which has recently been laid upon the Table of the House, from which it will be seen that the German Government have accepted in a slightly modified form the scheme for the inspection by the United States officials of camps in Germany in which British prisoners of war and civilians are interned. His Majesty's Government understand that the scheme has been put into operation. A full Report on the camps will be
    154
    published when received from the United States Embassy.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a number of English prisoners of war interned in Germany are being practically starved and in many cases housed under most insanitary conditions; whether he is aware in some cases these men, being privates, have had to ask their wives to send them bread, butter, cheese, sugar, clothing, and other necessities of life, which in many cases is being sent by the wives out of the allowances they receive; and, having regard to the fact that, apart from the way in which our men are being treated, the food sent by the wives is impoverishing their own homes, and in many cases they are sending to their husbands what they themselves are in need of, whether he will arrange for some allowance to be made to the wives or, alternatively, for food to to be sent to our prisoners of war in Germany?
    Mr. TENNANT: Our information is that the ration issued is scanty, but the housing conditions are believed to have been improved recently. It is undoubtedly the case that frequent requests for food are sent by the prisoners not only to their wives, but also to the various committees, regimental and others, which are devoting themselves to the work of sending comforts and relief to the prisoners. I may add that the American Government, through its Ambassador in Berlin, have kindly distributed clothing and relief to the prisoners, and funds have been placed at their disposal for this purpose.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information bearing out the statement of the German Government that the food rations given to our soldiers who are prisoners are equal to the rations given to the civilian population?
    Mr. TENNANT: No. I have no information. I will make it my business to inquire if the hon. Gentleman desires.

    CONVICTION OF AUSTRIAN (SHEFFIELD).
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Julius Wurscher, an Austrian, of twenty-two years of age, who was charged before the Sheffield magistrates on 10th April, was found to be in possession of photographic apparatus and negatives of the Liverpool

    155
    Docks, the Tower Bridge, and other places of military significance in London and elsewhere in England; whether he is aware that there was evidence that he is the son of an owner of steel works in Vienna, and that he came to this country ostensibly for the purpose of learning the English language; that on conviction he was sentenced to a fine of £100, with the alternative of six months' imprisonment; whether he can say if the fine has been paid; whether the military authorities were aware of the presence in this country of this alien enemy of military age; why he has not been arrested as a prisoner of war; and if, in view of the evidence found in his possession, the question has been considered whether Wurscher should be shot as a dangerous spy?
    Mr. TENNANT: The facts are substantially as stated in the first part of the question. The fine has been paid, and Wurscher is now interned as a prisoner of War. The presence of Wurscher in this country was known, but after the case had been inquired into no reason was found for treating him otherwise than under the conditions of the Aliens' Restriction Regulations. The photographs in the possession of Wurscher were such as the public can readily buy, and it is considered that the penalty awarded, which was the maximum, adequately met the offence of possessing a camera.

    ATTEMPTED ESCAPE OF GERMANS.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether some German, officers, prisoners of war at Philberds, Maidenhead, recently succeeded in making a tunnel some ten or twelve yards long, and in cutting through the concrete foundations of a brick wall before their preparations for escape were discovered; if so, whether the officer responsible for guarding these prisoners has been reprimanded for lack of vigilance; and whether steps have been taken to secure that, in all places where prisoners of war are confined, a stricter scrutiny of their movements shall be maintained?
    Mr. TENNANT: The case referred to by the hon. Member is still being inquired into. But I may say that the length of the tunnel has been ascertained to be between four and five yards. Any further precautions found necessary will be taken.

  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  Mr. MOLTENOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of the negotiations between China and Japan; whether the demand on the part of Japan that half the ammunition used by China should be manufactured in Japan or under Japanese control in China is being pressed; and whether this claim is consistent with the treaty between Great Britain and Japan providing for the maintenance of the integrity and independence of China?
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has obtained or is obtaining from the British representatives in China expert advice as to the anticipated effect on British trade, commerce, and industry of the new Japanese demands, more especially in the valley of the Yangtse and in the South-East of China; (2) whether equality of commercial opportunity in China is still the fundamental principle of British policy in respect to that country; if so, whether it is proposed to agree to the earmarking of any one or more of the eighteen provinces of China for exclusive exploitation by any individual Power; and (3) whether he has received any representations either from the British representatives or from the British trading community at Hong Kong with respect to the proposed Japanese exclusive exploitation in South-East China; and, if not, whether, before taking any action in connection therewith, he will obtain it?
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked (1) whether the present Japanese demands on China will affect the treaty between England and Japan respecting China; (2) whether the right hon. Gentleman has received from chambers of commerce in this country and from representative bodies of British traders in China and Hong Kong any expressions of opinion on the Japanese demands; whether he will lay copies of such communications upon the Table of this House; and (3) whether the consent of the Powers having large trading relations with China will be necessary before any of the present demands by Japan can become operative?
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he can now communicate to the House the exact text of the Japanese demands to China; whether, in

  157
  case permission is necessary, he will ask this from the Governments concerned; (2) whether any representations have been made by the British Government either to China or Japan in connection with the demands put forward by Japan to China; if so, will he indicate their nature; and (3) whether he has received any representations from chambers of commerce in this country with regard to the Japanese demands to China; if so, whether he can state their nature?
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received a copy of the original demands recently made by Japan on China, and if he will publish a list of these demands; will he state now if these demands included a request for railway, mining, and special privileges in Eastern Mongolia which would prevent other nations from obtaining similar rights within the territory; if Japan demanded a voice in the local administration of Manchuria and a monopoly of commercial and trading privileges which would effectively close the door to other nations; if Japan has demanded that she shall inherit the railway and mining rights hitherto held by Germany in Shantung, and in addition claims other privileges which will make this province a closed domain for Japanese enterprise; if Japan has asked for what amounts to a monopoly of the iron and coal deposits in the Yangtze valley, and has demanded railway privileges which would divert traffic from lines now being built with British capital; if, in addition, Japan has demanded a dominant voice in the administration of important internal affairs of China, such as that Japan shall furnish at least one-half the supply of war munitions which China may require; if it be the view of the British Foreign Office that, these demands made by Japan are consistent with the terms of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty which guarantees the independence of China, and requires the open door and equal opportunities for both nations; and if he will state what amount of national independence will be left to China if the demands of Japan are imposed upon her?
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, in view of the fact that British policy in the Far East champions equal commercial opportunity for all nations, he will do his best to
  158
  ensure that this doctrine applies to munitions of war which may in future be needed by China; and (2) whether any claim has been put forward by Japan for the privileged supply of munitions of war to China; and whether, if that is so, he will state the policy of the British Government on this point?
  Mr. YEOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance to British trade of the Japanese demands, diplomatic action of a friendly nature will now be taken by this country to secure participation in the Chino-Japanese negotiations now in progress in Peking?
  Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of one of the Japanese demands to China, it is consonant with the principles and preamble of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty to suggest the earmarking of any province in China for the special or sole industrial exploitation of any nation?
  Mr. GORDON HARVEYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can assure the House that, in any arrangements that may be come to in the negotiations now going on between Japan and China, he will endeavour to secure the open door for British commerce in all parts of the Chinese Empire?
  Sir E. GREY: I would ask the hon. Members in whose names these questions appear to-day on the subject of the negotiations at Peking between China and Japan to accept the following collective answer:—Hon. Members have already been informed in reply to questions on this subject that His Majesty's Government were not in a position to make statements in regard to these negotiations which are taking place between two other Powers. The negotiations not being yet concluded, the position as regards making statements in detail remains unchanged. Speaking generally, however, I may say that the policy of His Majesty's Government in China continues to be governed by the terms of the existing Agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan, namely: the preservation of the common interests of all Powers in China by ensuring the independence and integrity of the Chinese Republic, and the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations in China. Beyond this, the replies to the various

  159
  subjects referred to in the individual questions may be briefly summarised by stating that His Majesty's Government are constantly in communication with His Majesty's representatives in China and Japan, and are in touch with commercial bodies interested both at home and in the Far East on the subject of these negotiations. It is not, however, proposed to lay copies of communications with the latter on the Table of the House—which, moreover, would serve no useful purpose. Hon. Members may rest assured that in the future, as in the past, His Majesty's Government will endeavour to secure the open door for British commerce in all parts of China.

  INTERNATIONAL TRADE.
  Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why 1,000 tons of copra shipped by the Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas from the Philippine Islands on board the steamship "Harbury," and consigned to the Oleifici Nazionali of Genoa, for discharge at Savona, has been ordered by the Government to proceed to Marseilles instead, seeing that the representatives of the company in London have furnished certificates, attested before the British Consul, and necessary documents to prove that neither the copra nor the oil will be re-exported from Italy; whether these documents were sent on the 24th March to the Foreign Office and have never been acknowledged or returned; is it the intention of His Majesty's Government to stop all international trade; and will he state why 2,000 tons of copra by the steamship "Ben-lawers," consigned to Hull, on arrival in Marseilles was allowed to proceed to Savona to discharge instead of Hull?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first question is that the copra specified by the hon. Member was not the only, or indeed the principal, part of the vessel's cargo; that it was consigned "to order" and liable, therefore, to seizure under the Order in Council of 29th October, 1914; and that it was not, as suggested in the question, accompanied by the necessary documents to prove that neither the copra nor the oil would be re-exported from Italy. The answer to the second question is that certain documents were sent to the Foreign Office on 24th March and that,
  160
  although the company referred to has addressed repeated subsequent communications to the Department, it was not till 15th April that full particulars respecting the cargo were obtained; immediately on the receipt of the documents forwarded on 24th March, His Majesty's Government, observing that the shippers had not paid due regard to the Order in Council of 29th October, placed themselves in communication with the Italian Government with a view to the introduction of an effective prohibition of export of copra and its products from Italy, and, as a result of the successful issue of these negotiations, all objection on the part of the British authorities to the discharge of the Italian cargo is removed and the shipowners have been so informed. The answer to the third question is in the negative; it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to check all contraband and enemy trade, but, subject to this paramount necessity, to interfere as little as possible with neutral commerce; that the negotiations above referred to with the Italian Government are a concrete evidence of their desire to assist such trade, and the omission of the shippers and shipowners in this case is a typical example of the delays caused by failure to pay due regard to official published statements. The answer to the last question is that the authorisation to allow the steamship "Benlawers" to proceed from Marseilles to Savona did not proceed from His Majesty's Government, who are unaware of the circumstances.

  FOREST ROW MILITARY CAMP.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the recent forest fire in the neighbourhood of the military camp at Forest Row started simultaneously at four different points to windward of the camp and would probably have destroyed the camp but for an opportune change of wind; if any investigation has been made with a view to determining whether it was the work of incendiaries; and whether any aliens or recently naturalised persons reside in or are known to frequent the neighbourhood?
  Mr. TENNANT: Nothing is known at the War Office of the alleged fire. It is understood that certain aliens and recently naturalised persons do reside in the neighbourhood.

  ARMY BANDS.
  Mr. HODGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that some time ago the civilian band employed on the Brighton Palace Pier was dismissed and its place taken by the band of the Grenadier Guards; and whether it is still to be the policy of the War Office to allow Army bands, upon whom the Department has first claim, to occupy their time in civilian employment while civilian musicians of over military age are out of work and while the Department is advertising that more men are needed for the Army?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware that the band of the Grenadier Guards has displaced the civilian band employed on the Brighton Palace Pier, although it is known that the band of the Grenadier Guards has accepted an engagement at Brighton. As regards the second part of the question, Army bands are allowed under certain regulations to accept outside engagements, and as long as these regulations are not contravened it is not proposed to interfere in the matter.
  Mr. HODGE: Would it not be better if this one was used for recruiting purposes than playing to skulkers at Brighton?
  Mr. TENNANT: I imagine the band is constantly put to the purpose the hon. Member has in view.

  INOCULATION.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any official information showing that 200 men belonging to one Cavalry regiment became seriously ill with symptoms of blood poisoning after inoculation against typhoid; if so, will he say whether two or three of them died; whether the two doctors who performed the inoculation were on inquiry found to be Austrians, tried by court-martial, and sentenced to penal servitude; and what steps have been, or will be, taken to ensure soldiers in future against the dangers of inoculation?
  Mr. TENNANT: There is no official information corresponding in any way to the statements in the first three parts of the question. No one has heard of the Austrian doctors who have been sentenced to
  162
  penal servitude. Perhaps my hon. Friend will furnish me with the information which is in his possession. I may add that every precaution is taken to protect soldiers against any risk of sepsis arising from inoculation.
  Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Second-Lieutenant Beate, of the Connaught Rangers, who was buried at Cork on 15th March, 1915, died of septic poisoning caused by inoculation against typhoid at Kinsale; and whether he was inoculated two or three times during the course of his illness?
  Mr. TENNANT: There are no grounds whatever for my hon. Friend's suggestion that this young officer's death was due to septic poisoning caused by inoculation against typhoid. He had not been so inoculated since his arrival in the command. He is reported to have died of septicaemia due to absorption from an abscess of the heel, and he received as treatment during his illness injections of antistrepto-coccus serum properly given.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the privilege of leave or furlough is denied a soldier who declines to be inoculated; and whether it is a military offence for a soldier to complain in writing of any grievance to the Secretary of State for War?
  Mr. TENNANT: As I have already explained on previous occasions, the privilege leave given to inoculated soldiers who were shortly proceeding to the front, to enable them to visit their homes, was not extended to men who declined to be inoculated and who were consequently selected to remain in this country. The manner in which an officer or soldier should seek redress for any grievance is laid down in the Army Act, and any officer or soldier who adopts other methods is guilty of a military offence.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether inoculated men will be given this permission before they go to the front, if they go to the front?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I think I can give that assurance.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: In every case?

  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the recent order arranging for the promotion to captains of all lieutenants in the Royal Army Medical Corps includes Royal Army Medical Corps' lieutenants of the Territorial Forces; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of their inclusion?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, it is not intended to extend the arrangement referred to to the Territorial Force, as the circumstances are not the same.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not the fact that those men have to leave their practices and are put to a great deal of expenditure, and could not the right hon. Gentleman see his way to do something to meet the case?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, but so are other medical practitioners.

  WAR MUNITIONS.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked if steps are being taken to organise works in Ireland for the production of munitions of war?
  Mr. TENNANT: Every possible source of supply will be organised as and when required.
  Mr. DAVID MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the city of Coventry, which is interested in the manufacture of munitions of war, the loss of time per man per week in peace time compared with war time shows little difference; and, seeing that the figures furnished by a leading ordnance factory, being for May, 1914, the average hours per week per man of overtime being 3½ hours, and the average hours lost being 4¼, whereas in March, 1915, the average hours per week per man of overtime were 12 hours, and the average hours lost were 4,92, whether he will consider the advisability of making further inquiry before proposing any legislation on these matters?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): My attention has been called to the facts stated in
  164
  the question, though I cannot agree with my hon. Friend in regarding as not serious an average increase of nearly three-quarters of an hour in the amount of lost time per week per man compared with peace conditions. I can assure him that the Government are taking these and all other relevant facts into the most careful consideration.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any information about the conditions being good?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot accept the conditions as being good when the men have worked less by three-quarters of an hour per day than they did during peace time.

  VOLUNTEER CORPS.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether the wearing of a brassard with uniform by Volunteer corps is ordered by the War Office; whether the wearing of a brassard is prescribed to show that the corps wearing it is affiliated to the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps; whether it is necessary that every Volunteer corps should be so affiliated; whether the brassard has ceased to be a substitute for a uniform; and, if not, whether the dress of Volunteer Training Corps is not regarded as a uniform?
  Mr. TENNANT: It has been decided that the brassard should be worn when any military exercises or duties are being performed. The brassard is the authorised mark of official recognition having been extended to a corps. No corps which is not affiliated to the Central Association is recognised. The brassard is not a substitute for a uniform in the sense of excluding the use of a distinctive dress.
  Sir J. D. REES: Does that mean that the brassard is recognised and the uniform is not?
  Mr. TENNANT: My answer is very unequivocal. I say that the brassard is a mark of the recognition which is given by the War Office to the corps in question.
  Sir W. BULL: Would it be recognised by the enemy?
  Mr. TENNANT: That question ought to be addressed to the General Staff at Berlin.

  UNIVERSITY AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS CORPS.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether, when recruiting was going on for the University and Public Schools Corps, applicants were given to understand that enlistment would not militate against their chances of a commission; and whether the veto exercised by the commanding officers of these corps has been withdrawn?
  Mr. TENNANT: As I have already stated on previous occasions, the War Office is not responsible for the alleged inducements held out by the Committee which raised the corps referred to by the Noble Lord. The answer to the second part of the question is that commanding officers of the University and Public Schools battalions have been instructed quite recently to submit the names of all suitable candidates for commissions who are serving in the ranks of those units, and I may add that I have every reason to believe that these names will be submitted by those gentlemen.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Who is responsible for the inducements?
  Mr. TENNANT: I really cannot answer that question. I should imagine that the raisers of the corps were responsible.

  ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if, in response to advertisements for clerks for the Army Service Corps at 4s. a day, numbers of clerks have enlisted; if on arrival at Aldershot they are put to work as labourers and are paid from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 8d. a day, for which labourers are being engaged at 3s. a day; and, if so, whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to such clerks being employed in accordance with the terms of their enlistment?
  Mr. TENNANT: No cases are known where clerks specially enlisted are being paid at rates other than those at which they were engaged, nor am I aware that these men are being employed as labourers. All recruits, whether tradesmen or clerks, are drilled and do a certain amount of fatigue duty before being posted to workshops or offices.

  MILITARY CANTEENS.
  Mr. MOLTENOasked whether the canteens in the military camps, both those in England and on the Continent, are continuing to supply intoxicating liquors to the troops?
  Mr. TENNANT: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. In England beer, and on the Continent light French beer are the only intoxicating liquors sold in the Army canteens.

  ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOTS.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he has received a petition from employés of the Army Ordnance depots asking that the practice of appointing temporary lieutenants, who have no experience of the work, as supervisors be discontinued, and that from these employés men with many years' service and knowledge of the work be appointed for the purpose of supervision; and when will an answer be given to the petition?
  Mr. TENNANT: A petition was forwarded last October through the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Southern Command, from certain employés of one of the Army Ordnance depots in the Command, and was dealt with in connection with the question of providing additional supervising grades at the various depots. No general petition has been received, and it appeared at the time that the views of the petitioners were not shared by the corresponding grades of another large depot in the same Command. I explained to the hon. Member privately, in correspondence last November, the policy of the Department on this question, and subsequent experience has confirmed the military authorities in the view that the course adopted was the one best suited to all the circumstances of the case.

  YORKSHIRE TERRITORIAL REGIMENT.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked, if the new third-line formations of the Territorial Force (Infantry) are to be constituted as depots; if orders have been

  167
  issued that the depot to be thus formed for the 4th and 2/4th Territorial battalions of the Yorkshire Regiment is to be encamped with the 2/4th battalion at or near Newcastle if so, what are the reasons for forming the third-line depot at a place outside of and remote from their recruiting area instead of at the Territorial headquarters; and has due consideration been given to the adverse effect which such a proceeding will have upon recruiting?
  Mr. TENNANT: Instructions have been issued for the third-line formations of the Territorial Force to be constituted as depots and stationed at their peace headquarters. In the case referred to by the Noble Lord the General Officer Commanding reports that he gave the order as a temporary measure pending further arrangements.

  RUM FOR TROOPS.
  Mr. MOLTENOasked whether, in view of the general consensus of opinion in regard to the desirability of restricting the use of alcohol, and particularly of ardent spirits, the Secretary of State for War will consider the desirability of ceasing to issue rum in large quantities to the troops at the front?
  Mr. TENNANT: The conditions under which rum is issued to the troops at the front have been fully explained on previous occasions. It is not proposed to make any change in the issue.
  Mr. MOLTENO: Is it not somewhat inconsistent to issue rum to the troops, a matter entirely under the control of the Secretary of State for War, when the question of total prohibition of the use of ardent spirits is being very generally discussed with Ministers?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am interested to learn that piece of information, but I would say that the troops are serving under totally different conditions.

  ACTING PAYMASTERS.
  Mr. RONALD MCNEILLasked why acting paymasters in the Army are refused commissions as officers and do not enjoy
  168
  even temporary or honorary rank, although while actually on duty they are designated as officers; and whether there is any reason why acting paymasters should not be placed on an equal footing in this respect with civilians employed in the medical and veterinary cervices.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): Temporary commissions are only granted to acting paymasters when required to proceed abroad for duty with the Expeditionary Force. It would, I think, be undesirable to grant commissions to acting paymasters who are merely performing clerical work at home.

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (ISSUE OF BADGES).
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked whether arrangements have now been made for the issue of badges to all workmen engaged on War Office contracts, or whether such issue is limited exclusively, and why, to men employed by the armament firms?
  Mr. BAKER: The arrangements are complete and the badges are now being issued, but it has been decided to limit them to skilled workmen engaged in the manufacture of munitions of war. The object is to attract and retain a vitally important class of labour of which there is at present a shortage.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman give some definition as to what is meant by "munitions of war"?
  Mr. BAKER: Armaments mainly, but certain other things might be included.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: Will the definition "skilled" cover machinists and skilled labourers?
  Mr. BAKER: I think there is a general consensus as to the meaning of "skilled workman."
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the munitions of war include electrical equipment in the field, component parts of gun-carriages, and things of that sort?
  Mr. BAKER: I could not answer as to any particular instances. I should think the answer would be in the negative to the first case.
  Mr. SHIRLEY BENN: Are not these badges also going to be given to men who are working in shipyards engaged on Admiralty work?
  Mr. BAKER: That is a question for the Admiralty.

  RECRUITING.

    MALE FLOWER SELLERS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the possibility of introducing legislation that would prevent young men physically fit and within the enlistment age selling flowers about the streets of London, more particularly outside the West End hotels and restaurants?
    Mr. TENNANT: Any men who correspond to the hon. Member's description might certainly find more useful occupation in His Majesty's forces, but legislation to secure this is not contemplated.

    OMNIBUS CONDUCTORS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to say how many young men of enlistment age are acting as conductors of omnibuses in London; is he aware that young men are at the present time being trained as omnibus conductors; and will he say what, if any, steps are being taken to bring before omnibus companies the necessity of giving every opportunity to young men in their service to join the Army?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not in a position to answer the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I am informed that the London General Omnibus Company (of the employés of which over 4,800 have enlisted) has not engaged or trained any new conductors since the beginning of the War. Special steps are being taken to bring directly to the notice of those who control the various industrial organisations, including the omnibus companies, that more recruits are wanted for the Army, and to urge them to give facilities to eligible young men in their service to enlist.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to give him
    170
    evidence which is entirely different from that contained in his statement?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course, Sir; it will be a privilege.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE.

    PROFICIENCY PAY.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state on what basis proficiency pay is granted to Territorials on duty in India?
    Mr. BAKER: Proficiency pay is given to soldiers of the Territorial Force in India on the same terms as elsewhere. If the hon. Member wishes for a detailed statement of the conditions, I shall be happy to send it to him.

    REGIMENTAL PAY (INDIA).
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state what is the authorised rate of pay to privates of Territorial regiments at present on duty in India; whether any, and, if so, what deductions are made therefrom in respect of the upkeep of the library and flower garden, for washing, and for food; and what other deductions from pay are made?
    Mr. BAKER: The rate of pay of privates of Territorial regiments in India is the same as that of Regulars, namely, 1s. a day. Allowances for messing and for the upkeep of necessaries are given in addition. Deductions are made, in general, for food other than rations, washing and a library, but any deduction on account of a flower garden would be voluntary. The Secretary of State is at present in communication with the Government of India regarding the nature and amount of the various stoppages.

  ARMY MOTOR CYCLISTS (PAY).
  Mr. PERKINSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state why it is that the pay of motor cyclists varies from 1s. 2d. to 6s. per day, according to the corps; and whether he will arrange for the payment of a standard rate for all Army motor cyclists irrespective of the corps which they join?
  Mr. BAKER: The normal rates paid vary with the corps, in accordance with the general principles governing rates of Army pay, and depend on the nature of the work performed. The highest rate was a special rate of 5s. offered since mobilisation to men who were fully trained as motor cyclists before enlistment.

  INTERNED STEAMERS (FREIGHT CHARGES).
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a circular recently issued by the chairman of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, in which complaint is made that whereas the Government pay from 3s. 6d. to 4s. per ton for steamships requisitioned for Government use, they charge no less than 10s. per ton to traders for the use of interned enemy ships, thus setting a bad example to shipowners, which tends to keep up the price of freights and, consequently, the price of coal to the consumers; if he will say who is responsible for fixing the prices for the use of interned enemy ships; and why the prices are fixed at a higher rate than those paid by the Government for the use of commercial vessels requisitioned for His Majesty's service?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have seen the circular issued by the South Metropolitan Gas Company. The rates of freight charged for the interned steamers are settled for each voyage by the managers at Newcastle with regard to the state of the market at the time, and the managers act tinder general instructions from the Admiralty and Board of Trade to the effect that the rates for the interned steamers are to be below rather than above the market rates and lead the market in a downward direction. It was not considered practicable to follow the procedure laid down for fixing the rates of hire in the case of commercial vessels requisitioned by the Transport Department of the Admiralty.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, as a matter of fact, the figures given in the circular were or were not correct?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the circular was intended to convey the impression that 10s. is the rate now being paid for the use
  172
  of interned steamers carrying coal to London, the circular was incorrect. At one time the rate did average 10s., but it has been much below that for a long time past.

  DOMINIONS AND PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.
  Mr. HEWINSasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the meeting of the Imperial Conference is not to be held this year as arranged, if he will state what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to consult the King's Ministers in the Dominions overseas so as to ensure that in any peace negotiations His Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom have behind them the full support of the self-governing peoples of the Empire; and whether the Government will now intimate to the Premiers overseas that the presence of themselves or any of their colleagues would be most welcome in London this summer?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): The Prime Minister asks me to say that he cannot add anything to the statement which I made to the House on the 14th of April.
  Mr. HEWINS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give an answer to the last part of the question?
  Mr. HARCOURT: The Prime Ministers of the Dominions already know that their presence here will be most welcome at anytime, and that there is always a vacant chair for them in the Committee of Imperial Defence.
  Mr. HEWINS: Have they been informed?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Certainly.

  CONSCRIPTION.

    GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Prime Minister if he will put into practice the declared intention of the Government of prosecuting the War with all the available forces of the Empire, by introducing conscription, whereby the single eligible men may be called out, and thereby saving the lives of thousands of our soldiers by bringing the War to a speedy and successful termination?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government are not of the opinion that there is any ground for thinking that the War would be more successfully prosecuted by means of conscription.
    Mr. TICKLER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are quite satisfied with the rate of recruiting, and whether they are satisfied that the present Army will be able to beat the Germans?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Secretary of State for War is very gratified with the response which has been made to the appeal to the country for voluntary enlistment.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of a 25 per cent. advance in the cost of food, he will consider the need for supplementing the income of old age pensioners by an additional grant from public funds?
  Mr. ALDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that cases have recently appeared in which old age pensioners have died in circumstances of great hardship and suffering consequent on the increased cost of living, and in view also of the fact that the Prime Minister promised to consider the possibility of increasing the old age pension in certain special cases recommended by the old age pension officers, he will order an inquiry to be made and ask for a Report at the earliest possible moment?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Government sympathise deeply with the case of old age pensioners, but if every case of hardship due to the special circumstances of the War is met by a grant from public funds, I fear that the heavy expenditure entailed by the War will strain the resources of the country almost to breaking point.
  Mr. W. CROOKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this phase of the question: Where the 5s. is inadequate will he allow the local ratepayers or the guardians to supplement it without loss of the pension during the War?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to consider that.

  COAL PRICES (REPORT OF COMMITTEE).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister what action the Government proposes to take in regard to coal prices in view of the report of the Coal Committee?
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister if he will state what steps the Government intends to take on the Coal Committee's Report?
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the burden imposed upon the poorer classes of consumers by the increase in the price of household and gas coal, and to the opinion expressed by the Committee appointed by him to inquire into the causes of the present rise in the retail price of coal that the conduct of an industry on which such great national interests depend cannot safely be left in a time of crisis to the working of an unregulated system of supply and demand, he can state what steps he proposes to take to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, and particularly the recommendation that the Government should consider a scheme for assuming control of the output of collieries during the continuance of the War?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to answer these questions. I am not in a position to make any statement at the moment, but I hope to do so very shortly. Steps have already been taken to act on two of the Committee's recommendations.
  Mr. DUNCAR MILLAR: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which of the two recommendations the Government propose to adopt?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is not certain that we shall not act on all of them; but on two of them we have already taken preliminary steps.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Which recommendations are they?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If my hon Friend will put a question down on the Paper I will give him a full answer.

  ENEMY ALIENS AND STRIKES.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the information in the possession of the intelligence department of the Admiralty that there is an extensive conspiracy being carried out by German agents in this country to foment strikes among workmen in order to hamper the performance of war contracts, the Government intend to impose any further restrictions upon the large number of enemy aliens allowed to remain at large in the United Kingdom?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The possibility of such influences as those mentioned in the question being at work requires vigilant attention. Ample powers are, however, provided under the Defence of the Realm Act and other Regulations to deal with enemy aliens, and no further steps are in contemplation.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is the slightest conceivable evidence of any attempt being made in this direction in regard to the workpeople of this country?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It manifestly is not in the public interest to make a statement.

  MORGAN GRENFELL AND WAR SUPPLIES.
  Mr. MOONEYasked the Prime Minister if the banking firm of Morgan Grenfell has been appointed sole purchasing agents for all the British Government Departments' requirements in American manufactured supplies; if he is aware that the house of Morgan, with its financial ramifications in America, is interested in various manufacturing concerns whose productions they favour to the exclusion of firms in whom they are not interested; and, seeing that it is against public policy, and to the British Government's disadvantage in their purchases of war supplies, to give such a sole buying contract over so wide an area as the United States to one financial firm with such direct or indirect industrial interests there, and that this arrangement with Morgan Grenfell is damaging the standing and working to the detriment of numerous British agents representing American interests in England, thus
  176
  adversely affecting the best interests of traders in this country, will he say what action he proposes to take?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company were appointed by the Government their sole agents in the United States for Admiralty and War Office requirements with certain exceptions. The arrangement was made to ensure efficiency and economy, and the Government have every expectation that the result will be satisfactory.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Messrs. Morgan have refused tenders for the Government, have then bought the goods at the tender price for their own account, and then sold the goods to the Government at a higher price?
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it a fact that this firm are interesting themselves in certain firms in the States?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot way.

  BRITISH CASUALTIES.
  Mr. MOLTENOasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the total number of British casualties, stating separately casualties in the field and sickness casualties, to the Expeditionary Force now on the Continent, up to the present date, or as near as possible thereto?
  Mr. TENNANT: I gave the figure for killed, wounded and missing in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on the 15th instant. Without further analysis of the figures than has so far been practicable, it would not be possible to make an accurate statement of the sickness casualties, and in any case it is doubtful whether in present circumstances it is desirable to furnish the enemy with full information on this point.

  CONVOCATION (LETTERS OF BUSINESS).
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will give undertakings that during the continuance of the War the assent of the Crown shall not be given to any recommendations made by the Convocations in connection with the Letters

  177
  of Business, and that any legislative proposals relating thereto, or to the creation of fresh bishoprics, shall be treated as controversial?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right, hon. Friend is informed that there is little prospect of the reply to the Royal Letter of Business being submitted at an early date. He is quite unaware what recommendations it will contain, and therefore, while adhering to his pledge as to the introduction by the Government of controversial legislation, he can only say that each question when it arises must be considered on its merits.

  ARMAMENT WORKERS (PROFITS).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to make a statement as to the method adopted by the Government for assigning to armament and war equipment workers a share of the profits of their employers, in accordance with the policy already announced?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I can add nothing to the answer given by the Prime Minister last Wednesday to the hon. Member for the Devizes Division of Wiltshire.
  Mr. HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when some pronouncement will be made on the subject?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I am afraid I cannot.
  Mr. HOPE: It is now many weeks since the announcement of policy was made, on the subject.

  BREWERIES, DISTILLERIES, AND PUBLIC-HOUSES.
  Mr. GORDON HARVEYasked the Prime Minister if the Government proposes to purchase the breweries, distilleries, and public-houses in Great Britain?
  Mr. TICKLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now prepared to grant facilities for the de-alcoholising of beer, and thereby provide a refreshing beverage for the people which has all the exhilarating properties of beer without the stimulating and harmful results?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to wait for the general statement of the policy of the Government.

  FRANCHISE (HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES).
  Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELasked the Prime Minister whether he will introduce a Bill into Parliament granting the franchise to all soldiers of the British Army serving their country, to enable them without other qualification to have a vote on their return from active service?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The question of the franchise of men serving in His Majesty's Forces is receiving the consideration of the Government.

  NOTIFICATION OF BIRTHS ACT.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Prime Minister if, having regard to the effect of the War on the statistics of births and deaths, he will consider whether, either by legislation or administrative order, the Notification of Births Act, 1907, now optional in character, can be made compulsory?
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if, in view of the still greater importance in the future of preventing the waste of child life, and in view of the great benefits which have resulted from the partial adoption of the Notification of Births Act, he will take steps to make that Act compulsory?
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the need of the provisions of the Notification of Births Act, 1907, being adopted for the whole country; and whether, by any means short of legislation, the utility of its operation can be extended to those localities in which this Act has not yet been adopted?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question, and perhaps I may at the same time reply to the two further questions, numbered 142 and 143, on the same subject. The Notification of Births Act imposes no duty on a local authority to follow up

  179
  notifications made under it, and unless this work is undertaken the chief value of the Act is not secured. The Department have generally considered that it is preferable to persuade local authorities to adopt the Act and to carry out health visiting and other measures for the benefit of persons whose cases are brought to their notice in pursuance of the Act, rather than simply to put the Act in force compulsorily. I may add that the Act is now in force in respect of about 75 per cent. of the total population of England and Wales, and that the question of the adoption of the Act is now under consideration in several areas.

  SIR FRANCIS TRIPPEL.
  Mr. JOYSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Sir Francis Trippel's commission as a major in His Majesty's Army is an honorary or substantive one; and what are his military qualifications for such rank?
  Mr. TENNANT: Sir Francis Trippel holds no commission in the Army now. He was a major in the Army Motor Reserve, which was disbanded in 1913. On disbandment the officers relinquished their commissions and were granted permission to retain their rank and wear the prescribed uniform.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether Sir Francis Trippel's scheme of recruiting had the sanction of the Army Council; whether it is still working; and if so, what is the result?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Army Council accepted Sir Francis Trippel's offer of assistance, but it was found at the outset that he was unable to carry out his scheme. The Army Council accordingly withdrew their approval.

  ARMY SHIRTMAKERS.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Government can see their way to pay the women who make the shirts for the Army during the period of war 8½d. instead of 7½d. per shirt; and whether he is aware that a considerable number of these women are widows of men who have lost their lives in the service of their country, and that some employers of a
  180
  similar class of female labour have given a war bonus to enable their employés to meet the increased cost of living?
  Mr. BAKER: The price paid by the War Department to the needlewomen's associations is 8½d., and the question of increasing this is under consideration. I am informed that the usual price now allowed by the associations to the women is 8d.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is 8½d. paid in the towns where these shirts are required?
  Mr. BAKER: Eightpence-halfpenny is paid by the War Department to the associations and the associations pay a slightly lower sum.

  BATTLE OF NEUVE CHAPELLE.

    SIR JOHN FRENCH'S DISPATCH.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the dispatch of General Sir John French describing the battle of Neuve Chapelle is published in its entirety or only selected passages from it?
    Mr. TENNANT: In its entirety.
    Mr. HOGGE: How is it that Lord Kitchener only took three days to fill up the ranks which had been depleted, and that it took the War Office a month to publish this?
    Mr. TENNANT: Surely it is very much better to take action quickly than to speak quickly.

  CENSORSHIP OF MAILS.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the Admiralty has any and, if so, what representation on the censorship of mails?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, but the Admiralty are referred to when necessary.

  LONDON SCOTTISH (PROMOTIONS).
  Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can state why no promotions were made in the 1st Battalion of the London Scottish amongst the officers, although they had seen active service, and why numerous promotions over their heads were made from the 2nd and 3rd

  181
  Battalions who have not been on active service at the front; is he aware that dissatisfaction at this action has been caused amongst the junior officers; and can he give any assurance, for the sake of those serving, that the men at the front will have the preference?
  Mr. TENNANT: This is a matter upon which the War Office are in communication with the Commander-in-Chief with a view to the removal of any cause of dissatisfaction which may exist. As the hon. Member will be aware, the London Scottish expanded rapidly, and in the 2nd and 3rd Battalions, in order to provide a due proportion of officers of the higher ranks, some rapid promotions took place. But this promotion was temporary and the officers thus rapidly promoted should on transfer to the 1st Battalion with the Expeditionary Force assume the order of precedence to which the date of joining the London Scottish entitled them, reverting, if necessary, to a lower rank. As I have said, the matter is being reviewed by the Commander-in-Chief.

  GENERAL OFFICERS COMMANDING.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will issue a statement giving the names of the general officers commanding Army corps, divisions, and brigades at the front, in order that His Majesty's subjects may be enabled to follow the movements of their Army?
  Mr. TENNANT: I realise that such a statement would be of interest, but my Noble Friend the Secretary of State is quite clear that military considerations require that information on these matters should be kept from the enemy.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would not the right hon. Gentleman represent to my Noble Friend that the bulk of these names can be picked out of the various Press reports, and as there are only very few which have not been given, would not it be better to give them, seeing that the enemy have learned all of them from the public Press?
  Mr. TENNANT: I congratulate the hon. gentleman on his knowledge of the enemy's knowledge. Our knowledge of the enemy's formation and corps commanders is only picked up in the same way. It is an exceedingly
  182
  difficult thing to do, and we wish to make it still more difficult for the enemy to pick up ours.

  ST. JOHN'S AMBULANCE BRIGADE.
  Viscount VALENTIAasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that seventeen men, members of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, fully trained in field ambulance work, who enlisted at Oxford as hospital subordinates at 4s. per day rate under A.O. 283, 1914, were sent to Chatham 6th August, and there told that they could only receive the ordinary rate of soldier's pay, 1s. 2d., at which rate they are now being paid; that they have never complained of this reduction, as they were led to believe they would go forthwith on service, but have been kept ever since at Chatham; that these men, several of them married and old soldiers, gave up good employment in order to serve the country, and in answer to a leaflet which was largely circulated at the time, since suppressed, offering the same rate of pay as A.O. 283, 1914; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BAKER: These men were under an engagement before mobilisation to enlist for home service at the ordinary rates of pay. The Army Order referred to was in force for only a brief period during mobilisation, and offered special terms to a certain number of men required immediately for foreign service. It was found impossible to allow the home service men to throw up their engagement.
  Viscount VALENTIA: Is the hon. Member aware that an offer of 4s. is made in black and white in the Army Order which I hold in my hand, and a leaflet which was widely circulated previously to the issue of the Order I have quoted?
  Mr. BAKER: I believe the men are already under engagement for home service, and therefore could not be accepted for foreign service.

  GOVERNMENT WORKERS (TRAIN FARES).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any arrangements have now been made, or are about to be made, whereby tradesmen and labourers engaged in War Office

  183
  work will, when under stoppage of work or having a holiday, be allowed at least an ordinary train are to and from their home; or whether, at least, arrangements shall be made whereby such men, when set idle through no fault of their own, shall be paid their full wages?
  Mr. BAKER: It would not, I am afraid, be practicable to pay railway fares under the conditions suggested. Men employed on hutting who are prevented from working by wet weather are frequently paid wages for the time during which they are asked to stay on, though they may not receive a full day's wage. I presume that it is to such cases that the hon. Member is referring.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he has now received the application form from Mrs. Ireland for the separation allowance in respect to Sapper Ireland; whether he can state the reason why Sapper Ireland cancelled his allotment; and whether it is allowable for a son to cancel his share of the allotment to his mother?
  Mr. BAKER: I am afraid that it is not possible to trace an individual soldier except through his unit and regimental number, but a soldier's allotment to his mother is entirely voluntary.
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether his attention has been called to the complaint made by Mrs. Wighton, of Limerick, wife of Driver George Herbert Wighton, No. 27763, Royal Field Artillery, that he is not contributing to her support although she is his lawful wife; whether he is aware that this man was arrested and imprisoned for neglecting his wife and children; will he inquire whether this man is allowing money to another woman; whether full inquiries will be made into this case with the view of giving this man's lawful wife and children justice; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. M. M'Knight, of Roches Street, Limerick, who has seven sons in the Army, three sons married and four sons unmarried; whether he is aware that this woman was depending all the winter on the small sum of 6s. per week granted
  184
  to her by the ladies of the Soldiers' Families Association of Limerick, and that nothing was given to her by the Government; whether he is aware that Lady A. Nash has written several times calling attention to this woman's case and that no reply was given to her letters; what amount per week, if any, does this woman receive now and will he state when Mrs. M'Knight commenced to receive it; and whether, taking all the circumstances of this case into account, the Government are prepared to grant a reasonable sum of money to this woman in order that she may not have to depend on charity?
  Mr. BAKER: The hon. Member has drawn my attention to those cases and inquiry is already being made. I will inform him of the result.
  Viscount VALENTIAasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the question of pensions to widows of officers killed in action holding temporary rank has been considered; and whether it is intended to grant pensions of the rank which the officers temporarily held to their widows?
  Mr. BAKER: I hope that a decision on this point may be announced shortly.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that there is considerable inconvenience and hardship being caused to many of the mothers who are dependent upon their sons who have enlisted in the Army, by reason of the fact that the allowances are not forthcoming until after considerable delay from the York paymaster's office; and whether he will take steps to have these settlements expedited?
  Mr. BAKER: I have called for a report and full inquiry is being made with a view to avoiding delays.
  Mr. S. ROBERTS: May I afterwards state to the hon. gentleman a case in regard to which I have received private information?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes; I shall be glad to receive it.

  FOOD AND LODGING ALLOWANCES.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can give any undertaking to increase the allowances

  185
  in respect to food, lodging, fuel, etc, to soldiers living at home, having regard to increased cost of living and increased separation allowances, and also to the fact that the duties of such soldiers in many cases are a considerable distance from their homes and involve time and expense to them?
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether married men who enlist and are billeted in their own houses will be placed in respect of separation allowance upon the same footing as such men billeted elsewhere than at home; and whether under the present system of allowing no separation allowance in the former case greater expense is in fact incurred by the State?
  Mr. BAKER: The whole subject is at present under consideration, and I hope to be able to announce a decision very shortly.

  ARMY PAY CORPS (COMMISSIONS).
  Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the number of commissions which have been granted from the ranks in the Army Pay Corps for the nine months previous to August, 1914, and nine months since?
  Mr. BAKER: The number of such commissions granted was five for the nine months previous to August, 1914, and twenty-five for the nine months following.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Is the number of commissions granted in this branch of the Service equivalent to the number granted to the Army Service Corps and other branches of the Service?
  Mr. BAKER: I could not possibly answer that without notice.
  Mr. GWYNNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state what is the pay received by sergeants of the Army Pay Corps; and what is the pay of the clerks working under them?
  Mr. BAKER: The pay of the sergeants is with one exception 3s. 6d. or 4s., and the pay of clerks enlisted for the war, to whom the hon. Member presumably refers, is 3s. 6d. or 4s. These temporary clerks have no pension rights.

  SERVICE AND PROFICIENCY PAY.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will state under what circumstances and conditions a private soldier is entitled to service pay and proficiency pay, respectively; and whether there is a difference in the case of a private soldier who has enlisted before or after November, 1906?
  Mr. BAKER: A full statement of the conditions would, I am afraid, exceed the limits of an answer to a question, but I shall be glad to furnish them to the hon. Member if he so wishes. Service pay was replaced in 1906 by proficiency pay, which was introduced to encourage efficiency, and no one enlisting after 1st October, 1906, has a claim to service pay.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman circulate a copy of those conditions?
  Mr. BAKER: I will certainly see about it.

  TRANSPORT CONDUCTORS (NORTHAMPTON)
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention had been directed to the scale of wages paid to the transport conductors employed at the Army Supply Stores, Northampton; and if he will make inquiry thereinto, with a view to determining whether, having regard to the hours worked by these men, to the general rise in the cost of living, and to the fact that other classes of like labour have been granted increased wages, these men should be placed on a higher scale?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir. Inquiry is being made.

  ARMY MEAT SUPPLIES.
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if it is proposed to supply troops in garrison with frozen meat only, to the exclusion of home-killed meat; and will soldiers in camp be given British or foreign meat?
  Mr. BAKER: Except where local contracts for home-killed meat are more convenient, troops in camp and garrisons in Great Britain are supplied with frozen meat obtained in part from Colonial sources. In Ireland troops are at present fed on home-killed meat.
  Sir J. SPEAR: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this places an embargo on the home producers of meat, and that it will act as a deterrent and reduce the supply of home-produced meat?
  Mr. BAKER: So far as my information goes there is a very good demand for home produced meat.

  SPECIAL WAR PROFITS.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to ascertain the amount and extent of the special war profits and to set a limit to them?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This matter is engaging the careful attention of the Government, but I am unable at present to make any statement.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (TRADE DISPUTES).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in the event of a dispute between a trade union and a Government contractor, and the trade union or the employer refusing to agree to having the dispute settled under any of the three headings of the agreement arrived at between the Government and trade union representatives on 19th March, the Government have power to take action under any clause of the agreement in question?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The arrangement arrived at as a result of the recent conference with the trade union representatives provides alternative methods of arbitration whereby questions in dispute between employers and workpeople may be referred for settlement. This provision has been communicated to Government contractors. The Government confidently expect that they will receive the full co-operation of all parties in securing that one or other of these methods of settlement will be followed, and that during the War matters of difference will not be made the cause of stoppage of work. I have no reason, therefore, to believe that the contingency referred to in the question will arise.
  Mr. THORNE: In the event of a Government contractor refusing to submit a case
  188
  to arbitration, what power have the Government to bring them to book?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that. I have no doubt the Government will be able to bring pressure to bear.
  Mr. THORNE: If I repeat the question with regard to any firm will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to bring that firm to book?

  BOY LABOUR (AGRICULTURE).
  Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state what steps are taken to ensure that the conditions laid down on behalf of the Government in connection with boy labour employed in agriculture are being actually observed?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): The Board are taking every step in their power to encourage the employment of all kinds of labour other than child labour, but my Department has no means of enforcing the conditions referred to by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. KING: Are you observing the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister and the Board of Education?
  Sir H. VERNEY: We are not employing child labour.

  MILKMAIDS (MIDLAND COUNTIES).
  Mr. LEACHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he can say to what extent milkmaids are now being employed in the Midland counties?
  Sir H. VERNEY: Detailed information on the subject referred to by my hon. Friend is not available, but the Board are informed that few farmers in the Midlands have so far shown a disposition to engage women as milkers.

  SPRING WHEAT.
  Mr. NEVILLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can furnish any figures showing the acreage of land in the United Kingdom which has been sown with wheat during the present spring; whether such

  189
  sowing has been conducted under generally favourable conditions, or otherwise; and whether the acreage under spring wheat this year is and, if so, to what extent larger than that of last year?
  Sir H. VERNEY: No definite figures showing the acreage of spring-sown wheat are available, but reports received from the Board's crop reporters indicate that the increase as compared with last year is rather more than 5 per cent. This increase would have been greater but for unfavourable weather conditions and shortage of labour.

  EXPORT OF PRODUCE WITHIN THE EMPIRE.
  Mr. HEWINSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say what measures have been taken in the various Dominions and India to confine the export of produce and materials to places within the Empire during the continuance of the War; and whether, in connection with any of these restrictions, the Government have given any undertakings?
  Mr. HARCOURT: In the self-governing Dominions, as in the United Kingdom, a large number of prohibitions of exportation have been established, some merely in order to regulate the exportation of commodities of value to the enemy, some in order to conserve local stocks, some in order to provide for the requirements of other parts of the Empire. The prohibitions are, generally speaking, based on the lists of contraband but vary in details. I do not clearly understand the reference to undertakings, but if the hon. Member will communicate with me personally I will endeavour to give him the information he wants when I understand what it is. With regard to India, I must refer him to the Under-Secretary of State for India.

  AUSTRALIAN CONTRACTS (ORES AND CONCENTRATES).
  Mr. HEWINSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Australian Government have, since the outbreak of war, made any and, if so, what representations to the Imperial Government in regard to the cancellation of contracts under which Australian mining and metal companies are compelled to
  190
  supply their ores and concentrates to a metal combine in Germany until 1921; whether any proposal was made for uniform action on similar lines for the whole of the Empire; and, if so, in what way do His Majesty's Government propose to assist the Australian Government to effect their purpose?
  Mr. HARCOURT: Representations have been made by the Commonwealth Government, since the Outbreak of war, to the effect that a large proportion of the output of base metals in Australia has been, during recent years, under German control, and that it is desired to free from such control the copper, zinc, lead and tin industries. The Commonwealth Government have suggested concerted action as between themselves and His Majesty's Government with a view to the cancellation of contracts for the disposal of base metals to a German combine. The proposals of the Commonwealth are receiving most careful consideration, but the matter is one of great complexity. I would, however, call attention to the recent passing of the Legal Proceedings Against Enemies Act, which provides facilities for any doubts which may exist as to the effect of the War on contracts of the kind in question to be expeditiously resolved by the Courts.
  Mr. HEWINS: Do I understand it is not true that the proposals of the Commonwealth have been rejected?
  Mr. HARCOURT: What is true is that they are under consideration.

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether periodical lists will be published, if possible month by month, of the number of children prematurely liberated from school to follow domestic, industrial, or agricultural employments?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend is considering what further Returns can be issued supplementary to Cd. 7881. Owing to the depletion of the Board's staff and of the officers of local authorities he is naturally anxious to restrict additional labour on statistical returns as far as possible.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (OCCUPATION BY MILITARY).
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education the number of elementary schools in England and Wales now occupied by the military authorities; and the number of displaced school children?
  Dr. ADDISON: The number of schools now occupied is 243, comprising 504 departments. The number of children displaced is 131,778, for all of whom, with the exception of 6,012 children, some other provision has been made.

  TITHES.
  Mr. DENMANasked the Home Secretary what financial profit will accrue to the Church of England by reason of increased value of tithe if the war lasts three years, and the average price of the grains upon which tithe depends exceeds the normal by 30 per cent. during that period?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I regret that I am unable to reply to my hon. Friend's question. After consulting the Board of Agriculture and the Ecclesiastical Commission I find that the information necessary to answer it is not available.
  Mr. DENMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us, for example, the value of tithes last year?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, I am afraid I am unable to give any answer other than what I have given.

  BARON VON BISSING.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Pinchot, an American citizen, employed as a member of a commission for the relief of civil distress in Belgium, was recently expelled from Belgium after being subjected to indignities at the hands of German officers, and that this treatment was by orders of General von Bissing, the German military governor of Brussels, who alleged in justification that Mr. Pinchot was brother-in-law to the British Minister at The Hague; whether this General von Bissing is himself nearly related to Baron von Bissing, lately resident in Brighton; and whether he will now reconsider his decision to allow Baron von Bissing to remain at liberty
  192
  in this country with power to communicate with his relative in Brussels?
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand that Mr. Pinchot was expelled from Belgium, but I there is no information as to his having been subjected to indignities. Baron von Bissing, who is believed to be a half-brother of the General, is a British subject, and I do not think it would be possible, nor in accordance with the principles enunciated in this House in the recent discussions on the Defence of the Realm Bill, to deprive him of his liberty on account of the indignities alleged to have been put upon Mr. Pinchot by his half-brother.

  DUNDALK AND NEWRY STEAM PACKET COMPANY.
  Mr. MOONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely: Whether he is aware that, owing to a wages dispute with the sailors and firemen of the Dundalk and Newry Steam Packet Company, the company have withdrawn their regular services from Newry to Liverpool and Ardrossan, thereby causing serious consequences to traders and the general public; and whether the Board of Trade can take action in the matter by way of arbitration or otherwise?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): We have no special information on the matter, but the good offices of the Board of Trade are at the disposal of the parties if they desire to avail themselves of them.
  Mr. MOONEY: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the Board of Trade can only intervene if both parties ask them?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That is so.

  Motor Lorries (Road Repairs).
  Sir J. SPEARasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the damage done to public roads by motor lorries, he will, in the forthcoming Budget, increase the tax on these vehicles in order that the owners shall thereby make a more equitable contribution towards the repair of the damage than is at present the case?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I fear I am unable to anticipate my Financial Statement.

  Unearned Income and Undeveloped Land Tax.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount which has been received, respectively, from unearned Income Tax and undeveloped Land Tax during the past year?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid that, in accordance with the usual practice, I cannot give figures as regards the yield of particular taxes during the year 1914–15 in anticipation of my Financial Statement.

  Income Tax.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state, for the last year for which such information is available, the total number of persons who have made returns for Income Tax; the total number who, after inquiry, have been found liable for the same; the total number of persons who have made claims for the return of over paid Income Tax; and the total number of claims which have in whole or in part been allowed?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The information asked for in the first two parts of the hon. Member's question is not available. As regards claims for repayment of Income Tax, the total number of repayments made in the year 1914–15 was approximately 670,000. The number of the cases in which no repayment was made has not been recorded, but is extremely small.

  Kelp Industry (Scotland).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what the Board of Agriculture are proposing to do as a result of their recent inquiry into the kelp industry in Scotland?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The Board have communicated with a number of authorities and proprietors in the Inner and Outer Hebrides and Shetland with a view to inducing them to organise the industry, and the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society has undertaken similar work in Caithness. The Board are arranging to send instructors to a number of districts in these areas where kelp making is to be undertaken, and they are distributing a practical leaflet on the subject, of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. HOGGE: Are you giving any money?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Yes.

  Day Nurseries (Scotland).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any provision is available for the financing of day nurseries in Scotland; and whether he can say what is the practice in England?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No provision is made from rates or Imperial funds for the financing of day nurseries in Scotland. There are many such nurseries; but they are supported by voluntary funds. One of the medical inspectors of the Local Government Board for Scotland has been making inquiry into what the municipalities are doing for child welfare in the large cities.

  Housing Committee (Scotland).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he is now in a position to state when the Housing Committee for Scotland is likely to report?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have made inquiry into the matter, and am informed that it is not yet possible to say when the Royal Commission on Housing (Scotland) will report. I understand that their inquiries cover a wide range, and that it has not yet been possible to obtain the evidence of several important witnesses, owing to circumstances connected with the War.

  Ventilation of Schools.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the architect to the Board took part in experiments, made at Birkenhead on 20th November, 1913, into the ventilation of schools; whether any report was made to the Board on these ventilation tests; and, if so, whether the report has been or will be made public?
  Dr. ADDISON: The answer to the first-part of the question is in the affirmative. The Board's architect did not in this case submit any formal report, but even if he had it is not my practice to publish the advice given by my officers on matters affecting the administration of the Board or other Departments.
  Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman a ware-that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the policy of the Board with regard

  195
  to ventilation inquiries, and consequent difficulty arising in formulating plans by the local education authorities?
  Dr. ADDISON: The schools are provided by the local authorities.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that a special system of ventilation has been installed, with eminent success, in fifteen schools in Glasgow, three schools in Liverpool, six schools in St. Helens, two schools in London, and in many other places, and that the cost of this system is not now allowed to be provided for by loans sanctioned to education authorities; and whether, in view of the alleged effectiveness of this system and the satisfaction given to local authorities who have installed it, an inquiry into it will be undertaken and the results published for guidance in building?
  Dr. ADDISON: The sanctioning of loans is not a matter for the Board of Education, and I see no reason for making the inquiry suggested.
  Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that methods of ventilation which have been so successful elsewhere, especially in Scotland, are being prohibited in the case of English schools, with the result that you have one policy in Scotland, the best policy there, and the worse policy in England?
  Dr. ADDISON: We have very carefully considered the subject of ventilation, and we find that most methods of ventilation by their supporters are considered to be the best.

  Gardening in Schools.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Education how many schools are maintained by county councils (outside London) in which gardening is taught; how many boys attend these schools; and how many receive instruction in gardening?
  Dr. ADDISON: The number of schools maintained by county councils outside London in which gardening is taught is 2,799. To ascertain the exact number of boys attending these schools would involve an expenditure of time and labour which, in present circumstances, would not appear to be justified. The number of boys, however, being over eleven years of age, who are eligible for instruction in
  196
  gardening in these schools is roughly estimated to be between 60,000 and 65,000, of whom 46,866 are actually receiving such instruction.

  Dismissal of Teachers (Burston, Norfolk).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the dispute caused in Burston, Norfolk, by the dismissal of two village school teachers, Mr. and Mrs. T. G. Higdon, still continues, to the detriment of educational conditions; whether he is aware that local opinion is strongly on the side of the dismissed teachers, and that fifty-three children have in consequence left the education committee's school; and whether, in view of the present unsatisfactory position, he will cause an inquiry to be made into all the circumstances?
  Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of the facts referred to in the question. There is, however, no ground upon which I can hold a statutory inquiry, and I should not propose to hold an inquiry of any kind unless I had good reason to believe that my intervention would lead to a settlement of the dispute.

  Midhurst Petty Sessions (Conviction for Theft).
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether his attention had been called to the case of Leonard James Laker, who, being without money to buy food for his family, took six pheasants from a pen and was sentenced by the Midhurst bench to the maximum penalty of six months' hard labour; whether he is aware that this man was taken after being tracked by a special constable with a bloodhound, and whether he will inquire into this case with a view to a possible reduction of the sentence?
  Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been drawn to this case, and I have made inquiry into it, but I regret that it does not appear to be one in which I should be justified in advising interference with the sentence. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and asked that it might be dealt with summarily. He was in permanent employment at the date the offence was committed, and in receipt of regular wages.
  Mr. KING: Is it not very unusual when a defendant pleads guilty to give him the maximum sentence?
  Mr. McKENNA: It depends upon the offence, but in cases of this kind my hon. Friend must understand I cannot act as a Court of Appeal.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: Get rid of the Game Laws!

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  Beamish's Divorce Bill [Lords] and Denny's Divorce Bill [Lords],—That they communicate the Minutes of Evidence taken upon the Second Reading of Beamish's Divorce Bill [Lords], and of Denny's Divorce Bill [Lords], as desired by this House, and request that the same may be returned.

  HOUSE OF LORDS REFRESHMENT ROOMS.
  That they request that this House will be pleased to give leave to the Right Hon. Lieutenant-Colonel Amelius Lockwood, C.V.O., a Member of this House, to attend to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee on House of Lords Refreshment Rooms.
  So much of the Lords Message as relates to the request for the attendance of the Right Hon. Colonel Lockwood, considered:—
  And, Colonel Lockwood, in his place, having consented, leave given.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bury and District Joint Water Board Bill,
Reported, with an Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Dewsbury Corporation Bill,
Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BILL PRESENTED.
  MENTAL TREATMENT BILL.
  "To facilitate the early treatment of mental disorder of recent origin arising from wounds, shock, and other causes." Presented by Mr. CECIL HARMSWORTH; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That for the remainder of the Session, whenever the House adjourns from Thursday to the following Tuesday, Members desiring to give Notice of Questions for Oral Answer on a Tuesday or Wednesday may send Notices of such Questions to the Clerks at the Table, and any Notices of Questions so received by them before five of the clock on a Friday or Monday shall be accepted as Notice of Questions for Oral Answer on the following Tuesday or Wednesday, respectively, and be printed and circulated with the Votes."—[Mr. Lloyd George.]
Mr. MOLTENO: In view of the increased facilities, may I ask whether it would not be possible to extend the time?
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered, "That for the remainder of the Session, whenever the House adjourns from Thursday to the following Tuesday, Members desiring to give Notice of Questions for Oral Answer on a Tuesday or Wednesday may send Notice of such Questions to the Clerks at the Table, and any Notices of Questions so received by them before five of the clock on a Friday or Monday shall be accepted as Notices of Questions for Oral Answer on the following Tuesday or Wednesday, respectively, and be printed and circulated with the Votes.—[Mr. Lloyd George.]

SALE OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr. WING: I beg to move, "That this House is of opinion that, during the continuance of the War, no alcoholic liquors shall be sold in the refreshment rooms or at the bars attached to the House of Commons, and requests the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee to arrange accordingly."
I desire to mention a few of the reasons which led me to place this Motion upon the Paper. I should like at once to remove any inferences which any Members of the House should gather that I have put this Motion on the Paper with some idea that there was an amount of intemperance in this House that should be dealt with. Quite the opposite. It is because I believe in the high standard of personal conduct in this House that I ask it to make a sacrifice to

225
moderation which is shown generally in the House. The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Agg-Gardner) asks us to forego prohibition by lightening the character of the drinks sold in the bars, and suggests that in place of the prohibition of intoxicants in the House you should simply change your drinks. My main reason for moving this Motion is especially my contact with the man in the street who is reading and listening continually to articles in the Press and from the Press of various quarters asking for the restriction of the sale of intoxicating liquors for him in his club and also in the public-house. This man rightly turns round and says, "What are you people in the Houses of Parliament doing?" In the interests of law and order he has loyally obeyed all the restrictions which has been imposed upon him, and he has a distinct grievance, arising from the feeling which I am glad to see is being experienced throughout the country, that, in whatever we do in the way of restriction or sacrifice, it shall at least be equal for all classes—that there shall be no exception, rich or poor, high or low, peer or peasant. In this case we have an exceptional example in the person of His Majesty the King. The first communication which His Majesty addressed to his people included the words that he would abstain "if necessary." Many a cynic repeated those words "if necessary." In the second communication to his people His Majesty stated that he and his household had undertaken to abstain from all intoxicants. The sense of inequality is very much resented in the country. For instance, I have come across cases where a soldier is not allowed to have a drink until midday, and he must not have a drink later than nine o'clock; while a civilian may commence at ten in the morning and drink until ten or eleven at night. The man in the street regards these various inequalities as a badge of inferiority. I ask hon. Members this afternoon to show to the average public that we at least take no part in imposing any restriction which we are not ourselves prepared to accept; in other words, that we are not going to ask the average man to live up to an order of conduct to which we personally are not prepared to submit.
The view is still held in some quarters that this House is the grandest club in the world. My experience, though very short, is quite the opposite. My experience of Members in all parts of the House is that
226
they are hard-working, sincere and industrious senators, endeavouring to do the best they can for their constituents. Still there is the view with the man in the street that we in this House have privileges which he does not enjoy. The stories of the old days are still repeated—such as that of the younger Pitt, when sitting on the Treasury Bench, turning round to Dundas and saying, "Can you see the Speaker now? I cannot;" and receiving the reply, "Yes, I can see two." These ideas still remain, and it is for us as a House to say that in this great crisis we will take this step—a crisis which has necessitated the Prime Minister going down amongst our people to endeavour to create a moral atmosphere of determination to deal with a situation the successful dealing with which depends largely on moral and spiritual forces. This House has shown itself able to make sacrifices in the form of its services, and in the giving of its sons, and some of our Members have already given their lives. In conclusion, I ask the House to view the march of events. His Majesty the King, together with his household, are abstaining. Lord Kitchener has followed their example. I am informed that a large number of Members of the Cabinet, with some of the leaders of the Opposition, have also followed that example. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] Business men in various parts of the country are following that example, and I ask this House, but not with any sense of force, to do the same. I am told that Members do not like to be forced. I respect that sentiment, and I am moving this Resolution because there is no other way by which I could take the sense of the House. I am taking the only method open to me of asking the House for its general opinion. I should like the House to feel that it is of its own free will sacrificing the use of intoxicating liquors. I hope the House will do this whole-heartedly. Let us have no exemptions. Let us have no inference from an exemption that Scottish or Irish whisky is too strong for our Members, and therefore it is better to weaken the spirit down to light wines. Let us give up all intoxicating liquors in the bars and refreshment rooms of this House. We shall give heart to public bodies and public men in the country by showing that we are prepared to take a great move, the physical, moral and spiritual influences of which will be far reaching, and we shall be standing by the King in one of the kingliest acts that any monarch in any age ever performed.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I should like to ask whether it is in accordance with the Rules of this House to mention the King's name with a view to influencing the decision of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: It is against the ordinary rule, but I think hon. Members will see, on reflection, that in this case it is impossible to exclude the King's name. His Majesty has set an example, and the question is whether the House is willing to follow it. I do not see how you can possibly exclude references to it.
4.0 P.M.
Mr. BUTCHER: I beg to second the Motion. I should like to express my cordial agreement with what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wing) with regard to the great example which has been set to the country by His Majesty the King. It would indeed be strange if we, sitting in this Royal Palace of Westminster, did not in our collective capacity resolve to imitate that great example. Much has been written and spoken about the force of example—so much, indeed, that one is apt to incur the condemnation of uttering a platitude when he speaks about it. Nevertheless, I think it is well to remember that, although it is a platitude, the statement embodies an undying truth. For myself, I am satisfied that in matters of personal conduct lying outside the region of the law, example is better than compulsion, especially in a country like ours, where the idea of personal liberty is not merely a tradition, but a deep-seated conviction. If, as I think may be the case, by showing this example we can in any way help others, I think we should be ready to afford that help. There is another aspect of this question which has been touched upon by the hon. Member who has just spoken. It is possible that in the near future this House may be asked to lay down further restrictions as to the consumption of intoxicating liquors. I make no assumptions, and I indulge in no anticipations, either as to the necessity or the extent of those restrictions, but I think this, at any rate, may be conceded: This House should consider the imposition of further restrictions free from any reproach that in this matter we are inclined to put upon men heavier burdens which we ourselves will not put our little fingers to. It is said, or it will be said, that the surrender of personal convenience which would be involved in the acceptance of this Resolution is comparatively trifling. That is true. I, at any
228
rate, do not put forward this proposal as an example of sacrifice. I think that would be dignifying it by too great a name. Sacrifice indeed must be made by all, and it will be our privilege, cheerfully and gladly, to make any sacrifices which are demanded of us. We see the heroic devotion of our fighting forces. If for one reason or another we are unable to join the fighting forces we ought to do all we can to assist our country and our country's defenders, If, as I believe, the adoption of this Resolution will result in even a small measure of public advantage it is our duty to try and effect that public advantage. It is in that belief and in £hat spirit that I heartily support the Resolution.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Obviously this is a question which ought to be discussed and decided by Members of the House as individuals, and not in connection with any party ties. In making the very few remarks which I intend to address to the House, I wish it to be understood that I do not at all speak as a representative of the party to which I belong. Indeed, I think it very probable—although I have taken no trouble to make any inquiry about it—that after the speech of my hon. and learned Friend my views will not have the sympathy of the majority of my Friends on this side of the House. But whether that be so or not I think it right that I should put them before the House. I dislike this proposal. I dislike it because I can see no possible connection between the grounds on which it has been recommended to the House, and the only ground on which it could be recommended to the House—the real effect of the proposal itself. The hon. Member who has moved the Resolution and my hon. and learned Friend have spoken as if the adoption of this Resolution would be following the example set by His Majesty. Whatever else may be said in favour of this Motion, that at least cannot be said in any way. The example set by His Majesty is a personal example, and its value consists in this: that the sacrifice—to whatever extent it is a sacrifice—is a sacrifice made by himself and not by other people. I do not wish to speak strongly on a subject like this, but the hon. Member who moved this Resolution reminded us that some other public men have made the same declaration as His Majesty. That declaration was to the effect that no alcohol should be consumed in their houses during the War.

229
If it were conceivable that one of these men should say, "I am going to live up to the letter of that declaration, but when I go to the houses of my friends or to my clubs I shall resume my old habits," what would we think of that as an example? Is not this proposal very like that? I think it is. The idea, I am sure, which is at the back of the minds of those who approve of this proposal is that this example which the House of Commons is going to set will be useful in itself. What is the example we are going to set?
I do not think it will have the smallest value in the country as an example, unless and to the extent that it produces the impression that we are going to do one thing—when everyone of us knows we are going to do something entirely different! If it was meant that every Member of the House who supports this proposal intended himself to follow the example of the King, I should not have a single word to say against it. If it means that we are solemnly to pass this Resolution, and that those who support it are then to go to their own houses, or to their own clubs, and continue the precise habits which they had before, I do not think that that is an example which will have much effect upon the country. There is little more to say about it. This is not an example of temperance. It is not an example of abstinence. At the best it is setting the country an example which we do not intend ourselves to follow. That is what we are doing. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion said that the "man in the street" objects to having restrictions which are not imposed upon others. That is quite true. If this were a Motion to impose upon us in this House precisely the same restrictions which are imposed upon other people, I would be heartily in support of it. I think there is something else to which the man in the street objects. The real meaning—and I am sure that not a man here in his heart will deny it—the real meaning of it is that we are trying to encourage the country to do something which we do not intend to do ourselves. That is what it amounts to. If there is one thing that the "man in the street," I think, resents it is the idea that he should be influenced either by compulsion or by pretended action of any kind to do something which we think is for his good, while we are not at all sure that it is for our own good and do not at all intend to act up to it. That is not the kind of example I appreciate.
230
We are not going to subject ourselves even to very serious inconvenience. During the War—I speak at least from my own experience—I dine very seldom at the House, and the great bulk of Members of the House will very seldom be subjected even to any real inconvenience, not to speak of sacrifice. If there is any inconvenience or sacrifice it will fall heaviest upon the officials of the House who cannot go to our clubs and get there what is denied them in the House of Commons. We cannot in this matter set an example either of temperance or of abstinence, but it is my honest belief that we can set an example of sincerity. In my opinion the people of this country, if they understood what this really means, would respect us far more if we say we shall submit ourselves to precisely the same restrictions which we think it wise to impose by legislation upon other people; that that is what we propose and we make no pretence of doing anything more. I have, I confess, received more indications of approval of what I have said than I expected. But I do think that in a time of stress of this kind, when the whole nation ought to be in a better position than usual, we should have less rather than more of the make-believe that is part of the daily life of all politicians. At a time like this we ought to have less of it. We ought to be sincere, and we ought not to pretend to be doing one thing when we know in reality we are doing something quite different.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: The Kitchen Committee appointed by the House have not had any official cognisance of the subject of the Resolution that is now before the House, but there have been pourparlers on the subject of which I think the House ought to be made aware. The matter began in this way. My valued colleague, the Member for the Gainsborough Division (Mr. Bentham), wrote me a letter in which he suggested that, following the example of His Majesty the King, we ought to pass a Resolution in which we should embody the words of the Resolution now before the House. I may remark, in passing, that my colleague is a total abstainer. Apart from that little fault, I have always found him an invaluable colleague. I replied to him that in my opinion, and it has always been ray opinion, the King "can do no wrong," but that a Committee of the House of Commons might very easily go wrong. Therefore I preferred that as a

231
body we should await the Instruction of the House as to what line we should adopt. After all, the Kitchen Committee is only appointed by the Members of this House to see that there is a certain amount of eatables and drinkables—of an excellent quality—and when they have thus satisfied the British Constitution we leave it to hon. Members to settle with their own constitution what and how much they should eat, what and how much they should drink, and what and how much they should avoid. Provided hon. Members pay ready money—which they do not always do—we are satisfied. I have very little to say on the subject, but I feel bound to point out to the House that the profits of the Department are already growing less and less every day. If this Resolution be passed it will reduce what is left, which is nil, perhaps by 50 per cent.!
While I am on this subject I feel bound to point out that it affects others besides yourselves, or, rather, more than yourselves. Take the Press Gallery, for instance. They would certainly never ask for different treatment from the rest of the House, but they are here sometimes four, five, six, and seven hours after we have left, and it would press upon them much more than it does us. On a subject like this I agree with my Leader that our individual opinion is worth nothing, and I do not think the opinion of the Kitchen Committee is worth anything at all. Personally speaking, I am in favour of the Motion, but I have not canvassed my committee. Some are in favour of it. Some are very much opposed to it; indeed, they told me so in language scarcely Parliamentary. One Member went so far as to say that if he could not get what he wanted here, he would get drunk—I mean he would drink as much as ever he wanted at home. However, it is, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, a matter entirely for individual opinion. If you choose to give your instructions and pass the Resolution now before the House, I am perfectly content, and my Committee would be content to roll the stone to the mouth of the den and to seal it with the Prime Minister's signet. Perhaps you will go so far as to erase Nunc est bibendum and put O fons Bandusiœ in its place. That is for you to say.
I hope, however, there will be no Division on the subject. If we do have a
232
Division it will take away from the value of the opinion of the House, whichever way it goes. You might fairly look to the Government Bench for some idea of their opinion upon this subject. Why should we not have had the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I do not think he used to be a total abstainer. He may be now. At all events, he was always a very moderate man in the way of eating and drinking. We are entitled to hear, and I think we shall hear, what are the Government's views upon the subject. While it is to be hoped that, whatever result is come to it will be without a Division, it cannot be unanimous—individual opinions are too strong. At all events, I am sure the Committee of which I have the honour to be Chairman, look for an Instruction upon the subject, so that we should not be obliged to take an initiative, which would be very unpleasant to some.
Mr. LEIF JONES: The Leader of the Opposition made a speech which, I think, impressed the whole House. It was a very ingenious argument and evoked a great deal of sympathy. But I should like to point out that the sentence which, I think, elicited most applause was when he said we might gladly submit to any restriction laid on the rest of the nation. I would point out we are not subject to the restrictions in the matter of the consumption of liquor to which any other part of the country is subject. We meet in a Royal Palace. There is no licence for the sale of liquor. No one has any power to lay restriction upon us, and, therefore, if anything exceptional is to be done it must be done by decision of the Members of the House. There is no power over us. Whatever is done is done by our own volition. There is no other place in the-country where liquor may be sold without a licence.
Mr. WILLIAM YOUNG: This Motion proposes to take away the right either to consume or to sell liquor.
Mr. L. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Motion was not of the smallest value, because Members did not propose in their private life to follow the example of the King—at least there was nothing in the Motion to that effect. There I entirely agree with him, but, at the same time, I disagree with him in thinking it is of no value, because the House has a collective as well as an individual voice, and, really, what

233
this Motion is enabling us to say to the country is what is the collective opinion of the House of Commons in regard to this most important matter. In the action of the King; in the action of so many distinguished public servants after the speeches made in regard to munitions of war; after the evidence of coming drastic proposals of the Government to deal with this matter, I do think that the House will find itself very much freer, as the Mover and Seconder said, to deal with the munitions question, and all the drink question, if they are no longer asked to be in the exceptional position they have been, and forego the privileges of selling and consuming liquor here. There is not quite so great an inconsistency as the Leader of the Opposition said.
So far as I know, there is no proposal to subject the workers in the country, and the people of the country, to a complete prohibition of the sale of liquor. That is a consummation, no doubt, devoutly to be wished, but I see no prospect of it coming soon, and, although there may be restrictions, there will still be opportunities, so far as I know, for people to consume liquor in their private houses if they wish to do so, and that, after all, is only what Members of the House will be able to do if the House decides to-day that the sale of liquor is to cease on these premises. Therefore I do think, much as I have been impressed by the Leader of the Opposition, he put his case too high, and I hope there will be no Division in this matter. I have not the least desire to go into the Lobby to force my opinion on hon. Members. Hon. Members know the bar is no advantage to me. The profits of the Kitchen Committee undoubtedly are. Hon. Members, by their drinking, apparently pay for my cheap food, but I hope the House will decide without a Division; and I do feel that, in spite of much in which I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, the case for this Motion is made out, and I hope the House will see its way to agree to it.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know there is very much to be said after the admirable speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I venture to say, if he will allow me, that I agree with every word he said, and I hope his example will be followed by the House itself. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Butcher) said that example was better than compulsion. I quite agree
234
with him. But what he is going to do is not to set an example, it is to compel. The hon. and learned Member does not come down and say, "I at home am not going to drink any spirituous liquor, and I hope other Members will follow my example"?—no doubt an excellent example—but he says, "You in this House are not in future to drink any spirituous liquor, not by your own unanimous will, but by the will of the majority of the Members of this House." But my hon. and learned Friend is contradicting himself, because what he is proposing is to compel, and not to set an example. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Motion told us a great deal about the man in the street. But who is putting any compulsion upon the man in the street? As far as I know, the man in the street can get what he wants at any public-house at certain hours. There has always, been a limit to the hours of public-houses, at any rate, during the last fifty or 100 years, and, therefore, there has always been a difference between the power to obtain drink in this House and the power of the ordinary person who has to go to a public-house.
Mr. L. JONES: The hon. Member can still go to the public-house if he wishes.
Mr. W. YOUNG: Why should he be compelled to go to the public-house?
Sir F. BANBURY: That is absolutely true. If the hon. Member is alluding to me, I still can go to a public house, and I still can go home. Therefore, what is the good? I am not setting an example. I do not dine in the House of Commons, and I do not think my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee does.
Colonel LOCKWOOD: You have dined with me.
Sir F. BANBURY: And I have had excellent alcoholic liquors on those occasions. That is the point; we are not subjecting ourselves to any inconvenience. His Most Gracious Majesty—I do not think it is possible to avoid introducing his name—has set an example; he has said that in his palace alcoholic liquors shall not be consumed. The hon. Member can say that in his house alcoholic liquor shall not be consumed. Why is that not sufficient? What more do you want? Let us follow His Most Gracious Majesty's example. What we are trying to do is to

235
follow the example of the Pharisee and trying to make out that we are better than we really are. I hope that the result of this Debate will be that the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion.
Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: I must say I am very sorry indeed with the tone of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I think it is not only a great disappointment to many Members of this House, but also to many up and down the country, and even to persons in very high places, because there is a want of sympathy with that great example which has been set us. I very much deplore that the Leader of the Opposition could not, be more sympathetic to this noble example that has been set us. The Leader of the Opposition said that we are making it hard for the officials if not for ourselves. Well, it is just the same in the Royal Palace for the officials there. Then the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) referred to the fact that we can go and get what we want outside, but so can the officials connected with the Royal Palace. All the arguments that have been raised against this might have been raised in the noble example that has been set us, and I do want to appeal, not as an abstainer, although I am one, but have never tried to force my opinions upon anyone. I am an abstainer by birth and by conviction. I am a life-long abstainer, and the older I grow the stronger my convictions grow. I have never tried—and my friends who are not abstainers will bear me out—to force my opinions upon anyone else, and I should deplore the fact of going to a Division.
I hope every Member, even the Leader of the Opposition, will rise to the occasion. The Leader of the Opposition did not seem satisfied we were going far enough; he almost hinted that if we had to agree to an out-and-out total abstinence that is worth doing, and said, practically, "I will go with you there." If the Leader of the Opposition will get up and say that, I have no doubt many of his supporters will follow him. I do hope the House will take this matter seriously. This is a great, and sad and serious time. Hon. Members and right hon. Members have made sacrifices, noble sacrifices—sacrifices which are too tender and sacred for me to refer to. Cannot you then make this little sacrifice? I believe it will be a good example to the country and the people when they read in
236
to-morrow's papers that this Palace of Westminster, with all its associations and its noble traditions of the past, has risen to this little occasion, and has decided that here we will abstain from intoxicating drink. I believe it will be an example that will do good. It will encourage our troops and Lord Kitchener and many other leaders of our Army and Navy. I hope the House will not proceed to a Division, but I trust we shall all agree to carry this proposal which has been moved and seconded so admirably.
Sir RICHARD COOPER: The appeal made by three hon. Members opposite is nothing more nor less than this: If you believe this is wrong, sink your personal feelings and support us so as to avoid a Division in this House. For my part, I am determined to resist this Motion to the utmost limit. If it were likely to have anything of what I might term a party nature about it at any future date, for the sake of supporting the country and the Government through the War, I would willingly sink a very great deal of my own personal feelings, but whilst the War is on and a large number of our colleagues on both sides are away fighting, we are left to use our own discretion as to what particular personal action we should take during their absence on a matter that does not concern them and their country beyond the point of example. I hope too much will not be made of the claim of example. Let us remember that even people in high positions in this country who have rightly set an example have done it on the advice of Ministers, and because it was thought desirable and advisable it has been put into practice. My own personal reasons for opposing this Motion are based first of all on the fact that no logical reason was put forward by the proposer of this Motion, and no reason whatever was given by him why we should accept it. When I come to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher), the only reason I could gather from his speech was to the effect that if we only practised what is contained in this Motion it would be so much better and easier for us later on to preach to the people of the country. That embodies a commitment on the part of every hon. Member who supports this Motion or does not oppose it to the statement which has been generally made to the country that War munitions are being hampered and kept back, first and foremost on

237
account of the drinking habits of a certain section of the working classes of this country.
We understand that the Government have held a number of Cabinet meetings to consider this question, and that they have not yet come to a decision as to whether the drink question is affecting the production of munitions of war. We all knew soon after the War began that a long and patient period of preparation had to be undertaken by the Government for a large offensive forward move some time in the spring. If it is a fact that the drink problem has affected the production of munitions of war, how is it that the Government, and those responsible for State administration, did not discover this last November, December, January, or February? How is it they have not discovered it until the 28th February, when the country was informed that during all this long period of preparation the drink problem is at the root of the present position? It is nothing of the kind, and no evidence has been put forward in support of that statement. I intend to oppose this Motion to the fullest, because to pass this Motion on the appeal which has been made to us would be unworthy of the representatives of the people and of self-respecting individuals. I am not prepared to commit myself, however indirectly, to interpretations which the country can put upon our actions, and rightly put upon them. For these reasons I certainly intend to oppose as fully as I can this Motion.
Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
In my judgment the Resolution before the House is a Resolution of pure cant. May I remind hon. Members that the total amount of drink consumed in the Smoking Room of this House last week was only four shillings, and in this way we are asked to set an example to the country! I do not think any hon. Member of this House has ever spoken in anything like such strong terms as I have against drinking amongst the working classes, but I have never been in favour of total abstinence by a policy of prohibition. As the King's name has been brought into this question I am sorry to say that I must take, the opposite view. I entirely dissent from the view that because His Majesty chooses in his own household to take this
238
course—I do not know whether it was done on the advice of his Ministers or because the King himself thinks total prohibition is best in the interests of the State—that I should take the same view. I know that the miners I represent are wholly opposed to total prohibition in an industry in which light beer does no harm to them whatever.
The people who have never done any manual work, who have never worked in a mine, and who do not know what the practice is of those who work in mines and attend to furnaces, are utterly unable to express an opinion upon what a working man really wants after he has done his work. I know that the indiscriminate use of alcohol has been one of the great curses of our country; but if we seek to set the country an example in this way when we ourselves are not going to set an example in our own homes, in my opinion is nothing but pure cant. I should be sorry to have a Division on a domestic matter of this kind, but if we do divide I hope every hon. Member who is going to vote for this Motion will be able to say to his constituents that what he voted for in the House of Commons he is going to carry out in practice. Hon. Members who are going to vote for this Resolution are merely going to do it to set an example to the country upon a drink bill of 4s. for a period of a week. Seeing that this is a question upon which the Government is shortly going to put before the country a national policy, I think we ought to adjourn the Debate until the Government have definitely told us what their policy is. If the Government are going to say we are going to have a policy of light ales, I should be with them; but as the Government have not yet formulated their policy, and as we do not know what restrictions they are going to ask Parliament to place upon the sale of alcoholic liquors, I think this Debate ought to be adjourned.
Sir WALTER ESSEX: I beg to second the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
I cannot help thinking that a large number of hon. Members are very unwilling to do anything which would appear to be forcing their opinions upon others. If this question goes to a Division whichever side wins will be faced with the dilemma of having to face the proposals of the Government with tied hands.

239
I hope the House will see its way to support the adjournment of this question as the best way out of the difficulty. I trust the Government will accept this Motion and I hope that when they make their proposals to the country dealing with the liquor trade they will see to it that a self-denying ordinance no less strong is laid upon ourselves in this House.
Mr. CHAPLIN: I rise to support the Motion for the Adjournment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Mansfield. On the whole this appears to me to be a Motion that the House ought to support. After listening to this Debate it seems to me that nothing has really been said which ought to carry the slightest weight in support of the Motion which has been moved this afternoon. May I ask the House to recall for a single moment what was the original excuse for this Motion and for the controversy which arose with regard to drink and its effect on the fortunes of this War? The excuse was that it has been stated by a man in a great position that in this country at this moment we are engaged in the greatest struggle with which we have ever been confronted, and we are faced with three enemies: Germany, Austria, and the effect of drink in this country, and the right hon. Gentleman stated that the last of these three was the most dangerous enemy of all. I was never able to share that opinion for a moment, but if I were wrong and if he were right it was the Statesman who made that declaration who was more to blame than anyone else in this country—
Mr. W. THORNE: On a point of Order. I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is justified in discussing on a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate the principle of prohibition and the provision of munitions of war.
Mr. SPEAKER: The question before the House is whether the Debate should be adjourned, and upon that question we cannot discuss the wider questions with which the right hon. Gentleman has been dealing.
Mr. CHAPLIN: I was thinking, Mr. Speaker, of the old rules, but they have been changed so often that it is difficult to remember exactly what they are. I will confine myself entirely to the question of the Motion for the Adjournment.
240
The reasons for putting the Motion on the Paper have changed altogether and the whole situation has changed. What are the arguments which we have heard in support of it? I agree that the example set by His Majesty is a noble example, and we have, as the Leader of the Opposition told us, each of us in our own individual case to deal with it according as we think right, but the example set by His Majesty is not in accord at all, or only in a limited degree, with the Motion now before the House. The example given at Buckingham Palace prevents the consumption of liquor, but the Motion now before us does nothing of the kind.
Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is discussing the Motion and that is not now before us. The question now is whether we shall postpone the discussion until a future date or continue it.
Mr. CHAPLIN: I am afraid that I shall greatly disappoint the hon. Gentleman who has just now asked us all to be unanimous on this occasion. I for one certainly cannot accede to his request, and, if the Debate should continue, I shall have another opportunity of giving my reasons, but I at all events heartily support the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.
Mr. HODGE: Previously to the hon. Baronet behind me (Sir A. Markham) speaking, the three speakers on this side of the House were teetotalers. I confess to being something akin to them in opinion with respect to the use of alcoholic beverages, but it appeared to me when they were speaking that it was rather a strange thing to talk about an example. Their example does not appear to me to be one that they should seek to impose upon other people. I think that the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate made by the hon. Baronet is probably the best way of dealing with the Motion of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Wing), because we are taking him on the wing instead of killing him entirely. I cannot speak for the whole of my colleagues, but a great many of them are of opinion that the Motion of the hon. Member is ill-conceived, and that it is very much better to wait until such time as the Government have declared their policy on this question before seeking to impose something which is entirely different on the House of Commons. I concur in everything that the Leader of the

241
Opposition has said. It is no good restricting people who can go outside and get the refreshment they want. Therefore, if the hon. Member is not inclined to withdraw his proposal, I think this will be the easiest method of getting rid of him.
Mr. CHANCELLOR: There are just two points which I should like to put to the House. The House has been given the opportunity of coming to a decision on this matter, a decision which the Leader of the Opposition deprecates and minimises. My view is that the example of the House of Commons, especially in a matter of this kind, would be very largely imitated outside the House. We have this opportunity placed before us, and we either reject it or we accept it. The adjournment of the Debate will be virtually a rejection of the Motion—a rejection of this small act of self-sacrifice. It would not be any self-sacrifice on my part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is a very small act of self-sacrifice if four shillings is the total bill for last week. What will they say outside, when we come to legislate for the workers? They will say, "When the House of Commons are deciding this matter for themselves, they decline to sacrifice even four shillings a week, but they want to put upon us limitations which they refuse to put upon themselves." This is the only place in the country where there are no limitations.
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now arguing the Main Question, and is not speaking to the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.
Mr. CHANCELLOR: My point was that the acceptance of the Motion for the Adjournment would be practically a rejection, and would be interpreted in the sense which I am trying to put outside the House when later on we come to deal with the question.
Mr. COWAN: Before the House decides whether to adjourn this Debate as the easiest way of getting rid of what some hon. Members think an inconvenient Resolution, it might be convenient if the Government could give us some indication, not as to the nature of their proposals, but as to when those long overdue proposals will be put before the House?
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I regret exceedingly that I am unable to comply with my hon. Friend's desire, either to state what the Government proposals will be or when they will be made. I have however, listened to the present Debate from the first word to the last, and it cannot be doubted that there is a considerable divergence of opinion in the House with regard to the original Motion. We are now debating, not the Motion itself, but the question whether the Debate should be adjourned. A very powerful, a much more than plausible reason has been adduced by my hon. Friend why the Debate should be adjourned at the present time. He rightly says that Government measures for dealing with the whole matter are shortly to be brought forward and that it might be more advantageous for the House to be informed fully what the Government's proposals are before a Division is taken on a controversial question of this kind. I am bound to say for my part that if there had been unanimity in the House it would have been a great satisfaction to me personally and I should have cordially welcomed the acceptance of the Motion of my hon. Friend; but in saying that I speak for myself personally. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I have no right either to speak for the hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House or even for my colleagues in the Government. This is not a Government matter in any sense whatever; but in view of the divergence of opinion and in view of the weighty arguments put before the House by the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division, I think that we should be better advised to accept the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate and wait until the full proposals are before the House.
Mr. LEIF JONES: In answer to my right hon. Friend, may I say that it was the Prime Minister himself who, in response to my hon. Friend's question, provided this opportunity to the House for deciding this question. The Prime Minister knew perfectly well that the Government proposals were not then before the country and could not be before it to-day. It does not therefore seem open to a Member of the Government to tell us that we ought to wait until we have the Government's proposals before us. The Government's proposals do not seem to me to be a determining factor in this matter at all. My hon. Friend the Member for the Mansfield Division (Sir A. Markham) says that there is

243
a good deal of cant about this Motion and about this Debate. I deprecate the use of strong language, but I do hope that the House will have the courage to-day to give a straight vote upon this single issue rather than relegate it to some future time.
Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow (Wednesday).
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at One minute before Five o'clock.