Commons Sitting of 28 April 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ilfracombe Gas Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Dewsbury Corporation Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Cardiff, Coventry, Lytham, Sheffield, and the Rothwell Joint Cemetery Distirct." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill,
"To confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the county of Nottingham." Presented by Mr. HERBERT LEWIS; supported by Mr. Herbert Samuel; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 64.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, dated 27th April, 1915, affecting certain Shops in the burgh of Largs [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
POST OFFICE (FOREIGN AND COLONIAL PARCEL POST).
Copy presented of the Foreign and Colonial Parcel Post Amendment (No. 70) Warrant, 1915, dated 31st March, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

ARMY.
Copy presented of Statement showing the Financial Position of Territorial Force County Associations on 31st March, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Revised Rates for Billeting [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Regulations under the Regimental Debts Act, 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Accounts presented of the Metropolitan Police and the Police Pensions Funds for the year ended 31st March, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 215.]

ULTIMUS HÆRES (SCOTLAND) (ACCOUNT AND LIST OF ESTATES).
Return ordered, "of Abstract Account of the receipts and payments of the. King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Scotland, in the year ended the 31st day of December, 1914, in the administration of Estates and Treasure Trove on behalf of the Crown:"
"And of alphabetical List of Estates which fell to the Crown as Ultimus Hæres in Scotland, administered by the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in the same year."—[Mr. Acland.]

TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD) AND TRACKLESS TROLLEY UNDERTAKINGS.
Return ordered, "of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised and the length open for public traffic down to the 31st day of December, 1914, in respect of companies, and the 31st day of March, 1915, in respect of local authorities; the gross receipts, working expenditure, net receipts, and appropriations; the number of passengers conveyed; the number of miles run by cars and the quantify of electrical energy used during the year ended on the foregoing dates, respectively; together with the number of horses, engines, and cars at those dates (in continuation of

695
Parliamentary Paper, No. 463, of Session 1914). Also similar particulars relating to Trackless Trolley Undertakings."—[Mr. Runciman.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT CORPS.
    Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of men of military and non-military age, respectively, belonging to the Anti-Aircraft Corps, exclusive of Reserves, at its first formation, on 31st March last, and subsequent to the recontruction of 1st April?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): At the first formation of the Anti-Aircraft Corps there were 100 special constables, no record of whose ages can be found. Up to the 31st March, 1915, 45 per cent. were of non-military age and 55 per cent. of military age, a large proportion of those of military age coming from His Majesty's Office of Works and other Government Departmets, who could not release them for more active service. After the reconstruction, 1st April, 46 per cent. were of non-military age and 54 per cent. of military age. Large numbers of those of military age are medically unfit for more active service. It is pointed out that 100 discharges have been granted to officers and men to join more combatant units of His Majesty's Forces since the Corps first started in November last, and that over 200 of those in the corps have served or are serving abroad with the various antiaircraft detachments. Any member of the corps who wishes to join a more combatant unit is at once released for this purpose.
    Mr. FELL: May I ask if all the members of this corps are duly enrolled and liable to military discipline?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like notice of that question.

    SINKING OF STEAMSHIP "FALABA."
    Sir J. D. REESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether official record will be made and published of the circumstances attending the sinking of the "Falaba"?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. A formal investigation under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, into the circumstances attending the sinking of the "Falaba" will be held as soon as possible. I am glad to be able to announce that Lord Mersey has consented to undertake the inquiry.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will it be public?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Subject to considerations affecting the public interest, I think the report will probably be made public.

    OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS (SUPPLY OF GLASS).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the supply of optical glass for the manufacture of lenses, prisms, and other optical instruments for the use of the Navy is keeping-pace with the immediate requirements of the Service; and what steps have been taken to increase the number of British sources from which the supply may be drawn?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There has been delay, but so far not of a serious character in the supply of optical instruments for Naval Service. The Admiralty, War Office, and Board of Trade have been in communication on this matter, and as a result of joint action a large firm of makers in this country have greatly increased their output and are still adding to their plant.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman's answer referred to optical instruments. My question referred to the supply of optical glass, which is essential to the manufacture of optical instruments?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If I have misunderstood the question, I will confer with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has appointed a stone-wall Committee to prevent the granting of permission to anybody for the manufacture of this glass for optical instruments, and that there is a want of it all over the country; is he aware of the personnel of the Committee—the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of

    697
    London (Sir F. Banbury), the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir Thomas Whittaker), and Lord St. Aldwyn—and that they have absolutely refused all permission to establish factories in Ireland that have been—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting a long series of questions, of which he should give notice.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the supply of optical glass for the manufacture of lenses, prisms and other optical instruments for the use of the Army is keeping pace with the immediate requirements of the Service; and what steps have been taken to increase the number of British sources from which the supply may be drawn?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. H. Baker): There has been some difficulty in procuring a sufficient supply of optical glass. The British supply is, however, being largely increased and is expected to prove sufficient. The matter is being carefully watched, and further measures will be taken if found necessary.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is it not the fact that all the talk about the capture of German trade has been reduced by the Committee to which I referred a while ago, to a farce and a humbug?

    SINKING OF STEAMSHIP "LA CORRENTINA."
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Houlder Line steamship "La Correntina," which was sunk by the "Kronprinz Wilhelm," was armed for purposes of self defence; and whether, although she was armed with 4.7-inch guns, she had no ammunition on board?
    Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKEasked whether the "Karlsruhe" ran into the British steamer "La Correntina," which was armed but without ammunition; and can he say whether she was one of the ships taken over by the Admiralty, or explain the reason why, seeing that the ship was armed with two 3-inch guns, no ammunition was on board?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The carrying of ammunition before the war by merchant ships armed in self defence raised a good
    698
    many difficult questions which were being gradually adjusted. In a few cases the supply had not been actually placed on board. The "Correntina" was one of these.

    GERMAN SUBMARINES (CAPTAINS OF ESCAPED VESSELS).
    Lord C. BEREFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he will give to the House a list of merchant vessels and the names of their captains that have baffled German submarines by their bravery and resource?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Many vessels have behaved well in the face of this new form of attack, but the following have been selected by the Admiralty as deserving of reward for specially meritorious services:

    Steamship "Laertes"

    …

    Lieutenant William Henry Propert, R.N.R., D.S.O.

    Steamship "Thordis"

    …

    Lieutenant John William Bell, R.N.R., D.S.O.

    Steamship "Vosges"

    …

    Lieutenant John Richard Green, R.N.R., D.S.O.

    The conduct of the following masters has also been brought to their Lordships' notice:—

    Steamship "City of Cambridge"

    …

    Alfred George Fry.

    Steamship "Brussels"

    …

    Charles Fryatt.

    Steamship "Theseus"

    …

    L. M. Bevan.

    Steamship "Aguila"

    …

    Thomas Ross Bannerman.

    Steamship "Hartdale"

    …

    Thos. Martin.

    Mr. PETO: Am I to understand in the case of those officers whose services have been brought to the notice of the Admiralty that there is to be some consideration as to the matter of reward?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The last named?
    Mr. PETO: Yes.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I think that is the case.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the position of timekeepers in His Majesty's dockyards; whether he is aware that on entry they receive 4s. a day for seven days' work; that, taking this work on the basis of six days, this payment is equivalent to the minimum amount paid to labourers; and whether, in view of the importance of the

    699
    work done by timekeepers, he will consider the possibility of some higher remuneration being given, more especially in view of the fact that no increase of pay has been granted to timekeepers since 1901, while during that period the wages of the ordinary labourer have risen from 19s. to 24s. a week?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The facts are as stated in the first part of the hon. Member's question, though it should be added that timekeepers are on an incremental scale of pay rising to a maximum of 35s. a week. As regards the latter part of the question, it is not proposed to authorise any increase in the normal scale of pay, but the question of allowing timekeepers to participate in the war increases recently approved for labourers and others is at present under consideration.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the joiners employed by the Admiralty at Rosyth have not had their wages increased to the same extent as those employed at the Royal dockyards, and that the increase they have received has only been paid from 12th February while the men in the Royal dockyards received the increase as from 1st October last; and whether he will see that the men at Rosyth are treated in the same manner as those in the Royal dockyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The joiners at present employed by the Admiralty at Rosyth are paid on the basis of the local outside rate, which at present is 9d. per hour. The increase referred to as paid from 12th February last refers to an advance to 9½d. per hour given to Admiralty joiners in consequence of increased outside rates due to the acceleration of work at Rosyth. The rates paid and increases recently given at the Royal dockyards to similar workmen do not apply.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary to the Admiralty if a petition from the additional hired writers in the Naval Stores Department at Devonport asking for an increase of wages from their present rate of 24s. a week has been received; and, if so, has favourable consideration been given to the prayer of the petitioners?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The application is now being considered.

  MUNITIONS.

    CYFARTHFA WORKS.
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is in a position to state the result of the inspection of the Cyfarthfa Works, Merthyr Tydvil; and whether the report of the inspector will be submitted to the Committee on War Munitions?
    Dr MACNAMARA: The works have been inspected and it is not considered that they could advantageously be utilised so far as the Admiralty are concerned. I will communicate with the Committee referred to.
    Mr. EDGAR JONESasked whether the Report of the inspection of Cyfarthfa Works, Merthyr Tydvil, will be submitted to the Committee on War Munitions?
    Mr. BAKER: I am informed that these works have been inspected by the Admiralty, but have not been found suitable. The War Office does not propose to take any action at present, but the matter will be further considered if necessary.

  PEACE PROPOSALS.
  Mr. JOHNasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing the Government has undertaken that the Overseas Dominions shall be effectively consulted when terms of peace come to be formulated, the fullest facilities will also be accorded to the people of Great Britain and Ireland to make known their views and desires?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Primrose): Certainly every facility afforded to the Overseas Dominions will be provided also for Great Britain and Ireland.
  Mr. JOHNasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that Austria-Hungary has approached Russia directly or indirectly for separate terms of peace; and, if so, whether Great Britain and France would be prepared to sanction such separate settlement, provided Bosnia and Herzegovina were transferred to Servia, Austria undertaking to withdraw permanently from association and military co-operation in Germany, and Russia making such

  701
  terms as might be considered advisable with regard to Galicia, Bukovina, and Transylvania?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The other points do not, therefore, arise.

  SUPPLIES TO GERMANY.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has received information from consular or other official sources in Scandinavian countries of the manner in which foodstuffs and other cargoes are being systematically conveyed to Germany, not withstanding an undertaking to prohibit such re-export by the Government of the importing country; whether the method adopted is to consign a cargo in proper form to a neutral Baltic port and on arrival there to re-consign it to another neutral port in the same or in some neighbouring state, with a secret arrangement for the ostensibly forcible capture of the vessel by the Germans during the voyage between these two neutral ports; and what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to stop these supplies reaching the enemy?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: Several cases have recently occurred of ships loaded with grain and oil for Swedish Baltic ports being seized by German warships and their cargoes detained, under circumstances which clearly point to collusion between some individuals and the German authorities The Swedish Government have since issued regulations intended to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, and I trust that if these prove effective it may not be necessary for His Majesty's Government to take any special measures in the matter.
  Mr. McNEILL: Suppose they do not prove effective, will the Government be prepared to take drastic steps?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I think the answer rather suggests that.
  Mr. PETOasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he will state what steps are taken at the ports of Genoa and Savona to inspect the discharge of British ships trading with America; whether he has received information that the steamship "Hazlemoor," of the Runciman Line, was, on the 11th March, discharging grain
  702
  at Savona into wagons labelled Mannheim (Germany) viâ Basle; and whether he intends to take any steps to recall vessels of the British mercantile marine that may be under time charter, so that they may be employed to increase the tonnage available for British trade and Admiralty service and cease carrying supplies destined for enemy countries?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: It is not advisable to explain in detail the measures and arrangements on which His Majesty's Government rely for guarding against the passage of goods to enemy countries through neutral territory. The owners of the steamship "Hazlemoor" have sent me particulars with regard to her cargo which show that it was shipped by Major-General Carlo Pagani to the order of the Italian Government. I would further remind the hon. Member of the reply given on 23rd February to the hon. Member for Plymouth as to the presence of German railway trucks in Italy and Switzerland. The last point of the hon. Member's question should be addressed to the Admiralty.

  SINGAPORE MUTINY (COURT OF INQUIRY).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reference to the recent outbreak in Singapore, whether the escaped German prisoner Diehn had been convicted of communicating with the enemy, and, in view of the fact that £2 per week is the maximum allowed to any German prisoner in England (whereas prisoners in Singapore were allowed access to their bank accounts), if there was any limit placed on the amount he could draw; were the regulations as to German prisoners under the Colonial Office or the War Office; and will he give the names of those conducting the inquiry in Singapore and say whether it is a public inquiry or in camera; and whether the Report of the Inquiry Committee will be published, so that the public and the relatives of the victims may have an opportunity of knowing whether or not there has been laxity on the part of any of those responsible for the government of the Colony?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have no information as to the alleged conviction of the German prisoner Diehn, and as I have already informed the hon. Member, I am not aware what limitations were placed

  703
  on the amounts allowed to be drawn by prisoners from their bank accounts. The control of German prisoners is a matter for the local military authorities. I assume that the hon. Member refers to the Court of Inquiry constituted by the General Officer Commanding. The members of that Court are: Sir Evelyn Ellis, a member of the Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements; Captain A. R. Chancellor, Inspector-General of Police; and Mr. A. W. Vick, of the Chartered Bank. I am not aware how this Court is proceeding or whether its report will be published. These are matters for the military authorities by whom the Court was constituted.
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what assistance was given to this country by our Allies in suppressing the mutiny at Singapore, and whether their were any casualties amongst the forces landed; whether prior to the outbreak it was known that there was reason to believe that the 5th Regiment (Indian Light Infantry) was in a state of disaffection; if so, what steps, if any, were taken to prevent the disaffected portion of that regiment from having the use of their rifles, and, especially, what steps, if any, were taken with a view to ensuring that the disaffected men could not obtain ammunition; and, if no such steps were taken, who was responsible?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Yes, Sir; parties were landed from French, Russian, and Japanese warships, and there were, I understand, two Japanese wounded. A Court of Inquiry was assembled to investigate the whole subject, but, as its report has not yet been received, it is impossible to give an answer to the last part of the question.
  Sir J. JARDINE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the causes of this disaffection?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I have not. That will be the subject of the inquiry.

  RECRUITS AT EFFORD FORT, PLYMOUTH (SUPPLY OF FOOD).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the War Office has been called to the smallness in quantity of food supplied to the recruits at Efford Fort, Plymouth,
  704
  the case particularly applying to the East Lancashire Regiment; and, if so, will steps be taken to inquire at once with a view of remedying the existing state of things?
  Mr. TENNANT: There have been no recruits at Fort Efford of the East Lancashire Regiment since September last. It has been ascertained, however, that there has been some grumbling amongst men of the band attached to the company occupying that fort, but except on one occasion, when a minor complaint was made, no complaint had been made to the officers. Steps have been taken to improve the messing arrangements of these men and to remove all possible cause of complaint. The regulation scale of rations makes provision for an ample supply of food.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, or has his attention been called to the fact, that only last Sunday the supply was condemned by the officer in charge, and the men had to be re-supplied with tinned salmon?
  Mr. TENNANT: I did inform the hon. Gentleman in the reply I have just given that steps have been taken, and they have I think been taken since I received the notice of the hon. Member's question.

  GAELIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the rules of the Gaelic Athletic Association exclude from membership of the clubs affiliated to it all soldiers, sailors of the Royal Navy, miltiamen, or pensioners of the Army and Navy, and that at the annual meeting of the association on the 4th instant a motion to suspend the disqualification during the continuance of the War was withdrawn; if he is aware that the maintenance of this rule by an association which claims to be one of the largest Nationalist organisations in Ireland operates against the enlistment of members of the Gaelic athletic clubs; and what action, if any, the War Office intends to take?
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand that the facts are as stated in the first portion of the question. It would be difficult to say what precise effect on recruiting of the rule in question might be, and in the circumstances no action is contemplated.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this organisation declines to be regarded as a Nationalist organisation, and is one which includes all parties in Ireland?
  Mr. P. J. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of the Reserve men and recruits who have joined in Ireland have been members of this association?
  Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take steps to put a stop to any society passing resolutions which will stop recruiting in Ireland or elsewhere?
  Mr. TENNANT: Of course, we would not only deprecate that, but do what lay in our power to prevent any such action as the hon. Baronet suggests. Very little information has come to the War Office about this society. I was not aware of what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Meehan) has said, that a large portion of the troops who were joining were members of it, and I think it is interesting to learn.
  Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is not the definition "Nationalist organisation" a misnomer?
  Mr. TENNANT: I should think very likely that is true, but I am not able to say.

  CREMATION UNDERTAKER'S CIRCULARS.
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention had been called to a circular, signed by a cremation undertaker, of Fleet Street, London, which is being sent to the relatives of officers killed in action proposing the exhumation and cremation of their remains; and whether these operations have the approval of the British military authorities, as stated in the circular?
  Mr. TENNANT: The War Office have no knowledge of this circular, and I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman will supply me with particulars.

  LONDON IRISH REGIMENT.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a London Scottish regiment has been formed and that a London Welsh regiment is being formed; and whether the Army Council can see their way to raise a London Irish regiment, with the same qualifications as regards
  706
  antecedents as officers and men of the London Scottish and London Welsh?
  Mr. TENNANT: A London Irish Regiment already exists and is at present serving with the Expeditionary Force. It is the 18th (County of London) Battalion, the London Regiment, known as the London Irish Rifles. The Noble Lord will find this battalion in column 1597 of the April Army List.
  Mr. MOONEY: May I ask why, when any casualties occur in the ranks of the London Scottish, which is a battalion of the London Regiment, the words "London Scottish" are added, while when any casualties occur among the London Irish the battalion is not referred to as the London Irish; and why cannot the same treatment be given to both battalions?
  Mr. TENNANT: The fact is that the London Scottish is a very old Territorial Regiment. The London Irish are a new battalion of the New Army—I think I am right in saying that—and part of the London Regiment; and they have hitherto been unable, for some reason I am wholly unable to explain, to establish the same title as the London Scottish, and I should say that was rather fortuitous.
  Mr. MOONEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that long before this unfortunate War started, in the official Army List published by the War Office this battalion of the London Regiment has always been referred to and has been in existence for years?

  TEMPORARY PROMOTIONS (TREATMENT OF WOUNDED).
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in the event of a sergeant being promoted or a private being promoted to sergeant, and these men being sent to hospital wounded, they revert on their return to their regiment to their previous rank of sergeant or private?
  Mr. TENNANT: Until recently noncommissioned officers with the Expeditionary Force were liable to lose their acting rank when sent home wounded or sick, although they did not lose it when sent to a hospital overseas. Under the regulations now in force, however, all non-commissioned ranks have been made substantive with the Expeditionary Force and men wounded retain their rank even if sent home.

  QUORN HOUNDS (DONINGTON HALL PRISONERS).
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a lawn meet of the Quorn foxhounds was held in the grounds of Donington Park, and the hounds were brought close to the wire entanglements in order that the German officers might have a better view of the pack; and, if so, whether he will give directions to prevent the recurrence of such proceedings?
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand that the Quorn Hounds met, as one of their ordinary fixtures, in the park adjacent to Donington Hall on the 23rd ultimo, but did not enter the grounds. No objection was raised to their hunting in the park, which is not in view from the Hall.
  Mr. MCNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that no sort of interchange of courtesies between the prisoners and the members of the hunt occurred?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes; that is in accordance with my information.

  GERMANS (GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS).
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any Government contracts have been given to a German named Kuchnrich, residing at Holly Court, near Sheffield; whether this man owns or controls the business where Julius Wurscher, an enemy alien of military age, was employed until his recent conviction for an offence against the Defence of the Realm Act; if he is aware that it was Kuchnrich who paid the fine of £100 inflicted on Wurscher for that offence; whether Kuchnrich has procured the release of certain interned alien enemies of military age, including one Klein, who falsely represented himself to be of Swiss nationality; whether any aliens so released have been permitted to leave the country; and whether any investigation has been made as to the antecedents and character of Kuchnrich?
  Mr. TENNANT: Small quantities of a special steel have been obtained from the London agents of a firm in which Kuchnrich
  708
  is interested, but this steel is now being obtained from other sources. It is, I believe, the case that Kuchnrich controls the firm for which Wurscher was working. I have no means of knowing whether the firms was paid by Kuchnrich or not. The Department has no knowledge of Kuchnrich having procured the release of interned aliens. As I have said before, it is not desirable to state in public the steps taken in any individual case of this character, but the hon. Member may rest assured that all necessary investigations are made in these cases.
  Mr. McNEILL: May I ask whether, in point of fact, any steps have been taken against this man, who has been deemed locally to be an extremely dangerous person?
  Mr. TENNANT: That really is to what I was referring in the last paragraph of my answer. It is not really desirable to state the steps which have been taken, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to rest assured that all necessary steps are taken.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the public outside are extremely reluctant to take those assurances for granted?
  Mr. TENNANT: All I can say in answer to that is that I regret it extremely if the hon. Gentleman is correct in his diagnosis of the actual public outside, and I can only deprecate it and assure the public outside that there is no ground for that kind of alarm at all.

  NATIONAL RESERVE.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if the men of the National Reserve doing duty at the detention camp at Lancaster since last September are only receiving recruits' pay, whereas others doing the same work are receiving efficiency pay; and, if so, if he will inquire into the matter with a view to having the grievance of the men removed?
  Mr. BAKER: The grant of proficiency pay depends upon the nature of the men's previous service and not upon the duties now performed. I will make inquiries into the case referred to, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

  CENSOR'S DEPARTMENT (EXAMINATION OF LETTERS).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many men and how many women are now employed in the Censor's Department on the work of examining private correspondence to and from this country; and what is the scale of salaries for per sons so employed?
  Mr. TENNANT: The number of men is 130, and of the women the same. The salaries are:—For men, £550, £400, £300 a year: £5, £4, and £3 a week. For women, £200 a year: £3 and £2 a week.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked what qualifications are required of the women employed in the Censor's Department on the work of examining private foreign corespondence; whether these are highly educated women with a knowledge of several foreign languages; whether many of them were induced to offer their services by the promise that the salary would commence at £2 per week for a period not exceeding three weeks, when it would be raised to £3 per week if their services were found to be of special value; and what steps have been taken in pursuance of this promise?
  Mr. TENNANT: The qualifications required are discretion and a knowledge of certain languages. The possibility of advancement was held out, but no period within which it would take place was mentioned. In pursuance of the undertaking mentioned, the salary of those whose services have been found to be of special value has been raised to £3 a week and further promotions will be made.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the women employed in the Censor's Department on the examination of private foreign correspondence are required to work from 9.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., while the men employed on the examination of foreign trade correspondence are only required to work from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.; whether the examination of trade correspondence is much easier work than the examination of private correspondence; and whether he can either reduce the hours of the women on their present work or, alternatively, arrange an exchange of work and hours between them and the men?
  Mr. TENNANT: The hours in the private correspondence department are from 9.30 to 6.30, and in the trade department from 10 to 6. Men and women are employed in both departments, and observe the same hours. Those employed in the trade department are, however, predominantly male.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is there any reason for the longer hours in the private correspondence department?
  Mr. TENNANT: Only that it is suggested that the trade department requires more special knowledge.

  MILITARY PENSIONS AND PAYMENTS (SELECT COMMITTEE).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked upon what grounds it is suggested that representation should be given to the governing body of the National Relief Fund on the Statutory Committee proposed to be set up in connection with military pensions and payments; whether application has been made by the Government to the National Relief Fund to provide or supplement separation allowances and pensions; and, if so, with what result?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): The Select Committee on Pensions, in their second Report, have recommended that the Committee of the National Relief Fund should be invited to contribute to the voluntary funds out of which the pensions and separation allowances paid by the State may be supplemented; and it is for this reason that it is proposed to give the governing body of the fund representation on the Statutory Committee.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I take it that there will be an opportunity presently for discussing the advisability of the policy?
  Mr. ACLAND: No doubt.

  MESSRS. SPILLERS AND BAKERS, LIMITED (PROFITS).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the report of Messrs. Spillers and Bakers, Limited, a Cardiff firm of flour manufacturers, in

  711
  which it is stated that the profit for the past year was £367,865, while the profit for the previous year was £89,352, and the highest previous profit in any year was £196,517 in 1912; that there has been carried forward to the next account £100,000 more than last year; that the bonus to the shareholders has been increased by 5 per cent.; and whether he is advised that, under recent emergency legislation, the Government possess adequate powers for dealing with a case like this, in which profits are largely swollen owing to the strain of the present crisis?
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been directed to the fact that the annual report of Messrs. Spillers and Bakers, Limited, millers and flour merchants, just issued, shows a profit for the year ended February, 1915, of £367,865, as compared with a profit of £89,352 for the year ended February, 1914, and if he will make such provision in the forthcoming Budget as shall ensure the heavily graduated taxation of special profits made during war time?
  Mr. ACLAND: My right hon. Friend has received many communications on the report referred to. The whole question of war profits is under consideration, and I fear for the moment my right hon. Friend can make no further statement.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Have the Government proposals for the distribution of profits been so far matured that the employés of Messrs. Spillers and Bakers will get a proportionate bonus out of these profits?
  Mr. ACLAND: I can only say that, for the moment, I can make no statement on the subject.
  Mr. CROOKS: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the fact that the entire population expect the Government to tax these enormous profits up to 20s. in the £?
  Sir HENRY CRAIK: Do we understand that the matter is now actively occupying the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that we may hear shortly what steps he proposes to take?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Budget is to be taken on Tuesday next and that will be the ordinary occasion for a statement on the subject.

  EXCESSIVE DRINKING (SUGGESTED BLACK LIST OF OFFENDERS).
  Mr. EVELYN CECILasked whether His Majesty's Government, in introducing any proposals relating to intoxicating liquors and the War, will consider the possible remedy of posting up the names of all offenders who through drink have caused loss of time in providing munitions of war on a black list, either within or without the factories, the disgrace of appearing on which might be a sufficient deterrent to prevent further trouble, while it would have the advantage of revealing the actual number of delinquents, of being free from inconvenience to others, and of not disturbing vested interests?
  Mr. ACLAND: I must ask the hon. Member to await my right hon. Friend's statement on this subject to-morrow.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFF).
  Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister whether several Government Departments have not nearly the usual amount of work to do that they have in normal years: whether the staffs of these Departments are now almost without work; and, if so, will the Government, as a temporary measure, transfer a number of employés from these Departments to those which are overworked, to the benefit of all the Departments?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The policy of transfer was adopted at the the beginning of the War, with excellent results. A large number of men have also joined His Majesty's Forces from offices where they could be spared, and I am not aware of any cases where Departments are overstaffed for the work which they have to do.

  ARMY RECRUITS (MARRIAGE BY PROXY).
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that many recruits in the new Army who were engaged to be married before going abroad were prevented by the exigencies of military duty from getting married before leaving England on active service; that hardship and anxiety is thereby occasioned to the women betrothed to these men; and whether he will consider the

  713
  possibility of so amending the marriage law by a temporary measure as to enable soldiers on active service during the present War to be married by proxy if they so desire?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the hon. Member's suggestions will find general acceptance.
  Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider it, if specific evidence is put before him as to its desirability?

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACT (MESSRS. WALKER, PARKER AND CO., LTD).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Financial Secrtary to the War Office whether the firm of Messrs. Walker, Parker and Company, Limited, lead manufacturers, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, Chester, and Bagillt, North Wales, have at present any contracts in hand for the War Office; if so, whether he is aware that the firm in question refuses to recognise the unskilled labour trade unions and refuse to see deputations from these unions who seek to represent their members in the employ of the firm on wages questions; and whether, in view of the recent agreement arrived at between the unions and the Government at the Treasury, steps will be taken to bring this firm in line with those now engaged on the production of munitions of war?
  Mr. BAKER: I am informed that this firm is doing Government work under subcontracts. Any dispute affecting such work would properly be dealt with under the arrangements made at the Treasury conference to which my hon. Friend refers.

  GERMAN CONSUL-GENERAL (SHIRAZ).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether Herr Wassmuss, German Consul-General at Shiraz, is still at Shiraz awaiting instructions from the German Legation at Teheran; and, if so, whether he is a free agent after his violation of Persian neutrality?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. C. Roberts): It is understood that Herr Wassmuss is still at Shiraz, but I am not aware that his Consular appointment has been recognised by the Persian Government. It is understood that the Persian authorities have not interfered with his liberty.

  INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (EMOLUMENTS).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in consequence of orders having been issued that officers of the Indian Army on the active list who were specially selected at the commencement of the War for employment under the Imperial Government were to receive no emoluments except from the Indian Government, many such officers, who have been selected for responsible appointments entitling them to extra duty pay under the Royal Warrant and Allowance Regulations for the British Army, now suffer financial loss, as they receive at least £90 per annum less than officers of equal rank performing the same duties in the British Army; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The hon. Member's statement is not entirely accurate. The rule in force is that an officer of the Indian Army on the active list borrowed for service under the Imperial Government shall not receive less than the equivalent of the emoluments of his Indian appointment. If any such officer holds an appointment for which War Office regulations allow higher emoluments he is entitled to draw those emoluments on signifying his desire to do so.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the hon. Gentleman quite sure, as a matter of fact, that they do not draw less than the equivalent of the emoluments of their Indian appointments?
  Mr. ROBERTS: They are certainly entitled in the cases mentioned to draw the higher emoluments.

  MESSRS. KRUPP (ROYALTIES).
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether, on every fuse manufactured in this country, a royalty of is is paid by the Government under a German patent for the benefit of Krupp, of Essen; if so, whether this money is paid to the Public Trustee by the British armament firms for the account of Krupp; and whether he can state the amount of money due to Krupp after the expenditure of ammunition at Neuve Chapelle alone?
  Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this. I am making inquiries. Perhaps the Noble Lord would repeat his question.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the royalties paid to German firms for submarines?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise during this question.

  LINSEED OIL (EXPORT TO HOLLAND).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there has been any large increase in the exportation of linseed oil to Holland from this country since the War broke out; and, if so, how much?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The quantity of pure linseed oil exported from the United Kingdom to the Netherlands from 1st August, 1914, to 31st March, 1915, amounted to 19,159 tons. In the corresponding period of the years 1913–14 the amount was eighteen tons. I should add that by virtue of an Order in Council, issued on 21st April, the export, of linseed oil is now prohibited to all destinations.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that a percentage of glycerine can be extracted from linseed oil?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot answer that question without notice.

  PERSIAN OIL SUPPLY (DESTRUCTION OF PIPE LINE).
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a force of Turks (Persian irregulars), commanded by German officers, have blown up the pipe line conveying Persian oil for the use of His Majesty's Government; and will he explain why the British public should not be informed of this fact, as the circumstance is well known both by Germany and Turkey?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I have nothing to add to the answer given by me yesterday to the hon. Member for East Nottingham, of which I will send the Noble Lord a copy.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Did the hon. Gentleman give any reason yesterday why the information was concealed?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: No, what I said yesterday was that I was unable to make any further statement.

  GERMAN FIRMS IN UNITED KINGDOM.
  Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any licence to trade in this country has been granted to the German firm of pianoforte makers, Blüthner and Company, of Wig-more Street, London, and of Leipzig. Germany; and, if so, if the same will be withdrawn, as has been done in the case of Bechstein and Company, pianoforte makers, of Wigmore Street, London, and Berlin, Germany?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): The answer is in the negative. As Messrs. Blüthner and Company, Limited, are an English registered company with English directors, no licence to trade is required, but the company cannot, of course, trade with Germany and is subject to all the general restrictions imposed by the Trading with the Enemy Acts and Proclamations.
  Mr. FELL: Does it not rather aggravate the case that this German firm have turned themselves into a limited liability company to sell German pianos seeing that the present is the same as the previous firm and that it remains purely a German firm?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; I think the hon. Gentleman will see from the answer I have given that, as I understand the case, there are English directors of the company.

  CARTRIDGE MAKING, LEEDS.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the legal prosecution of a firm of engineers engaged at cartridge-making in Armley, Leeds, in which it was shown that a girl under eighteen years of age worked from 6 a.m. on Friday till 7 a.m. on Saturday, when she met with an accident, whilst an older woman worked from 6 a.m. on Friday till 11 a.m. on Saturday; whether he is aware that the Stipendiary Magistrate declined to convict on the ground that he might be limiting the output of ammunition; whether his attention has also been drawn to the death from exhaustion of an artificer at the Small Arms Factory, Enfield, who was stated to have worked eighty and a-half hours a week since

  717
  August, thirty-two hours a week above normal; and whether he can take steps in co-operation with the military and naval authorities to encourage only such industrial conditions as will not destroy physical health and in the end retard output?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): As regards the prosecution of the firm at Leeds, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Bridgeton. I have seen a report of the inquest in the case referred to in the second part of the question. The Home Office has no power to control the hours of adult male workers in factories, but, so far as its powers extend, it has made every endeavour, in consultation with the War Office, and Admiralty, to adapt the conditions of work to the needs of the present emergency, and at the same time to safeguard workers against excessive hours.

  GERMAN-BRITISH CONTRACTS.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that firms in this country having a contract with German firms, although signed in Germany, for the delivery of goods here the delivery of which in consequence of the War is rendered impossible, are having to get their goods manufactured in this country, and when the War is over will be legally compelled to accept delivery of goods from German firms within the terms of the original contract; and, if so, will steps be taken to safeguard British firms from any legal proceedings that may ensue?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir John Simon): The hon. Member will recollect that the Legal Proceedings Against Enemies Act was recently passed for the express purpose of providing a solution of problems similar to that referred to in the question. The solution depends on the facts of each case, but I should not have thought that the consequences suggested by the hon. Member would necessarily follow in the circumstances mentioned.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that the opinion of learned counsel has been taken, and that the advice given is directly opposite?
  Sir J. SIMON: I have offered no opinion whatever. I assume that any opinion that may be given will be given after a full statement of the facts; but I say if the relevant facts are as stated in the question I am surprised that the conclusion should be as suggested.

  NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will now have a Return prepared showing the local committees and other bodies which have received grants of money from the National Relief Fund, and the amounts and dates of such grants?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Lewis): I understand that the Executive Committee of the National Relief Fund are about to issue a Report which will give the substance of the information desired by the hon. Member.

  GERMAN EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now supply any further details of the German exports to the United States in January last or in any recent months; the cause of the increase of these exports; the nature of them; and if they were shipped from German ports or through neutral countries?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will circulate a statement with the Votes. From it the hon. Member will see that during the seven months, August, 1914, to February, 1915, inclusive, the imports into the United States from Germany were valued at £12,222,000, as compared with £23,426,000 during the corresponding months of 1913 and 1914, the decrease being thus 48 per cent. The imports from the United Kingdom were valued at £29,824,000, as compared with £34,413,000 in the earlier period, the decrease being thus only 13 per cent. The imports from Germany, though higher in January, 1915, than in preceding months, owing mainly to large imports of dye-stuffs and fine chemicals, were lower than in the corresponding month of 1914, and showed a heavy decline in February.—[See Written Answers this date.]

  MESSRS. VICKERS, LIMITED (PROFITS).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the report of Messrs. Vickers, Limited, which shows profits at disposal to December last amounting to £1,241,845, and that, after paying ordinary dividend for the year at 12½ per cent., the firm are able to place to reserve a sum of £1,764,000, or £694,000 more than a year ago; whether he is aware that the women employed as belt machinists at the Erith works of this firm are at present asking for an advance of 1d. an hour in cases where their hourly rate is 2½d. or less, and an advance of ½d. an hour where the hourly rate is higher; and that the request has been refused by the firm; whether he will take steps to secure an equitable settlement of a dispute which is causing feeling among the workpeople?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Chief Industrial Commissioner has had under consideration the dispute to which the hon. Member refers, and arrangements have been made for a meeting between the parties.

  COAL (SUPPLY AND PRICES).
  Mr. ANDERSON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a fuller statement of policy as to the intention of the Government regarding the supply and price of coal; and to what extent the Government propose to adopt the recommendations of the Departmental Committee?
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if any steps have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on the Retail Prices of Coal; and, if so, what has been done; and will he give an early opportunity for the discussion of this matter in the House?
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the steps which are being taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committee appointed by him on the subject of the retail price of coal; and whether any of the recommendations of the Committee have vet been given effect to?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am in communication with the London County Council regarding the Committee's recommendation in favour of the accumulation of a stock of coal in London. The rates of freight on the interned steamships have been largely reduced. The recommendation regarding the utilisation of prize ships has been brought to the notice of the Prizes Disposal Committee. The recommendation in favour of restricting the export of coal to neutral countries raises very difficult questions which are now receiving my careful consideration. I expect to be able to announce the decision very shortly.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend say why the Government's decision to accumulate coal is confined to London?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The recommendation of the Committee was confined to London.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does it matter what the Committee recommends?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not it is the intention of the Government to fix a maximum price for coal, seeing, in spite of the high prices, they have done nothing for the last three months?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must have notice of that question.

  BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked whether the British Industries Fair to be held in May in the Agricultural Hall is being organised by the Board of Trade; whether representatives of the Board of Trade are now visiting the factories of exhibitors in order to ascertain that the articles to be exhibited are made under conditions which meet with the Board's approval; whether such approval takes into account labour conditions; and, if so, in what way?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. A number of firms and their factories have been visited with a view of ascertaining the nature of the goods to be exhibited and of securing compliance with the regulations drawn up by the Board of Trade to the effect that only British manufacturing firms will be admitted as exhibitors, and that the goods shown must be goods of their own manufacture. There is no question of giving the Board's approval to the conditions of manufacture.

  LETTERS AND PARCELS TO SOLDIERS.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Postmaster-General why letters and par-cols sent to soldiers on active service which are returned to the Post Office as death of the addressee, are not returned through the War Office, or otherwise, to the home address of the deceased to be at the disposal of his representatives; and if he will give directions for this course to be followed in future?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): By arrangement with the military authorities, letters and parcels addressed to soldiers on active service which are undelivered on account of the undeliverable on account of the death of the addressees are retained until the casualties have been officially notified by the War Office to the next of kin, and are then returned to the senders, in accordance with the ordinary rule that all undeliverable letters and parcels must be returned to the senders.
  Mr. McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been many cases where no name of the sender has been discoverable in the parcel, and that in those cases the parcels have not been returned to the representatives of the addressee; and will he see that in such cases arrangements are made for the representative of the deceased to receive the parcel?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Those cases have not been brought to my notice. I shall certainly make inquiry, and I think it very probable that the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman will be taken, though I can give him no promise.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are a very large number of parcels that have been quite recently dealt with under circumstances such as those suggested by my hon. Friend?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, Sir. I am not at all aware of it. On one or two occasions information has been conveyed to me of a large number of parcels, here, there, and elsewhere, but on making inquiry as to the existence of these alleged parcels they have been found, in fact, not to exist.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that until quite recently there was an immense accumulation of parcels which had not, in fact, been delivered, lying at the Post Office, and that, I believe, steps were taken to have them conveyed to the Record Office in order that they might be delivered to the personal representatives of the deceased?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Not under the circumstances detailed in the question of the hon. Member opposite.

  Cider.
  Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that cider is regarded as a temperance beverage, is not subject to Excise Duties, and provides the best substitute for intoxicating drinks, steps are being taken to increase the amount, improve the quality, and promote the use of home-produced eider?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): I cannot commit myself to the assumption contained in the preamble to the hon. Member's question. I may say, however, that Grants are made by the Board and from the Development Fund for the encouragement of the best methods of cider production, while by proceedings I under the Merchandise Marks Acts and otherwise the Board safeguard genuine cider from the competition of spurious ciders, thus encouraging the manufacture and use of the beverage.
  Mr. KING: Does the hon. Gentleman, distinctly traverse or deny the preamble of my question?
  Sir H. VERNEY: I am not quite sure how far it is to be regarded as a temperance remedy.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: May I ask whether as a matter of fact cider does not contain more spirit than the average beer?
  Sir H. VERNEY: I am informed that that is so.
  Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is no adulteration in connection with cider, but that there is with, beer?

  Ordnance Department, Haulbowline (Pay).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that the workmen employed in the Army Ordnance Department at Haul-bowline have not yet received the increase of pay promised them, while the workmen in the Naval Department there have received the increase since October last; and whether he will take steps to place the men in the Ordnance Department on the same level, so far as the increase in wages is concerned, as the men in the Naval Department?
  Mr. BAKER: It has been arranged that this increase shall now be given.

  Compulsory Vaccination (India).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to introduce legislation into the Central Provinces for the enforcement of vaccination; and, if so, whether a conscience clause will be introduced into the Vaccination Act as in the case of the English and Scotch Vaccination Acts of 1907?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: Compulsory vaccination is already enforceable in municipalities at the request of the Municipal Commissioners and cantonments in the Central Provinces under an Act of 1880. An amending Bill is now proposed extending the power of enforcing compulsory vaccination to certain quasi-municipal areas. It is specified both in the Act and the amending Bill that it is open to any inhabitant of the area to object to the extension, but in neither case is there a conscience clause.

  Welsh Church Act.
  Mr. MOUNTasked what steps the Welsh Commissioners propose to take in the parishes of Llansilin and Rhydycroesan in order to obtain a conclusive expression of their desire to remain within or without the provisions of the Welsh Church Act, in view of the fact that the Commissioners were not satisfied that the votes received in the ballot held in those parishes indicated with sufficient clearness the views of the parishioners?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Welsh Commissioners inform me that they have this
  724
  matter under consideration, but have not as yet come to any definite decision.
  Mr. MOUNT: Has the right hon. Gentleman done anything since the first reported ballot, now something like two months ago?
  Mr. McKENNA: No; I understand what the Commissioners have done is that they have left the matter alone for the time being. I understand that to be in accordance with the desire of the hon. Member.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Are we to under stand they are leaving the matter alone because they are waiting for the Welsh Church Act (Postponement) Bill?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, there was a strong protest against the ballot having been taken. In eighteen cases the ballot was completed and in two other cases it was not, and I assumed it would be in accordance with the wishes of the hon. Member that the ballot should not be taken in those two cases. I represented that view of the matter to the Commissioners. The matter is not entirely in my power.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: May we understand, then, that nothing is being done or will be done at present?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot answer for the Commissioners and say definitely that nothing will or will not be done. I represented to the Commissioners what took place in the House of Commons, and they have given me the answer that I have read, that they have not as yet come to any definite decision as to what they will do in the matter.

  Vaccination Officers.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the Association of Poor Law Unions of England and Wales who have not replied to his letter of the 1st February last relative to the loss of income sustained by vaccination officers owing to the operation of the Vaccination Act and Order, 1907: if so, in view of their letter to the Local Government Board of the 24th September. 1909, would he at once take action on the lines then suggested by that association without further delay; and, as there are

  725
  no vaccination officers members of the Union and Rural District Clerks' Association, what was the nature of his communication to that association on the 1st February last and their reply thereto?
  Mr. LEWIS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With respect to the second part, my right hon. Friend would prefer to await the reply which it is understood will be received shortly. As regards the last part of the question, similar letters were addressed to the two associations. There would be no advantage at the present time in publishing the reply which has been received.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to see that the matter receives some reasonable consideration from the Local Government Departments concerned?
  Mr. LEWIS: I have reason to believe that that is the case, and that a reply will shortly be received.

  University Colleges of Wales.
  Mr. ROBINSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the interest taken by the public in Wales in the matter, he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House the Report of the Committee appointed by the Hoard of Education to report on the University Colleges of Wales and the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Treasury to consider the question of the Welsh School of Medical Research?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It has been thought advisable, in accordance with the usual practice, to defer publication until the Treasury is in a position to arrive at a decision as to the new grants recommended.

  Agriculture (Wales).
  Mr. JOHNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, since his appointment in June, 1912, the Agriculture Commissioner for Wales has been required to report annually upon the condition and requirements of agriculture in the Principality; if not, will he instruct the Commissioner to report fully upon the work of the Department in Wales during the years 1912, 1913, and 1914, and upon the relative condition
  726
  of agriculture in Wales as compared particularly with Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, and Belgium; and whether in the preparation of such Report provision will be made for him to have the collaboration of the Small Holdings Commissioner for Wales and the representative of Wales on the Development Commission, such Report or Reports to be submitted to the House at an early date?
  Sir H. VERNEY: The Agricultural Commissioner has been in constant communication with the Board on the subjects for which he is more particularly responsible, namely, the development of agricultural education and the improvement of live stock in Wales, but he has not been required to present annual reports. The Board will, however, gladly ask him to report upon the progress made since his appointment and upon the present condition of agriculture in Wales. A comparison with the other countries named by my hon. Friend would be interesting, but it would be a long and arduous work, and under present conditions I am afraid it is not practicable. The Board also propose to ask the Small Holdings Commissioner concerned to report on the progress of the small holdings movement in Wales. The constitutional relations between the Board and the Development Commission make it impossible for the representative of Wales on that Commission to collaborate in these reports.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP 1).
Sir Tudor Walters reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills: That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

BARNOLDSWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions Reported from the Select Committee:

1. "That, in the case of the Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley, and Dukinfield Tramways and Electricity Board [Lords], Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the London Electric Railway Companies' Facilities, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for a Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

3. "That, in the case of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert the additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

Resolutions agreed to.

BILL PRESENTED.
  COPYRIGHT (BRITISH MUSEUM) BILL.
  "To amend the Copyright Act, 1911, with respect to the delivery of books to the British Museum" Presented by Mr. ACLAND; to be read a second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.— [EIGHTH ALLOTTED DAY.]

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    POST OFFICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £15,336,380, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones. [NOTE.—£11,500,000 has been voted on account.]
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): Last year I laid before this House in connection with the Post Office Estimates an estimate for revenue which came to £31,700,000, and an estimate for expenditure which came to £26,152,000, showing an estimated balance of £5,500,000. We were in a very fair way to realise that large surplus had not the War, with its consequent disturbance of trade and industry, interrupted our revenue. As a consequence of the outbreak of War, there was at once an immediate shrinkage in Post Office revenue, and we dropped in the course of the financial year a revenue of no less than £2,100,000. The greater part of this came under the heading of Postal Service, £1,350,000; Telegraphs, £100,000; Telephones, £650,000; so that in all departments of the Post Office service there was a very substantial loss. On the other hand, expenditure went up by a very great sum, and I want to dwell upon this because of something which I wish to say at the end of my essential remarks. We sent a large number of men to the Colours, and we had to provide substitutes, and the cost of substitution, quite apart from the services rendered, came to £750,000. There is to be remembered in connection with Post Office servants serving with the Colours that some enlist voluntarily and some go back to complete Reserve service, and their military pay and their separation allowances are found by the War Office. Any balance of civil pay falls upon Post

    739
    Office funds, but in the case of those Post Office servants who are recruited either for the Army Post Office, or else for the Royal Engineers signal units, the whole cost of the civil pay falls upon Post Office funds, and only military pay upon the War Office. In the case of these latter men the Post Office are not only paying for services which they do not receive during the War, but they have to pay for the whole cost of substituted service.
    The consequence is that the recruiting of so large a proportion of the Post Office staff has led to a very large increase of Post Office expenditure. The net increase of expenditure coming to £280,000, we find that at the end of the financial year our realised income was £29,650,000, actual expenditure £26,430,000, and our estimated surplus had shrunk from £5,500,000 to £3,250,000. This year I anticipate both a smaller revenue and a larger expenditure. I have put the revenue at £30,400,000, and the expenditure at £26,836,000—a surplus, in round figures, of £3,500,000. But, in addition to that expenditure, I shall have to provide, during the coming twelve months, for a very considerable amount of outgoings connected with the War, and nothing but the War. I have very imperfect data to go upon. Putting war expenditure in the coming twelve months at £2,000,000, if my estimate is right, the surplus falls to a sum of about £1,500,000.
    There is one department of the Post Office the state of which, I think, must give universal satisfaction, and that is the Savings Bank Department. It was natural enough that at the outbreak of hostilities, when it was plain that we were in for a war with a very powerful adversary, and that the continuance of hostilities was bound, therefore, to be over a long period, there should have been a very sharp run upon the Savings Bank—a run accentuated by the actual shortage of coinage during the early part, and even up to the end of August. By the end of that month the net withdrawals from the Savings Bank Department were £2,500,000 in excess of deposits made, but from the end of that month confidence replaced panic, deposits began to come in very freely, and before the end of September they had exceeded the withdrawals, and so completely had the tide turned that when I got the last return at the end of March from the Savings Bank Department, the deposits from the quarter ending
    740
    31st March had exceeded the withdrawals by £4,400,000 or £3,000,000 in excess of the corresponding period in the previous year. I think that that is a fact which ought to be received with great satisfaction by the country as pointing to the sound condition of the finance, trade and industry of the country, and showing that amongst the class of people who use the Post Office Savings Bank, the smaller traders and the artisans, there is not only a desire but an ability to save in a substantial manner.
    Curiously enough, only last night I came across some figures which purported to set out the position of Germany in respect of savings banks, and I found that, basing their calculations upon a third of the savings bank returns in that country—and they belong apparently not to the Imperial Government but to the local governments—those figures purport to show that their savings, during a corresponding period of that year, would have come to something like 900 million marks. I am not in a position to test those figures in any way, but I confess that I should be very sorry to exchange their 900 million marks for my £4,400,000. There is only one other financial point I should like to touch upon at this moment, and that is the expenditure upon postal buildings. The post offices in this country hitherto have always been built out of revenue, and that is a financial system of which much can be said, but it has this patent disadvantage, that in the years of abnormal expenditure the provision of postal buildings becomes exiguous and inadequate, and reduces postal administration to a state very often of chaos and confusion. We recognise that while the Treasury act upon a system which makes provision from revenue for buildings which will probably last for fifty, sixty, or even seventy years or longer, some curtailment is inevitable in view of the War. There have been two financial periods within the last two years when owing to this system of construction which is about to be curtailed, an alarming degree of arrears has accrued, and we have again during the present year to deal with the arrears from those two periods. Consequently, the moment this War is over there will be forced upon the Treasury and the Post Office a different system of financing their buildings, and we shall have to have recourse to loans instead of revenue in order to provide the sums which have become very necessary, if we are to find

    741
    adequate accommodation either for the Post Office staff or the people who use the post offices.
    There is one other topic I wish to allude to, and it is the question of cables and codes, a subject which has been exciting the country and upon which I have answered many questions in this House. It was clearly necessary when the War broke out that the service of telegrams, expressed in code and cypher should be at once brought to an end, because they were the clearest, quickest and easiest way of affording information to the enemy, and the information thus given could not be checked or controlled by our censorship. Consequently, plain language had to be resorted to. In my judgment the Cable Censor has had a very difficult, task to perform, but he has endeavoured to carry out that task with as little harshness as possible, and he has got through a strenuous task in a way which has inflicted the least possible hardship on British trade. I know there has been a substantial loss to traders in this respect through the abolition of codes. The adoption of codes had the practical result of enormously reducing cable charges, and the moment the firms who used the cable on a large scale had to resort to plain language their expenses went up 300, 400 or 500 per cent. in the course of a week. Beyond that the congestion caused upon the cables by the use of long plain language telegrams has had the result that they were unable to deal with the traffic thrust upon them and the cable companies had to discontinue the deferred and weekend telegrams which were a source of great, convenience to many persons who were desirous of sending immediate and urgent telegrams. It has, however, been found possible to restore the deferred telegram system, and a great deal of the telegraphic communications of the present day are sent by that means in order that the Censor may take advantage of it. To some extent we have been able to restore the code for extra-European countries. With regard to the use of several codes, a certain amount of objection has been offered to so small a number being permissible, but I have to point out to those who object that the use of a large number of codes merely tends to delay if those telegrams have to be deciphered, because the clerk who sends the cable gets accustomed I to the use of one particular code and sends the telegrams with comparative case and eventually quite as easily as a plain-
    742
    language telegram. But if that clerk has constantly to use different codes his powers of transmission are enfeebled and he is not able to deal so rapidly with telegrams for a large number of firms. We have had complaints that the codes we have extended are not those which the public generally use. It came to my notice the other day that the representative of a commercial firm who had urged us to give up some of our existing codes only a few weeks ago withdrew their original list and substituted their second list, which they said was equally useful; but only three of the original codes appeared in their second list, which showed clearly that they were undecided, or perhaps ill-informed, as to the relative value attached to our codes and theirs.
    I will pass altogether from that side, however, and I should like to tell the Committee a little about the connection of the Post Office service with the military forces, both in France and elsewhere, which I think may be of interest. The connection between the Post Office and the Army and Navy is unostentatious, but it is very close, and I believe it to be indispensable to their continued value as fighting forces. We have sent a large number of our staff to France. They have done exceedingly well there and have earned special commendation from the Commander-in-Chief, to which I believe they are fully entitled, for the services they have rendered. In performing those services they have paid a pretty heavy toll. Some 700 or 800 have been killed and a large number has been wounded out of the comparatively small force which up to the present moment has gone to the front. That, however, has had no deterring effect upon the readiness of the staff to enlist. In fact, my difficulty is not to find people ready to enlist, but to find reasons for holding back those whose services are really quite as indispensable for the country while they are remaining over here as they would be if they proceeded overseas to join the military forces of the Crown. We have got about 1,200 postal servants who are, actually engaged in delivering correspondence at the front, and I have had a great deal of testimony to the speed and punctuality with which letters and parcels have been distributed to the troops. I am able to say, not on my own authority but from letters which I have received, and from what I have been told, that there, is a great moral value in the close, constant, and immediate touch

    743
    which can be kept up between the troops serving in the trenches and their friends and relations at home.
    Many letters have disclosed to me the fact that after three, four, or five days continuous service in the trenches men have come back wearied out to their rest camps and have been revived and reanimated in spirit quite as much by the letters and correspondence which they have received as by the more material refreshment which they may have derived from food and bodily comforts. When men have been almost depressed and overwhelmed by the brutalities with which they have been day by day and hour by hour surrounded in the trenches over long periods of time, I can myself conceive that to come back to something which brings them in touch with their homes and with familiar scenes, from which many of them fear, and unfortunately with only too much reason, they may be permanently severed, and to come back to the sight of familiar handwriting and read announcements of domestic interest and joy, will reinvigorate them and reanimate their minds and fit them once more for their duties.
    Soldiers have taken full advantage of the opportunities which we have given them for correspondence. We send out to France—I think the figures are interesting—every day about 400,000 letters and about 50,000 parcels. That is a trainload of something like eighty or ninety tons of stuff. To Egypt and the Dardanelles we send out weekly about 250,000 letters and 5,000 parcels; and we send to the Fleet weekly about 2,000,000 letters and about 45,000 parcels. That requires a very efficient organisation indeed, and I hope I may be allowed to say in this House that the rapidity and certainty with which all this vast amount of correspondence reaches the Fleet and the Army has given universal satisfaction. We have made some special arrangements for the Colonial troops. They are not so much concerned with easy and speedy communication with England. Their hopes and interests are centred in some distant land, and for them we have provided a special week-end telegram. I will not say "we," because I must do justice to the cable companies to whose generosity this arrangement is due. We have managed to arrange with the cable companies for a week-end telegram at a quarter of the ordinary rate per word. They can telegraph freely and easily to
    744
    their relations in New Zealand, Australia, or wherever it may be. This privilege is also extended to British troops serving outside France, so that from the Dardanelles or Egypt, or wherever troops may be, communications can be sent speedily, bringing to the relatives of those abroad news of their health, comfort, and success.
    In the case of extended British and Colonial troops outside France, information as to the progress or fatal termination of disease is sent to the relatives as to the progress or fatal termination of disease or details of convalescence free of all charge whatever. Neither have we been neglectful of the prisoners of war in Germany or elsewhere. Under the Postal Union Convention, free passage of both parcels and letters is assured, and by mutual agreement between Austria, Germany, and England that free passage of correspondence is extended to civilian persons who are interned either here or in the countries with whom we are at war. They have made ample use of their facilities. The Dutch Post Office has kindly taken charge of all this correspondence, and both brings to this country and takes from it such messages as are sent to prisoners of war on either side. [An HON. MEMBER: "Without charge?"] Yes, without any charge at all, and I think that we are indebted to them for their courtesy.
    Mr. WARDLE: And Switzerland?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Swiss Post Office is only concerned to this extent, that money orders either from or to Austria are sent through the medium of the Swiss Post Office, and they transact this business for it. I should like to say a word or two about the ordinary Post Office work. We have lived for nine months under war conditions. Correspondence with foreign countries has either been suspended or minimised, and we have ourselves reduced facilities at home; in particular, I have cut down all telegraphic facilities for race meetings. It seems to me that the telegraphic staff which is very badly needed for the carrying on of the ordinary commercial business of this country or for serving the needs of the Army and the Navy can be much better employed than in giving facilities for people for amusement and pleasure. Although I have reduced facilities here — I think I have done so with the almost universal consent of this country—we are still affording better postal arrangements, more

    745
    speedy and freely, than are given by any other country in Europe at the present time. I am afraid that the time may come when I may have to ask the public of this country to agree to a yet further curtailment of postal facilities. I hope that it may not be necessary, but, if they will acquiesce in the future as they have done in the past with good nature to the necessary restrictions which I may feel it my duty to place upon them, they, on the other hand, may rest assured that I shall not do it unless it is absolutely necessary for the benefit of the country.
    4.0 P.M.
    I said that we had sent 35,000 men to the War. We have recruited nearly 23,000 people, 20,000 men and 3,000 women, to take their places in the postal service. I gave very strict instructions that in recruiting this temporary labour people of non-military age and married men should have the preference, but, notwithstanding the endeavours of those who acted on my behalf to carry out those instructions, I am sorry to say that we have got no less than 11,000 men of military age at the present time in our service, and that of those 11,000 no less than 6,000 are single. I think it becomes a question whether we are wise to retain those men in our service—whether they could not be giving better service to the country, not necessarily in the Army as soldiers, but as helping to meet, the industrial wants of the Army and the Navy, than by staying in the ranks of the Post Office. I do not profess to have made up my mind on the matter, but I do think that the subject is well worthy the consideration both of this House and of the Postal Department. An HON. MEMBER: "I take it that they are physically fit?"] That is one of the matters we shall have to go into. There are those who are not physically fitted, although they have been military men.
    On the telegraph side we have been pressed by industrial conditions, and by the recruiting of the staff. At the Manchester office no fewer than one-half of the made telegraphic staff have enlisted, and if it had not been for the loyalty to the State of the old pensioned staff, it would have been impossible for us to get through the congested business with which we have had to deal. I have pointed out that substitution for the men we have sent to the Colours has been very costly. There has been a demand—a great and increasing demand—for labour throughout the country, and that has reacted on the wages
    746
    which we have been in a position to pay to the temporary staff. I think in every class of temporary employés, I will not say at every office, it has been necessary to raise the wages of those whom we have thus recruited, but, even with these raised wages, it has been difficult, especially on the telegraph side, to get suitable persons. You cannot teach a person cither to receive or transmit a message in a fortnight, or even in six months. We have had, therefore, in order to get over this difficulty, to replace in many cases men by women and boys by girls. These changes are due to the necessities of the War. I have no intention of replacing permanent employés by casual labour, or of determining questions as to employment after the War by reference to decisions arrived at in consequence of war requirements and necessities. There has been some uncertainty amongst the staff of the Post Office on that point, and I therefore wish to make the position perfectly clear and plain.
    But closely allied to this question of remuneration has been an issue which has been brought to my notice by a demand on behalf of the postal associations for a war bonus for postal servants. The application which was presented to me was closely followed by a similar application presented by the Civil Service Federation to the Treasury, and it became clear—indeed it was clear before—that this was a question which would affect not merely the Post Office, but the Inland Revenue, the Excise, and all the other Departments in which there are a large number of employés. It became, therefore, a question not for the Postmaster-General, but for the Government, and the Government as a Government, gave the fullest and most careful consideration to the proposals that were made. After very full and careful inquiry into the facts of the case, they instructed me to inform postal servants that they were unable to accede to this request for a war bonus. In this connection it is necessary to remember that a great many similar agitations, although not based on similar reasons, have been put forward for an increase of wages.
    I think in nearly all the cases in which the Government has been concerned the demand for an increase has been based not merely on the increased cost of living, but also on the increased strain and pressure put upon those engaged in the work. That certainly was the case with regard to the railways and with regard to many

    747
    other trades and industries in this country. It is not possible to assert, I think, that there has been any real strain and pressure on postal servants except in those cases where the strain and pressure has been well remunerated by the overtime which has been earned in connection with it. The principal strain has occurred in the telegraph offices—in the G.P.O. in London, and in other telegraphic centres throughout the country, and also in the sorting offices, and, in both of these categories of work, large sums for overtime have been earned by the persons employed in them. In many cases the earnings have doubled the ordinary pay. Overtime is paid by the Post Office at a rate and a quarter for the first six hours, a rate and a half for the second six hours, and double rates for over twelve, hours, and the consequence is that it is not unusual to find senior telegraphists and sorters taking home as much as £7 or £8 a week for a little more than sixty hours' work, and even in a few isolated cases £10 or £11. It is impossible, therefore, in the judgment of the Government not to consider that they have been amply remunerated and recompensed for the pressure which has been put upon them.
    With regard to female telephonists there is very little overtime there, and the same may be said generally of the remaining classes in the Post Office. It therefore comes down to this, that so far as Post Office servants are concerned, the demand has been based, and I think property based, upon the issue as to whether or not the Government should meet, by advanced wages, the rise in the price of commodities. It must not be forgotten that the permanent staff of the Post Office and of other great Government Departments have I not, like ordinary industrial workers, to make hay while the sun shines. They are not liable to dismissal in a period of slackness, nor are their wages liable to be reduced when prices of commodities fall, or when the staff is no longer wanted. They are certain of an adequate pension when they are no longer able to work. Their future is therefore not uncertain. It is assured. But in the case of the unprivileged industrial worker all these compensations are wanting. He has got to save during the time of high wages. He never knows when that time may pass away. Trade generally, or the trade of the particular person for whom he works, may fall off, and he will have to suffer. He may
    748
    have to leave his employment and begin all over again. If he is unlucky he may have to shift his home, and perhaps even he may have to start in au absolutely new industry. From all these disabilities the permanent Civil servant is free, and that is a great advantage which cannot be overestimated The earnings of the ordinary industrial worker fluctuate with scarcity or plenty of work. They rise and fall with the barometer of trade. They share the prosperity or adversity of the general commerce and trade of the country.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Very little of the prosperity!
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: During the last eight years there have been large surpluses, and the wages of postal servants have been increased by £2,000,000 a year.
    Mr. O'GRADY: I was referring to men outside.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I misunderstood his interruption. The wages of permanent Civil servants have gone up with the prosperity of this country. They have not gone down in times of slackness. The Civil servant claims to have his wages fixed in times of prosperity, and they are fixed with the express approval and sanction of this House, under conditions laid down by this House. But side by side with such a claim goes the obligation to accept that same wage when there are deficits and not surpluses, economies and not generous outlay. The House has twice revised the pay of Post Office servants during the period this Government has lasted, and on each revision there has been a substantial addition to the wages of postal servants. I regret I have been obliged to convey to them the inability of the Government, of its own motion, to make this grant at a moment when the expenditure is nothing less than appalling, when taxation is greatly increased, and when most people at all events think it will still further be increased to meet the necessities of the War. The whole fate of the country depends on its ability to meet the ever-increasing cost of a War of which history has furnished no parallel whatever.
    Mr. LOUGH: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the case of the lowest grades separately?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The decision of the Government was conveyed to the postal

    749
    servants, and, in reply. I received a letter, addressed to me as the spokesman of the Government, asking that the decision of the Government should be submitted, like similar refusals by employers, to arbitration. Such a claim seems to me to stand on a ground altogether different from that which I have just indicated. As a Government, we have insisted that employers and employed, when they differ as to the wages to be paid and received, should submit to the arbitrament of outside persons the claims and the refusals on either side. I do not quite see how that which is best for other parties should not be equally satisfactory for the Government and its employés. The Government may be prejudiced in this matter. They may take too serious a view of the financial position of the country, and the ability of the country to bear the large burden I have indicated. They may, on the other hand, think that because the Post Office itself has so large and so many charges proposed to be levied upon it, it, may be necessary to carry on the work of the Post Office, as it never bas been carried on in history, out of the taxation of this country. We may be mistaken in the amount of sacrifice which we think all classes in this country can properly be called upon to bear. We are prepared therefore to refer these questions to arbitration. But I wish to make it perfectly plain that, before the arbitrators, we shall sustain to the best of our ability the arguments which I addressed to the House a little earlier in my speech. It will be our duty to put before them our belief that the rise in prices is not, in itself, in war times, a sufficient reason for making advances in the wages of the permanent Civil servants whose earnings are not subject to the fluctuations of trade and industry. Whatever the result of that arbitration may be, we shall accept it loyally, and we shall expect the staff of the Post Office to accept it equally loyally. We live in times which are, perhaps, the most serious the British nation has ever had to face, and during their continuance we cannot have any dissensions in our ranks as to the amount of wages to be paid and received. I hope, I have made the position of the Government clear upon this point, and I hope the decision I have announced to the Committee will be accepted by the Committee.
    Mr. WARDLE: I am sure that those who speak to-day for the postal servants will accept the statement just made by
    750
    the Postmaster-General with gratitude and satisfaction. Of course, we and the the Postal Association will do exactly what the Postmaster-General himself has said the Government will do, namely, put the case they have to the fullest extent, basing their plea not only upon the increased cost of living, but also upon the stress and strain of which he has spoken, and in so far as they have, any arguments to prove that, they will bring them before the arbitrator or arbitrators whom the Government will appoint. The Committee may congratulate itself on the fact that the Government have decided to take this step. It is an extremely important step, and it is the first time in the history of this country that the Government have taken such a step.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No.
    Mr. WARDLE: In a sense, yes. I know we have had Select Committees of the House.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: There was the decision of this House last year.
    Mr. WARDLE: I know that so far as the House was concerned it was decided that the principle ought to have, been adopted before, and I myself years ago argued that it should be. I hope there will be a great extension of this principle in the future. So far as the cost of living is concerned, we on these benches on a previous occasion raised the question of what the Government intended to do in face of the abnormal increase in prices which had taken place. There seemed at that time, as there seems now, to be but two methods of meeting it. We invited the Government to take one method, but they preferred to take the other. The increase in wages to meet the increased cost of living has to some extent met it in some instances. If it is right in the one case that an increase in wages should take place in order to meet the increased cost of living, surely it is an argument that applies all round. I must confess that I listened with some astonishment to the figures of earnings given to the Committee by the Postmaster-General. On the spur of the moment it is very difficult indeed to reconcile them, and to ascertain how, for 62 or 63 hours a week, such abnormal sums as £10 or £11 could possibly be earned, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand the position, the normal working week is 48

    751
    hours, and overtime does not start until 48 hours have been worked; therefore 60 hours cannot be the point at which a man leaches double time. If it be true, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, that men are taking as much as £8, £9, or £10 ft week in consequence of this overtime, we have no sympathy to waste in that direction.
    Our main plea is for the lower paid men and women. The right hon. Gentleman has made a great point with regard to the temporary staff he has employed, and has given the Committee to understand that these men and women are being paid rates of wages higher than he has ever had to pay them before. Those rates were miserable before, and they are miserable yet, in the case of the temporary men and women. A case was cited to me yesterday of a woman who, in this city, is being paid by the Post Office the sum of 18s. a week, out of which she has to pay her fares and 3s. 6d. for her meals. When those items are deducted these women have an exceedingly small sum upon which to attempt to lead a respectable life. With regard to temporary men particularly, cases have been cited to me where the wages are excessively low. I believe that even taking the permanent staff, there are not far less than 59,000 whose wages do not exceed £1 a week at the present time. In regard to the lower paid servants of the Post Office, an increase of wages is eminently desirable in the times in which we live. I am one of those who, in this crisis in our country's history, do not desire to see any cleavage between classes, or any strikes or industrial unrest; but when we read of cases such as those of which we have been reading during the past week or two, where one firm of millers has increased its profits from about £80,000 to £360,000 in one year, there can be no wonder that among a section of our people industrial unrest should occur.
    Passing from that subject, the Committee as a whole must have been exceedingly gratified at the work which the Post Office has been doing in this national emergency. It has upheld the traditions of the Civil Service, and I believe that the compliment that the right hon. Gentleman has paid to the men who, under the stress and strain, have been serving their country equally with the men at the front, is thoroughly and honestly deserved. The statement he has made with regard to deposits
    752
    in the Savings Banks discloses the fact that the people have recovered equanimity, and also that they have put the money which they could put into the Savings Banks. An hon. Friend behind me suggests that they are saving it instead of drinking. I hope that is true. In any case, they are saving the money, and to that extent they are assisting their country as well as themselves.
    With regard to the question of postal buildings, I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is one of growing urgency, and which will some day have to be faced by this House. The provision of suitable buildings for the postal arrangements of this country is greatly behindhand. When I sat on a Select Committee with the right hon. Gentleman some years ago—I think it was in 1907 or 1908—we found then that this problem was very acute, and it must be much more acute now. The necessary sanitary arrangements and ventilation for the staff cannot possibly be kept up to the high level at which they ought to be in some of the old-fashioned buildings still used by the Post Office, which ought to be replaced by better buildings at the earliest possible moment. I should like to see some method adopted by which a proper system of regular building should be carried through, and, if it is necessary for the Post Office to have a capital account, that it should have one in regard to this matter, and the Estimates come before this House in the proper and ordinary way. That would be a much more businesslike proposition than the present method.
    The only other point I would like to raise is with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that out of the 20,000 men recruited 11,000 were of military age of whom 6,000 were single men. I hope he will pause before he takes a step—if he should feel compelled to take it—of attempting any kind of compulsion in this matter. It is an exceedingly dangerous principle. The House has expressed itself, fairly unanimously, with regard to any ordinary private employer bringing pressure to bear upon his employés to enlist or to take service in other ways by dismissing them from his service. If the Government themselves lead in that direction there will be industrial chaos, and a very serious position will arise. If these men are in a position to enlist, and if they are physically fit for enlistment, it would be better if of their own free will they could be released from the service and could take

    753
    their stand in the ranks, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pause before he sets an example to private employers which will cause them to think the Government is leading the way in what I may call an indirect method of compulsion for enlistment. I am one of those who have done my part and shall continue to do my part in urging voluntary enlistment, because I believe the country's life is at stake, and that we ought to do all we can to help it.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It has been my duty on more than one occasion to criticise the statement made by the Postmaster-General from year to year. On this occasion, however, it is a pleasure to be able to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the statement he has just made, and upon the work which the Post Office has done during the last nine months on behalf of the soldiers at the front. The Post Office has worked admirably to keep up communications between our men at the front and their relatives at home, and while the Postmaster-General congratulated his staff, I think the House of Commons ought to congratulate the Postmaster-General, as the head of that staff, on the efforts he has personally made to carry out that very great object. I desire to raise one or two points of commercial interest at the present moment, but before doing so I must, say one word with regard to the concluding remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The figures which the Postmaster-General gave were figures which he gave to mo in answer to a question which I put down yesterday in order to ascertain how many men were employed on this temporary work in the Post Office of military age and military possibilities. I entirely concur with the hon. Member below the Gangway that it is not right for private employers to apply compulsion to their employés in order to get them to go to the War. I have had some few employés of my own, and I have applied no compulsion at all. I merely put it to them that we were doing what we could, and I am glad to say all who were of military age and unmarried have gone to the front, and one at least has gone who will never come back again. I want to put it to the hon. Member that the Government is in rather a different position. The Government will have to get, before this War is over, every available man to put in the field. I may be wrong, but I believe there will be an enormous additional call for
    754
    men before the War is completely over. The Government naturally wants to avoid conscription, but if they are to avoid conscription they should, in my opinion, as employers, set the example of not taking on any fresh men of military age and military possibilities. I have no doubt the Post Office did not quite think of the importance of this matter when they took on these 6,000 young unmarried men, and I suggest to the Postmaster-General that every effort should be made, not by compulsion, but by putting the necessities of the country before these men, to get them to enlist—and, remember that they are temporary men taken on for temporary work—and, above all, under no circumstances from henceforth should the Post Office take on another single man of military age for temporary work if by any possibility his place can be filled by a married man or an older man. That is absolutely essential in the interests of the country, and of our Army which is fighting for us, and which will need, from time to time, further reinforcements.
    There are two points that I should like to call attention to. One is the question of the control of our cables in war time, which is, I think, of vast importance, and the other the question of the number of codes which are allowed to be used during war time. Many of us on this side of the House have from time to time supported proposals for an all-British cable round the world. I suppose there is no one today who would not support that proposal if it were possible to be carried out. I wonder whether the Committee realises that all the cables between this country and America are in alien hands. About 1912 they all passed into American control, although, of course, it would have been possible at that time for the English Post Office to have refused to grant landing licences in Ireland or England except to English cables, but these licences were granted. I believe the Anglo-American Telegraph Company and the direct United States Company were both transferred to the control of the Western Union Telegraph Company of New York. I admit that these are in the hands of friendly aliens, but I think it is known that it is possible to-day to cable to New York and, by arrangement with New York, get the cable back again into Germany. It may not be easy, but it is quite possible, and I think it would be undoubtedly to the advantage of this country that we should at this juncture

    755
    very seriously consider the desirability of this all-British cable. It is mentioned in the public Press this morning that in 1912 the Postmaster-General's predecessor, when this question was under consideration, replied to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, who raised the point, and made this somewhat remarkable speech:—
    "The hon. Member who spoke, first, as to where we are at war with some European countries, and, secondly, as to the sending of a cypher telegram which could be deciphered by an employé of an American company who might communicate with a European Power if we were at war. Really, such a contingency is so remote that I do not think the House should make any costly provisions to meet it."
    I do not want to rub in the remoteness of the contingency, but, considering that that speech was made, I believe, within a very few weeks, certainly a very few months, of the return of Lord Haldane from his celebrated mission to Berlin, when at least he knew something of the position, it showed the official mind in regard to this matter, that war was so remote that it was not necessary to take costly provision against it. I do not think the provision of one cable between here and Canada would be of such vital cost compared with the enormous amount of money which this country is pouring out, and will pour out, before the War is completed. I think that the application of these cable companies for licences will very shortly come up for renewal, and, while I do not want to ask the right hon. Gentleman for any pledge to-day, I suggest that he should give his most careful consideration when these licences come up for renewal as to whether it would not be possible, at all events in one or two cases, to impose the condition that there is much more English control over the companies than there is at present.
    There is one other point of considerable, importance to the commercial community in regard to the censorship over code, cables. Business between ourselves and our Colonies and India, and those nations with which we are still permitted to do business, is conducted nowadays almost entirely by cable, especially financial operations of vast magnitude, the sale and purchase of parcels of produce, and so forth. The old days of writing to your Agent in India and making an offer for indigo, and writing to America making an offer for cotton by letter are as far removed as the old days when those commodities arrived here by sailing ship. It is all done by cable, and many of our big merchants
    756
    spend enormous sums, running well into five figures, for the cost of cablegrams to foreign countries. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to the commercial community that, while they realise that there must be difficulties in time of war, those difficulties should be minimised as much as possible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that we were to carry on business as usual, and I am quite sure the Post Office, and I hope the War Office, will desire to enable the country to carry on business as usual, putting only the very minimum of discomfort upon the commercial community that is necessary in the interests of the safe conduct of our armed operations on the Continent.
    There are, of course, a large number of codes, certainly a dozen, which might be permitted to be used with advantage to the commercial community. In October of last year, the Post Office, associated with the Board of Trade, selected four codes and allowed them to be used—Scott's Code, the A.B.C. Code, Lever's Code, and the Western Union Code. As far as I can gather, very little communication or consultation took place between the Post Office and the commercial community before these four codes were sanctioned. Lever's is an Anglo-German production, very largely used between Germany and America before war began, and for aught I know, very largely used between Germany and America at the present time. The Western Union is also an American code, so that the only two fairly British codes which were permitted in October were Scott's Code and the A.B.C. Scott's Code is purely confined to shipping houses. It is a shipping code, and is used by large numbers of shipping companies in communication with the Colonies and their foreign departments. But it is only right to say that there were during the South African war, three codes permitted for use between England and South Africa. It is rather remarkable that one of the codes which was allowed to be used then was not allowed to be used last October; Broomhall's comprehensive code. I should like to know whom they consulted before they allowed these four codes and prohibited all other commercial codes. The Eastern Telegraph Company, which, of course, has an enormous number of commercial cablegrams, could have given every information as to the codes which were most used by the commercial community, and, after all, the codes which the Postmaster-General

    757
    ought to desire to permit are those which are most used by the commercial community. But that company was not consulted. More than that, I am sure the Committee can hardly believe that the London Chamber of Commerce was not consulted. They comprise almost all the users of cablegrams and codes in London. The whole of the great commercial community is centred in that Chamber, and before these four codes were selected, and all others blotted out, it was not even consulted by the Government. Upon that a great discussion arose in the Press and, to some extent, in this House. I had the honour of bombarding the right hon. Gentleman with questions from time to time, but he is a very difficult Minister to get anything satisfactory out of in the way of questions. From his own point of view he must be an admirable head of a Department in respect of staving off an inconvenient questioner.
    However, after a time, he, or the Board of Trade, or someone, reconsidered the matter, and three more codes were allowed to be used—Meyer's Code, mainly used for the produce market between the United States, England, and Germany; Bentley's Phrase Code, and Broomhall's Combination Code. I have no personal interest whatever in codes or anything of the kind, but I have taken a great interest in this question during the last six months, and have found out that there are a few men who are compilers of codes. I never knew there was such a profession. What I want to put to the Postmaster-General is this: Why, when you have allowed several codes, can you not be a little bolder and allow another? I believe a dozen would really satisfy the needs of the commercial community. France, curiously enough, allows eight codes, although the business between France and foreign countries and our Colonies by cablegram, compared with the business between England and all her vast Colonies is infinitesimally small. It is a rather curious fact that the eight French codes which is permitted by France allows a Frenchman to communicate in that code with our British Colonies, and allows a British colonist to use that code in communicating with France, and yet he may not use the same code to communicate with his Mother country. I cannot help thinking that that point must have been overlooked. It seems such a piece of official stupidity. There may have been
    758
    an excuse for allowing a code to be used between Australia and France, and yet not between Australia and London.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The explanation is very simple. A person in Australia wants to use it in communicating with France, but does not want to use it in communicating with England.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is, of course, quite easy to say that.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is true on my information.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: We have conducted this discussion perfectly amicably, and I quite realise that the right hon. Gentleman wants to meet the views of the commercial community, but I am trying to find out upon what his information is founded, whom he has consulted, and whether he really cannot go a little further so as to satisfy these users of commercial codes. I am not sure that it would not be possible to allow, under restriction, the use of certain private codes.
    Mr. HOBHOUSEindicated dissent.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman might consider it. Some of the largest financial houses in London and the banks, I believe, have their own private code. I have been in consultation with many of them during the last few months, and I am informed that it is crippling then business and crippling the business of London because these private codes are not allowed to be used. Surely it is possible to investigate these codes and to note who is to use them. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would suggest, for instance, that the London and Westminster Bank, the Union of London Bank, or any of our great banking concerns, are going to use their private codes to convey information to the enemy. I want the Committee to realise the position. I know from information which has been supplied to me that if I want to communicate anything to Germany it is very much easier to communicate if I use non-code language than if I use code language. It is quite possible to make out a perfectly inoffensive telegram to the effect that mother started with so many children, which would be interpreted as meaning on the other side that certain ships had gone out in such and such a way. I am told by the experts whom I have consulted that it is easier to convey information of that kind in non-code language than it is in code

    759
    language, because code language is prepared for certain definite technical purposes and it is impossible to use it for the kind of information that a spy would be likely to utilise it for in sending information abroad.
    I do not want to advertise any particular codes, but I should like to read an extract from a letter I have received from one of the largest cable companies, namely, Reuters, who have branches all over the world. They write to me as follows:—
    "The suppression of the use of commercial codes has inflicted severe injury on the mercantile community without, so far as can be seen, any commensurate political advantage. The small number of codes at present authorised is applicable mainly to social communications, affecting merely 10 per cent. of users of the cable, the remaining 90 per cent. being commercial and financial firms to whom no coding facilities have yet been granted."
    I will not say that that statement is exaggerated, but I should think myself that the percentage between 10 and 90 is too high. At any rate, I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman could get the information. Now take the rubber code, which is forbidden. Everyone knows of the vast business that goes on between London and our Colonies in rubber. There are firms and companies who prior to the War were in the habit of using the rubber code almost exclusively. Firms with capital amounting to upwards of £100,000,000 sterling are forbidden from using the code that they have been accustomed to use, and they are forced either to use plain language or to get themselves acquainted and their correspondents acquainted with a different code. Everyone knows, who has had experience of code messages, the difficulty of taking up the use of a new code. I suggest respectfully, and in the highest sense in a non-political way, to the right hon. Gentleman that he should give his very careful consideration to this matter, perhaps more in consultation with the London Chamber of Commerce and the commercial community, and that there should be a general reconsideration of this whole code question. When he started in October it may have been thought that the War would have been at an end in a few months. Now we realise that we are in for a very severe and possibly a prolonged war. However long the War lasts we shall go through it, and however long it lasts I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman, with his interest in the Post Office, will desire that the restrictions
    760
    which he feels it necessary to inflict should do as little harm as possible to the commercial community. I hope he will be able to give us some indication of the reconsideration of this question in conjunction with the whole of the commercial comumunity.
    Sir J. McCALLUM: I did not intend to make a speech this afternoon because the subject has been dealt with so effectively and comprehensively by the Postmaster-General, but I feel it my duty to rise to congratulate him on the statement which he has been able to make. Those of us who were privileged to sit on the Holt Committee had revelations made to us during the seventeen months we were occupied which showed what an excellent institution the Post Office is. During that time we were frequently on duty thirteen hours a day, sometimes on three days and sometimes on two days per week, often sitting from eleven o'clock in committee, and after concluding the business of the Committee continuing to sit in this House even up to twelve o'clock at night. As the result of our deliberations we had knowledge conveyed to us which showed that our Post Office is the most perfect, the most complete, and, I think, the most effective system of postal arrangement in the world. Next to our Post Office comes that of Switzerland, which has originated perhaps more new methods of procedure than any other post office we know of. In congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his speech, I would say that it has shown to us very clearly that wherever we may be weak in our position as a nation we are strong in our postal arrangements. An institution that can produce a profit of £5,000,000 in normal times is one that surely stands on a good foundation.
    During the time we were members of the Holt Committee we realised that if there was a deficiency at all in the Post Office it was that auxiliary labour was not properly attended to. I think the auxiliary labour is worse paid in the Post Office than in private firms, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that if possible during these trying days we are passing through he will do something to make an improvement in regard to this class of labour. I rejoice exceedingly to learn that he is referring the bonus dispute to arbitration. Most firms in the country just now are making great sacrifices. Even where profits are not being made they have in many cases decided to pay bonuses to

    761
    their workpeople, and it would be a pity if an institution like the Post Office, which is so efficient in many ways, should neglect the interests of those who are toiling from early morn to dewy eve without proper remuneration. I acknowledge that some of the departments of the Post Office are well paid and better paid than are private departments, but there are other departments which we cannot overlook, because they are not having a living wage irrespective of the pension and other things, which are in themselves most satisfactory. I think it would be wise in making these arrangements as to arbitration to give full facilities, as I have no doubt the Government will, to the Post Office servants to present their case in a manner which will enable them to make a statement as full and comprehensive as the statement that the Government will be able to make. I sincerely trust that the issue of this arbitration will be that a bonus will be granted on the grounds of the justice demanded by the worker and also as an example to the nation, so that private firms may follow their good example. I think it will have a good moral effect upon firms who are still lagging behind. I can speak for Scotland. Almost three-quarters of the employers have started a system of bonus, and I believe that when the War is over the employers in Scotland will not be one bit the poorer for the way they are standing by manual labour and giving moral support and financial support to men who are sacrificing themselves at home in the public service.
    Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: For the past ten years I have consistently supported in Committee what I conceive to be the grievances for the time being of certain sections of the postal service, and it has been my duty year after year to communicate with the various Postmasters-General and to put forward, not only the general grievances of some of the Committees and sections of the postal and telegraph service, but also a vast number of individual cases, and I take this opportunity of acknowledging that the present Postmaster-General and his able coadjutor (Captain Norton) have on each occasion invariably received me with courtesy and consideration. I take it that this is not the year, and this is not the occasion, when any general grievance ought to be gone into. We are engaged in a most terrible War. The circumstances are quite exceptional, and only the exceptional side of them ought at this moment
    762
    to seriously call for our attention. I think that we ought to congratulate the Postmaster-General upon the speech he has just made. I congratulate him upon the work which has been done, the vast exceptional work which has been done, and I congratulate him upon the way in which, I presume with the consent of the Government, he has come here to-day to agree to arbitration in regard to the claims of the lower-paid servants of the Post Office.
    5.0 P.M.
    I was very glad to hear the Postmaster-General say that when the arbitration takes place the Government will loyally accept and will carry out the decision arrived at, because the first movement in which I took some part was a similar affair, and the result was unfortunate. An outside Committee was appointed, called the Bradford Committee. That Committee had to go into the grievances of a vast number of postal servants, and when the decision was given the Government Department responsible, that is the postal authorities, declined to carry it out. I do not know of a more regrettable occurrence in the history of the whole Post Office than that a Committee should have been appointed, that it should have sat for a whole year and have investigated the state of affairs in regard to the telegraph service and other Departments, and that when its Report was issued the Postmaster-General of the day should have thrown it over and declined to carry it out. It was a scandal, and it has certainly caused since a great deal of the annoyance and trouble to which we have been subjected. I think the stipulation which the Postmaster-General has made to-day is a perfectly fair one. He says, if the Government in advance agree to loyally carry out the decision of the arbitration, it is reasonable to stipulate that the postal servants should do the same and loyally abide by the decision. That is a perfectly fair stipulation, and I think it ought to be understood that when the Postmaster-General and the Government are going out of their way to agree to this exceptional method of meeting exceptional claims, and agreeing in advance to abide by the decision, the other side should meet them in the same way. I think that we should congratulate ourselves also upon the splendid figures in the Savings Bank. It was quite natural that on the outbreak of War there should have been considerable withdrawals. But the tide soon

    763
    turned, public confidence was re-established, and that money, and more also, has since come back, which is exceedingly gratifying. We should be grateful to the Postmaster-General and to the Department for all the work which they have done to facilitate telegrams and telephone during this difficult period.
    There is one matter in respect of which I must take a different line from that of my hon. Friend who has just addressed the Committee. In reference to foreign cables. I wish to acknowledge the ability and efficiency of the Department, at all events in one direction. It has come to my notice that in the case of certain countries of Eastern Europe with which direct cable communication has been cut off, it has been, exceedingly difficult to communicate with them commercially. We are under a direct debt of obligation for what has been done in this respect in the case of Rumania and other countries in Eastern Europe which are not at war with us, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the Post Office, and also to the Foreign Office, because when cables became impossible commercially for those countries the Foreign Office lent its powerful aid, and, through the instrumentality of the Embassies and the Consular Service, commercial cables have been forwarded, and every care and trouble have been taken by the Government to help traders to receive these communications. In these times of stress and difficulty we are under a deep obligation to any Department or Service which has risen to the occasion, and I think that the Post Office has risen to the occasion during this last financial period. I, for one, cannot refrain from thanking the Postmaster-General and his coadjutor, both of whom have helped in this Department, and I think that it is only right that we should give expression to our congratulations from this side of the House.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Like the rest of the Members who have spoken, I have to express my congratulations on the very clear, able, interesting statement made by the Postmaster-General. I wish, on behalf of the large number of the staff, to thank him for having accepted the proposition to submit the question of war bonuses to arbitration. I know that he has already received the thanks of those who are mainly inside London. This question of war bonuses is not one of an ordinary application for an increase of wages; it is a question of having considered the conditions
    764
    of employés in the Post Office, not in reference to an increase in wages, but in reference to the circumstances in which they are placed by the increased cost of the necessaries of life. We have just outside London a very large number of employés of the Post Office, who, owing to the conditions of the service do not receive the London rate of wage, but who, we know, have to pay the London prices for the necessaries of life, and we feel that when their case comes before the Postmaster-General or the arbitrators it will receive due consideration. We believe that they have a case worthy of consideration, and one that will receive acknowledgment when it is duly considered.
    I asked a question last week with regard to the rate for parcels sent to our men at the front, and I received a very clear answer that the ordinary postal arrangements for parcels up to 11 lbs. applied. Unfortunately I was not in my place when the question was answered. If I had been I would have asked whether it is not possible to make this fact known more publicly. The reason I say that is this: I had brought to my notice several cases of people who were not aware of the fact. The general public, and especially a great number of relatives of those at the front, are not as conversant with parcel post regulations as we are, and I would like to know whether the Postmaster-General cannot make some public announcement so as to advertise more freely exactly what parcels they will carry, limiting the rate to 11 lbs.; so that persons who wish to send more than 11 lbs. will have to apply to the War Office or elsewhere to get their parcels through. It may not seem a very important thing, but it is one in which a very large number of persons are concerned, and I feel confident that now that I have drawn the attention of the Post Office to the matter they will give it their consideration and see whether some further publicity cannot be given.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I desire to draw attention to the position of surveyors' clerks in the Post Office. In the Holt Report it was decided that a very considerable increase should be given to them. First-class surveyors' clerks were to have increases from £310 rising by £15 up to £380; second class, from £210 by £10 up to £300; and third class, from £90 rising by £7 10s. up to £120. Those figures represent very considerable increases upon the existing scales of pay. The Holt Report was published in August, 1913. The next year came and the Postmaster-General

    765
    from time to time held out hope that the scales of pay which were indicated by the Holt Report would be put into force. For instance, on 27th January, 1914, he made the following announcement in the Post Office circular:—
    "The Postmaster-General is in correspondence with the Treasury with regard to the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee and a further detailed announcement will be issued later. It will not, as a rule, be practicable to make the revised payments at present, but arrears will be paid back to the 2nd February."
    Again, on 3rd April, 1914, announcing the alterations, the Postmaster-General stated:—
    "The Postmaster-General regrets that it has not yet been practicable to consider fully the claims of those classes which were not represented before the Select committee, but the examination of their claims is being proceeded with and a further announcement on the subject will be made in due course. So far as they are settled, the scales of pay and conditions of service which will obtain in future are stated below. As explained in the Post Office circular of 27th January, alterations of pay, where not already carried into effect, will be dated back to 2nd of February."
    That sustained hope. The surveyors' clerks have been waiting, believing that when the proper time comes they will receive the increase of pay and that it will be dated back to the particular date which the Postmaster-General has mentioned. But they are still waiting.
    On the 15th March I asked the Postmaster-General whether or not the increase was to be given, and I asked it for this reason: I understand, and I believe my information is correct, that the money that is required for the increased pay of the surveyors' clerks was included in the Estimates for the Post Office for 1914–15—that is to say, that it has already been voted by this House. If that be so, and, looking at the assurances which have been given by the Postmaster-General, surveyors' clerks had undoubtedly good reason to hope that during the financial year that has now passed, or at any rate during the latter part of it, some announcement would have been made which would have brought the hope entertained so long into something more substantial than a hope, and that the recommendation made would be carried into effect. But that is not so. A deputation was received by the right hon. Gentleman on the 9th December. It was then stated by him that the scheme was still under consideration and must go to the Treasury. On the 18th of February this year we heard, in reply to a written inquiry, that it had not yet been practicable to present to the Treasury the proposals applying the Holt, revision to the clerical classes. Why not? If the money has been voted by Parliament, how
    766
    is it possible for the Treasury to hold up benefits which have been passed, and at any rate for which the possibility of payment has been taken by the Post Office itself in their Estimates?
    Those are facts which give rise to a great deal of heartburning on the part of a class, not a very large class, but certainly a class which is entitled to have its position improved. If we are to take the Holt Report, even if we do not take it in its entirety, it indicates that they have made out a good case for, at any rate, some substantial increase in their pay. I bring the matter forward in the hope that I shall get a clear answer upon it. My sympathy certainly goes out to these men and other classes in the Post Office from this point of view. We have been told that they were entitled to have their position considered. Their position was carefully considered by the Holt Committee, and was fully discussed for a good many hours last year, and the promises which are made are often so vague and uncertain that they really come to look upon them as illusory, and I can well understand them losing heart at having promises made to them which, it may be for a good reason, are not carried into operation. The grounds for which they ask for an improvement in their position, as to the rise in the cost of living and so on, have been proved. Is it the Treasury which stop the way or is it the Post Office? The surveyors' clerks, at any rate, are entitled to an answer on this point. They are entitled to ask whether the money which was voted, apparently in the Estimates of 1914–15, has been secured or allocated for ultimate distribution among them, and I am entitled to ask, as a Member of this House, whether I am right in saying that the money has been voted specifically for this purpose. If so, whether it will be used for that purpose, or whether it will be ultimately paid back to the Treasury, if the Treasury do not sanction this increase in the rate of pay. I want, some information upon this question, and I do not use the word in any indirect sense—I want clear information. I want something which will put an end to the misgiving which has been felt by the class to whom I have referred. I would rather have a certainty than be told a year or two hence that the Treasury had thought the matter over, and that the Post Office would endeavour to do what it intended to do last year, namely, to provide the money, which so far they have not been able to do.
    Mr. HOGGE: Perhaps the most important fact that was disclosed in the speech of the Postmaster-General was the accumulation of savings in the Post Office Savings Banks. So far as I understood his figures they amounted to as much as the Chancellor of the Exchequer deducted from the Drink Bill in the first year in which he imposed the duty on beer and whisky. It is interesting, in view of the discussion which has taken place in regard to the amount of drink supposed to be consumed by the British workman, that during the short months of the War stress, he has actually laid aside in the Post Office Savings Banks of this country more than was deducted by perhaps the most stringent action ever taken by any Chancellor of the Exchequer towards the reduction of the drink bill. I rose, however, because I want to be quite clear in regard to the Postmaster-General's statement, whether or not, in submitting the war bonus to arbitration, everybody will be included. When one hears, as one does, that it includes everybody under a certain fixed salary, one remembers that there are in the Post Office, particularly, for instance, in the General Post Office in Edinburgh, men who are not on the established staff of the Post Office, men who are known as members of the unestablished staff, such as doorkeepers, lift attendants, and others, who at the present moment are not in receipt of what Members of this House would consider a living wage. I know one case particularly, in which a man was appointed so far back as 1896 to a responsible post on the unestablished staff at 22s. a week, and he has had no increase at all from that date. It is typical of that class of labour in the Post Office. It does seem to me that when we are talking about giving a war bonus to men, who, at any rate, are in receipt of a living wage, that the class to which I have referred should be kept in mind. I should be glad to know from the Postmaster General whether the offer to submit this matter to arbitration applies simply to the class of people whom the Post Office Federation have put before the right hon. Gentleman, or whether it will include everybody.
    There is another point, and it has reference to the employment of temporary staffs. Has the Fair-Wages Clause been suspended by the Post Office with regard to these men. There are men being employed to fill up the vacancies caused by those Post Office employés who have
    768
    volunteered for service at the front. Preferably, all men who are married are employed; and those who have wives and families to support are being employed at wages which are not anything like near the current rate paid for the same work in the Post Office. I know, for instance, that in some cases the employment of women labour is being encouraged, and the reason given is that women are more adaptable to the work required than is the case with male labour. That is being used to the exclusion of men. I should like to make a remonstrance about a remark made earlier in the Debate on the other side of the House, with regard to possible compulsion, and in reference to the desire expressed that in all cases the men employed should be married. I would point out that there are a great many unmarried men who support as large a number of people as married men; and simply to take the view that, because a man does not happen to be married, he is not to get the chance of a job, seems to me unjust and most unfair, because in many cases the unmarried man has to support his old mother, or it may be, as is often the case, an invalid sister, or people of that kind.
    The third point I want to raise is the reference of the complaints of the Post Office employés to the Medical Referee at the Treasury. That is a point in which I am extremely interested, because I think the Post Office servants do not in my judgment get fair play from the Post Office authorities. When the Holt Committee considered the matter it was possible, so far as my experience goes, when the local medical officer at the Post Office was in Edinburgh, or Dublin or Cardiff, or wherever the local post office might happen to be, to turn an employé down because of his medical certificate. It is absolutely impossible to get some kind of reference here in London if other as strong evidence were forthcoming on the other side. I have a case in mind in which I was not convinced myself that the Post Office employé who was turned down in that way was turned down for a sufficient reason. I took the trouble and pains to have that employé examined by the very finest medical opinion that could be got in the city of Edinburgh—as fine medical opinion as any the Post Office have at their service. That opinion was entirely contrary to the Post Office medical opinion. I submit that in a case of that kind there ought always to be a reference to a neutral medical referee. I notice

    769
    from a reply to a question that the Post Office have agreed to submit that to the medical referee of the Treasury. I should like to know, in that case, is the other side entitled to bring independent medical evidence or is the position this, that the Post Office servant who is turned down has practically not the opportunity of bringing the medical evidence of the doctor he has himself consulted? I think it is only fair and just that he should, and I wish the Post Office would do that.
    Like everybody else, I am interested in what has been said with regard to the efficiency of the Post Office during the War. The only complaint I have is one that strikes me as humorous. It is illegal for anybody abroad to post to this country any information with regard to lotteries. Complaint has always been made by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that owing to the provisions of the law they could not stop these letters coming through the post. Those letters are now being posted to this country marked "Passed by the Censor." That seems to mc to be one of the humours of the Post Office. They have an opportunity of stopping what is illegal, yet they do their best, through the hands of their own censor, for these letters being regarded as legally posted when marked "Passed by the Censor." I suppose it would be difficult to stop these letters just now, but it docs strike me as rather humorous.
    Sir RICHARD COOPER: A prominent feature of this afternoon's Debate has been the congratulations showered upon the Postmaster-General, and as one interested in the working of the Post Office from a commercial point of view, I certainly share with other Members of the House the general satisfaction which is felt at the manner in which the Post Office has been conducted during this time of very great difficulty and anxiety. But whilst the Postmaster-General receives all these congratulations, it must not be forgotten that it is largely, if not mainly, due to the loyalty and exertions of the staff, from top to bottom, that that success has been achieved. There was one passage in the interesting speech of the Postmaster-General which I think it would be quite wrong from many points of view, and from a public point of view, to allow to pass unchallenged, and that was a statement which I took down as accurately as I could the moment he made it. He laid down the doctrine, which is entirely new, that an increase in prices is not enough
    770
    in itself in time of war to merit an increase of wages. Since he has agreed to arbitration for the Post Office officials I might pass this by, if it were not for the fact, and the very important fact, I submit, that the people of this country will rightly look to the great Government Departments as examples of what they ought to follow in dealing with problems which may be new and, for the most part, have no precedents.
    If the Postmaster-General has actually acted on that supposition, and if he thinks that doctrine is shared very largely by the Members of the Government, I venture to say that a very dangerous example is going to be put to the whole of the country, which will not, if the War is prolonged, tend in the end to the interest of the people. As a matter of fact, I think all Members of this House ought to feel at the present moment very great responsibility, whether in regard to Government workers or workers outside, as to any large or drastic claims for an increase of wages which, in present circumstances, must come upon the country as additional national expenditure. We know quite well that the Government have got before them not only the question of this year, but of subsequent years. Most of us, perhaps—like myself—do not very accurately understand finances, and we do not know how eventual needs are going to be met. It is not the part of the House, I think, to rashly support any claim made upon it for increased expenditure; but my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London will hardly be so satisfied when I say that in this case I am honestly persuaded that something—I do not say very great, but something—ought to be done, without allowing the matter to go even to arbitration, although I recognise, as I think we all recognise, that the Government have taken a very proper, and perhaps what may be the wisest, step under the circumstances. The extraordinary fact is this, that on the 11th of February last we had a Debate in this House on the subject of the increased cost of living, upon which we all know the claim of the postal workers is principally based; it is not the only basis but the principal one, and in that Debate, when it was adjourned to the 17th of February, we find that the President of the Board of Trade, who surely should be perhaps the best authority amongst Members of the Government on the subject of what is the right

    771
    thing to do in case of wages, taking the very opposite point of view from that which the Postmaster-General has laid down this afternoon. On that occasion the President of the Board of Trade said:—
    "It does not much matter to a man who earns £1 a week now when he only earned 18s. before, if the cost of living went up 2s. If it goes up to a higher level than the measure of the increased wage, that man is suffering a hardship. … It has been asked, have the Government done their best? I think they have. In the dockyard and Government works we have raised wages. … Wages have been raised in the armament companies; it may be they have not been raised enough, but they have gone upwards"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1915, col. 1189, Vol. LXIX.]
    Here we find two of the leading Ministers on a matter of very great importance, by way of example to the employers of labour in this country, entirely at variance and holding two entirely opposite doctrines. I shall be quite brief, as this matter under discussion is now going to arbitration, but I do submit to the Assistant Postmaster-General that if in his Department and if in other Departments of the State the Government want to do the right thing, and that is all they ought to be asked to do and nothing more at the present time, they have got to take into account the mind of the masses of the people in this country and the principles that actuate and have actuated the postal workers and people of this country. It was put to me last week by a postal worker as the reason why he supported this request in this way. He said, we have seen these enormous increases in the cost of living, we have seen the Government attempting to take action, and Debates in Parliament, to try and take some steps to keep prices within bounds, and especially to prevent the exploitation of the people and of the country at a time of difficulty like the present. The workers of this country are feeling aggrieved, and the postal workers are feeling aggrieved, because, in spite of the enormous increases they know for a fact that there are employers who are exploiting this country to an extent that is a disgrace to such people. And the Government, in spite of their heroic protest and their heroic expressions of determination, have done absolutely nothing in the case of coal and in the case of wheat to relieve the situation.
    I am not going any further into that this afternoon, but I do submit that it is useless for us, the representatives of the people, and for the Government and for the leaders of the people in this country to be appealing for patriotism, as we rightly do,
    772
    and for unity amongst all classes at the present moment, unless in every department, in private works and in all forms of employment, and especially in Government employment, we are going to do something, and not talk. We have done nothing but talk about this subject for nine months, and the Government have done nothing. As long as we continue on lines like that, it cannot come as any surprise if there is this dissatisfaction amongst any class of the people. I am not going to say it has operated to very considerable disadvantage, because I do not think it is so serious as that, because the loyalty of the people is above that; but it might be so if it were not for the trust we can repose in the people. I think there might also, were it not for that fact, have to be added to the three enemies—Germany, Austria, and Drink—mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, another enemy, namely, the unjust treatment of great masses of the people in this country.
    Sir WALTER ESSEX: The Report made by the Postmaster-General to-day indicated no great new departure in the enterprise carried on under his care. At the same time, such figures as he was able to give us, manifested to a certain extent the magnitude of that gigantic, and I suppose unequalled, case of national trade. If it had not been for these troubles which have interposed, I suppose we should have had him, in his quiet and courageous way, introducing some new piece of activity and public service into the splendid organisation under his control. I have watched the growth of the Post Office in this country and its allied departments with a very great deal of interest for a long number of years, and I have watched that progress, which has been so remarkable and so enormous, with a very great deal of pleasure, but I see, as anybody must do who looks into it at all, that there are still large spheres of usefulness in which the Post Office might well become a worker, and at other times probable departures would probably occur to the Postmaster-General of the day. With regard to the remarks made by the Postmaster-General as to the Savings Bank deposits, he is, of course, to be congratulated upon their increase and upon their return, it may be said, to the normal, but I do not think he is quite entitled to pat himself on the back for that, when one remembers the present abnormal rate of interest, deposit interest, offered by outside banks. I fancy, if he looks into the

    773
    matter at all closely, he will see that to that stringency some of that satisfactory increase to which he called our attention is partly due.
    The third item to which I propose to refer has to do with a very significant statement which the Postmaster-General made in this House as being the expression of the determination of the Government upon this question of submitting to arbitration the claims of the postal employés for a further sum by way of War bonus. It was a very significant utterance indeed, and I desire to emphasise this about it: It was an expression, he was careful to say, as from the whole Government, and that he was speaking on their behalf.
    Sir F. BANBURY: They always do.
    Sir W. ESSEX: This may seem to the acuter mind of the hon. Baronet a very simple thing, but he will allow me to say that I link that statement up with one that I heard from his own side from an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer some little time ago, stating that in his opinion also it was necessary for the Government to take in hand speedily some organisation which should deal with all servants of the State, all Civil servants, whether in the dockyards, the post offices, or what not, and hold an even balance as between them and the State.
    Sir F. BANBURY: All I meant to say was, when the hon. Gentleman remarked that the Postmaster-General was speaking for the Cabinet, I supposed he was, as it has hitherto been generally supposed when a Minister makes a statement that he speaks on behalf of the Government.
    Sir W. ESSEX: I understand that he gave rather more than ordinary emphasis to his remarks, and I read into that that there had been deliberation upon this, as though it had been viewed as a possible departure on wider lines to go possibly in the future beyond the scope of the immediate instance under consideration. I linked that up with what I had previously heard from the Front Bench opposite from an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer of a desire to deal in some similar way with all employés of the State, and I was wondering if I am not now entitled to ask whether the intention or the mind of the Government on this point is forecasted, and whether this House is to be, in large measure, relieved of these discussions in
    774
    the future, and whether some independent and wholly impartial authority is to act as a permanent board of arbitration in these and all kindred subjects, which, with our ever-increasing body of public servants, are steadily arising from time to time. I thought it was a very remarkable expression of the Government's intentions, and I do hope we shall be told how far it was intended to go. I think the postal servants are to be congratulated equally with the Postmaster-General in the decision that has been arrived at in this matter. I feel they have a grievance, and the enormous increase in the cost of living presses with peculiar hardship on the lower branches of the service. But there can be no hardship that they cannot lay with their figures before the Court of Arbitration, whatever form it may assume, and they, I have no doubt, will be equally ready to accept whatever the decision of that Court may be, and to act loyally on it as good Englishmen at a time when all disputes must be settled as smoothly and as thoroughly and as quickly as is consistent.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said, that it would be very desirable to arrive at some method of dealing with these questions of wages and other similar topics with regard to State servants without having them matters of discussion in this House. I never think the House of Commons is at its best when it is dealing with that particular kind of grievance. It is obvious that we are none of us really quite impartial in such a matter, and such matters ought to be settled with absolute impartiality. I do not in the least suggest, that the Government ought to take up so large a question at a time like this, and I think they would be very foolish to do so; but I hope in some future year, when we have the opportunity of considering these questions with greater freedom and greater time at our disposal, or rather with a more liberal spirit of mind at our disposal, that some such permanent settlement may be possible to be arrived at. I did not rise for the purpose of dealing with that subject, which has been quite sufficiently referred to; but there is one particular point in the administration of the Post Office which I have already pressed upon the consideration of the Postmaster-General and which I propose to do again, that is, a question of the free carriage of postcards from wounded soldiers in this country to their relatives. The Postmaster-General is aware, and possibly the

    775
    Committee may be, that at the request of the War Office, a system was established by the Red Cross Society by which in the case of every wounded soldier sent home to hospital, a postcard is given to him which is filled up by him with the name of the relative to whom he wishes it to be sent, and on which he merely states that he has arrived in England and is at—Hospital. The name of the hospital is filled in by the hospital authorities, and in that way relatives obtain the earliest possible information of the arrival of the wounded soldiers.
    That system has been, as a representative of the War Office told us the other day, a very great boon to the soldiers and their relatives, because up to its adoption, it was sometimes the case that a soldier would arrive in this country and be here for several days and sometimes even for a longer period in a hospital here, without the relatives knowing anything about it. That is a very important matter. It was at the request of the War Office that this work was undertaken and carried out by the British Red Cross Society. It is now being carried out by the Red Cross Society in the sense that they provide the postcards, which are distributed to the soldiers by Government servants—by the embarkation officer at Southampton, and those under his control—and to that extent it is recognised as an official service. It is nothing but a Government duty being carried out by private individuals at the request of the Government. The only reason that the Society, and not the Government did it, was that it was desirable that it should be done quickly, and the Society was able to do it straight away without consulting the Treasury or anybody else. Having carried out a duty which everyone recognises to have been a considerable benefit to our soldiers, I think we are entitled to the consideration of the Government in this respect. So successful has the work been with our soldiers that, at the request of the Canadian Red Cross Society and the authorities of the New Zealand Dominion, a precisely similar plan is being carried out for their soldiers, and, I hope, with equal success.
    All that we ask is that these postcards should be carried free. That, I think, is a very moderate request. Any postcard sent by a soldier on active service until he reaches this country, and even if posted on the quay at Southampton, is carried
    776
    free; but if he waits until he gets to hospital the halfpenny has to be paid. I cannot understand why the Government do not see that in a matter of this kind they ought to act with generosity and, as I think, with justice. In this matter our Government is very much indeed behind the Government of every Continental country, especially of our Ally, France. The French Government go much further. Every Red Cross letter, even every British Red Cross letter, is carried free in France as a matter of course. We are only asking for the free carriage of a particular class of postcard, which was brought into existence at the request of the Government and is utilised for purely Governmental purposes. We say that, under these circumstances, it is the greatest possible hardship that the cost should fall upon charitable funds provided by the public instead of upon the funds of the nation. I do not for a moment suggest that they will take such a course, but if the Red Cross Society ceased to do this work, the Government would have to do it. They would then have to pay not only the postage, but the cost of the cards, and all the other incidental expenses connected with them. Under these circumstances I think that the claim we make is a strictly proper one, and I hope the matter will be reconsidered and that, in consultation with the War Office, some fair settlement of this grievance, which is not very large monetarily, but is very serious from the point of view of principle, will be arrived at.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I am one of those who have heard with a great deal of pleasure the announcement that it is proposed to refer the question of the war bonus for Post Office employés to the consideration and judgment of an impartial authority. That is a principle which should be of immense value, not only in this particular case, but in the politics of this country, and should relieve Members of Parliament from a very unenviable position in regard to questions of wages. In this particular matter, I have no sort of doubt that it is the right course to pursue. We have been told by the Postmaster General that when the question comes before the authority for decision the Government will bring forward the arguments which they have already adduced against the granting of the war bonus. I sincerely hope that they will reconsider that decision, and will not press those arguments in the case of the lowest paid

    777
    workers. What one means exactly by the lowest paid employés is a little difficult to define—perhaps 25s. or 27s. a week for married men, and different sums for unmarried people. It is beyond doubt that those who are below some such limit have not the means to provide for themselves adequately, to pay the increased cost of living, and to provide properly for their families. I hope, therefore, that the Government in their case will not press the objections which they have taken. I am afraid that the case of the lowest paid workers has been prejudiced by the way that this demand for a war bonus has been brought forward. From the letters which have been circulated to us, and from an answer which was given to a question on the subject, it would seem that there has been some proposal for a war bonus to people earning as much as £200 a year. I do not think it is a reasonable thing to ask in time of war for a bonus to be given to people earning as much as that. But it is an entirely different matter when you come to the lowest paid class of labour, and we know that in the Post Office there are unfortunately a very large number of very low paid workers. Something was said in the answer to which I referred as to all classes sharing the burden of increased cost of living. I do not think that that applies at all to people who already have not the means properly to provide for their families.
    There is a very strong general claim for considerable advances in the Post Office service. It was recognised to some extent by the Report of the Holt Committee, although some of us thought that it was not recognised to an at all adequate extent consistent with the principle that the Government ought to set something of an example to other employers in treating their employés well, paying them well—not, of course, paying extravagantly, or going wildly ahead of the ordinary conditions of the country, but setting something of an example as a good employer. The general feeling of the House was that the Report of the Holt Committee was inadequate from that point of view, and a Committee was appointed to consider the Report and make a further recommendation. I am sorry that, even in war time, it has not been found possible to get on with the work of that Committee more quickly. I believe that something is being done, but the work is not being got on with very quickly. I hope
    778
    it will not be very long before the proceedings can be hastened and we have a Report from the Committee. I am perfectly certain that to these low-paid workers every day's delay in improving their condition is an additional day's injustice. Even in time of war, I think we can afford to attend to this matter. It is surely those of us who have enough for ordinary necessities, and some little margin over, who ought to bear the cost of the War. For it to be borne by those who already have not enough to provide the proper necessaries of life is, in my opinion, neither just to them nor, in the long run, expedient for the country.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not think that anyone has yet spoken in this Debate in the direction of economy. I thought that the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) did so at the commencement of his remarks, when he pointed out that the expenditure of the country was already very enormous, that it would probably be much greater in the future, and that before plunging into further extravagance there was some little necessity for considering where we were to get the money from. But after having enunciated those very good sentiments, and having been encouraged, as I hoped, by the cheers that I gave him, he turned round and said that he thought under certain circumstances other principles ought to be followed. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. A. Williams) made a very nice speech, full of excellent sentiments; but if he had thought for a moment he would have remembered that during the last twenty-three years there has been a continual increase in the wages of Post Office servants. I have been twenty-three years in the House of Commons, but I have never known the Post Office servants to be satisfied, or a Debate in which they have not found some excuse for asking for a rise in wages. The more their wages have been raised, the less satisfied they have apparently been, and the more they have asked. Since this Government has been in office there have been, I believe, on two occasions, rises in the wages of Post Office servants.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Does that affect the lowest grades?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am informed by the Assistant Postmaster-General that it does, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take the statement of one of his own leaders to that effect.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman will assure me that the wages of the lowest grades are satisfactory; but I do not think he can.
    Sir F. BANBURY: That is not the point. What I said was that there had been increases in wages. The hon. Member asked whether that applied to the lowest grades, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Norton) intimated that it did. Now the hon. Gentleman shifts his ground, and wants to know whether the wages are satisfactory, which is an entirely different question. I know that in asking for a little economy I am a voice crying in the wilderness. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General agrees with me, but there is so much pressure from Members behind him, and, to a large extent, from Members on this side of the House, in the direction of increased expenditure, that it is probably beyond his power to stop it. But I would point out that there is an increase in this Vote of £609,556, which is a very large increase, especially at the present time. Salaries, wages, and allowances have increased by £394,000 since last year. That, in my humble opinion, as an old-fashioned economist, is a very large increase, especially as it is an increase upon an increase. That apparently does not weigh with the hon. Gentleman opposite.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: That increase is, to a large extent, automatic.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I was not blaming the right hon. Gentleman; I was really taking his part, because I was pointing out to his followers, who have been blaming him, that he has already been doing what they desire, and that there have been increases in wages. Stores, other than engineering materials, have increased by £147,540. On turning to page 83, where the details are given, I find that mail-bags and baskets—perhaps here I shall have the support of the hon. Gentleman opposite, because mail-bags and baskets do not eat anything, and the cost of living does not apply to them—have increased from £151,000 to £215,000. Why should we spend £64,000, or 33 per cent. more this year on mail-bags and baskets? Then there is a small increase on the uniform clothing of £5,000, of £238,000 to £243,000. There appears a new item which did not appear last year; allowances
    780
    in lieu of uniform clothing, £76,000, so that apparently, though there is this new item, in face of it there is the increase, though only a small one.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: We have an explanation.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am asking for an explanation, though I do not know about being satisfied with it. I feel compelled to raise one question—if I am only a solitary voice—in the interests of the taxpayer and economy. It is not a good business to spend a sovereign if you can get the same article for 19s. That is one of the beliefs in which I have been brought up. I do not know about hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Not so far as labour is concerned.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. and learned Friend who sits beside me, with that quickness that characterises him, says that that is the doctrine of Free Trade, of which the hon. Member opposite is a great supporter.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: That is not the doctrine of modern Free Trade so far as labour is concerned, and has not been for the last thirty years.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know the difference between ancient and modern Free Trade. I suppose Cobden was an ancient Free Trader, and he it is whom hon. Gentlemen opposite follow. But I must not follow that point or I shall be out of order. Engineering materials, I see, show an increase of £157,000, though the engineering establishment shows a decrease. I do not quite understand that. If the engineering establishment has been able to be run at a lesser cost I presume it is because they have done less work? How, then, is it that materials have increased by £157,000? There is a large increase of the charges on the debt. I suppose we cannot help that, but the total, as I have said, is an increase of over £600,000, which I myself am sorry to see. I think that the nation at this time is very highly taxed and though none of us begrudge anything of the amount that we are being taxed for purposes of the War, still we do think that a little economy and a little of business principles are necessary, when the ordinary Budget of the country is over £200,000,000, without taking into account the War expenditure, which amounts to £2,000,000 a day. I am sorry for the right hon. Gentleman because I believe he

    781
    wants to do the right thing. I believe he would be economical if he could, but I am afraid it is not within his power. I am endeavouring to assist him, and I trust that it will be of service to him. I have mot said anything about arbitration. I think on the whole I had better not, because the right hon. Gentleman has committed himself to that policy, and nothing that I can say would alter it; and I have some idea that on the whole it may be good to set up a tribunal independent of the House of Commons altogether with which to deal with the question of wages. It is a big question, which, of course, cannot be dealt with at the present time. Therefore I will not enlarge upon it.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I would like to raise one point which may be regarded by the authorities as a comparatively unimportant one, though it is of considerable interest to a very large number of telephone subscribers. In the country districts and the country towns these are familiar with the irritation that comes from the fact that communication with the neighbouring villages or neighbouring towns is very frequently charged for as a trunk call. That irritation is hardly compensated for by the advantge which comes from the knowledge that such subscribers may comumunicate with a town very often twenty, thirty, or forty miles away in which they have no interest at all, and that they are only charged with the local call. I have long been familiar with this grievance at my own home. If I desire to communicate with neighbouring towns, especially in the same urban district, only some three-quarters of a mile away, I am charged with a trunk call, whereas I can communicate as a local call with other towns from which I am separated by ranges of mountains.
    I would not have troubled to bring that personal grievance to the attention of the House, but I have to-day received a very lengthy correspondence from a rural district council in my Constituency, a correspondence which this rural council have had with the Postmaster-General. It refers to a proposal to set up a call office in the township of Lowton. The proposal of the Post Office authorities is to set up a call office at a post office in one portion of the village which will be attached to the main exchange, and a call office at another end of the village a mile away, which they propose to attach not to that exchange but to another. The net result will be that when these call offices are set up any
    782
    person using the call office at Lowton Post Office will be charged as for a trunk call, and if he desires to communicate with other people in the same village some half or three-quarters of a mile away he will be charged differently. I think that is absolutely indefensible on any principle of any kind. It cannot even produce revenue, and to my mind it can only produce more irritation.
    It is admitted, as a matter of fact, in the course of this correspondence between the district council and the Secretary to the Post Office, that such a state of things exists, and a statement is made that it is proposed to make an alteration. So far, therefore, from defending it, the Secretary admits that this system of the delimiting of areas is an obsolete one. On 14th October last the Secretary to the Post Office stated that it "was the intention of the Post Office to make the system of charging for intercommunication between exchanges dependent on distance, and not on the boundaries of areas which were arbitrarily fixed many years ago ….." If this were adopted it would meet the grievance. I should like to press on the Postmaster-General that this is a matter of very considerable importance to a very large number of people. I should like to ask whether, in the six months which have intervened since that promise was made, any practical steps have been taken to bring about the desired change? This is not a matter, I suggest, which should be allowed to drag on indefinitely, but at the earliest possible moment some such change as suggested should be made. If that were done it would not only remove a great source of irritation, from personal subscribers to the telephone service, but possibly secure increase of revenue and attract additional subscribers. I hope when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will favour me with some answer as to what has been done in the matter, and I trust that by this time next year we shall have this change made.
    Colonel YATE: I have just received a telegram from the Leicester branch of the Postmen's Federation, and, on their behalf, I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General for having granted them the arbitration they desire. I trust that that arbitration will be able to bring about a settlement acceptable both to the taxpayers and to the postmen. The point on which I specially wish to ask the Postmaster-General

    783
    master-General about is as to what provision has been made for the employment of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors. This is a special thing which will come up for consideration shortly, and for which it is very necessary to have arrangements made in advance. The Return of Employment of Ex-Soldiers and Ex-Sailors for 1914 in the various Government Departments is in my hands, and I can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman so far in this, that it shows that the percentage of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors employed by him for the year to be 29.16, which is 2 per cent. better than shown in the Returns of 1913. I have not applied for the Return for this year. Under agreement with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last year, I said I would not apply for the Return this year because of his promise to give me the report of Sir Matthew Nathan's Committee, which was then sitting. Since then Sir Matthew Nathan has left the Treasury, and I believe that, the Committee has not reported.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: They sent me an Interim Report the other day upon this very subject. It is receiving very careful attention. I hope that as time goes on I shall be in a position to apply that Report practically. Being an Interim Report, I do not quote it, because the Committee may make small additions, and alter some of their suggestions.
    Colonel YATE: I am very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says; but as we have not yet seen the Report—
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: It is only an Interim Report.
    Colonel YATE: I hope it will be published, and then we shall have something to go upon. The right hon. Gentleman stated the number of men who had been enlisted in the Post Office since the War commenced. I hope that when the soldiers return from the front that not only will the old postal employés be reinstalled in their previous offices, but the whole of the temporary men engaged will be replaced by ex-soldiers and sailors. I should like to recall the fact to the right hon. Gentleman that the agreement that was made some years ago was that 50 per cent. of the total appointments of the Post Office should be kept for ex-soldiers and ex-sailors. At present we have only got 29 per cent., which leaves 21 per cent. of places to be provided. I hope every endeavour will
    784
    be made to complete that agreement, for many places will be required at the end of the War; and I think we ought to have two-thirds or three-quarters at least of all the appointments in Government Departments reserved for ex-soldiers and ex-sailors. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter well in advance so that two-thirds of the appointments in the Post Office shall be reserved for ex-soldiers and ex-sailors on their return from Foreign service. I trust he will be able to give us an assurance that this matter will receive his consideration.
    Mr. RENDALL: In regard to the present refusal of the Post Office to deal with Red Cross letters, I should like to support what was said by the Noble Lord opposite. The point may seem a small one, but I think it is really one which the Post Office has not been just in dealing with, to say nothing of being generous. What the Noble Lord has told us I think most of us know. Supposing a man is wounded in France and goes to a French hospital, the letters which he may write there during his illness are sent here free, with no stamp whatever on them. I think it is rather hard that, directly one of our wounded soldiers gets home from France and gets into a Red Cross hospital he has to pay for all letters he sends. It is not a large matter, but I do think it is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman might deal with, and deal with at once. I do not see why we should not follow the example set in France. I think, indeed, we ought to set an example; it involves but a small expenditure, and I think the right hon. Gentleman ought immediately to grant this concession.
    With regard to the arbitration proposals, I do not quite understand what the hon. Baronet meant, I will not say by throwing cold water on them, but by throwing cold water on any proposal which is likely to lead to a perfectly just arrangement as between employer and employed. Whilst he was speaking the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Aneurin Williams) interrupted and asked the hon. Baronet whether he thought the wages of the lowest grades were now satisfactory? The hon. Baronet said that was not the point. I should think that w-as the point. I venture to say we have no right to employ labour in the production of anything if we cannot pay satisfactory wages. If we are unable to pay satisfactory wages we must not have the work done, and, as regards the lower scale of Post Office employés,

    785
    although the wages they were getting before August last were perhaps sufficient under the circumstances, Ave are bound to admit, as the result of increased prices, that they cannot be sufficient now. If the hon. Baronet thinks they were only just sufficient then, they must be insufficient now.
    Sir F. BANBURY: May I point out that hitherto wages have not risen merely because there has been an increase in the total cost of living, but only one or two items? Is it not a fact that wages are far higher now than in the '60's and '70's, and that the cost of food is no higher now than in the '60's or '70's?
    Mr. RENDALL: I dare say some of the statements the hon. Baronet makes are true.
    Sir F. BANBURY: They are all true.
    Mr. RENDALL: But it will not be denied there has been an increase in the cost of living which amounts to two, three or four shillings in the £ within the last nine months, and it is obvious that if a man received 20s. or 25s. a week nine months ago and that was only sufficient for him, his wife and family, then it cannot be sufficient now. Therefore I am personally delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this matter in the only way in which I think it ought to be dealt with. He is now enabling both parties to the dispute to go before impartial arbitrators, and to try to get a decision which shall really be in accordance with all the facts of the situation.
    The only other matter to which I want to allude is another matter for further expenditure. I am sorry to hurt the hon. Baronet's feelings, but I think the Postmaster-General, no doubt owing to great difficulties in getting his revenue, and owing to the great decrease in revenue, is rather inclined to be parsimonious, and not to carry on the business of the Post Office in the way he might. I ventured to call his attention during the last month or two to what I think a rather bad case in the neighbourhood of Bristol. This neighbourhood concerns a very large industrial population. In the outskirts of Bristol there is a certain place called Bitton, in which parish there is an agricultural village which has a Sunday delivery of letters, and letters are also collected. In the parish there also happens to be a large industrial population lying between the old country village and
    786
    Bristol, and in regard to this large industrial population of men engaged in making boots—there being many boot factories dealing with the War Office in quite a large way—there is no Sunday delivery of letters, and letters are not collected from that part of the parish. I have called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this matter more than once lately, and sent him a resolution passed by the local authority. I quite realise the right hon. Gentleman has lost many Post Office servants during the last few months; at the same time, it is hardly fair to a growing industrial population, when that neighbourhood asks for ordinary postal facilities, that they should be denied, merely on the ground that it has not been done in the past, and that the money cannot be afforded or the labour obtained; because the answer to all those objections is that he is giving these facilities already to the agricultural part of the parish and to other parishes throughout England whose business needs are far less than the needs of this particular area to which I have alluded. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that particular point.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: If my hon. Friend will send me particulars I will go into the matter.
    Mr. RENDALL: I will.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman once again give his attention to the question of casual labour in the Post Office? I do not complain of his answer to my question the other day. The right, hon. Gentleman said he had no intention of assigning permanently to casual labour duties ordinarily performed by the regular staff. I think that is a satisfactory answer, but he said the arrangements made in respect of casual labour and munitions of war did not apply to Post Office servants. I confess I do not altogether see why, although, no doubt, he has good reasons; but I would ask him to look into that matter again. He also said that he could not keep any record of departures from custom in respect of casual labour. I would suggest that the great cities might be able to do that; at any rate, I would ask him if he would kindly take it into consideration once more.
    I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not, even in spite of the present war conditions, expedite some rearrangement of the geographical

    787
    zones of rates and conditions as to telephone calls. For instance, it would appear at first sight, and I think even after second sight, to be somewhat unreasonable that places in Middlesex should have every call made to London a trunk call. I really wonder that the Postmaster-General has the face to receive subscriptions. Is it reasonable that every use these subcribers have for their telephone is twopence extra? At the same time, persons in that position may talk freely to St. Albans, with which they have no connection whatever, and are cut off from the next place which adjoins their own area. I think a large number of subscribers in North London would, like myself, be extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if, even in these times, he would do something to make this service more satisfactory. One would think a satisfactory telephone service would have been almost a war service. I should certainly have thought it was a matter he could have arranged, and I would beg him to consider this matter, as well as the other one to which I venture again to ask his attention.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: I desire to mention one matter I have already brought before the Post Office on several occasions. It is a question of very considerable interest to the commercial community in Scotland, and more particularly to my own Constituency. It is a question concerning the taking off of a very important delivery in regard to letters. I am afraid that in this matter red tape has somewhat predominated. For the life of me I cannot understand the attitude of the Post Office in the matter. In a commercial constituency such as my own, of course, very large Government contracts have had to be undertaken at very short notice, and, owing to the delivery that has been taken off by the Post Office letters posted in London, say, before six o'clock on Friday night, arrive late on Saturday, and the result is they are not dealt with until Monday, and very often Government departments are asking for a quotation as early as Monday, and certainly not later than Tuesday. It took the Post Office over three months to give me a definite decision in this matter, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman there is in my opinion a real grievance. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will reply that a large number of postal servants have volunteered for
    788
    the front, and in consequence there is not the same amount of staff. It seems to me pretty hard that if you ask your leading citizens to facilitate in every way their men going to the front they should be immediately punished by having their business arrangements interfered with. So far as I know the right hon. Gentleman has not reduced the staff, because I think that would be rather a tall order; but what he has done has been to take on temporary labour. I can understand the position of the Government in the matter if he were going to say that this would cost a considerable amount of money, but I am assured, as a result of very careful consideration, that what I ask for can be carried out without any increased cost at all.
    Why should the Government, simply because they have made a general rule, say that they cannot make any alteration in this matter? Why inconvenience the whole public simply because they have come to a general line of policy? The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, had some sort of investigation into the matter, because I have been told that the matter cannot be satisfactorily dealt with. Here you have the whole business community—men who are doing all they can to help the Government—and it is of vital importance to them that they should get this particular delivery restored to them, and yet the Government say, "We have made a general rule." I am assured on the highest authority that the cost would not be increased, and if the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a Home Ruler for some time, will allow us to have Post Office Home Rule in Kirkcaldy. I guarantee we will carry out this reform without any increase to his Department. I do earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman again to look carefully into this matter. I must say I was astounded at the length of time it took the Post Office to give me a decision—something between three and four months. I am bound to say I should like to see a little more business method in regard to matters of that kind. I know the pressure upon the right hon. Gentleman, but this is a matter which might be settled right away, and I do beg of him, in the interests of the whole community—it is a real public, urgent matter—that he will see whether he cannot cut some of the red tape surrounding the matter and, if the cost is not to be increased, let the local arrangements be carried out.

    789
    There is just one other small point of a general character I should like to mention, and that is the arrangements that are in existence for sending parcels to the front. I have had a very considerable number of letters from poor people who have complained of the cost of sending small parcels to the front. I have not verified the facts myself, but they inform me that they have to pay 1s. for sending a comparatively small parcel to the front. That seems to me to be a grievance, but I understand that you can send a parcel for 3d. if you send it through the forwarding officer at Southampton, and I am told that the Post Office are refusing parcels. Another correspondent informs me that in order to get over the difficulty of paying for the parcels, the best way is to put a heavy brick in, send it to the proper quarter, and it will be forwarded to the front, and he informs me that he succeeded in sending a parcel by inserting a brick, or something like it. I think parcels sent by poor women to their sons and husbands at the front should be sent free, and special facilities should be afforded them. At any rate, it seems to me to be a hardship that poor persons sending an article, probably not worth more than 6d. or 2s. 6d., should have to pay a shilling in order that it may be forwarded. I hope that whoever replies for the Post Office will tell us exactly how the matter stands in regard to parcels. I can assure the Postmaster-General that there is a great deal of ignorance as to the best way to go about this matter.
    Sir JOHN BARRAN: I have a very small grievance of my own to deal with. I rise simply to make a practical suggestion upon a matter which, I believe, has not been referred to in this Debate. It has to do with the Post Office Savings Bank, about which I am sure everybody was glad to hear that the deposits, which fell in the early part of the War, have recovered and even advanced beyond their previous account. Very good wages are being paid where Government work and other similar work are in progress, and they are in many cases 35 or 50 per cent. beyond the amount which the workers usually earn. The Department has already offered facilities for a convenient reception of these moneys in or immediately opposite some of these works. That system is already in progress in some of the dockyards and in a limited number of other works, but for every pound that is deposited in a temporary Post Office
    790
    Savings' Bank many thousands of pounds go by, and a large percentage finds its way into channels which are undesirable. The suggestion I make is one to which I hope the Postmaster-General will give sympathetic consideration. The facility now offered in this respect is, I believe, very little known to employers or to the general public. I ask the Postmaster-General whether he can see his way to take steps in some way or other to give more publicity to the fact that the Department is prepared to set up these temporary post offices for the reception of savings in all places where they are likely to be made use of. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to overcome any technical difficulty in the way of setting up these post offices in order that as large a proportion of the earnings as possible of the workers may be intercepted between the pay desk and the undesirable places to which that money often finds its way. I am convinced that if a large proportion of these additional earnings which the workers are getting at the present time can in that way be safely banked, it will be an invaluable stand-by in the rainy day which is sure to come, and if this is done I am sure the workmen, when that day arrives, will look back with gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for giving such facilities.
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General I propose to reply as briefly as possible to the various questions which have been put by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) drew attention to the question of cables, and pointed out that they were for the most part in the hands of aliens at the time of the outbreak of war, and he suggested that had we known that war was about to break out we should have acted differently. Doubtless that is so. There are at present seven codes, and the hon. Member suggested that these should be increased. Of course, every class of trade has a code which is favoured more than another, and it would be quite impossible to draw the line at seven. At the present moment the question of increasing the number of codes could scarcely be considered, seeing that we are at war, and it is a matter of great moment that, although every facility should be given to commerce, the question of the protection of the realm should be paramount. The hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Watson Rutherford asked whether the postal

    791
    services were prepared to agree to the arbitrator's decision. I feel perfectly satisfied that as the postal employés desired to enter into arbitration, they will be ready to abide loyally by that arbitration, and I should be very much disappointed if that was not their line of action. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Rowlands) asked for more public information with reference to the parcels post. I take it that the Press will give full publicity to all that has taken place in this House to-day, and I think the public are very fully informed on these matters by means of the Press.
    The hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Pollock) referred to the question of the increase of pay of surveyors' clerks. I should like to point out that there is great difficulty in dealing with that question, inasmuch as the views and recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service are bound up with that question. It is very difficult to carry out the arrangements. The Treasury are now considering the matter, and I can assure the hon. Member that the case of his friends will not suffer in consequence. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) pointed out that the scope of the arbitration was not defined. I may say that in regard to this matter it has only just been decided that we shall go to arbitration, and everything else connected with the question of arbitration is a matter for future consideration. We hope the arbitration will also apply to those on a low scale of wages, and it is precisely to deal with this matter that the arbitration is to take place. The question of the higher class and better paid class is not involved. The hon. Member also spoke of fair wages, and said he hoped that the Fair-Wages Clause would not be infringed. I am not aware that there is a single instance where there has been an infringement of the Fair-Wages Clause brought to the notice of the Government which has not been instantly dealt with. If my hon. Friend will give me any cases, so far as the Post Office, is concerned, they shall be instantly dealt with. With reference to what was said about a medical referee, I would point out that we give a reference from our own medical officer, but the question whether that reference should be further investigated and referred to another medical officer is one which my right hon. Friend could not tolerate, because we all know that doctors disagree and the final decison is left to us.
    Mr. HOGGE: What I asked for was not that there should be a third referee, but that they should be able to make an appeal to the second referee.
    Captain NORTON: I do not think my right hon. Friend is prepared to go any further than he has gone in this matter: in fact I may say that he is not prepared to go any further. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) hoped the Government would be a model employer. I may say that it has been the ambition of the Government to be a model employer. He also referred to the question of wages, but he left out of consideration in the instances which he gave that the Post Office servants are employed under altogether different circumstances to those engaged in other industries, because they have fixed and definite positions—
    Sir F. BANBURY: And pensions.
    Captain NORTON: Yes, and pensions. The Noble Lord the Member for the Hitchin Division (Lord Robert Cecil) drew attention to the question of allowing the Red Cross Society to come into the same position as a Government Department with reference to postal matters.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: That was not my request. What I did ask was that a certain set of particular postcards instituted at the request of the Government and for the Government should be carried free.
    Captain NORTON: The answer to that is that the War Office has distinctly laid down that men in France and on the other side of the Channel are practically on active service, and the moment the man crosses the Channel he ceases to be on active service. That is a line of demarcation which I think the Noble Lord will admit is a very broad line.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No. I do not. That is not quite my point. The particular service I referred to was undertaken at the request of the Government and the War Office, and in this matter we are only acting as the agents of the Government. If we cease to do this work everyone knows that the Government would have to do it for themselves.
    Captain NORTON: There would be great difficulty from a postal point of view, and the loss to the revenue would be very great. It would be very difficult in many cases to make certain the origin of the postcard.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am sure that he has done his best, and I know the great difficulties with which he has to contend in meeting all the demands made upon him, but really he has not appreciated the point. These are printed postcards, which can only be used for the single purpose for which they are devised. They cannot be used for any other purpose. The idea that there could be great leakage of revenue by all the staffs of the hospitals using them is purely chimerical. It could not possibly take place.
    Captain NORTON: If we did it for that particular association, we should be obliged to do it for all similar associations.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: No, no.
    Captain NORTON: At any rate, my right hon. Friend has gone into the matter with the greatest care, and he has come to the conclusion that he cannot meet the Noble Lord.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I will raise the matter again.
    Captain NORTON: The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Aneurin Williams) spoke of low-paid workers. I am not aware at the present time in the Post Office there are any exceptionally low-paid workers who are doing a full day's work. There are a number of auxiliary postmen who do a certain amount of work for a certain number of hours, and who have other employment and are glad to earn extra money, but my right hon. Friend is not prepared to admit that there are any full-time men whose pay is unduly low. The hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) drew attention to the subject of economy with reference to the expense for baskets and bags. I might point out that in consequence of the fact that we carry some eighty-six tons weight of mails across the Channel daily we have had to increase them, and, moreover, the price of flax has been unduly great, and has increased the price of the bags. The expenditure on clothing to which he referred is due to the fact that we have given allowances to our officers in lieu of clothing, because we sold the cloth with which we make the uniforms of the men to the War Office at their special request in order to facilitate the clothing of the troops.
    Sir F. BANBURY: How is it that the ordinary expenditure for clothing has
    794
    increased? Surely if an allowance has been given instead of clothing, the ordinary expenditure ought to have decreased?
    Captain NORTON: That is due to the increase in the contract price for clothing. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan) spoke of the question of telephones, as also did the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees). There is great difficulty at the present moment in rearranging these areas. It was pointed out on a previous occasion how the difficulty arises. When the National Telephone Company first started business they naturally chose the best and most productive areas from their point of view. When the Government took over those areas and linked them up with the Trunks, there was naturally a large number of anomalies. We are endeavouring to reduce those anomalies, but we can do very little until there is a complete rearrangement both as to zones and as to prices with reference to telephones generally.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for directing his attention to the letter of October in which it was stated that they were considering the question of charging by distance, and not the question of areas at all. May I ask whether that proposal has been abandoned and, if not, whether it is likely to be put into operation?
    Captain NORTON: No, it has not been abandoned, and it will be carried out as soon as circumstances permit. It is very difficult, as the House will understand, to carry out these large changes during war time. No doubt, immediately the War is over, the Committee which has been appointed will at once set to work again.
    Sir J. D. REES: Need we necessarily wait until the War is over?
    Captain NORTON: I am afraid so. The hon. Member for Melton Mowbray (Colonel Yate), referred to the question of the employment of ex-soldiers and sailors, and hoped that upon their return the men who had given up their places would be restored. My right hon. Friend will undoubtedly restore those men to the same positions they occupied prior to the War. Steps are being taken, in conjunction, with the Committee to which my right hon. Friend referred, to bring about the normal arrangement that 50 per cent. of the vacancies should go to ex-soldiers and

    795
    sailors. That is being done in connection with the reduction of boy labour in the Post Office.
    Colonel YATE: May I say I hope that the normal arrangement of 50 per cent. will be increased to at least 75 per cent.?
    Captain NORTON: That is another question. Of course, I can give no guarantee that will be done. That is outside the question. Men who have gone to the front will be restored to their original places when they return. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) spoke about a delivery being taken off in his particular constituency. Let me assure him that the difficulty has not been one of labour, but one of fitting in of the mail services. That is why it has taken so long. Every endeavour was made to meet his wishes. It seems a simple matter perhaps to those unacquainted with it, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the dovetailing in of all these different services, not only the services to Kirkcaldy, but of those to all the country around, takes a considerable time to investigate. Everything possible has been done, and the most careful consideration was given to the matter.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The reason the hon. Gentleman now gives was not referred to in all the letters I have received on the subject; other reasons were given.
    Captain NORTON: I am now giving my right hon. Friend perhaps the most important reason. No doubt the other reasons given to him were also of weight. He referred to the question of parcels sent to the front. I have seen numbers of complaints in the Press with reference to parcels going to the front. I would like to point out that the first duty of the military authorities is to supply the troops at the Front with ammunition and the necessaries of life. Therefore all these parcels that go to the front are luxuries. They are not necessities to the soldier. The War Office are naturally most anxious that nothing should fail so far as ammunition and food are concerned, and they press us not to send any more parcels. We already send, as my right hon. Friend has said, eighty-six tons. We send 400,000 letters and 40,000 parcels, roughly, every day. It is not that the military authorities are unable to provide sufficient transport. The fact is that the rails and the roads are unable to carry them. The roads
    796
    throughout the whole of the north of France are in such a state that they will not stand any more traffic. It would be well if the country realised that the Post Office are prepared to carry any number of parcels or letters, but that the military authorities are unable to assist us in getting those parcels and letters to the front.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the question of price at all.
    Captain NORTON: The Member for Hawick Burghs (Sir J. Barran) has brought to our notice the question of temporary savings banks in works. I am glad that he has done so, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be only too glad to meet his views and give the suggestion that he has made his most careful consideration. I think I have now dealt with practically all the questions put to me.
    Sir J. D. REES: There is the question of casual labour.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman was not perhaps in the House when I made my speech, but I gave a very definite pledge on that subject. I do not like to repeat it in different language, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of reading my remarks to-morrow.
    Sir W. ESSEX: Has the right hon. Gentleman anything more to say on the part of the Government with regard to the proposed arbitration?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No, I think I would rather not add anything to-day to that which I have already said.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I must express my profound regret at the decision of the Postmaster-General with reference to the postcard question. I do think that it would have been well for him and his colleagues, at any rate, to have understood the elements of the subject before they addressed the Committee upon it. It is perfectly plain—every one of the reasons given by him showed it—that the hon. Gentleman who replied was not even in a position to understand what was really asked for or what was the real question intended to be raised. I do hope that the Post Office even now will try to understand what really is the point, and consult with the War Office, who I am quite certain will say that the work being done is a work of public importance undertaken at the request of the Government, and one,

    797
    therefore, which comes well within the rule of the Post Office to carry letters which are really on Government service without payment. I confess that I think the decision of the Postmaster-General is extremely unfortunate. It will produce an extremely bad impression, and it is founded upon a want of knowledge of the real facts and the real circumstances of the case which does not do him credit.
    Mr. MACMASTER: No reference was made to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) with regard to the cost of sending parcels, to the front. I quite understand the point that was made by the hon. Gentleman that munitions must have precedence, but that does not dispose of the question of the cost of carrying parcels, which, of course, might have to go by a slower means of conveyance. It is common knowledge that throughout the country the poor as well as the rich are engaged in making up parcels to send to the front for those who require them. Many of these parcels are actual necessities, such as mufflers and shirts and socks. Poor people meet together and make up a small parcel to send to a relative, and they find it rather hard that they should have to pay one shilling postage. Although the reason given may be a justification for lack of speedy dispatch, it is no justification for excessive charge on a small parcel of comparatively small value. I therefore associate myself with the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    7.0. P.M.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I must say that I am disappointed at the attitude of the Government with regard to even the smallest suggestions that are made. We have had to-day an exhibition of what we have previously experienced in other Departments. Not one single suggestion from a Member of Parliament is ever accepted. We might almost as well close the House altogether, so far as the assistance of Members in matters of vital importance to their constituencies is concerned. Take my own point. I have been nearly six months trying to get something done with regard to this one little point, which deals with a big commercial community. I do not know how many shillings I have spent on telegrams in trying to get an answer. The town council has adjourned week after week, trying to get a reply. I have sent telegrams, half-a-crown apiece, trying to get an answer
    798
    on a simple question of this kind, and then they come down to-day and give me an altogether different explanation. It is unworthy of the Government and of a business Department. My right hon. Friend may be too busy, but, whatever it is, he surely cannot have given his personal attention to this matter. The Post Office, like every other Department, is wrapped up in red tape. No business man who looked into this little point could refuse to give it, if he were not bound up by red tape. I can assure the Committee that at the first opportunity I shall go into the details of the matter, giving the correspondence and the number of telegrams I have had to send to get a reply,, to see if we cannot infuse a little business element into the Post Office. My hon. Friend, in reply to the question asked, did not really touch upon the point I raised. The question is this: How is a poor woman to pay a shilling for sending out a small parcel? I ask for information on that point; I wanted to be told how, if she desired to send a pair of socks to her son at the front, she could best do it, and the reply I got was they were so-full up with demands for the conveyance of ammunition and that sort of thing that it was impossible to give the facilities I suggested. I am glad the Noble Lord intends on a future occasion to press the question he put forward with regard to postcards, and I hope that we shall have a proper opportunity on Report to deal with that matter. On this I am not going to be waived aside as I have been in regard to another question. I only trouble the Government when I think I have a real grievance. I never heard a more unsympathetic reply from a Government in regard to a suggestion on a small point. I know it is not the fault of the hon. and gallant Member; he, at any rate, is a sympathetic man. He was simply voicing the opinion, I suppose, of the permanent officials. It really looks as though the Government is so hard up for revenue that it has to make the poor wounded soldier pay for a postcard to announce to his friends that he is returning from abroad. Surely the wounded soldier at the front should be able to send such a card home without the receiver having to pay for it. I certainly shall support the Noble Lord when he raises the question.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I do not think my right hon. Friend did justice to himself.

    799
    Neither did he do justice to the conversation which he and I had on the subject of the delivery of letters at Kirkcaldy. I have gone twice into this matter personally; once, the Papers came to me in the ordinary official course, and once at the special request of my right hon. Friend, I sent for them and went into them at considerable length. I allowed no detail in the arguments for and against to escape mc and to the best of my judgment I decided the question upon what I thought to be the merits of the case. I have not the Papers here and cannot now therefore refresh my memory. But I think it is sufficiently good to enable me to state the facts. We had to cut off some deliveries at Kirkcaldy, as in other towns in Scotland and England. My right hon. Friend wrote to me that the new delivery, which I think was made at 9 a.m., cut off the delivery of 600 or 700 letters which, in the ordinary course, came from the south. I said we would try and rearrange the early delivery so as to include the letters from the south, and we did so. We gave them on the first delivery a larger delivery than they had ever had before, and that is what my right hon. Friend calls paying no personal attention to the case.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I never used such a phrase.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The right hon. Gentleman also used the word "slipshod" I am sure he will withdraw the charge he made against the permanent officials, for they have really gone into the matter most thoroughly. With regard to the question of parcels, I have on several occasions in this House given very full answers to questions, and I hope I have not dealt with the subject in an unsympathetic manner. It is quite true that we convey a large number of parcels from London to Southampton or any other port of embarkation, but there these parcels are handed over to the care of the Army Post Office under the direction of the military authorities. I have been out and seen the arrangements made for the carriage of the parcels from the point of embarkation to the firing line. We carry something like eighty or ninety tons of stuff a day. The French railway authorities can only put at our disposal a certain limited amount of railway accommodation, and the military authorities have had to choose between the carriage of an immense amount of parcels — some of
    800
    them quite valueless from the soldier's point of view, and some, of course, most valuable—and the cutting short of certain necessary military supplies. If we reduce the rate, or, as has been suggested by some hon. Gentleman, send the parcels for nothing, we shall be invaded by an enormous number, which would completely block the transport of correspondence and the great bulk of useful parcels that go to the front. I ventured at Christmas time to write a letter to the papers pointing out that many of the parcels were filled with perishable material which was useless from the soldier's point of view. I examined some of the parcels. I found one containing a slice of cake, a handful of nuts, a pair of socks, a collar, half a ham, and a chicken, all jumbled together in a cardboard box, and it would never have reached the soldier in a useful condition.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: It probably pleased the old mother to send it.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, possibly, and I had it repacked and sent to the front. But if we are to have an unlimited number of parcels of that sort the effect will be to cut off from the soldiers at the front many things that are urgently wanted. There is no unwillingness to carry on our part, but there is inability to carry such an enormous number as would be sent if we were to reduce our charges. Another point raised by the Noble Lord, on which we have had some interviews and discussions, was the question of postcards. We have tried to draw a line, which my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General said was a broad line. On the other side of the water we give free postage, but on this side we ask that a single rate, and not a double rate of postage, shall be paid. In these cases a postcard may be posted, so far as the soldier in hospital is concerned, without putting a stamp on it, but when it is received by his relatives they are asked to put a halfpenny stamp on it. They are not, as they would be in the ordinary course, charged the double rate. The State has made very generous separation allowances to the dependants of the soldier, and I do not think it is too much to ask that, in order to maintain a system which has prevented the abuse of free postage, they should be called upon to pay a single rate of postage for the information they receive. If the Noble Lord were in my position, he would be more alive to the abuse that has existed,

    801
    which still, to a certain extent, exists, and which would spread out if the present position were reversed, and I think he would have been found giving utterance to some of the sentiments I have ventured to address to the Committee.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I hope not.
    Mr. MORTON: I beg to move, "That the Committee do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." I should like to have more than one night for the discussion of these Post Office questions, and I want to discuss them in Committee rather than on the Report stage, because it is more convenient. We do not, of course, want to hamper the Government in these days.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: We have had a very useful discussion. I do not think that we have any of us wasted time, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to go on with the Debate, I do not see why he should not do so. But I do not feel called upon, in the name of the Government, to accept the Motion, and I hope the Committee will not.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I do not think it matters very much, because we shall be able to raise these matters on a future occasion. I should have thought that it
    802
    would have been a convenient course to have kept the Vote open, since there are many Members profoundly dissatisfied with the reply from the Treasury Bench. But still, there will be ample opportunities for raising these questions, and we shall be able to show the Post Office officials and those who represent them in this House that the House of Commons is not a mere nonentity.
    Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow (Thursday).
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-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 Thirteen minutes after Seven o'clock.