Commons Sitting of 20 December 1915

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5535 to 5537 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Copy presented of Statute VI. of the National University of Ireland [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 405.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the under-mentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
County of Durham (urban district of Southwick-on-Wear);
City of Liverpool (a specified area of the city);
Borough of Merthyr Tydfil (Dowlais and Penydarren wards);
Borough of Reading;
Urban district of Lees
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

JUDICIAL STATISTICS (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GERMAN AND AUSTRIAN DOCTORS AND RED CROSS OFFICIALS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many German and Austrian doctors and so-called German and Austrian Red Cross employés have been allowed to go through our naval blockade under safe conducts to Europe and how many under instructions from the Foreign Office without safe conducts; and what equivalent was obtained from Germany in the number of British subjects released?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The number of such persons given safe conducts is eighty-six, and the number of those who were to be allowed to pass without safe conducts is sixty-nine. I am not aware of the precise number in each category who may have been arrested on the way owing to suspicion of fraud, but the number is not large. With regard to the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government have not so far felt obliged to refuse requests made to them on the ground of the Geneva Convention for the free passage of enemy doctors and Red Cross employés returning to their own country from overseas. In most cases doctors and Red Cross officials captured or detained by the Germans have been also released. But as in some cases they have not done so, His Majesty's Government are considering the advisability of detaining similar German individuals who would otherwise be returned.
    Mr. KING: Does the Noble Lord admit the implication in the words "so-called" in the second line of the question, which imply that some of these Red Cross employés were possibly not Red Cross employés at all?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think if my hon. Friend had listened attentively to my reply he would see that it was dealt with. I said, "I am not aware of the precise number in each category who may have been arrested on the way owing to suspicion of fraud, but the number is not large."
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the invariable rule that they should have passports? The Noble Lord said some of them passed through without passports, and why were they passed through?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I cannot answer without notice. It is probably some arrangement with the Admiralty, of which I was not aware.

    BRITISH DIPLOMATIC POLICY.
    Sir J. WALTONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a general statement in regard to the present diplomatic situation and of British policy before the House adjourns for Christmas, such as has been made from time to time since the outbreak of War by the Foreign Ministers or Chancellors of France, Russia, Italy, and Germany?
    Lord R. CECIL: I will communicate the suggestion of the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend.
    Sir J. WALTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether the secret diplomacy of his Department is in the real interests of this country, and whether—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

    HOSPITAL UNITS (ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to make any statement regarding the present position of the various hospital units from England and Scotland that have been compelled to leave Serbia?
    Lord R. CECIL: Sir Ralph Paget, who is acting for His Majesty's Government in the matter, has succeeded in collecting the members of the British units who escaped from Serbia at San Giovanni di Medua, from where it is hoped to transport them to Italy. Till transport is provided, which I hope will be very shortly, Sir Ralph Paget may be trusted to do all that is possible for the safety and comfort of the units under his charge.

    DUTCH EAST INDIES LINERS (SUEZ CANAL ROUTE).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he has any information to the effect that the Dutch East Indies liners and mail boats will no longer use the Suez Canal route; and whether he can state the reasons for this change?
    Lord R. CECIL: Certain vessels of the Rotterdam Lloyd Line are, I am informed, to proceed in future via the Cape; the remainder will, as hitherto, proceed via the Suez Canal. The reason for this change of route is stated to be the alleged uncertainty as to the amount of coal available for bunkering at Port Said.

  SALONIKA.

    ALLIED AND GREEK TROOPS.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, adverting to Lord Lansdowne's statement that it was

    5
    at the instance of the Greek Prime Minister that His Majesty's Government sent troops to Serbia via Salonika, is he aware that M. Venizelos in the Greek Chamber, on 23rd October, stated that the official correspondence concerning the disembarkation of the Anglo-French troops at Salonika proved that such disembarkation had no connection with the question asked by the Greek Government previously of the Powers, whether they were prepared to send 150,000 men to cooperate with the Greek Army against the Bulgarians; whether he is aware that this official correspondence was read to the Greek Chamber; and will he, therefore, see that this correspondence is laid upon the Table so that this House may have the same information as already given to the Greek Chamber?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have seen a report of the proceedings in the Greek Chamber on 23rd October, from which it appears that M. Venizelos did make a statement to the effect mentioned in the first part of the question and referred to a previous occasion on which he had read from the official correspondence on the subject. What actually was read does not appear, and has not been, as far as I know, published. I am afraid that in the present position of affairs it would be impossible to lay Papers on the Table which would give a complete account of those transactions and an incomplete account would be misleading.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked whether any definite arrangement has been arrived at as to the number of Greek troops who will be stationed in the Salonika zone?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid it is not possible to make a statement on this subject at present.

  GALLIPOLI OPERATIONS.

    SIR IAN HAMILTON'S REPORT.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a full Report has now been made by Sir Ian Hamilton of the operations in Gallipoli between the period covered in his last published dispatch and the date of his departure; whether such Report, or a précis thereof, will be published at an early date; and, in particular, when the official detailed account of the Suvla Bay landing and subsequent operations will be published?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): A further Report has just been received from Sir Ian Hamilton, and it deals with the Suvla Bay landing and subsequent operations. It will have to be considered by the Government, but there will be no avoidable delay in its publication.

  RECRUITING.

    BRITISH RESIDENTS IN PARIS.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken by the French Government to induce British citizens resident in Paris to join the armed forces of Great Britain or France on the Western front?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no information on the subject, but I will inquire.

    LORD DERBY'S SCHEME.
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, if, in view of the completion of the canvass under Lord Derby's recruiting scheme, he will expedite the publication of the lists of exempted men in those trades concerning which no public announcement has been made?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): A fifth list of reserved occupations is published in the Press to-day, and has doubtless been seen by my hon. Friend.

    RAILWAY AND TRANSPORT WORKERS.
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that traders in the North of England are being put to inconvenience by the difficulty in obtaining delivery of their raw materials and coal, and the refusal, for periods of several days, of railway companies to accept goods for delivery in the country and at the ports of Liverpool and Manchester owing to congestion of traffic due to the shortage of labour; and will he state whether instructions have been given that no further recruiting of railway or transport workers shall take place in view of the necessity of maintaining the Home and export trades?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that traders are experiencing inconvenience at the present time owing to congestion at the ports and restrictions on the railways. The matter is constantly receiving attention, but I am afraid that some delays are

    7
    unavoidable. Most occupations on the railways are already included in the list of reserved occupations, and this also applies to nearly all grades of transport workers, including carters and motor lorry drivers. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Prime Minister recently appointed an important Committee, of which Lord Inchcape is chairman, with wide powers to deal with port and transit difficulties.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT CORPS.
    Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many men of military age are employed in the Anti-Aircraft Corps and in its telephone section; whether all such men, if there are any who are not suffering from physical disability, have been attested under Lord Derby's scheme, and, if not, for what reason; and whether in the future no recruits will be accepted for this corps who are of military age and fit for military service?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): There are at present a considerable number of men in the Anti-Aircraft Corps of military age. A number of them are only employed at night, being engaged in other work during the day. As to whether or not any of the men of military age now serving in the Anti-Aircraft Corps would be rejected on medical grounds for Army service I cannot say, for the reason that there is no medical examination on entry into the Force. Members of the Force could not attest under Lord Derby's scheme since they are already enrolled in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. But all men who wish to join the Army have always been given their discharge and every facility afforded them. A considerable number have already sought their discharge from the corps in order to join the Army. For the last nine months no recruits of military age have been accepted unless officially rejected on medical grounds for service with the Colours.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Is my right hon. Friend quite satisfied that this Anti-Aircraft Corps is not being improperly used?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know in what particular my hon. Friend means, but perhaps he will put his point specifically on the Paper.

    RE-VACCINATION.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a number of men have been refused attestation because they would not agree to be re-vaccinated; whether he is aware that the War Office stated that a refusal to be vaccinated was not a bar to attestation; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think it would be well if my hon. Friend had stated whether he was referring to the Regular Army or to the Territorial Force. For the former, vaccination or revaccination is a condition of enlistment. For the latter it is not. No statement inconsistent is known to have emanated from the War Office. I have on several occasions made this position clear to hon. Members.

    MINOR PHYSICAL DEFECTS.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a number of proposed recruits are rejected for minor physical defects, many of which could be successfully dealt with in our general hospitals; and if His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of paying those who offered to undergo operations or treatment at Army rates with dependant allowances whilst they are detained in hospital, provided that they have previously attested?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The number of men rejected for physical defects of a kind which could be cured by surgical operations is inconsiderable, and the risk and disadvantages of the course suggested are so serious that I fear I cannot adopt it.

    SERBIAN REFUGEES (ALBANIA).
    Mr. ALDENasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any fresh information with regard to the numbers and situation of the Serbian refugees in Albania; and whether he can state what action, official or unofficial, has been taken by the United States to supply them with food and clothing?
    Lord R. CECIL: Recent reports indicate that there are about 10,000 refugees in or near Scutari, about half of whom are Montenegrins. I am not aware that any action has yet been taken in the United States in connection with this matter.

    RAILWAY TRUCKS.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is intended to acquire, either by purchase, lease, or commandeering them, all the privately-owned railway trucks so that they may be under the complete control of the Railway Board?
    Mr. NEVILLEasked whether the Government are proposing to pool the railway wagons of the country; and, if so, whether, before deciding on the form such pooling arrangement will take, he will consult the representatives of wagon companies and private owners?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has been suggested by the Coal Mining Organisation Committee and by the Port and Transit Executive Committee that railway wagons, including those belonging to private owners, should be pooled, and the suggestion is being carefully considered both by the Board of Trade and by the Railway Executive Committee. I recognise that there are great difficulties in the way of such a scheme. The interests of wagon companies and other private owners will, of course, be carefully considered, and representatives of those interests consulted before any decision can be come to.

    BRITISH SHIPS SOLD TO FOREIGNERS.
    Mr. GRANTasked whether a number of British-owned ships have been sold to foreigners since the outbreak of war; whether such ships are now available for conveying supplies to the enemy; and whether he will issue a return giving the names and tonnage of such ships and the names of their late British owners?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A certain number of British vessels have been transferred to foreign flags since the outbreak of war. In the case of all transfers effected since the Government obtained full control over this matter special and reliable guarantees have been obtained that the vessels would not be used in any way, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of the enemy. Particulars of all ships transferred from the British Register are given in a monthly Return issued by the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen. I am sending the hon. Gentleman a set of these Returns.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Would it not be possible, inasmuch as a number of these transferred vessels were owned by British
    10
    shipowners, to call these gentlemen to account?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Since the Government took control of the transfers every case has been carefully examined by the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, and a sufficient case has had to be made out before the transfer is allowed. I would like to add that we have refused transfers in a great many cases.

    FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, according to the statement made in the "Board of Trade Labour Gazette" for December, the increase in food prices shows a general rise of 44 per cent. since the outbreak of war; if he is aware that many labourers who are working in Yorkshire, Lancashire, and many other towns in the different parts of the country are only receiving a standard rate of wages varying from 24s. to 27s. 6d., including 3s. war bonus; if he is aware that, in consequence of the rise in the price of food-stuffs, the lower paid workers feel justified in pressing for higher rates; and if he intends taking any action in the matter with a view to reducing food prices?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have stated on more than one recent occasion in this House, the question both of the supplies and the prices of food-stuffs engages the constant attention of the Government. Steps have been taken to assure adequate supplies, but it is clear that any attempt to fix maximum prices might only have the result of reducing supplies.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a certain number of gentlemen who call themselves the Millers' Association meet from time to time and decide what is to be the selling price of flour?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: What they may do at their private meetings is unknown to us, but we keep a very strict eye on the corn and flour market, and from time to time the Board of Agriculture officials are in close touch with the millers.
    Mr. CROOKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that they do not mind being looked at if you do not do anything?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend must not take it for granted that we do nothing. The millers tell quite a different story.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not a fact that they were very much concerned when the Government took action regarding the purchase of wheat last summer?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I think that is a fact and I think it is also true that they are very much perturbed at the action the Government are now taking.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (NEW BILL).
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade when he hopes to introduce his new Bill dealing with enemy trading in this country?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The new Trading with the Enemy Bill is being drafted, but I am not yet able to fix a date for its introduction.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will it be before the Adjournment—that was the promise?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I was not aware that any promise was made that it would be before the Adjournment. It will be before the end of the Session. The draft is well forward.

    COAL (EXPORT TO SCANDINAVIA).
    Mr. COWANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the effect of prohibiting the export of coal to Scandinavia is to enable German coal to be exported to those countries and thereby to enable Germany to pay for her imports of metals, etc., without drawing on her gold reserves; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: The prohibition of the export of coal does not, of course, mean more than that licences are required for each consignment exported. In point of fact, the restriction is in the case of Norway and Denmark very slight indeed, and the actual figures for the eleven months up to November 30th, 1915, show a small increase in coal exports, compared with the same period of 1914. As regards Sweden, the question of coal export is closely bound up with more complex considerations, among which the point to which the hon. Member refers is not lost sight of.

    KEW GARDENS (CHARGE FOR ADMISSION).
    Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the First Commissioner of Works whether a charge for admission to Kew Gardens is now made on each day of the week, and what is the amount of the same; and whether he will remit the charge on Saturdays and Sundays in the interests of poor children?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. It is proposed to make a charge for admission into Kew Gardens of one penny on each day of the week except Tuesdays and Fridays, on which, as students' days, a charge of sixpence will be made. If the hon. Member's suggestion were adopted, the object in view in making the charges, which is national economy, would be to a large extent frustrated, because of the high average attendance at the gardens on Saturdays and Sundays.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is no arrangement contemplated for admitting parties of school children free at week-ends?
    Mr. ACLAND: No, I think not. The object is to make a little money for the nation.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will my hon. Friend remember the great advantages to national efficiency which free admission to these gardens for the poor children of London means?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am not sure that admission at 1d. is not of more value and therefore likely to be more useful.
    Sir W. BYLES: Has there ever before been a charge for admission to Kew Gardens?
    Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir; and there has never before been a war of this kind.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the position of the wife of a man

    13
    confined in the Naval Hospital for Insane, at Great Yarmouth, owing to nervous strain brought on by his service in the Army, in the event of the man's death during treatment at the hospital; will the widow be entitled to the same pension as that of the widow of a man killed or dying from wounds or of disease contracted on active service and will the children also be entitled to the usual allowances; and, if not, will he explain why any difference should be made?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In such a case the widow would be entitled to the same pension as the widow of a man killed or dying from wounds or of disease contracted on active service, and the children would also be entitled to the usual allowances.

    GERMAN SUBMARINE (REPORTED LOSS).
    Mr. COWANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any official report of the loss of the German submarine which sank the "Lusitania," and, if so, can he state under what circumstances this occurred and whether the officers and crew of the submarine were lost or taken prisoners?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, Sir; we have no information.

    ESTATES OF DECEASED SCOTTISH OFFICERS.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his Department will follow the course adopted by the War Office and suggest to naval agents and bankers that they should cease to require confirmations granted in Scotland of the estates of deceased Scottish officers to be resealed in the English Probate Court in respect of undrawn balances of pay appearing in the inventories of Scottish estates?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: This does not appear to be a matter in which the Admiralty can properly intervene. As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend on the 9th instant, the amounts paid to officers' agents or bankers under power of attorney or written authority automatically cease to be naval assets, and in consequence are altogether outside Admiralty control and jurisdiction.
    Mr. CURRIE: Is it not very inconvenient that there should be a difference of practice between the War Office and the Admiralty in this matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of the inconvenience, but if there is inconvenience and my hon. Friend will give me particulars I will look into it.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Army agents and bankers have now agreed to dispense with the resealing in the English Probate Court of Scottish confirmations of the estates of deceased Scottish officers in respect of undrawn balances of pay?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Army agents have been advised, as I promised my hon. Friend, that the War Office does not object, but any action they may take remains a matter for their own discretion, and I have no information as to their views.

    PRIZE MONEY.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to publish the scheme for the awards of prize bounty; and whether he can make any definite announcement as to the prospect of an early distribution of prize money or prize bounty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I have already explained, whilst it is not thought possible to make any payment of prize money until after the close of hostilities, it is proposed from time to time to make prize bounty awards. Arrangements in connection with the first payment are now being completed, and it is hoped that the claim may be submitted to the Prize Court at the earliest opportunity—probably during next month. Payments will, of course, be made without delay as soon as the decision of the Court in each case is given.
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the distribution of prize bounty to be in accordance with a scheme, and, if so, when will the scheme be published?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The distribution will be under a scheme which will require the sanction of an Order in Council. So soon as that can be obtained the scheme will be published.

  MUNITIONS.

    RIFLES AND AMMUNITION.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTONasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in order to prevent the despatch of defective rifles and ammunition, a rigid inspection will be instituted at the works producing on orders from the British Government in the United States of America?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): Competent inspectors have been detailed for the close examination of all munitions obtained from overseas, and test examinations are also made on delivery in this country. It is believed that these arrangements are such as to ensure that no defective weapons or other munitions shall be accepted.
    Sir J. WALTON: May I ask when these arrangements of more rigid inspection were made, in view of the fact that defective rifles and ammunition have been received recently?
    Dr. ADDISON: I understand that it is almost inevitable that in large consignments there should be one defective, but we have had an elaborate machinery of inspection for some months past.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that a man was fined 9s. for treating his wife by the magistrates at Bristol, who held that, if they made an exception in favour of wives, licensees would have to satisfy themselves as to the claim of women treated to be wives of the treater; and whether steps will be taken to appeal on behalf of the Crown or to amend the law?
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that a man at Bristol on Wednesday was fined 9s. for treating his wife with liquor; if he is aware that there is general resentment in consequence of a man not being able to treat his wife; and if he will advise the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) to remove the restrictions?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend's attention has not been officially called to the case mentioned by the hon. Member. I may say, however, that the practical difficulties of making an exception to the No-Treating Order in the case of a specified relationship are obvious, and it is
    16
    thought that cases in which undue advantage would be taken of any such exception would expose publicans to grave risk and difficulty. If the hon. Member can suggest a method by which publicans can assure themselves of the relationship of two persons to each other, my right hon. Friend will ask the Control Board to consider this suggestion.
    Mr. THORNEMay I ask the hon. Gentleman if he thinks that the fact of a man being in a position to treat his wife will retard the output of munitions in any way?
    Dr. ADDISON: No, I do not think so at all, but that is quite a different question from making an Order and having machinery to carry it out.
    Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked the Minister of Munitions if he will give the grounds on which the Central Control Board has refused to relieve persons residing within provincial areas from the trouble and expense imposed by the pro visions of Article 4 (e), which compels them to pay for alcoholic beverages purchased from wholesale firms by payment in advance, or by postal order, or by special messenger, while these provisions have been suspended in the London area?
    Dr. ADDISON: The Board informs me that the temporary suspension of the provisions of Article 4, paragraph (e) of their Order for the London area was granted as being, in their opinion, a reasonable concession in view of the special circumstances of that area. The same considerations did not appear to apply in respect of provincial areas, in which a corresponding paragraph has now been in operation for several weeks. The suspension which was granted for the London area was limited to a period which ends on the 31st instant.
    Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of the promises given when the appointment of the Central Control Board was under consideration that the operation of the Board should be confined to munition areas, and in consultation and agreement with local authorities, he will instruct the Board to regulate its proceedings in con formity with these promises?
    Dr. ADDISON: So far as I am aware, the promises which were given in Debate have been observed in the past, and there is certainly no question of any departure from them.
    Mr. AGG-GARDNER: Will there be an opportunity of discussing the Central Control Board's Regulations?
    Dr. ADDISON: That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked whether an extension of the hours for the sale of alcoholic liquors has been granted to clubs in the Woolwich district, thus differentiating betwen the clubs and licensed public-houses?
    Dr. ADDISON: No, Sir. Clubs and public-houses are treated on precisely the same footing, special exemptions in rare cases being considered upon a careful review of the particular circumstances which affect the locality.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Do the special exemptions apply to clubs only, or to public-houses as well?
    Dr. ADDISON: They relate sometimes to clubs and sometimes to public-houses, and sometimes to both.

    MUNITIONS OF WAR (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions what machinery he proposes to set up for giving effect to Clause 5 of the Amending Munitions Bill; and whether opportunity will be given to representatives of women workers to submit their views on Orders relating to their wages and conditions?
    Dr. ADDISON: The machinery proposed for the purpose is indicated in Clause 6 of the Bill as amended in Committee. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he will take steps to secure that women assessors appointed under the Amending Munitions Bill are such as will command the confidence of working women; and whether, in accordance with the procedure adopted for the appointment of workmen's representatives, he will accept nominations from women's trade unions?
    Dr. ADDISON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The second part of the question does not quite correctly state the procedure adopted for the appointment of workmen's representatives, but I may say that any names submitted to the Ministry by women's trade unions will be carefully considered.

    CONTROLLED ESTABLISHMENTS.
    Sir W. PEARCEasked the Minister of Munitions if there are standard terms and conditions in taking over controlled establishments, and are careful records being maintained; and do the provisions cover loss of profits or future trade and provide for expenditure on new plant?
    Dr. ADDISON: My hon. Friend will find the information he desires, so far as it is not contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the Munitions of War Act, in the Rules made under the Act dealing with limitation of profits, of which I am sending him a copy. He will see that the Rules provide for proper allowances for expenditure on new plant and buildings installed for the manufacture of munitions and for due consideration being given to such matters as loss of future trade.

    PARLIAMENTARY (MILITARY) SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister whether the hon. Member for Fareham is Parliamentary Secretary (Military) to the Ministry of Munitions; and, if so, whether he is accepting the salary voted to him by Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does my right hon. Friend think it advisable that Ministers should advertise these facts?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think they do.
    Mr. PRINGLE: They do.

    TECHNICAL OPTICS (NATIONAL SCHOOL).
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to a recent resolution of the British Science Guild urging upon His Majesty's Government the necessity of immediate steps being taken to establish a national school of technical optics, with a view to affording opportunities for the scientific training in this country of artisans and other students in the theory and practice of the several operations

    19
    needed for the manufacture of the optical instruments and appliances which have hitherto been largely imported from Germany, and are now being imported into this country from the United States of America and elsewhere; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Dr. ADDISON: I understand that the resolution in question was passed by the British Science Guild in July, 1914. The object in view appears to be undoubtedly of the greatest importance, and my right hon. Friend has had before him for some months the necessity for increasing the number of skilled workmen available for the manufacture of optical instruments for war purposes. I am advised that a considerable number are being trained at various works engaged on Government contracts. As regards the permanent supply of such workmen, I understand that the matter is receiving the careful attention of the Board of Education.
    Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that a small but efficient school of technical optics has been for some time in existence in connection with the Northampton Polytechnic Institute, Clerkenwell; that the governors of that school have purchased at a cost of £13,000 a site for its extension, but have no funds available from which they can complete the necessary extension and equipment, and that unless funds are forthcoming they will be compelled to sell the site to avoid further payment of interest; and whether, in these circumstances and having regard to the need of a well-equipped school, the Minister of Munitions can see his way to make a grant of money towards the further extension of the school?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend is sorry to hear of the difficulties with which the governors of the institute are faced, but the matter does not directly concern the Ministry of Munitions and I regret that I cannot hold out any prospect of a grant from funds at the disposal of the Ministry. I understand, however, that the matter is under the consideration of the Board of Education and the London County Council.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Is there any chance of the Board of Education making a grant in this case?
    Dr. ADDISON: That question had better be addressed to the President of the Board of Education.
    Mr. KING: Is any attempt being made to train women as well as men for this work?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not know whether they are men or women. Efforts are being made to train workers. I cannot answer on that point further without notice.

    PEACE PROPOSALS.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has discerned in the recent debates in the German Reichstag, in the speech of the German Chancellor or elsewhere, any indications on the part of our principal enemy of a disposition to transfer the settlement of the issues involved in the War from the battlefield to the council table; and, if so, whether, in the councils of the Allies, our Government can see its way to suggest any form of response to that disposition?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am sure that my hon. Friend is as competent as any member of the Government to draw inferences from the recent debates in the Reichstag. As regards the rest of the question, I would refer him to the public statements I have made and to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on 8th December.
    Sir W. BYLES: May I ask if the indications to which my question refers do not suggest that after seventeen months of conflict it is becoming probable that the objects for which we are contending can be more easily obtained by conference?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is only repeating what already appears on the Paper in better terms.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (GERMAN COMPANIES) BILL.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that German companies have branch companies in neutral countries controlled by the parent boards, such branch companies

    21
    being able to trade with Great Britain and being outside the operation of British laws, and that Germans are thus still exploiting our market, the freedom of which has enabled them to make war upon us, he will reconsider his decision not to give facilities to Lord Halsbury's Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill recently introduced into this House (Trading with Enemy (Extension) Bill) by His Majesty's Government gives full power to proclaim any person or body of persons in a neutral country with enemy associations as an enemy; and to prohibit trade with such person or body of persons. I do not see how the adoption of Lord Halsbury's Bill would give wider powers in this direction.

    CHRISTMAS PARLIAMENTARY GREETING TO TROOPS ABROAD.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state his decision with regard to the suggestion that Parliament should this Christmas send an expression of its thanks and appreciation to our fighting forces?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot say anything further in regard to this question.

    AFTER-WAR EMPLOYMENT FOR DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister if he is in a position to make a statement regarding the various ways in which it is proposed to help soldiers leaving the Army after the War is over; whether the War Book, compiled by the Imperial Defence Committee, is available for consultation by Members of Parliament; and whether the Government has taken into consideration the suggestion that a Peace Book should be prepared to help the various Government Departments in reorganising the country on a peace footing?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him and to my hon. Friend the Member for the Wellington Division of Shropshire on the 13th December. I do not think I can usefully add anything to that answer, except that it would clearly be contrary to the public interest to adopt his suggestion with regard to the War Book he refers to.

    LORD PRIVY SEAL
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Prime Minister whether the Lord Privy Seal is accepting the salary voted to him by Parliament?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir, he is not.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand it was unnecessary to have the Supplementary Vote last July?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It has turned out to be so.

    ORDERS IN COUNCIL (PUBLICATION).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister, while recognising the possible necessity of certain Orders in Council being kept secret during war and in the crisis prior to war, whether he can state if, during his tenure of office, the practice of publishing all Orders in Council in the "London Gazette" had been strictly adhered to by all Departments up to 25th July, 1914?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have no knowledge of this matter except the information that I have received from the Privy Council Office, by whom I am told that the Orders in Council so published are: (1) those which are required to be published by Statute; and (2) those gazetted by request of the Department at whose instance they are made.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that Orders in Council are not being published in the "London Gazette" because of the need of war secrecy in a number of cases, whether he will allow a measure of Parliamentary control over the Executive to be set up through a scrutiny of all those Orders in Council by a Committee of three Members nominated by Mr. Speaker?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A large number of Orders in Council are in fact not published in the "Gazette" for various reasons, but those which involve matters of policy are in all cases subject to the directions of His Majesty's Government exercised through the different Departments. The course proposed by the hon. Member does not appear to be necessary or practicable.

    LAW OFFICERS OF THE CROWN (REMUNERATION).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Prime Minister whether he authorised the arrangement by which any reduction made in the salary of the Attorney-General would fall on his colleagues; and whether there is any precedent in the history of this House for a salary voted by the House being divided among Ministers?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite clear as to the meaning of the hon. Baronet's question. It is within the public knowledge that under the pooling arrangement, to which reference is presumably made, salaries are equalised. Therefore if one Member suffers, all the Members suffer. I know of no law or prescription which forbids any association of men from doing what they will with the salaries which they receive.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The question on the Paper is not in the form in which I handed it in at the Table. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Attorney-General stated, in answering a question on this subject, that the fees of his colleagues would be reduced if the House voted a reduction of his salary by £1,000 per annum? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee leaving the Cabinet, the present total of fees shared by Ministers is larger than before, having regard to the reduction in the Law Officers' salaries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, they remain just the same, I think.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: He took £4,250 out of the pool, and the saving on the Law Officers' salaries represents £2,000; so the Cabinet are the gainers.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this proposed arrangement was alleged by the Attorney-General as a reason for making a total change in the method of remuneration?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that.
    Mr. COWANasked the Prime Minister whether the salaries and fees attaching to the offices of Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, respectively, are taxed in common with the income of other classes of the community; and, if so, will he state upon what ground
    24
    the salaries and fees of these public servants are to be reduced, while those of other public servants continue to be paid in full?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The reduction which has been made is a spontaneous act of the present Law Officers.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary to the Treasury the sums of money paid respectively to Lord Buckmaster and the Home Secretary for the financial year 1914–15?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): £9,725 and £14,705.

    SCHOOL CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT IN FACTORIES).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Board of Education in how many towns the school age of children has been temporarily relaxed with a view to their employment in factories?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): My right hon. Friend is aware that in some areas local education authorities, in the course of their ordinary administration, have excused children from attendance at school with a view to their employment in industry. He has no complete information as to the extent of such action or as to the number of children so excused who are employed in factories.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is it not a fact that some of the children so excused are below the statutory age for the attendance of children?
    Mr. LEWIS: I am not aware of that.

    BRITISH CAPITAL AND BUSINESS OFFICES (REMOVAL TO NEW YORK).
    Mr. GRANTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that certain British subjects have lately transferred their capital and business offices to New York and have abandoned their British domicile, thus escaping payment of all British taxes; and whether he will take steps to prevent such action by others?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): My attention has been drawn to the circumstances stated in the question, but I am not prepared to take any action of the nature suggested.

    AMERICAN SECURITIES.
    Mr. KINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be in a position to receive American bonds and negotiable securities in connection with his scheme for upholding the American exchange; and whether he intends to issue a statement which will guide those who are in a position to co-operate with him by selling or depositing their American securities?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the memorandum printed in the "Gazette" for Friday last, 17th December. A further statement for the guidance of individual holders will be issued to-morrow. Lists of securities received from large holders such as insurance and trust companies are now under examination, and these holders will be asked to send in such securities as may be accepted as soon as the examination is complete.

    EXCHEQUER BONDS (NEW ISSUE).
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the new issue of five-year Exchequer Bills is in effect a new War Loan and not an issue of ordinary Exchequer Bills contemplated when the exception was made in their favour on the issue of the last War Loan; if ordinary Exchequer Bills are ever issued for periods exceeding one year, and if the interest is paid on them by selling them at such a discount as will provide interest on the repayment at their face value; and if the last War Loan will be exchangeable into the new Exchequer Bills?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. The new issue consists of Exchequer Bonds and not of Exchequer Bills, which is an obsolete form of Government security and is entirely distinct from Treasury Bills. Exchequer Bonds may be issued for any term not exceeding six years under Section 26 of the Exchequer Bills and Bonds Act, 1866. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of his pledge, when he
    26
    asked the companies to subscribe to the last Loan, that they would get the increased rate if it was paid, and does it not apply to this issue?
    Mr. McKENNA: It was stated at the time quite definitely that the Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills were not included as the kind of security which would entitle their holders to apply for them.
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the. Exchequer, whether no Exchequer Bond prospectuses were obtainable on Friday either at the Glasgow Stock Exchange or at any of the Glasgow banks, although clients of the stockholders and banks there received by post such prospectuses from London brokers and banks; and why the equitable treatment of the provinces which he promised would be observed in all future issues was not secured?
    Mr. McKENNA: Consignments of prospectuses left the Bank of England at 12.55 p.m. on Thursday, 16th December, addressed to the Glasgow Stock Exchange and the head offices of the banks in Scotland, and a further consignment left at 4 p.m. on the same day addressed to every banking office in Scotland not covered by the previous arrangement. I have not received any corroboration of my hon. Friend's statement in the first part of the question, and, in view of the facts stated above, I think he must be mistaken.
    Mr. WATT: Does he not consider it his duty to treat all citizens of this country equally and alike?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; and, so far as circumstances allow me to do so, I have done so.

    ALIEN ENEMIES.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many registered enemy aliens have left their registered place of residence and cannot be traced by the police?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): Figures are not available, but the constant touch with registered alien enemies which is kept by the police indicates that the numbers are very small and that such disappearances as have occurred took place early in the War, before the machinery both of the police and at the ports was in complete operation.

    LIGHTING RESTRICTION ORDER (LONDON).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he can see his way to remove the London Lighting Restriction Order from Tuesday, 21st December until and including Monday, 27th December?
    Sir J. SIMON: The danger of an attack by hostile aircraft at this time of year is not one which can safely be disregarded, and the danger would not be diminished by announcing in advance the dates between which London would be fully lit. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to comply with my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentle-aware that during certain weather conditions it is almost impossible for Zeppelin raiders to come to London, and do they not obtain during this week?
    Sir J. SIMON: There are some things which ought not to happen in Christmas Week, but we cannot be certain that this will be one of them.

    DRY-POWDER CHEMICAL FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.
    Mr. DENNISSasked the Home Secretary whether the Home Office has forbidden the Press (through the Press Bureau) to publish anything likely to promote the sale of dry-powder chemical fire extinguishers, on the ground that they are unreliable for controlling fires such as are likely to be caused by bombs; whether he is aware that, apart from fires that have got serious hold on buildings, such extinguishers are largely used as effective first-aid fire extinguishers for ordinary first-not caused by bombs, especially in the larger-sized houses in town and country; and whether it is the policy of the Home Office to prevent the sale of such first-aid fire extinguishers?
    Sir J. SIMON: The warning referred to was issued because the claims put forward by the makers of certain of these dry-powder extinguishers were likely to mislead the public into believing that such appliances could be relied upon in preference to water as a means of extinguishing or controlling incendiary bombs and the fires caused by them. The Commissioner of Police had investigated the matter with the aid of a Committee of experts who
    28
    represented the Admiralty, the War Office, the Home Office, the Police and the Fire Brigade, and on 18th September issued a public notice to the effect that experiments so conducted were found to show that powder extinguishers are ineffective as compared with water for dealing with the fires in question; and that the danger of serious damage being caused by such fires would be greatly increased if the public relied on these appliances.
    Mr. DENNISS: If they disclaim any right to advertise in regard to putting out fires caused by incendiary bombs and limit the advertisements to their present useful purpose, will the right hon. Gentleman allow their advertisements to appear again?
    Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that any prohibition has been issued, but rather extravagant advertisements are to be deprecated, especially in cases where a panic might be caused if a bomb were dropped.
    Mr. DENNISS: May we understand that advertisements may be put in if they are modified?
    Sir J. SIMON: That is a question I should not like to answer without notice.
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are buckets of sand all over this House for the purpose of extinguishing fires, and that sand is a dry powder?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    COAL SUPPLIES.
    Mr. RICHARDSasked the Home Secretary whether the Coal Supplies Committee are asking the miners to curtail their Christmas holidays to prevent a slackening in the supply of coal; whether it has been brought to his notice that at a number of South Wales collieries the workmen are employed only two or three days per week; whether this loss of work is due to the shortage of ships and the freight charges, caused largely by a number of British-owned ships being engaged in trading between foreign ports; the number of British ships engaged in the export of coal from the United States to the Argentine Republic; and whether these ships are afforded the protection of the British Navy?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question.

    29
    The position is, I am informed, as stated in the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question, and there is, in fact, a shortage of tonnage for mercantile purposes. I am unable to state the number of British ships at present engaged in carrying coal from the United States to the Argentine Republic. The Government have, however, recently taken power by Order in Council to prohibit British ships from carrying cargo between foreign ports, except under licences. This power of prohibition came into force on 1st December, and the issue and refusal of licences is being dealt with by an expert Committee.

    RATES (LONDON BOROUGHS).
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the President of the Local Government Board in what London boroughs the rates have been reduced since the outbreak of War, the reduction in each case, and the proportion per head of the population?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I will send the hon. Member a statement showing the rates made in each of the Metropolitan boroughs for the three years ending 31st March, 1914, 1915, and 1916. I cannot supply the information asked for in the last part of the question.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us in how many of the boroughs the rates have been reduced since the beginning of the War?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: When the hon. Gentleman sees the information with which I am going to supply him, he will obtain that information.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman answer the question now—one word would answer it?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I should occupy the time of the House in going through all the figures. The answer would take me fifteen minutes to read.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: It would not. You would only have to give one figure.

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ECONOMIES IN ADMINISTRATION).
    Mr. PARTINGTONasked the President of the Local Government Board if he
    30
    will consider the advisability of calling a conference of representatives of all local authorities in the London area with a view to effecting economies in the cost of administration?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend has throughout, in his position as President of the Local Government Board, used every endeavour to promote economy in the cost of local administration, but he is not sure that the suggestion of the hon. Member is one which would be likely to give very satisfactory results in practice. If, however, he has evidence of a general feeling that such a conference would be of advantage, he would be glad to do anything in his power to bring one about.

    TIME-EXPIRED MEN.
    Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary for War whether time-expired men with thirteen years' service are encouraged to remain in the Service or whether, if they are to remain in the Army, they are compelled to take their discharge and to reenlist on worse terms as regards proficiency pay and pension than if they had been in continuous service; and whether there has recently been any alteration in the Regulations with regard to this matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: The men in question are encouraged to remain on the same terms as before. The second part of the question, i.e., that which inquires whether men who wish to remain in the Army are compelled to take their discharge, does not, therefore, arise. Fresh instructions were issued on the 30th October last.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary for War if he will state the procedure to be adopted by a private soldier on active service whose time has expired and who wishes to return home; and if he will state whether any men of the l/24th London Regiment upon whom there is now no obligation to serve have been unable to secure release from service?
    Mr. TENNANT: A soldier should make application through his company officer. As regard's the second part of the question, I am not aware if there are any cases such as my hon. Friend describes, but if he will furnish me with particulars, giving details of the man's number, name and unit, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.

    NEW ARMY (SELECTED BATTALIONS).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary for War whether officers and men and still allowed, wherever practicable, to serve with their own selected battalions as promised when joining the New Army; and whether officers attached as supernumeraries to a battalion and trained with it, but who are in excess of the strength on the embarkation of the battalion for foreign service, are given preference in appointments to fill vacancies as they occur at the front in the battalion with which they were trained?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Devonport on the 28th October. I think I may add that preference would be given in the direction suggested in the latter part of the question.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the grievance complained of still exists?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand that the practice of allowing men to join the battalion with which they were trained is now being carried out wherever possible.

    DENTISTS.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the number of qualified British dentists now with the Expeditionary Force in France?
    Mr. TENNANT: There are forty-three dentists employed with the Expeditionary Forces in France, exclusive of those employed with the Canadian Contingent.

    MR. EDGAR JONES, M.P., (PERMISSION TO LEAVE COUNTRY).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that no person of military age is entitled under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act to leave this country without a green application form of exemption is signed by a magistrate and approved by Lord Derby's Committee, he will say whether, when the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil left this country to take a post on the commercial side of the Young
    32
    Men's Christian Association, an exemption from these Regulations was made in his favour; whether, in view of the Prime Minister's declaration that married men would not be called for service till the single men had been enlisted, he will say whether this undertaking covers single-men Members of this House; and, if not, why it does not do so?
    Mr. TENNANT: Whether the green form which the senior Member for Merthyr Tydvil no doubt presented at the Foreign Office Passport Office was in order or not would be a question, I think, to be answered by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As regards the Prime Minister's declaration in regard to married men, I am not aware of any reason why single-men Members of this House should not be subjected to the operation of those other measures to which reference has frequently been made. If such other measures were adopted it would, of course, be for Parliament to say whether single-men Members of this House should be given any preferential treatment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Can my right hon. Friend answer the first part of the question? Is Lord Derby's Committee responsible for it?
    Mr. TENNANT: No.

    INOCULATION.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the commanding officer of any regiment has either the right or power to prevent officers in his command from proceeding on active service solely on the ground of their objection to undergo anti-typhoid inoculation; and, if not, whether he will at once issue a general order that officers have freedom of choice in this matter and that no steps are to be taken to coerce them into acceptance of the operation against their will?
    Mr. TENNANT: A commanding officer of any unit would be within his rights and powers in preventing any uninoculated officer from proceeding on active service overseas, because such an officer may, if he contracts enteric fever, be a grave source of danger to his brother officers and the men under his command. It is not proposed to issue any such general order.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in the King's Liverpool Regiment, stationed at Old Park Camp, Canterbury, Christmas leave is being refused to soldiers who have served in some cases for over twelve months, and who have not a single crime recorded against them, on the sole ground that they exercise their legal right to refuse inoculation; and whether he will at once stop this penalising of soldiers for action which is perfectly legal?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am sorry not to be able to confirm the statement which my hon. Friend brings to my notice. I have made inquiries in this case, and I find that in the two battalions of the King's Liverpool Regiment stationed at Old Park Camp, Canterbury, no man has ever been refused leave on the sole ground that he has not been inoculated, and, further, that Christmas leave is not being so refused.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I personally know the soldier, and believe his word?

    TROOPS PASSING THROUGH LONDON.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can now state if a suitable building has been arranged for the lodgment of all troops passing through London to and from the front; and if he will use every effort to provide the necessary shelter before the Christmas holidays?
    Mr. TENNANT: It has been arranged to take the Industrial Museum, Horse-ferry Road, Westminster, for this purpose, and every effort will be made to make the accommodation available as early as possible. I hope that it will be ready by Christmas.

    OPERATIONS IN SERBIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what is the number of casualties, up to the latest date available, resulting from the operations in Serbia and for the Salonica Expedition?
    Mr. TENNANT: Up to the 11th December the casualties resulting from the
    34
    operations in question amounted to thirty-two officers and 1,246 of other ranks, of whom only one officer and eighty-five other ranks were killed.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Can my right hon. Friend say when we can have some information with regard to these operations?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, I am afraid I cannot.

    FIRES (OLD PARK CAMP, CANTERBURY).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in the King's Liverpool Regiment, stationed at Old Park Camp, Canterbury, discontent has been caused amongst the soldiers by a recent order allowing fires only from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m.; whether he has sanctioned depriving them of fires during bitter winter weather for the greater part of the day and night; and whether he will take immediate steps to remove this grievance?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand that, owing to an excess amount of fuel having been consumed by the divison to which the King's Liverpool Regiment belongs, an order was issued locally to check the consumption, and that in the battalion my hon. Friend refers to a regimental order was issued that fires are not to be lighted until 4 p.m. It is not, however, correct that fires were not to be kept alight after 10 p.m. The matter is being fully investigated, with a view to removing any grievance which may exist.

    POSTHUMOUS MILITARY HONOURS.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any alteration has been made with regard to the granting of military honours to the next of kin of officers to whom they have been awarded who do not survive; whether any pension attaches to the grant of either the Victoria Cross or Military Cross in the case of officers, non-commissioned officers, or men; and if he can state the reason for any alteration that may have been made?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, no alteration has been made in the rule with regard to the posthumous grant of military honours. Such grant is, and has been, limited to that of the Victoria Cross. In the case of officers, no pension attaches to the award

    35
    of either the Victoria Cross or the Military Cross. In the case of soldiers awarded the Victoria Cross there is an annuity of £10. Soldiers who earn pensions and are holders of the Military Cross are entitled to an extra 6d. per day. The last part of the question does not arise, as no alterations have been made.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, in the interests of justice, of making posthumous grants of the honour of the Military Cross to the nearest kin of the officer or man who earned it?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think the Victoria Cross is in a distinct position from any other decoration. I cannot help thinking it would be very doubtful policy to extend the provisions which have been considered hitherto only applicable to the Victoria Cross to other decorations.

    TERRITORIAL OFFICERS' KIT.
    Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Territorial officer who was patriotic enough to enlist before the War received only £12 10s. for kit on his mobilisation, whereas the officers of the New Army who enlisted after the beginning of the War were given £50 and sometimes up to £100 in similar circumstances; and, if so, will his Department find any means of equalising these differences at the end of the War?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member is not comparing like with like. An officer, whether Regular or Territorial, already in possession of uniform, did not, of course, require or receive the same grant as an officer joining the Army for the first time.

    ESSEX REGIMENT, 14TH BATTALION (OFFICER COMMANDING).
    Mr. NIELDasked in whose charge has the 14th Battalion of the Essex Regiment been since it was raised; what is the name and rank of this officer; what was the date of his first commission and the rank conferred; what were the special reasons for the appointment; and what period of time is considered not excessive during which to complete the appointment of officers to new battalions urgently required for service in a war such as the present?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it is desirable to canvass the service and other qualifications of officers to whom commands are given by question and answer in this House. If I lent myself to such practice, the present formidable list of questions daily addressed to me would quickly be doubled or trebled. As regards the last part of the question, the period which I should consider not excessive would be the period sufficient to select suitable officers in numbers suitable to the number of recruits accruing to the unit. I am afraid I cannot state the period in terms mathematically more precise.

    SOUTH LANCASHIRE REGIMENT.
    Mr. YEOasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Morris, of No. 49, Lacey Street, Widnes, and formerly of the 5th South Lancashire Regiment, who is alleged to have endured suffering and to be still feeling the effects of anti-typhoid inoculation performed on him more than thirteen months ago; whether it has been suggested that this is a case in which the medical board of the War Office might conduct an investigation for the purpose of satisfying themselves in regard to the details which this man is able to give concerning his experiences; and what decision, if any, he has arrived at in the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I had my attention called to this case early in the year, and I understand that it has been suggested by Miss Loat that some further investigation is necessary. This letter was based on an assumption that a second inoculation had taken place. Of this, however, there is no trace or recollection, and I do not, therefore, consider that further action is necessary.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man declares that he was inoculated twice?
    Mr. TENNANT: Does this man declare that?
    Mr. WILSON: Yes; he has made an affidavit.
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no trace in any Department to that effect. If my hon. Friend likes, I will have a further investigation made.

    ORDNANCE WORK, DIDCOT.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked whether some thousands of men who have been employed as volunteers doing ordnance work at Didcot have now ceased to be employed for this purpose and have been replaced by provisional battalions of Territorials who have enlisted for national defence at Army rates and at the expense of the country; and whether he will give the reasons for this change?
    Mr. TENNANT: In order to push forward work systematically it is necessary to have a regular supply of daily labour constant as far as possible in amount. It is true, as my hon. Friend states, that volunteers have been employed. This has been chiefly at week-ends, and they have rendered most valuable assistance, but it has been found that a more regular supply of labour is necessary and the Territorial Force Garrison Battalions have consequently been drawn upon. If it is found that additional assistance is required the services of the volunteers will be gladly accepted As regards the question of expense, it would not be economical nor in the military interest to neglect the necessary work during mid-week period in order to carry it out by unpaid labour during the week-end period.

    OFFICERS' LEAVE.
    Mr. COWANasked whether, according to Service Regulations, officers of the Expeditionary Force are entitled, if conditions permit, to leave once every three months from the respective dates of their landing in France; whether, in cases where such leave has been deferred until four months after landing such officers are considered to be entitled, subject to military necessity, to a second period of leave at the expiry of six months from the date of such landing; and whether the Regulations as to leave are identical in respect of the Regular and the Territorial Forces?
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend will recognise that even if, in some cases, periods of leave occur at more or less regular intervals, no hard and fast rules can be laid down. I have many times stated that the question of leave depends entirely on the exigencies of the Service and on local conditions, which are not necessarily the same at all parts of the line occupied by our troops. Obviously, too, if a unit is deficient in officers or other ranks, the granting of leave is more difficult.
    Mr. COWAN: Is it the intention, as far as may be consistent with the exigencies of the Service, to make up the leave of officers of which they have been deprived under these circumstances?
    Mr. TENNANT: When my hon. Friend talks about officers being deprived of leave, it is only due to the fact that it has been impossible to spare them from the line with which they are connected. Today I saw one officer who was home from the front for the first time in a whole year.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some brigadiers make it a rule that officers and men must take their leave equally; and that no officer is preferred for leave over the ordinary soldier serving in the ranks? That is the rule.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not quite sure whether that is the general rule or not, but I should say it is fairly common.
    Mr. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, whether the regulations as to leave are identical in respect of the Regular and the Territorial Forces?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes. I have heard today from the Adjutant-General at the front that this matter is upon a very good footing now, and he hopes there will be no further delay.

    CHAPLAINS (WELSH BAPTIST AND CONGREGATIONAL).
    Mr. HINDSasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he will consider the advisability of increasing the number of Welsh Baptist and Congregational chaplains beyond the present number of five, in view of the number of soldiers belonging to these denominations who desire Welsh-speaking chaplains to minister to them?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend is speaking of the Expeditionary Forces only or whether he has in view also troops at home. If he includes the latter, my information is that the present number of chaplains is seven. The usual practice is to appoint chaplains to all bodies of troops which include a sufficient number of men of the Welsh Baptist and Congregational denominations to justify whole-time appointments. I shall, however, be glad to have a further

    39
    inquiry made if my hon. Friend will furnish me with definite particulars as to any stations or units which he considers are insufficiently provided with chaplains.

    HIRED TRANSPORT COSTS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked whether the daily cost of hired transports in connection with the various military camps in this country exceeds £2,000 per day; whether his attention has been called to the waste of money caused by hiring motor lorries for camps when at contiguous camps numbers of such lorries are not being used; and what steps are being taken to organise such transport work?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not in a position to give figures for this expenditure, but the possibility of saving in this connection has already been receiving consideration.

    ARMY PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. EVELYN CECILasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the amount of the pay and allowances drawn from Army funds in each case of hon. and gallant Members of this House who are serving in His Majesty's Forces?
    Mr. FORSTER: There are many Members of this House serving in His Majesty's Forces, and it will take a little time to get together the information asked for. But I am causing it to be prepared.

    HUT CONTRACT (JEWSON AND SONS).
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that Messrs. Jewson and Sons, contractors, of Yarmouth, who are carrying out a hut contract for the War Office, are not paying the proper rate for overtime worked on the contract; that they threaten to discharge the men if they make any complaint; and whether he will cancel the contract held by this firm and remove it from the list of those invited to tender for War Office work?
    Mr. FORSTER: No complaint of this character against this firm has been received, but inquiries are being made into the matter.

    CORDITE TRAYS (MESSRS. WEM, YARMOUTH).
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that Messrs. Wem, of Yarmouth, who are making cordite trays for the War Office, are paying the men employed on war work from ¾d. to 2½d. per hour less than the proper rate of pay; whether the Fair-Wages Clause is inserted in the contract this firm holds; and, if so, will he take steps to compel the firm to comply with its provisions?
    Dr. ADDISON: I have no information on the subject, but am causing inquiry to be made, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

    CONTRACT SUPPLIES.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked how many and what committees of business men are now co-operating with the War Office in the placing of contracts for such supplies as clothing and food; and what are the powers and authority of such committees?
    Mr. FORSTER: While the advice of many leading men of business has been freely sought since the outbreak of war, no formal committees have been appointed for the purpose named in the question, but an advisory committee has lately been appointed whom the Director of Army Contracts will be able to consult on all contract questions when occasion arises.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that Committee includes men of practical experience in the business for which contracts are to placed?
    Mr. FORSTER: Very practical men.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has the gentleman of push-and-go been appointed yet?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question—whether the gentlemen on this Committee are men who have had practical experience in the business with which they will be placing contracts?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Committee is not going to place contracts. The Committee is to advise generally on contract business. The gentlemen appointed on the Committee, as I have already told the hon. Member, are men of practical experience.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Does that mean that the permanent officials are still to place the contracts?
    Mr. FORSTER: The War Office still, of course, maintains responsibility for its proper functions

    ENEMY STEAMERS (REPORTED SALE).
    Mr. HEWINS: May I ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the sale has been completed of two steamers of the Hamburg-Amerika line to Swedish buyers, and now awaits the confirmation of the British Government; and whether there is any truth in that report?
    Lord R. CECIL: It is quite impossible for me to say what may have been done between the directors of the Hamburg-Amerika line and Swedish buyers. All I can say is that the British Government have given no sanction and no recognition to any such sale.
    Mr. HEWINS: Does that mean that there are no negotiations at present going on?
    Lord R. CECIL: Negotiations with the British Government?
    Mr. HEWINS: Yes.
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir, none.

    India (Indentured Labour).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India has recommended the abolition of the indentured labour system; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State has disposed of such recommendation?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: (Comptroller of the Household): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. He has recently received a communication from the Government of India dealing with the objections entertained to the pre sent system under which labour goes from India to the Colonies, and with its disadvantages, and outlining suggestions for a possible solution of these difficulties. The question is still in a preliminary stage and requires further consultation of the Government of India, as well as of other authorities interested in the matter.
    42
    My right hon. Friend will not, therefore, be able to make any definite statement regarding it for some time.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the solution indicated was the abolition of the system?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State says that he cannot make any further statement than that he has already made in the answer for some time.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    MEDICAL PANEL.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, what is the number of doctors now on the panel in London and in the provinces, respectively, as com pared with the totals on 1st July, 1914?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The figures on 1st July, 1914, are not obtainable without a special return from insurance committees, but the figures for January, 1914, which would not differ materially from those of the following July, were: London, 1,400; other English areas, 14,600, including doctors on more than one panel. The corresponding figures of doctors who will be on the panel for 1916 are, approximately: In London, 1,440; in other English areas, 14,400. These figures include a number of doctors on military service whose names remain on the panel whilst some other doctor or doctors are undertaking to carry out their duties.

    CHOICE OF DOCTOR.
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware that some insured persons at North Tawton are claiming the right of free choice of doctor; whether they selected Dr. Desprez before he had as a partner Dr. Langdon, and whether he is now prepared to make a further statement on the subject; whether he is aware that when Dr. Desprez was chosen as panel doctor he was the only practitioner, but there is now an available choice; and will he make inquiries from the approved societies in the locality?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am making further inquiry into this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

    Admiralty and Divorce Court (Accident to President).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Attorney-General what arrangements are being, or will be, made for the discharge of the duties which the President of the Admiralty and Divorce Court performed up to the date of his regrettable accident?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): Mr. Justice Deane is taking the list of Admiralty cases on which the President was engaged at the time of his accident. Mr. Justice Horridge has been taking the list of Probate and Divorce cases, and this list, with a supplemental list, has now been completed. There are, at the moment, no urgent Prize cases ready for trial.
    Sir J. D. REES: When is the learned President likely to be able to return to the discharge of his exceedingly important duties?
    Sir G. CAVE: I hope very soon after the commencement of the next term.

    Practising Law Agent (Scotland).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Mr. Horatius Stuart, solicitor, 134, George Street, Edinburgh, has been enrolled for the year now current as a practising law agent in Scotland?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no information on this point.

    Metropolitan Police (Annual Leave).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Home Secretary in how many districts of the Metropolitan Police has annual leave been granted to the pensioners who have rejoined the force; and will the rest of the men who have been serving since August, 1914, soon have their leave granted?
    Sir J. SIMON: On the 26th October I informed my hon. Friend that when the annual leave of the regular police had been worked off the Commissioner hoped to be able to arrange for some annual leave being taken by the pensioners, all of whom have been and are getting a weekly rest-day. The Commissioner informs me that, so far as the exigencies of the service have allowed, leave has been given to all pensioners who have applied for it. Applications from those desiring leave but who have not yet applied will be dealt with in due course.

    Death from Anthrax.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the death, on 31st October last, of Mr. Peter Pedley, of Saltaire, Yorkshire, from anthrax, which he contracted whilst following his employment as a wash-bowl feeder at the Airedale Combing Company's mills at Shipley, Yorkshire; if he is aware that the infected wool from which Mr. Pedley contracted the disease in question should have been steeped before it was emptied from the bales; if it has been brought to his notice that the inspector of factories was informed on the 19th October last that the Airedale Combing Company was using dangerous wool without first having steeped it in accordance with the Regulations; and what action the inspector of factories took in the matter after he received the information and before Mr. Pedley contracted the disease?
    Sir J. SIMON: The evidence at the inquest did not disclose any breach of the Regulations, but I have called for a further report from the inspector on the points raised by my hon. Friend, and when I receive it I will communicate further with him.

    Public Trustee.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been recently called to the number of deceased's estates in England that are being dealt with by the Public Trustee, amounting in the year ending 31st March, 1915, to 1,543 acceptances of executorships of wills and other trusts with a total value of £11,623,429, and estimated to have increased since then owing to deaths in the War by 35 per cent. in number and 38 per cent. in value; whether, in view' of the evidence that these figures afford as to the public need for such an office, he intends to refuse such privilege to Scotland; and, if so, will he say why he does not introduce a measure setting up a Public Trustee in that country?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): My right hon. Friend is aware generally of the volume of business transacted by the Public Trustee in England, and although the conditions in the two countries differ in material respects he agrees that the success which has attended the institution of the office of Public Trustee in England must be taken account

    45
    of in considering whether legislation on similar lines is expedient for Scotland. So far, however, there is no evidence of any widespread demand in Scotland for a Public Trustee, nor is the time propitious for legislation of this nature.
    Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that because the Scottish Office made up its mind to that effect three or four years ago it will never change it, notwithstanding the circumstances of the case?
    Mr. MUNRO: My hon. Friend would be quite mistaken if he came to that conclusion.

MEDITERRANEAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.

  CENSORSHIP REGULATIONS.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Censorship regulations for the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force forbid reference in postal matter to casualties previous to the publication of the official lists; if so, whether he is aware that the effect of this regulation is to prevent officers and men sending to the relatives of comrades accounts of the manner of their death or reassuring reports as to the condition of the wounded until two or even three months after the occurrence of the casualties; whether he is aware that the alleged justification for the regulation, namely, to prevent untrustworthy information about casualties being sent home, is regarded by the men serving in the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force as a pretext without foundation; and whether, in view of the fact that even if such untrustworthy information were contained in private letters it could be of no service to the enemy, he will abolish this regulation, which imposes a privation on the relatives of killed and wounded soldiers and interferes with the freedom of private correspondence?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Regulation referred to calls attention to the prohibition contained in the Field Service Regulations with regard to references to the moral or physical condition of the troops and to casualties previous to the publication of official lists. I am satisfied that this Regulation is a necessity, and I am informed that it is not used to stop reassuring reports as to the condition of the wounded. Statements, however, that "the casualties were enormous," or that "in one company only fifteen men came out of it," are and should be stopped; and the same holds good in regard to hearsay statements regarding individuals. Reports of this latter kind are found in many instances to be inaccurate, and additional and needless anxiety is thus caused to relatives. The hon. Gentleman will see that the Regulations are interpreted in the sense he desires.

  CHRISTMAS LEAVE.
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the 1/7 Highland Light Infantry that are left on
  58
  the Gallipoli Peninsula are to be given any home leave during the coming Christmas and New Year holidays, in view of the facts that they have been six months on that field and have suffered severely from the climate and otherwise?
  Mr. TENNANT: Leave home from the Gallipoli Peninsula for the Christmas and New Year holidays is, I am afraid, scarcely practicable, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the strain of service in the Gallipoli Peninsula is lessened by means of local reliefs and in every other possible way.

WITHDRAWAL FROM SUVLA BAY AND ANZAC.

  STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
  Sir E. CORNWALL: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any information in regard to the evacuation of Suvla Bay and Anzac, in the Dardanelles, by British troops?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it will be interesting to the House to know that all the troops at Suvla Bay and Anzac, together with their guns and stores, have been successfully transferred, with insignificant casualties, to another sphere of operations, in pursuance of a decision come to some time ago by the Cabinet. The operation which has been so successfully carried out reflects the utmost credit upon the generals upon the spot, the admiral and his staff, and all ranks of the Navy and Army. I may have occasion to mention that to-morrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (LORD DERBY'S SCHEME).
  With regard to to-morrow's business, I stated last week that I intended to move the Supplementary Vote for men tomorrow, to give the House the results in figures of Lord Derby's scheme, and of the conclusions of the Government upon them. In consequence of the complexity of that task, and the enormous difficulty of classifying and tabulating the figures, Lord Derby and his assistants were not able to complete their work last week. While I understand that they hope to send in their general results to-day, neither I nor my colleagues are yet in possession of them. The Cabinet are unanimously of opinion that in these circumstances no considered statement on that subject can be made to

  59
  the House to-morrow, but we hope it may be possible to make such a statement before the Adjournment. This will not interfere in any way with the arrangement to take Vote A for the Army to-morrow.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability, when he decides to make a statement, of impressing upon so many of the single men who have not enlisted the necessity of enlisting?
  The PRIME MINISTER: If I could impress it upon them more than I have endeavoured to do, I would be very glad to do so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENT AND REGISTRATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  PARLIAMENT AND REGISTRATION BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of Parliament Act in Connection with the Present Parliament).
    (1) Section seven of the Parliament Act, 1911, shall, in its application to the present Parliament, have effect as if six years were substituted for five years.
    (2) Section two of the Parliament Act, 1911, shall, in relation to any public Bill passed by the House of Commons after the passing of this Act and during the continuance of the present Parliament, have effect as if the Session ended in September, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and the Session in which the Bill is so passed were successive Sessions.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "six" ["as if six years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "five"—
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? I want, if I may, just to make a very short statement, which I think may facilitate our procedure. My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Bonar Law) and I stated the views of the Government in regard to this matter last week on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I then indicated that the Government were quite prepared, though it was a Committee point, to deal with this question of time. There are various considera-
    60
    tions which affect the question. On the one hand, there is the difficulty of making the time unreasonably short, and, indeed, the impossibility of preparing a register on which those who are absent from the country fighting for their country would be able to be enrolled. On the other hand, there is the feeling, which I believe is rather widespread and not confined to any particular quarter of the House, that it is undesirable to give too long an extension of time, at any rate without an opportunity for further consideration later on, to the prolonged life of the present Parliament. I do not want to go into either of those questions in any detail. I am very much afraid that whatever the number of months we put into the Bill, the probability of a register being compiled by the end of that time which would really satisfactorily reflect the opinion of the whole country, including the returned soldiers and sailors, is at any rate problematic. The probable duration of the War, and the contingencies of the future, are so uncertain that I do not think any of us would attempt to forecast, still less to predict, what that time would be. On the other hand, I am impressed with the feeling, which I say is not confined to any particular section of the House, that it is undesirable for Parliament—though not without precedent, it is very rare—to prolong beyond the statutory term its own life, to extend that prolongation in point of time beyond what I may call a necessary and reasonable term. There are various Amendments on the Paper to the Bill suggesting different dates. Some are longer than the terms proposed by the Bill, some are shorter than the terms proposed by the Bill, and, in view of all these considerations, and in the hope that we may avoid anything in the nature of a controversial discussion in a matter of this kind, I would suggest to the House, on behalf of the Government, that the term allowed in this Bill should be a term of five years and eight months. I think that is a reasonable give-and-take arrangement as between the various points of view, and if, as I hope, it may be generally assented to by the House, I think we might spare ourselves a good deal of rather unprofitable discussion.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
    Sir H. CRAIK: As I have put down this Amendment, I rise immediately to say that I perfectly recognise the fairness of the Prime Minister's proposal.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is to be understood by the House from what he says that he definitely abandons the proposal of twelve months? I myself believe that if he proceeded with it it would meet with the approval of the majority of the House.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I move an Amendment for eight months and a year. I know there are strong feelings one way and another in every quarter of the House. I do not say what my own opinion is. I will keep that hidden in my own bosom, but I suggest to the House that this is on the whole a reasonable and legitimate compromise.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: As far as I am concerned, and so far as I am able to judge of the feeling, I think that is regarded generally as a favourable compromise.
    Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I am sure that all Members of the House appreciate the difficulty and delicacy of this position, and the Prime Minister will, I am sure, forgive some of us if we say that the figure he has taken, be it right or wrong, is not an equation between the different Amendments down on the Paper, but is a very great change from the figure brought before the House in this Bill, which we were told was the decision of a united Cabinet, and which everybody understood was the modification of an earlier proposal which would have extended the life of the Parliament longer. Those of us, therefore, who put down Amendments which would have the effect of substituting eighteen for twelve months, are naturally not—[An HON. MEMBER: "Enamoured."] An ingenious friend of mine suggests "enamoured," and I respectfully adopt it—of the proposal of my right hon. Friend. I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) that if my right hon. Friend had adhered to the period of a year which came before the House with the authority with which he brought it last week, when he was supported by the Colonial Secretary, I am confident it would have been carried in this House by an overwhelming majority against all criticism. I hope he will allow to the House free voting, in order that its views on the matter—but one of those comparatively few matters on which special Governmental knowledge is not necessary—might now be indicated, and that the matter may not be, I will not say pre-judged, but pre-
    62
    decided, before the Debate on these various lengths of time has taken place in the House. I do not desire at a moment of this kind to detain the House, but I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of allowing the House to decide this without any pressure from the Government whatever, and I do express my strong, but respectful regret, that the year was not adhered to which would have been the via media by which we should have proceeded.
    4.0 P.M.
    Mr. PETO: In regard to the course which the Prime Minister has taken, I desire, while not going into the merits of the question, particularly after what has fallen from the hon. Member for Middle-ton, to know from the Prime Minister whether, when on the 10th August, 1911, in another place, the Parliament Bill passed the Third Reading, this House did not, on the same day, pass a Resolution in favour of payment of Members. It has always been held by those who support that view that the electors of the country had fair notice before the election that if a Liberal Government were returned to power they would propose the payment of Members, and that they had also fair notice that this Parliament was to endure for five years only. But I do not think we can possibly lengthen the life of this Parliament without any reference to the fact that there was a clear statement before the last election to the effect which I have quoted, namely, that the Liberal Government, as the Prime Minister reminded the House on Tuesday night, was responsible for the shortening of the duration of Parliament to five years, and he gave the reason, a very cogent reason, namely, that the House might not become stale and outwear the opinions of the constituencies. At the same time, there is the question of the payment of Members. I do not think we can possibly avoid considering those two questions, which are so closely connected with the subject now under discussion. We are bound to consider whether we are acting fairly, in prolonging the life of Parliament, in placing a charge upon the public funds for a further period in respect of the payment of Members of this House. I consider that the House in this matter is a trustee in charge of the public purse, and I think we have got to look very careuflly, from that point of view, to our trusteeship in order to see what we do with those funds.
    The CHAIRMAN: The question which the hon. Member is raising is, perhaps, one that could properly have been brought forward in the Debate on the Second Reading; we are now dealing only with the point whether the period shall be eight months instead of one year.
    Mr. PETO: Whether the period is six months, eight months, twelve months, or eighteen months, the question to which I refer is still involved, and I ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered the fiduciary position of this House with regard to the electors, and, having reference to the speeches which were made before the last election, whether he thinks it right and proper we should continue this charge upon the public purse for a further period of eight months?
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: As I understand the statement of the Prime Minister, the Government have decided to adopt the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, which also stands in my own name. If that is so, I congratulate the Government on the wisdom of their decision, and I would deprecate that there should, on the part of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Adkins), any expression of dissatisfaction with this proposal. I would point out to my hon. and learned Friend that really the acceptance of this Amendment does not mean, as he suggests, that the General Election is hanging over us all the time; it only means that this proposal is almost unprecedented, and that the Cabinet or the Government of the day will have to come back to the House of Commons and ask for a renewal of it. That is practically what it means. I firmly anticipate myself that, even if an election takes place in four months, or six months, or eight months, the House of Commons will keep control, so far as the extraordinary circumstances in which we stand at present are concerned. I hope the Government will stand by their decision.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I am not in a position to congratulate the Government on having departed from the line that they took up the other day, by accepting this proposal. I am perfectly confident that the majority of Members of this House wish to support the considered view of the Cabinet, which is for one year. I also hope that the Government will allow a free vote, so that the House may decide whether Parliament is to continue for a year or for eight months.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I should like to add my voice to those who have said that we ought to have one year. I do not think it is to our advantage to keep raising this question over and over again. If we are to have a controversial fight we had better have it in the country as a whole than on the floor of this House. The speech of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) distinctly shows that this is likely to lead to a controversial and party fight. We do not want to do that here, and if it is to be done, we had better have it done in the whole country, and before the electors. What we want to keep is the unanimity of this House and of the country as long as the War lasts. The oftener this question crops up the more will the keeping of unanimity be endangered; therefore, I plead with the Government that we should not have this Debate renewed before another twelve months has passed. I think it would be greatly to the disadvantage not only of the Government and the House of Commons, but of the whole of the country, if there was a possibility of raising this Debate every six months.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: I hope that the Government will permit us to vote on this question without the Whips, and without being bound. I think it is peculiarly a question which ought to be left to the individual Members of this House. There are many conflicting considerations which must influence all of us—those of us who think of all the men who are away, and who ought to take part in any decision which must be come to by the new electorate. It is a decision which ought not to be lightly undertaken, for any House to prolong its own term of existence. It is a very different thing from a House shortening its term, reducing it, say, from seven years to five years, because that is only appealing again to the electors who send us here. But if the House is to do it, I think there are very strong reasons for its giving itself a very reasonable latitude by one Act. Parliament does not, as has been suggested, lose its control; it keeps its control all the same, whatever period is fixed, and at any moment the House can decide that there should be an election by defeating the Government. What I rather object to is being tied to have an election by a legislative limit, and I think there would be a greater breach of constitutional propriety if we were to keep deciding every six or eight months that the House should be continued for another six or

    65
    another twelve months. I think that at the present moment the extension by eight months is not to be defended, because, on practical grounds, we cannot get the register ready. Is there a Registration Bill ready at the present moment? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If there is no Registration Bill, when are you going to prepare it, and how are you going to prepare it, and when is the House going to pass it? How are you to prepare for your election in September of next year? I think it would be a great disadvantage for the House to tie itself by fixing a short period, the extension of which would require all the forms of legislation which involve the consent of the other House. I hope the House at all events will have this question left to it.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) on having given a lead to the Government of which he is so detached a supporter. I also desire to express my sympathy with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) in his unfortunate position, as he supported on the Second Reading what he considered ought to be the view of the Government, and he finds that they have once more reconsidered their position. The present position practically points, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury said, to the need of a Redistribution Bill. In the month of July last the President of the Local Government Board stated on behalf of the Government that the question of Registration was under the consideration of the Cabinet. Now we have waited for six months, and apparently the Cabinet are no nearer a decision as regards Registration. Surely in these intervening months they have had time to deal with this question. On the first day, on the reassembling of Parliament after the recess, I put a question on this subject to the overnment—first of all, as regards the duration of Parliament, and, secondly, as to Registration. I was told that both those matters were under consideration. They are still under consideration. I beg to support the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Bury, that the question of Registration should be immediately taken in hand, so that, if the necessity of an election arises—and nobody knows how soon that necessity may arise—there may be a register for the purpose, and we may be enabled to get as good a decision as possible from the people of the country. I would like to make an appeal to my hon.
    66
    Friends above the Gangway, who do not often listen to me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—who do not often pay any attention to me—I would like to make an appeal to them that they will not, on this occasion, show their distrust of the Government, but that they will set others an example and remain, as they have been in the past, the docile and servile supporters of the Government.
    Mr. BOOTH: I think hon. Members have forgotten an incident which took place, and of which I would like to remind them. I cannot understand the attitude of some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway in regard to the object of my Amendment. The right hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) made a suggestion to the Prime Minister in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading. Then the Prime Minister said this:—
    "The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a different suggestion, as I understood him, namely, that the term to be fixed in the Act should represent something like the average duration of an ordinary Session.
    Mr. Duke nodded assent.
    The Prime Minister: Well, there is a good deal to be said for that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December 1915, col. 1984, Vol. LXXVI.]
    Reflecting upon those words, I simply put my Amendment down as an obedient follower of the Prime Minister, because it seemed to me that five years and eight months interpreted that conversation. As to there being any party point, I do not see it. The suggestion is made in good faith, and to carry out the response of the right hon. and learned Member for Exeter. I appeal to my hon. Friends above the Gangway not to pursue these recriminations. I assure them such an example is catching and may spread, and gives great pain to those of us who sit below the Gangway. I thank the Government for accepting my Amendment.
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: I join with the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) and other hon. Members, and most respectfully ask the Prime Minister to give us freedom in voting on this matter. I regret very much that the Prime Minister has given way, and I quite agree that if he had kept to the year we should have had an overwhelming majority in favour of that period. I trust he will reconsider the decision, and stick firm to the first well-considered scheme of the united Cabinet.
    Mr. COWAN: If hon. Members above the Gangway decide to oppose the decision of the Government as announced by the Prime Minister, I shall find myself in

    67
    a position to support the Government. I am quite sure that the Prime Minister appreciates support from this part of the House far more than any support above the Gangway, because he knows it is sincere and disinterested. I support the Government in this case, believing as I do that any extension of the life of this Parliament brought about by its own action is improper and unconstitutional, and therefore the shorter the term of such extension the better I am pleased. I had hoped that the Government might have
    seen its way to accept an Amendment put down mostly by hon. Members on the other side, limiting the extension to six months. I will accept any reduction of the original term, and I congratulate the Prime Minister on the breadth of view and of mind and the tolerance which has inspired him to the decision he announced to-day.
    Question put, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 23; Noes, 158.

    Division No. 23.]

    AYES.

    [4.19 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    John, Edward Thomas

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    King, Joseph

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Partington, Oswald

    Yeo, Alfred William

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.)

    Richards, Thomas

    Hemmerde, Edward George

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir R.

    Hinds, John

    Rowlands, James

    Adkins and Sir G. Scott Robertson.

    NOES.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Money, Sir L. G. Chiozza

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Alden, Percy

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Arnold, Sydney

    Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

    Mount, William Arthur

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Grant, J. A.

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Hall, Marshall (Liverpool, E. Toxteth)

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield).

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Bellairs, Commander C. W.

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Harris, Henry Percy (Paddington, S.)

    Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Bethell, Sir J. H.

    Henderson, Lt.-Col. H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Henderson, John M. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Pratt, J. W.

    Boyton, James

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Prothero, Rowland Edmund

    Butcher, John George

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Radford, George Heynes

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Raffan, Peter Wilson

    Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Keating, Matthew

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Cowan, W. H.

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Shaw, Hon. A.

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

    Shortt, Edward

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Crooks, William

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

    Currie, George W.

    Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Macmaster, Donald

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

    Stewart, Gershem

    Davies, Timothy (Lines, Louth)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

    Dawes, James Arthur

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Thomas, J. H.

    Denniss, E. R. B

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Thomas-Stanford, Charles

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North))

    Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Tickler, T. G.

    Fell, Arthur

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Gardner, Ernest

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Warde, Colonel C. E. (Kent, Mid)

    Wardle, George J.

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Younger, Sir George

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Worthington Evans, Major L.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot.

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Word "five" there inserted.
    Further Amendment made: After the word "years" ["years were substituted"], insert the words "and eight months."
    Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (2).
    I move this Amendment with some confidence in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has already accepted one Amendment, thereby admitting that the Bill as brought before the House required amendment. Therefore, I hope he will not decline to accept this further Amendment. I shall discuss this proposal not from the point of view of the merits of the Plural Voting Bill, but from the point of view that a controversial measure should not be introduced at the present moment. I was very pleased to see in the "Times" on Saturday a letter from Mr. James Caldwell, who not only was an old Member of this House and an ardent Radical, but for a long time occupied the post of Deputy-Chairman of Committees, and the Radical Government so appreciated his services that they appointed him to His Majesty's Privy Council. An opinion coming from a gentleman of that description merits serious consideration. This is what Mr. Caldwell wrote:
    "Party politics are silenced as a ruling factor and no by-elections could possibly take place on a party issue."
    I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should yawn, as this is no doubt a rather awkward quotation for him.
    "To introduce a highly contentious party measure such as the Plural Voting Bill would be obviously contrary to the purpose for which the House of Commons and the Government presently exist."
    I am fortified in that opinion by remembering what occurred when the Bill for the postponement of the Welsh Church Act was abandoned by the Government. I think the Motion was moved by the Home Secretary and supported by my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Everyone knows that my Noble Friend was a strong opponent of the Welsh Church Act, and a strong supporter of the Suspensory Bill. Why did he rise from the Treasury Bench and support the Home Secretary? Because the fact that there was in being a Coalition Government did away
    70
    with all controversial measures. If the Government allowed my Noble Friend to make that statement, how much more ought they never to introduce a highly controversial Bill like the Plural Voting Bill. I base my objection also on the ground that if the Sub-section is allowed to remain it may be taken as a precedent. It may be said, "Oh, yes, it is quite true that we said no controversial measures should be introduced during the War, but we have already introduced a highly controversial measure by keeping alive the Plural Voting Bill; therefore we can do it again." The Amendment is also necessary for this reason. It is possible that at the end of the eight months another extension of the life of Parliament will have to be made. If that is done, I trust there will be no further attempt to revive the Plural Voting Bill. It may be that this Sub-section was put into the Bill without adequate consideration. My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary may have felt himself bound to support the Sub-section on this occasion. But there can be no reason for suggesting it on another occasion, especially after the view of practically the whole of the Unionist party upon this subject is known. One of the reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend for this particular Sub-section was that it would not have any effect, that it was inconceivable that it would ever be acted upon. The Prime Minister stated that in his opinion it is not worth considering. He said:—
    "I shall say nothing about the Plural Voting Bill—not that I undervalue its importance, nor because I have changed my opinion as to its merits and expediency, but because I think that that is a matter which neither upon one side nor upon the other is regarded at this moment as of vital importance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1915, col. 1982, Vol. LXXVI.]
    If the Colonial Secretary thinks it cannot be acted upon, and if the Prime Minister does not regard it as of any importance, why put it in the Bill at all? I am glad to see that there are several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who think that, whether or not this is in their favour from a party point of view, it is a breach of the agreement, and they have the courage to stand up and say so. I express my gratitude to them for the attitude they have taken. Their action is likely to raise the House of Commons in the estimation of

    71
    people outside. It at any rate shows that there are a- considerable number of Gentlemen in this House who are at the present moment above party feelings. I notice also that the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) says that he does not attach much importance to this proposal. If all sections of the House do not attach much importance to it, why put it in the Bill at all? I do not know whether the Minister of Munitions has come down to support me; if so, I shall be very pleased to have his assistance.
    Sir J. D. REES: I wish to support the Amendment. The Government have already given way on one point. I hope they will follow that precedent by giving way in this matter. There is one question which underlies all the proceedings of this House at the present moment, and that is whether a democracy without national service can properly prosecute a great war. Is this a time to put forward a proposal of this nature? It is strongly controversial and altogether such as should be carefully excluded from a Bill of this character. That such a proposition should be forced into this Bill seems to me a highly regrettable circumstance.
    Mr. BOOTH: I did not put my name down to this Amendment without full consideration, and certainly I did not do it in any spirit of antagonism to the Government. I wish to make an appeal to those Members of the Government who belong to my own party. I need not describe the Plural Voting Bill; the real point in order now is whether that Bill shall be kept alive. The merits of the Bill have been stated by the Government. The Colonial Secretary said:—
    "This Plural Voting Bill is a purely partisan measure."
    He made that statement in the presence of the Prime Minister. Therefore I take it that that is the description of the Bill officially given by the Coalition Government. If that be so, was the Colonial Secretary correct in his further references to this matter? He said it was possible that there might be a further issue upon it, but that the Prime Minister could command a majority and carry the Bill. If that point is good, I submit that it is a reason for not retaining this Sub-section in the Bill. Who wants a party fight during the War or immediately after? I
    72
    say quite plainly that on the formation of this National Government I determined that never again during this Parliament under any circumstances whatever would I give a party vote. I assure my Friends on the other side of the House that if through some division in the Government during the War, or immediately after the termination of the War, during the life of this Parliament, there is an attempt to vote them down by a pure party majority, there are a number of Members sitting on this side who will do their best to see that justice is done. I consider that the support given both to the late Liberal Government and also to the present Government, and the attitude of the Conservative party over this very Bill have been such as entitle them to some fair treatment at our hands. I cannot conceive that if the position had been reversed the Conservative party would have voted down on a party issue a Liberal minority in this House during a great War. The Colonial Secretary made a further important statement. He said:—
    "I recognise that that (the course proposed) gives an advantage to those in favour of the Bill."
    He repeated that further, and said:—
    "I admit it gives an advantage, but I can see of no other way of arriving at anything that did not mean a quarrel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December. 1915, col. 1972, Vol. LXXVI.]
    Even after five years and eight months of this Parliament we may need still further postponement to avoid an election. Are we to have this question brought up again at the end of next Session? [An HON. MFMBER: "No!"] If Parliament goes on for another Session, is this bone of contention in 1917 to be flung upon the House again? I appeal to the Government whether it is not better to drop this Sub-section now rather than be compelled to do it, as I feel sure they will. I speak as a man sitting on the Back Benches. What are we trying to do during the War? We are trying to unite with Members of this House, and we do not want questions raised which will divide us. Things are too serious. I submit that, ill-advised as it would be for a party fight upon the Plural Voting Bill during the War, it would almost be criminal to do it immediately after the War. Immediately after the War the country will be in such an impoverished state, and undergoing such a time of stress, that we ought then to keep party fights away from the floor of this House and unite to protect our trade and to unite our Empire! Of all the times when party fights should be absent,

    73
    and that party cries should not be raised, I suggest it should be when this House is attempting, on behalf of the nation, to recover the position which has been impaired by an exhausting war. I really cannot see why the Government persists in maintaining this Sub-section. Everyone knows they cannot pass the Plural Voting Bill in this Parliament. Why, then, raise false hopes in the country? Some of our most ardent workers—as is well known to hon. Members of the party which formerly sat opposite—our canvassers, and our machinerymen, if I may so call them, attach great importance to this Bill. They will take the passing of this Sub-section as an indication that they are to have the Bill during this Parliament. They cannot get it during this Parliament. There really is no hope whatever of that. Under those circumstances, why should we delude them, especially when the price to be paid for this delusion is an attempted Division in this House?
    I would remind the Government of the position that many of us are in in regard to our opponents in the constituencies. We have appeared on the same platform at recruiting and patriotic meetings with men we have fought. We have assured our constituents that from now until the end of this great conflict we will know no politics. Upon that footing some of our opponents have stayed their hand. They have accepted it as genuine when we said we were not party politicians until this great conflict with Germany was over. How can any Member who in his own constituency has taken up that attitude with his opponent, or his prospective opponent, who has joined in the fight with him, with leading members of the opposite organisation upon the platform—how can he come to this House and give a vote for a party measure? It cannot possibly be justified. It will only lead to a great deal of confusion in the country. Why should this be? Have the Government really thought of the other side of it? Do they suppose that at their bidding they can separate and divide us again into two camps. I say that the party system is not in such favour, either in the country or this House, as to allow them to accomplish that purpose. This Sub-section keeps the party system alive. We do not want it kept alive at this time. This Sub-section of the Coalition Government is not a Subsection of what I wish to see, namely, a National Government. If the Members who now constitute the Cabinet had com-
    74
    bined together to try to forget from which party they came, and solely to conduct the campaign against Germany, I do not think they would have produced this Subsection. But so long as there is present in their mind a balancing of the positions, the looking forward to a subsequent conflict, and a determination that they will call us to arms at some time under the party banner—so long, I say, as those ideas prevail—and they do—in the Government—I am not surprised at this.
    I have made my protest upon this occasion. I put my Amendment down upon the Paper without consultation with any other Member in the House, but I did consult with a number of Liberal candidates. It may be that at this time Liberal candidates are more in touch with the constituencies than those who are compelled to give daily attendance here. At the request of a considerable number of adopted Liberal candidates all over the country, I placed my name to my Amendment. I make this appeal to members of my own party who have done me the honour to listen to my speech. I want even to assume that we have the right to impose this Sub-section upon the House. Assume that—though I do not agree that we are entitled to pass it in this Parliament—as a matter of abstract politics, and of the counting of heads, is this the time to assert our right in view of the patriotic attitude of the Opposition? Surely something is due to them? Why should we, by a mere majority in an extended Parliament, extended for the sole purpose of the national fight against Germany, claim the right to use that party advantage? I do not know how many members of my own party I can speak for on this occasion. I speak for myself, and I know for some others. But I venture to say that both inside and outside this House there will be found a larger number of Liberals than some of the partisans think who will take the course I am suggesting. I do not yield to any man here in my zest for a party fight—at the right time! Where is the Member of the House who has given more votes than I have for the Government, who has attended more hours here than I have, or who, at his own expense, have gone to more by-elections when a party fight was on? But then this is a very different period. Some of us were the keenest party fighters at the right time, and we loved the game. It is therefore the more encumbent upon us than for others of our party that in this great time of crisis we should say

    75
    to those whom we have fought and opposed: "We will join with you upon equal terms, and we will never be a party to take any advantage of you while the War lasts."
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I am sure that my hon. Friend who has just spoken, though I do not take his point of view, not do I think it well-founded in fact, will accept it when I say that I appreciate the spirit which has moved him to make his speech. That speech, along with others, puts a point of view with the spirit of which one can sympathise. I hope, therefore, he will not think that because I take a different view that it is from any want of respect for the claims he has put forward to speak with sincerity and absence of party feeling. But the truth is that this Clause was inserted in this Bill by the Government, not with the object of raising controversy, but with the object of postponing controversy. It is very easy for hasty logicians to say that if you make any such provision in this Bill you are raising a controversy. I will ask them to consider this: It is sometimes possible, by merely sitting still and allowing the time to go by, to do injury to one set of people and gain an advantage for yourselves. I do not believe that patriotic Members of this House, in whatever quarter they sit, ever desired to allow the time to go by merely in order to gain an advantage for themselves. Therefore, I am surprised that there are Members of this House who do not see that that would be the effect of leaving out this Clause. I feel quite certain that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, and others who have spoken so strongly as they did, are quite unconscious of the fact that they would be merely giving an advantage to themselves. What we ought to do is to try and preserve the balance that neither party gains an advantage, and that no side suffers any prejudice. If anybody suggests any better way of doing it than those words his suggestion shall be considered. But it is no good pretending that you are securing that result for those who in times of peace" have opposed this particular measure to insist that the way to avoid all party advantage is at this moment to sit still and do nothing. Some things die by time, and the man who sits by and sees a thing die, simply because the time is passing, is not entitled to say that he is doing this because his patriotism does not prompt him to
    76
    raise a party controversy. That is the plain fact of this. It does surprise me very much that experienced Members of Parliament who have discussed this subject for years should not realise that these are the elements of the case. For the rest I should regret very much if any attempt was made to carry the Bill in time War, and I hope most heartily, that by maintaining existing conditions, it will be possible to keep this out of the controversy and out of Parliamentary discussion till the War is at an end. There is no reason why we should not see that a proper provision is made, but it is ridiculous to state that simply by leaving the matter on one side you are thereby doing what you seek—what we are all seeking to do—namely, avoid the possibility of prejudice or advantage to any set of men.
    There is one other observation I should like to make—for this is not the occasion for making a long speech on this particular topic, which has been discussed for many years, and was discussed on the Second Reading of the Bill. There are hon. Members who say that, after all, this particular Bill only touches one aspect of a whole series of difficulties and problems in connection with the Franchise. That is quite true. What better opportunity, then, can there be than the opportunity which is provided by the Government, which represents all the British parties, during the latter part of the life of Parliament, under the changing conditions, such as there must be when this War is over? What better opportunity can there be to see whether by some conference or plan we may be able to solve more than one of these controversial subjects? We are not desirous of using this opportunity to keep alive party prejudice. We would be to blame if we did not do all we can to take advantage of this opportunity to solve more than one of those controversial subjects. Take Redistribution, if you are going to deal with that, what are the conditions in which it has to be dealt with? It has to be dealt with towards the close of a life of Parliament; it has to be dealt with at a time when the leaders of the different parties are disposed to act in concert and agreement, and there is a third condition still more difficult, which exists at this moment. If you are going to devise a scheme of Redistribution you ought to devise it at a time when the party managers and the party agents would have great difficulty in knowing

    77
    what is the effect of changed boundaries on party prospects. The object some of us have very deeply at heart is far from wishing to revive the party fight, but is to see whether we cannot in the time that is left to us, by common counsel suggest the solution in some form or other of various difficulties. Be that as it may, it would be plainly wrong—and I am entitled to say that this is the view held by colleagues of my own in the Government, who do not share my views in respect to this particular party measure—simply to allow the time to elapse, and for one set of people or one point of view to gain an advantage at the expense of the other. We are here proposing not to revive or to insist upon controversy in the midst of war, but to maintain the position which can quite well be maintained by a Clause such as this in order that we may the better solve in the future the matters to which I have referred.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman commenced his observations by telling this House that this, at all events, was not a time or an occasion for long speeches. I am bound to say, in a very long experience of this House, I do not ever remember an occasion upon which a Minister anxious to get on with business gave a more direct invitation to Members to indulge in controversial speeches. If that is his notion of getting on with business, I can only say I venture very respectfully to differ from him altogether. I regretted the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on other grounds as much as I welcomed the speech of the hon. Member who preceded him, and who, I think, appealed to all sections of the House by the general tone and attitude of his speech, not because it was disposing of a question, or an attempt to dispose of a question, which is unfavourably regarded on this side of the House, but because of the general views which he pronounced with regard to the position and the attitude of the House of Commons as far as possible at a time like this to preserve unity and avoid controversial affairs. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He thinks the position ought to be maintained. Why maintained? What is the position of the Plural Voting Bill at this moment? The Plural Voting Bill is absolutely dead. This is nothing but an attempt to revive a question of controversy. He hoped, he said, that the controversy might have been
    78
    postponed. There was the simplest way in the world of postponing it, and the only ground on which it has been possible to raise a controversy on this question at all has been the attitude of those members of the Government who were, I suppose, determined if they could to obtain a party advantage on this occasion. I said what I wanted to say on this subject the other night. I made my protest then. I think it was wrong. I think it is wrong still. I do not wish to have anything further to say on controversial matters, and, indeed, I was only led to rise and say what I have said by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which, I hope, will not be imitated by other Members on that side of the House. Then, I think, we may dispose of this matter with very little more delay.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I hope I may not be so incautious as to incur the blame of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken if I venture for a minute to identify myself with the line of thought and with the conclusion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, because, while I know very well how many things there are in peace time in which I am unable to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, he is one of many right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who sit on that side of the House with whom one works with the greatest cordiality in time of war. May I respectfully point out to him, and to Members of the Committee who are supporting this Amendment, that we who are glad to have this Sub-section in the Bill are glad to have it there because we believe that it will help, and not hinder, united action on this and on other matters when the War comes to an end? It may be right or wrong, but I hope we may have, at any rate, the charitable judgment of our Friends who disagree with us on the subject-matter in the objects which we have in supporting this. We remember what the Prime Minister said when the War began, that, as far as possible, no party should be benefited or injured during the period of the War by deliberate action in this House. What is the position of the Plural Voting Bill? It has passed this House twice and is waiting the third opportunity of passing. Had the occurrence of the War put an end to that without this Sub-section, then one school of thought in this House would thereby have been damnified and injured, and I am certain that that which, I trust, we all want—a

    79
    wide, generous, and impartial settlement of the whole electoral problem when peace comes—can only be advanced, and not hindered, if this Sub-section is passed this afternoon.
    I cannot, of course, claim, like my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), to have consulted any given number of candidates of any alleged party in any parts of the country, but one has had the usual opportunities of discussing this subject, and I assure him I entirely concur with his general attitude on the situation in which we are. I say that if we are to be able to state in the country that the Prime Minister's pledge has been thoroughly and fairly carried out, that the measures which some support and some oppose have neither been put back nor put forward by the War, but are kept in the place in which they were when the War broke out, then we are on the very best platform from which to cultivate the attitude of united action in all matters which affect this country during war. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is no time for prolonged Debate, and I am quite sure he does not hope to convert those who do not share his opinion on this point, any more than we hope to convince him. But, as we cannot agree on the particular point, surely we can believe in the honesty and bona fides of our opponents, and decide this question, if it becomes necessary in a Division, on the assumption that those who vote against it are no more or no less concerned for national unity than those who support it. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last of the very striking words used by the Colonial Secretary in that memorable speech, that this arrangement was his own particular suggestion or invention? I can imagine times and seasons in which one does not always agree with the Colonial Secretary, but I think we can all pay him deserved tribute for his skill in contriving this suggestion, and for the admirable way in which he supported it. When I know in a matter of this kind I am supporting the Colonial Secretary and the Home Secretary at the same time, whatever else can be said of one's action, it cannot be called partisan when one is supporting in the same sentence and the same vote two eminent men who never agreed until the War broke out, and I hope will never disagree while the War lasts.
    Sir ROBERT FINLAY: I rise to say that I feel very much with my hon. Friend behind me who moved this Amendment with regard to the impropriety of the introduction of this Sub-section at all. It seems to me to be entirely alien to the true purpose of this Bill, and I am very sorry it was ever introduced. The defence which my right hon. Friend opposite has made appears to me very much to aggravate matters. If what my right hon. Friend said had any meaning it was this: That this Sub-section was introduced for the purpose of keeping alive a weapon which might be used. I am perfectly certain my right hon. Friend does not seriously look forward to running a measure like the Plural Voting Bill through Parliament as soon as the War is over. It is incredible that such a purpose should be contemplated, and what he seemed to imply under that head is inconsistent with the hope he expressed that a general settlement might be arrived at with regard to the general question affecting electoral reform. If there is to be such a settlement, it must be by common consent, and it is not by holding such a weapon over the heads of the Unionist party that common and cordial consent will be achieved. While I feel very strongly on the matter, at the same time may I express a hope, personally, that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to proceed to a Division? I say that for this reason: bad as I think the Clause was, we have arrived at a sort of compromise—not a very logical compromise, but still a compromise—which, I think, renders the Clause at present powerless for mischief. I desire only to say that I trust it is not to be taken as a precedent for another Bill of this kind. The present Bill with this Clause in it was introduced under very-special circumstances. We all listened with admiration to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, in which he explained the ground on which his name appeared at the back of such a Bill as this; and, while we do not mean to vote against it now under the very special circumstances, it must be understood that those circumstances are very special, and I am sure the whole House trusts that no such Clause will ever appear in any future Bill.
    Mr. PETO: I have listened with admiration to the lucid speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities (Sir R. Finlay). Towards the Home Secretary he displayed

    81
    extraordinary charity, because he said he felt confident the right hon. Gentleman could not really contemplate pushing through a measure for dealing with plural voting immediately the War was over. But I listened to the Home Secretary with great care, and found that he made two references. He said that the object of this Sub-section was to postpone a controversy, and later he said he wanted to leave the Plural Voting Bill out of controversy until the War is at an end. If he did not mean to introduce it immediately the War was at an end, what is the object of having this Sub-section in the Bill at all? The Home Secretary said there are some things that die by time. Surely everything dies—it is past hope and past praying for. Therefore, the only assumption we can make from that remark of the Home Secretary is that he feels that, if he cannot pass this Plural Voting Bill with the remainder of a Party in a majority in a Parliament that is artificially prolonged beyond the term for which it was elected, he will have no hope whatever of passing that measure. I think a greater condemnation of the proposal to keep it alive in the present Parliament we could not have. I cannot follow the Home Secretary in all he said about Redistribution, for I am quite sure I should be immediately ruled out of order, as there is no possible connection between any scheme of Redistribution, or the other large general scheme upon which he and the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins) hoped to have the general consensus of opinion, and the question of keeping alive this particular Bill. My object in rising was to point out one consideration, which was apparently not present in the mind of any hon. Member who spoke on the Second Reading. The whole basis of the Parliament Act Bills was that they were to pass three times in three successive Sessions.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Not in a single Parliament.
    Mr. PETO: Unless another Parliament was elected which still gave them a majority in favour of the same Bill. That does not alter my point at all. But if you extend the Parliament beyond five years—and this consideration is particularly in my mind in view of what the hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment said when he particularly deprecated it being taken as a precedent for further extension, resurrection, or revival of this particular piece of old Party controversy—if, as I say, you extend the Parliament first to five years
    82
    and eight months, then to six years and six months, and so forth, and all the time count all those Sessions by which you extend it as if they never existed at all, what becomes of the argument used by the Prime Minister so forcibly in his speech on Tuesday last? The right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "I was responsible as Prime Minister for the proposal to shorten the duration of Parliament from seven years to five, mainly because I have become more and more convinced, during now a long political life, that it is of the highest importance to the best and permanent interests of the nation that the House of Commons should be, as far as it can be made, a reflection of national opinion, and that it should not outlive its mandate and distort instead of reflecting the judgment which it is here to register aad record. That is a very good and sound doctrine as applicable to normal political conditions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1915, col. 1983, Vol. LXXVI.]
    If it is applicable to anything, it is applicable to the Plural Voting Bill Therefore I say on the widest ground, and the whole basis on which this Parliament was elected, you have no right whatever in the sixth or the seventh year of a five-year Parliament to bring in a Party measure for which you have not the slightest justification for saying there is any majority in the country. On those grounds I support the hon. Baronet's proposal. I do not think this proposal ought to have been introduced in the Bill, and I regard it as indecent to try and preserve this unsavoury relic of past controversy. I certainly hope it will not be regarded as a precedent because we do not go to a Division, and I trust that will not be taken to mean that we have either approved or agreed to the arrangement made in this matter.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I do not think it makes much difference whether Sub-section (2) remains in the Bill or not for one simple reason, and that is I believe that the country has determined at a very early date to turn this Government out. I do not think the opportunity will ever arise under which that Section could possibly be of any utility. There is one thing clear, and it is that those who are Members of the Government to-day will have to give it up. It is not a question of who is going to take their place, but the simple mandate is going to be that they should resign.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do not intend to divide upon this Amendment, but I shall not withdraw it, and I am going to leave it to the Committee to negative. I am not at all convinced by the speech of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has great powers of logic, and if he had a good cause I feel he would convince me,

    83
    and it is only because his Clause is bad, and not his logic, that he has failed to convince me. The right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a very great delusion when he thinks that if the War had not taken place the Plural Voting Bill would have had any chance of success, because the Government would have been out long ago. The Bill was dead before the War. What took place when the War broke out? Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what sacrifices the Unionist party made at the outbreak of war to maintain his Government in power, which would not have been in power but for that, in order that the War might be prosecuted, and not that the Plural Voting Bill might be kept alive. That is why we did forego all the duties of an Opposition. Not only did we take no advantage of the mistakes, and they were many, of the Government, but we actually said when there was a by-election that we would support the Liberal candidate if he was in possession at the time. Prior to the War the Liberal party had been losing largely in the constitutencies. What would the position have been if we had gone down to those constituencies and disclosed the mistakes which the Government had made? Would there have been any chance at all for a measure of this kind, including a Plural Voting Bill? This measure is simply to avoid a General Election during the present crisis, and it ought to have been confined to that. I will not now divide the House, but I will not withdraw my Amendment, and I will leave it to be negatived. I should like to emphasise what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh and St. Andrews Universities (Sir R. Finlay), that we cannot allow a Clause of this kind to be introduced in any further Bill for the prolongation of Parliament, and if it is introduced we shall fight it with the utmost of our power.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken and the right hon. and learned Member for the Universities of Edinburgh and St. Andrews are both under a mispprehension regarding the necessity of such a Clause in any Bill. The Clause, as it is drawn, renders such a course unnecessary. What is now clear is that the Plural Voting Bill is really dead. It has been called a bone of contention, but a more appropriate term would be a corpse of contention.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: My object in rising is to make it quite clear that the extension to eight months is not in any sense or form a bargain which has been arranged. It must not be said hereafter that a bargain has been made that an election shall take place within eight months of the extension. This House is all-powerful. What this House has done this House can undo, and if the exigencies of the War or of this House demand it, what the Government will have to do before the end of this period expires will be to bring in another Bill to extend the period. That is what I want to make clear. There is no bargain made about eight months. If the right hon. Gentleman will assure me on this point I shall be much obliged.
    Sir F. BANBURY: In reply to what has been said, I think it will be perfectly easy to introduce another repealing Clause.
    Sir J. SIMON: What the hon. Member for Sheffield has said is quite true. Parliament retains its own legislative power, and I do not think anybody should be regarded as being barred hereafter if, for good reason, it is thought necessary to propose further legislation on this subject.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Before we add this Clause to the Bill, may I ask that the Home Secretary shall give us the weight of his advice on the point which has been raised as to introducing a repealing Clause? Supposing it is necessary to bring in a Bill in six or seven months' time, will this Section stand or will it have to be negatived?
    Sir R. ADKINS: Surely the decision come to this afternoon is that the duration of Parliament applies to the whole of this Bill. The hon. Baronet opposite wants to have everything both ways. What has been suggested has been very unfair to those of us who object to the alterations made in this Bill from its original conception. We do not want to be tied down to what is opposed to our view of what is right, any more than we should be tied down to what the hon. Baronet thinks is right.
    Sir F. BANBURY: If I do want to have my own way, I am not at all likely to get it. I am not asking for my own way, nor am I wishing to tie anybody down. I was

    85
    asking the Home Secretary to give me the benefit of his opinion upon a question which may be right or wrong, and I was not discussing its merits. I was merely asking if in six months' time it is necessary to renew this Bill, will a Clause be necessary allowing the Plural Voting Bill to be introduced or not?
    Mr. POLLOCK: I think this is a very important matter. A good many of us understood that by this Bill the Government were getting a vote in time on account, and that the matter would have to be brought up as a whole at the end of the eight months, which is the period now being inserted. If what has been said is right, then the position would be that, although the Government would have to come and ask Parliament again for a further period for the life of Parliament, if the interpretation suggested is true it means the question of whether the Plural Voting Bill can be passed in any Session of this Parliament, however long that may be from the present time is settled. If the Plural Voting Bill can be passed in any Session, then Sub-section (2) lasts, whatever happens at the end of eight months, and the Government have as part of a bargain prolonged the life of the Plural Voting Bill to the end of any Session of this Parliament, although they have only eight months for this Parliament to survive. If that be so, I consider that Clause 1 and Clause 2 are on a very different basis indeed, and what is called compromise means that one side of the House has got what it wants during the period of the life of this Parliament, and it would be unnecessary then to ask for further powers. Most of us understand that further powers should be required, both as to the life of Parliament and the life of the Plural Voting Bill. If a permanant life has been given to the Plural Voting Bill, then there has been a wide divergence, and an important point has been overlooked.
    Sir J. SIMON: I really do not think a discussion is necessary on this point, because the language of the Bill is perfectly clear, and it surprises me that hon. Members, and hon. and learned Members, think that on this occasion they can discuss the question, "Can this Parliament tie the hands of a subsequent Parliament as to what it is going to do?" It cannot, and it has never been able to do that. This Bill says that it is necessary from time to time to propose a further extension of the life of Parliament beyond what is now
    86
    proposed. That is the time when a provision could be introduced to prevent the operation of Sub-section (2), or to modify it or to leave it as it stands. That, of course, is perfectly plain on the face of the Bill. The words are not in the least obscure, and I do hope that we shall not spend much time discussing them.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt quite fairly with the Committee.
    Sir F. BANBURY: He has not answered the question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: The question is, Will this matter require to be dealt with by inserting some Clause, or some hon. Member proposing to insert a Clause to repeal the Sub-section?
    Sir J. SIMON: It is so simple that it answers itself. I do not claim any more authority to deal with the question than my hon. and learned Friend. It is quite plain that the Sub-section as it stands applies during the continuance of the present Parliament, and consequently, if Parliament is further continued, the Sub-section will apply; but whether it will be necessary to insert a Clause repealing it or not depends upon what Parliament may desire to do. It may desire to repeal it, or modify it, or leave it as it is. All that is perfectly plain on the face of it.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am rather surprised at certain statements being made against this question being dealt with on the ground that it is controversial. Hon. Members on the other side of the House who have come back from the trenches have told us of the great democracy out there as though they were really the first to discover the genuine worth of the British working man; but, at the same time, when we seek to establish that every man shall have one vote and that nobody shall have more than one vote in order to make good that democracy, and so that when the men in the trenches come home to the first election they shall not find that while the man who has fought has only one vote the man who has stayed at home drawing rents has twenty votes, we are told that it is raising a difficult controversy which should not at this time be dealt with. The way to solve that part of the question is for hon. Members on the other side of the House to recognise that this is a matter not of party advantage, but of principle, and to drop the controversy.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: I should like to ask the Home Secretary whether, during this extended period, it is the intention of the Government to restore to the Members of his House their rights to introduce legislation?
    The CHAIRMAN: That concerns the Standing Orders and Sessional Orders of the House, and has nothing whatever to do with this Bill.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: May I respect fully submit to you that I asked the question because, whether I voted for giving this eight months' extension or not, would largely depend on whether the Government were going to restore to private Members their privileges—
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise out of the Bill.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Suspension of Registration Machinery.)
    (1) The parliamentary and local government register of electors and any register based on the same in force at the passing of this Act, shall remain in force until Parliament provides for the substitution of any special registers or otherwise directs; and the words "but in no case after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixteen," in Section three of the Elections and Registration Act, 1915, are hereby repealed.
    (2) Until Parliament provides for the preparation of special registers or otherwise directs, no steps shall be taken in connection with the preparation of a new parliamentary or local government register of electors or any new register based on the same, subject to any directions of the Local Government Board to the contrary as respects information of deaths or any other statistical information, and, subject to any such directions, the provisions of the Acts relating to registration of electors, so far as respects the preparation of new registers, shall not be carried into effect.
    (3) In the application of this Section to Scotland, "the Secretary for Scotland" shall be substituted for "the Local Government Board," and "the County Council and Municipal Registers" shall be substituted for "the Local Government Register of Electors."
    In the application of this Section to Ireland, "the Local Government Board for Ireland" shall be substituted for "the Local Government Board."
    Sir G. YOUNGER: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "and local government."
    I move this Amendment in order to raise a point of considerable importance, and to ask a question upon it. The Clause leaves in complete uncertainty the position of assessors, particularly in Scotland, who are a very special class of officials, and who, in the Bill of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) last year, had an assurance of protection with regard to their position. They were assured that their position would not be in any way interfered with. I want to know whether that holds good. In England you have what are called revising barristers, and these appointments will not be made; but in Scotland the position is entirely different. We have regular assessors, of whom twenty are Government officials. They perform a very important and essential function in the interest of local government in Scotland, and it is most desirable that they should be protected, particularly when one realises that there must be a special register. If it were understood that they were to prepare that special register without any further allowance, then of course the one thing would square the other.
    Sir J. SIMON: My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is present, and I speak with great trepidation in his presence, but I am able at once to tell the hon. Baronet that the words of this Clause are,. I believe, exactly the words to be found in the Bill of last July. I quite understand that the postponement of the making of registers sometimes raises questions of finance as regards particular sets of officials, and there is the sad case of the revising barristers. I understand the position in Scotland is not the same. The hon. Baronet will not expect me to give him an assurance straight away on an Amendment which is not on the Paper, and which, so far as I am concerned, I heard for the first time a few minutes ago; but I will make it my business to make inquiries, and I have no doubt that the Secretary for Scotland will be very sympathetic about it.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: There is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with officials

    89
    somewhat of the same class in Ireland. I do not know how it is proposed to deal with them, but the case in Scotland is even stronger, and I hope, if necessary, that an Amendment will be introduced on the Report stage.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
    Mr. COWAN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) at the end, to add the words "and there shall be substituted there for the words 'but in no case after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and seventeen."
    Looking at Clause 2 of this Bill, I have been a little puzzled to understand why certain words in Clause 3 of the Elections and Registration Act, 1915, are repealed. I have come to the conclusion that the Government desire to relieve themselves of any obligation to introduce a Registration Bill or to make any preparation for a new register. I presumed that the Government would take such measures, or introduce such a Bill, at such time as would seem most convenient, but as it was considered desirable when the Bill of last July was introduced to fix a date before which such provision should be made I conceive it is not unreasonable to suggest that some date should be inserted in the place of that which is the subject of the words repealed. I suggest the substitution of 31st December, 1917, because that is exactly twelve months later than the date given in the Act, but as Parliament is only to be extended for a term of eight months it is not very material from my point of view what the date is, although I do think, in view of the fact that those who most strongly hold the opinion that Parliament should be extended again admit that there can be no certainty that circumstances will not arise making a General Election during the War a necessity, it is desirable to make provision for a better and more live register than that which would be in force if these words of the Elections and Registration Act were repealed and no other date substituted. I suggest some date, not too remote, prior to which the Government must make some provision for Registration, make some effort to create a new register, and presumably introduce a Registration Bill. There is no doubt that a promise to introduce such a Bill was given when the Elections and Registration Act was introduced last July,
    90
    and although it may be a difficult thing, during the War, when so many electors are absent from the country, to provide for a new register, still the difficulty must be faced, and the difficulty will be greater if no new register is provided. I therefore suggest the substitution of "31st December, 1917," for "31st December, 1916," and that the Government should be invited to introduce a Registration Bill taking into account, so far as possible, the conditions of that time.
    It seems to me there is another suggestion that the Government might very well be asked to consider. In place of the many rather complicated and even conflicting residential and other qualifications which are now required to enable a man to be placed upon the Parliamentary Register, they might as far as possible substitute the one qualification that a man has served his country in this War, that he has seen active service in the field, or has served the State in the munitions factories. That mere fact should entitle him to be placed on the register. A register based on that principle could be prepared during the War, and, at any rate, be in readiness for an election after the War. I do not suggest what steps should be taken to prepare the best possible register to be available during the War if an election is fought, but I do suggest that some provision should be made and that some such words as those of my Amendment should be added to the Clause in order to make it quite clear that the Government do intend to deal with this matter.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I confess I am not quite clear what the object of my hon. Friend is in moving this Amendment. He has apparently a deep-seated mistrust of the Government. He fears that they will endeavour, for some mysterious reason, to depart from what they have said on previous occasions. He made a suggestion to the Committee at the end of his speech that a register should be prepared which will enfranchise all those serving the King in any capacity on sea or land in connection with this War. If that suggestion were a practicable one the Government would be the last to object to its adoption, because we are all agreed, without question of party or any other division of opinion, that all those men who have served or are serving their country should be electors when an election takes place. But my hon. Friend

    91
    forgets that, before a man can exercise the franchise he suggests—the new franchise of service to the King—he must be attached to a particular constituency. We have a very large number of men—I cannot say how many; my figures on that point may be inaccurate—but we have an enormous number of men abroad. Some few of them have got the qualification, but as the Committee knows the majority of the men who had the qualification before the War have now lost it. If they are unmarried men obviously they will no longer get the qualification by reason of their lodging or residence, while if they are married men in a very large number of cases their wives have left the houses in which they were living before the War and have gone elsewhere, and therefore in no case, except in the very few instances where the qualification is the same, can you put these men on the register.
    My hon. Friend suggests we ought to produce the machinery. There is no difficulty about machinery. The machinery is ample. It is there. It might probably have to be added to if it were necessary to produce the ad hoc register in such a time as is usually allowed to prepare a register, and a certain number of extra officials might have to be employed. There is no difficulty in that. There is no difficulty in putting in force the ordinary machinery. But there is a difficulty which is insuperable. Either you must have an election in the trenches, which nobody would suggest, or else you must have an election from which the great majority of those who are fighting would be excluded. If it is desired to have a new register of electors at home, it can be prepared in a very short time. But the real difficulty which has to be overcome is to provide for the men, the soldiers or sailors, the great majority of whom either have had no qualification or have lost it, and to give them an opportunity of voting. While they are abroad they cannot be placed on any register. If my hon. Friend's suggestion were adopted you would qualify automatically all the men who have served or are serving the Crown. You would then put them into different constituencies. Is it conceivable that any Government should be expected to undertake such an impossible task as to allot these men to different constituencies throughout the country?
    I can assure my hon. Friend there is no need for this Amendment. The Govern-
    92
    ment want no spurring to induce them to prepare a Registration Bill or to produce one. We ourselves should be very glad to do so at once. But the real practical difficulty in connection with this proposal, and in everything in which an election plays a part, is the War, and until the War is over and the men can take up their residence here, either in barracks or in their new homes, whichever it may be, until that time comes you cannot have a register which will include them in the electorate. This House would not desire to have a register which would contain only the names of people here at home. That is the real difficulty with which we are confronted. We have seen elections taking place in other countries where the Army is mobilised, and we know that in those cases the soldiers have been unable to vote. We do not want that to occur here. We desire when an election comes that the men who have fought for us and worked for us shall be qualified to vote, and I can assure my hon. Friend and the Committee there will be no delay on the part of my Department or on the part of the Government. We are ready with the ordinary machinery. But the Bill does not settle this most difficult question, and it cannot be settled until the men return. Therefore, if we did produce a measure now, it would not be worth the paper on which it is printed. To everything I have said on previous occasions I adhere. There is no intention on our part to depart from any promise we have made and nobody will be more pleased than we shall be when, at the termination of the War, we have the return of these gallant men and we give them that to which they are so richly entitled, the right to vote for Members of the House and to exercise all the privileges of citizenship which they have done so much to preserve, not only for themselves, but for the rest of the citizens of this country.
    Sir R. ADKINS: I am glad my hon. Friend proposed this Amendment, because it has elicited the very admirable speech to which we have just listened. Many of us have been rather disappointed in regard to this matter, but my right hon. Friend's speech, pointing out the absolute absurdity of having any election when millions of electors are in the trenches will be quite sufficient to assure us that, whatever date is put into this Bill, there can be no election while the War is going on. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the

    93
    support which his speech affords to that which I believe is the general desire.
    Amendment negatived.
    The CHAIRMAN: The next two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member raise, I believe, the same point.
    Mr. COWAN: Yes, they are consequential.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the new Clauses, the first, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Currie), raises a very interesting point, but I am afraid it is beyond the scope of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation to Local Officers in Ireland.)
    Where by the operation of this Act the secretary of any county council, or any other local officer in Ireland, who has hitherto discharged the duties of preparing the Parliamentary and Local Government Register will, in the opinion of the Local Government Board for Ireland, suffer undue loss of income that Board may, if they think fit, direct the payment from the funds of the local authority concerned of such sum by way of conpensation for temporary loss of emoluments as they may deem fair and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances of each case. The decision of the Local Government Board in any such case shall be binding on the local authority concerned and shall be final and conclusive for all purposes.
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a second time," and I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I make a short explanation of it. It is proposed because of the difference in the method of remunerating those who prepared the registration lists in this country and those who prepare them in Ireland. In this country the remuneration is a fixed quantity, but in Ireland the salaries paid to officials of local governing bodies who prepare these lists are regulated in a double manner. Their salaries for ordinary purposes in connection with the local governing bodies are fixed by the local authorities, whereas for preparing the registration lists they are paid by fees under statutory rules that
    94
    are made under the Parliamentary Registration Expenses (Ireland) Act, 1890. When fixing the salaries for ordinary purposes the local authorities take into account the amount of the fees received for preparing the registration lists, and it is obvious, if there were any suspension of remuneration on account of the preparation of those lists, it would become an intolerable position for these men.
    I will give a case in point. The salary of the secretary to the West Meath County Council for ordinary purposes is £90 per year, whereas his fees under the Registration Act, paid by the same body supervised by the Local Government Board, are £320. If that £320 were denied to that official this year he would have to live on the small sum of £90 per year, and that, I submit, would be an intolerable position. This is one case: the list might be extended to any length. The Amendment which I propose will empower the Local Government Board for Ireland to direct payment from the funds of the local authority concerned of such sums, by way of compensation for the temporary loss of emoluments, as they may deem fair and equitable, having regard to the circumstances of the case. This power is already recognised in an Act which was passed in July last. In connection with that there was the postponement of the Parliamentary and local government register, and Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provides that if any question arises as to any such payment with regard to any contract made—and there is a contract made between the local governing authorities and their servants—that question shall be referred to the Local Government Board. Therefore the payment I propose will be under the supervision of the Local Government Board. No one will lose by the acceptance of this Amendment. The authority which pays the fees under the supervision of the Local Government Board will be the authority that this Amendment will enable to pay for this temporary suspension. The few words I have uttered will, I think, show the necessity for this new Clause, and I believe there will be no opposition to it on the part of those who are responsible for this Bill.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: I wish to point out that the Clause will affect other officials besides secretaries of county councils. It will affect secretaries of district councils, clerks of urban councils, and secretaries of town commissioners. These gentlemen draw a considerable salary for work in

    95
    connection with registration, and I want to be perfectly certain that this Clause will cover their case, and that no official connected with registration will find his position worsened by this Bill. Everybody in Ireland agrees with this proposal, which puts no real charge on the ratepayers or Treasury, and I trust, therefore, the House will agree to it.
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: The hon. Baronet cannot have read the Clause or he would have known that it is intended to apply not only to secretaries of county councils, but to "any other local officers in Ireland" dealing with Parliamentary matters.
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Irish Government have had a full opportunity of considering the substance of this proposed new Clause, and I have been in personal communication with persons affected. I am quite satisfied that unless some Clause of this sort is inserted very material injustice may be done to these officials. As my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, their salaries are not inclusive, as in England, and. county councils, although they make these payments, do for some reasons allot a small portion of the salary for the ordinary work of the secretary of the county council, and allow considerably larger fees than would otherwise be granted for what they do in looking after the franchise. If these officials during the operation of this Bill get no fees for registration work they will be on starvation salaries. Their case has excited a good deal of interest, and I am quite satisfied that this new Clause will fairly meet it. I therefore, on behalf of the Government, accept the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Tuesday) and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

MUNITIONS.
  PROGRESS OF BRITISH MANUFACTURE.

    STATEMENT BY MR. LLOYD GEORGE.
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloy George): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    96
    6.0 P.M.
    I rise to move the Adjournment of the House in order to make a statement on the present position of munitions. It is now a little over six months since the Prime Minister invited me to take charge of the provision of munitions for the British Army in this War. Although the work is by no means complete, and some of the most important parts of it are still in course of development, I think the time has come to report progress to the House. Perhaps I had better preface my statement by a short survey of the relation of munitions to the problem of the War, so that the House should understand clearly why we have taken certain action in order to increase the supply. There has never been a war in which machinery played anything like the part which it is playing in this War. The place acquired by machinery in the arts of peace in the nineteenth century has been won by machinery in the grim art of war in the twentieth century. In no war ever fought in this world has the preponderance of machinery been so completely established. The German successes, such as they are, are entirely, or almost entirely, due to the mechanical preponderance which they achieved at the beginning of the War. Their advances in the East, West, and South are due to this mechanical superiority; and our failure to drive them back in the West and to check their advance in the East is also attributable to the tardiness with which the Allies developed their mechanical resources. The problem of victory is one of seeing that this superiority of the Central Powers shall be temporary, and shall be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment. There is one production in which the Allies had a complete mechanical superiority, and there they are supreme—that is in the Navy. Our command of the sea is attributable not merely to the excellence of our sailors, but to the overwhelming superiority of our machinery.
    There is another aspect of this question which has become more and more evident as this War has developed and progressed. The machine spares the man. The machine is essential to defend positions of peril and it saves life, because the more machinery you have for defence, the more thinly you can hold the line, therefore, the fewer men are placed in positions of jeopardy to life and limb. We have discovered that some of the German advanced lines were held by exceptionally few men. It is a pretty well-known fact that one

    97
    very strong position, held by the Germans for days and even for weeks, was defended against a very considerable French Army by ninety men, armed with about forty to fifty machine-guns, the French losing heavily in making the attack. Machinery in that case spared the men who were defending. It is one portion of the function which has been entrusted to the Ministry of Munitions to increase the supply of machines in order to save the lives of our gallant men. On the other hand, it means fewer losses in attacking positions of peril, because it demolishes machine-gun emplacements, tears up barbed wire, destroys trenches, so that, therefore, the losses are much fewer when you are attacking strong positions held by the enemy. What we stint in materials we squander in lives.
    Those are the main elements of the problem which the Prime Minister invited me to help in solving. In the Ministry of Munitions we have taken the control of supplies gradually. We have only just secured the direction of design. It was entrusted to us by the Prime Minister about three weeks ago. Woolwich Arsenal passed into our hands about three months ago. Inventions came and then went, and came back again. I should, first of all, give the House the position when the Ministry of Munitions was first appointed. When I made my statement some time ago we were too uncomfortably near that date to give many particulars. It is quite impossible for us to give any sort of statement as to what is being done unless I first indicate what headway we had to make. There was undoubtedly a shortage. That was known. Our troops knew it; so did the enemy. But neither of them knew how really short we were in some very essential particulars. Now I can with impunity give at least one or two figures. I will take gun ammunition. Gun ammunition is roughly divided into high explosive and shrapnel. There is no doubt that military opinion, at least in this country—I am not quite sure about France—was wedded to shrapnel, for reasons which are not unconnected with the events of the South African War. It was supposed that the days of high explosives were numbered, except for siege guns, and that shrapnel was the only weapon for fighting in the field. The developments of this War—many of them unexpected, and many of them unexpected by the greatest soldiers—proved that that expert opinion was not altogether correct in its anticipation of the demise of high explosives. But we were late and reluctant
    98
    converts, and, like all reluctant converts, we were very tardy in giving up the old shrapnel. We came to the conclusion, at any rate, that a very high proportion of high explosive ammunition was essential to success in the kind of trench warfare to which we had settled down. I think we still have a higher opinion of shrapnel than either the French or the Germans. It is not for me to express an opinion upon it. My business is to take orders on this point and to supply whatever the military opinion concludes is best. There is a good deal to be said on both sides. At any rate; our military experts concluded a very considerable proportion of high explosives was necessary—quite one-half. But we came rather late to that conclusion, and that accounts for the shortage in the beginning of the year and later on in April and May, and further.
    I will now give the House an indication of the leeway we had to make up. The Germans at that time—I have already given the figures to the House—were turning out about 250,000 shells per day, the vast majority of them being high explosive shells. That is a prodigious figure. The French have also been highly successful in the quantity which they have been turning out. But they have great armies, and their arsenals, which were turning out the materials of war for their armies, were naturally on a larger scale than ours. Our large arsenals naturally took a naval turn, and the bulk of the engineers who were turning out munitions of war were engaged on naval work, so that in the month of May, when the Germans were turning out 250,000 shells a day, most of them high explosives, we were turning out 2,500 a day in high explosive shells and 13,000 in shrapnel. That was neither right in quantity nor in proportion. I have already given the House some of the reasons why the supply was so low. One was the lateness at which we came to the conclusion that high explosives were to play a great part in the War. The other was the fact that the Navy—this is a fact which is too often forgotten, not merely in this country, but, if I may say so, abroad—absorbed an enormous number of our engineers and a very high proportion of our engineering resources. I have not the figures at the present moment, but, unless I am mistaken, something between two-thirds and three-quarters of the engineers occupied on munitions were turning out material for the Navy. The Navy, since the War, has been

    99
    devoting itself with greater energy and promptitude to meeting new conditions of naval warfare which had not been anticipated. The result has been that the amount of work which they have turned out has absorbed a very large proportion of our engineering resources. No wonder there was great anxiety at the front and great anxiety at home. That was one reason why the Government came to the conclusion that it was better, perhaps, seeing that the energies of the War Office were engaged in raising Armies and in feeding and supplying troops, that there should be a separate Department which could concentrate the whole of its mind and its energies upon the production of guns and munitions, and generally the material of war.
    The first step, of course, was to create an organisation for the purpose. The demand had risen so suddenly and there were so many demands from every quarter upon the energy and thought of the War Office that the organisation had not grown in proportion to the demand, and the first step was to improvise a great business organisation for the purpose of coping with this problem. We had to find a staff, and we drew it from every quarter. Some of the Government Departments lent us able Civil servants. The War Office placed at our disposal a good many soldiers and other experts. The Admiralty helped. But, I think, the main feature of the new organisation has been that we have had placed at our disposal the services of a considerable number of business men of high standing who had been running successfully great business concerns. I think most of the branches of the Department are run by men of that type—men who have given their services voluntarily for the purpose. They were men who were earning great salaries—salaries such as the State has never paid to any of its public servants—and in almost every case the firms who placed their services at the disposal of the State continued those salaries. I cannot say how grateful the country ought to be for the services which these great business men have rendered. I do not think it would have been possible to improvise the organisation without their assistance. We have also had experts placed at our disposal by some of the great armament firms as well as those whom the War Office lent us. Then, having divided the organisation up into a number of Departments, we had a special
    100
    Department whose business it was to collect and assemble every week the facts with regard to the progress made by each Department, and a weekly report is submitted to my colleagues and myself as to the work which is going on, so that we know, if not from day to day, at any rate from week to week, where progress is made, where the work is halting, and where there are shortages which ought immediately to be made up. Then it is our business to call attention to them immediately, and see that something is done to bring every Department up to the mark. Of course, when you improvise a great organisation like that, and gather your staff together hurriedly, there must be weak points. There are weak points in Departments which have lasted a good deal longer than this, and in the Ministry of Munitions there are, of course, deficiencies, which I am very glad to see my hon. Friends calling attention to by questions and otherwise, and calling my attention to privately. I am always grateful to them for doing so, because it is quite impossible for any man to know everything that is going on in a great Department of that kind, unless he gets the assistance of every patriotic citizen.
    When we got our staff together the first step was to ascertain the causes of the shortage. One reason, of course, was that the orders for high explosives had come late. Another was that perhaps they were not sufficiently spread, and then, as I in-dictated before, we trusted too much to the old firms without seeking new sources of supply. The result was that, deliveries were but a percentage of the promises. I think the deliveries were at that time 16 per cent. of the promises. I am talking now of the shortage in high explosive shells. In shrapnel it was very much better.
    An HON. MEMBER: Is that in May?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is in May, before the Ministry was appointed. I am presenting the case as it appeared at the moment when we took it over. These were deliveries, not of shells, but of shell bodies, which is a very different thing. A complete round of shell has many components. There is, first of all, the shell body—the steel case that holds the explosive. Then you have the fuse, the gauge, the cartridge case, the primer, or the tube in the case of high explosives, the high explosive, and the propellant. Then there is the filling, which is another operation—

    101
    the gauge, the fuse, the primer, the tube, the shell, and the cartridge. All these operations have to be gone through. All these components have to be assembled before you have a complete shell. I have pointed out that the delivery of shell bodies for high explosives was 15 or 16 per cent. of the promises, but the components were only a percentage of the deliveries of shell bodies. Our first duty was to see that the contracts already entered into were executed, and our second was to seek fresh sources of supply by utilising the great engineering reserve of this country which had not been tapped up to that point.
    What were the steps we took to hurry up the contractors? The first, obviously, was to discover why the deliveries were late, and why they were not fulfilling their contracts. We organised a system of weekly progress reports to be sent in by every contracting firm throughout the country. First of all, we had a column for promises, and we had next a column for deliveries, and the mere filling of these brought every week to the attention of the contractors the fact that they were not carrying out their contracts—not a bad way of getting contractors to stir up. Then we asked for the reasons why they were short, and they had to give us an explanation every week. Was it deficiency of labour, of machinery, of material, of transport, of motive power, or had they any other explanation? That is how we ascertained what the failure of the deliveries was attributable to, and then we set ourselves to assist the contractors to remove those causes. We found that what no individual contractor could do for himself, a State Department sitting in the middle was able to assist him in doing. We found that the deficiencies were largely due to lack of machinery, of labour, of the ready and steady supply of material, and sometimes to transport difficulties. The foundation of production is, obviously, the ready supply of material, the ample provision of the necessary machine tools, and of the necessary labour to manipulate both. Our first duty therefore was to organise a strong machine tool department, and to place on a more systematic basis the work which had been initiated by the War Office. For this purpose we utilised the services of experts we had taken over from the War Office, and we added very considerably to their numbers and formed them into a separate department. We had an elaborate and careful census made
    102
    of all the machinery in every industrial firm in this country. We knew what the resources of this country were, especially the resources which had not been utilised up to that moment, and we found there were a very large number of lathes capable of being turned to the production of munitions. But this was not enough. There was a good deal of machinery which could not possibly be set aside for the purpose of manufacturing munitions. There was a good deal of machinery which was entirely inapplicable, and we had to look to new sources of supply for machine tools. It was decided then to place the whole of the machine tool trade of this country under Government control. It was found that not only were machines being made which were unnecessary in the interests of the country in such an emergency, but also that contractors were holding back on account of the extra expenditure involved in working night shifts and overtime, and that they were therefore not making the best use of their shops. Further, by restricting the export of machinery, the Ministry was able not only to secure fresh sources of supply to meet the new increased programme, but at the same time to place machinery at the service of existing contractors who were behindhand with their deliveries. This resulted in an immediate increase in production. It was found that there was considerable congestion of machine-tool imports owing to the congestion at the ports. This difficulty was overcome by sending down promptly a resident official to expedite delivery of this machinery. We sent representatives to America to order new machinery, and, acting in conjunction with Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company, they have been able to place there the necessary orders and to ensure that the machinery is of the right class. It was also discovered that a considerable amount of machinery had been collected by contractors who were unable for various reasons to utilise it. This machinery the Department was able to distribute amongst firms who were in a position to utilise it. Steps were also taken to simplify the machinery, and that led to a considerable increase of output. These are the steps we took in order to increase the machinery, which is the basis of production, and considerable improvement was effected in a very short time in that respect, and the effect upon production was almost immediate.

    103
    The next step we took was in regard to raw material—metal. At the time of the formation of the Ministry, one of the chief difficulties of the contractors was the lack of a regular and sufficient supply of the necessary raw material. Under the system of competition in the open market prices of material were rising to an extent wholly unwarranted by the situation. So we formed a separate Metal Department to deal with that situation. Steps were immediately taken to place the Ministry in control of the supply of metals of all classes, and arrangements were made for providing the contractors with all the raw materials they required, and for making good any shortages by tapping fresh sources. The effect of these efforts has been to effect considerable reduction in the prices of raw materials. There has been a saving, in the aggregate, of something like £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 on the orders, due entirely to the action taken by the Metal Department of the Ministry of Munitions in securing control of the whole metal market of this country. It enabled us to ensure a supply which was adequate to meet, not only in the immediate future but for many months to come, all the demands of the various contractors, both old and new, as they are made; and also, which is equally important, to provide large supplies for our Allies. Indeed, it was only by these efforts that a crisis in the market was prevented, and that manufacturers have been able to effect the substantial increase in the output which has actually taken place.
    Another step we took was in regard to labour. As I shall deal with that separately later on I will not dwell upon that now, except to state generally that we took steps to endeavour to increase the supply, more especially of skilled workmen in the various trades. We also supplied technical advice by experts to help manufacturers to get over their difficulties which were retarding output. That was a very useful step, especially in the case of firms who had not been in the habit of turning out this class of work. We appointed a number of hustlers to visit the works and to find out what was wrong, to help to put it right and to press contracts forward. The effect in itself of calling upon the industries to supply weekly reports was to improve the output. Contractors often were not aware of their own difficulties until they were forced to face them and give them an account of them. The net
    104
    result of all these steps which I have summarised has been to increase the deliveries on old orders from 16 per cent. of the promises as they were then, to over 80 per cent., a very considerable increase, of much larger promises as they are now. That is in regard to high explosive shell. We also effected a very considerable improvement in the percentage of the deliveries of shrapnel. The deliveries of high explosives and shrapnel have gone up much more considerably than these figures indicate. The promises were increasing from month to month and week to week, and we have succeeded in increasing very considerably the deliveries in both.
    I have been dealing with the deliveries of shell bodies. Now I come to the component parts of shells, which have given us a great deal of trouble. This is the most trouble some part of our work, because you are always finding that some component or other is falling short. You get a report that you have not enough primers, and you concentrate your attention upon that, to bring them up to the necessary number. Then you find that another component is short, and as there are so many of them and the filling of each of them is a separate operation, even necessitating separate buildings, it is one of the most anxious, trouble some, and baffling operations that we have to watch. We have found that the arrangements made for shell components were on too modest a scale, and that just as in regard to shell bodies, the orders given were considerably in arrears. There was too much reliance placed on Woolwich and too little on seeking fresh sources of supply. The first steps we took in regard to this problem were similar to those I have sketched out in regard to shell bodies. The next step was to seek out fresh firms with the capacity to undertake the manufacture of the various components; and the third step was to erect new buildings for the purpose of supplementing private firms, and to hurry up the erection of buildings in course of construction. Our census of machinery enabled us to discover rapidly and without loss of time the new sources of supply, and the local boards of management, which I shall refer to later on, assisted very considerably. Sometimes we had to adapt components to the kind of machinery which was available, in order to increase the supply. There were two emergency factories erected for filling purposes, and completed in six weeks. I think that was a very fine piece of hustling. Large filling factories have been put up in various parts

    105
    of the country in order to cope with the rapidly increasing demand, owing to the rapidly increased delivery of shells.
    Talking about components brings me to Woolwich, because Woolwich was primarily responsible for filling and assembling. The various shell bodies and components from different parts of the country were sent to Woolwich to be assembled and filled, and the Department responsible for Woolwich was the War Office. That dual responsibility undoubtedly hindered and delayed the position of our work. Without blaming anybody, I may say that the mere fact of having dual responsibility in itself creates delay, and the War Office came to the conclusion at the end of August that it would be better to hand over that part of Woolwich to the Ministry of Munitions. I think I can give very striking figures of the effect which this has had on the solution of some of our difficulties. Sir Frederick Donaldson, the distinguished engineer, who is at the head of Woolwich, has gone to America and Canada and helped us to organise new sources of supply there, and has rendered us very great service. The engineer of the North Eastern Railway Company (Mr. Vincent Raven) was placed at our disposal, and he is in temporary control, and the services which he has rendered there have been conspicuous. I will give one illustration. The manufacture and filling of various articles has increased since he took it in hand in some cases by 60 per cent., and in others by as much as 80 per cent., whereas the staff has only increased 23 per cent. One of the reforms he initiated are statistical records of the output. These records were not compiled prior to his assumption of control. Now they are having, and will continue to have, a potent effect not only upon the output, but upon the cost of output. As an illustration of the use to which such figures can be put, I will mention that when the output of a certain shop or section of a shop is noted the following morning it is possible for the superintendent or the works manager to immediately put their finger upon the fact that perhaps the flow of raw material fails, or that owing to congestion of the arsenal railways the output cannot be got rid of; and, therefore, the inefficiency can be checked. Such hitches in the daily work of a factory can only be avoided and minimised by a most complete system of statistical control, and that has been instituted at Woolwich.
    106
    I now come to the question of new sources of supply. The House may per haps recollect that soon after I was appointed Minister of Munitions I made a special appeal to private firms hitherto not engaged in the manufacture of munitions to place their works at the disposal of the Government to enable us to increase our supply, more especially of gun ammunition.
    The country was divided into twelve areas: England and Wales, eight; Scotland, two; and Ireland, two. I acknowledge the very great assistance which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) rendered to us in enabling us to raise supplies in Ireland, which I confess I was not very hopeful of being able to do at first—more especially the things we stood most in need of, such as fuses, primers, and components. The works of Ireland have been extremely helpful, and I gladly acknowledge that I have been disappointed on the right side. We set up forty local munition committees in the most important engineering centres, each with a small board of management consisting of business men in that locality. The whole of Great Britain and Ireland, except districts which were barren of any engineering resources, is practically covered by the operation of these boards.
    There were two alternative methods of production adopted under this scheme. One was to set up national factories—national shell factories—which belonged to the Government. They were run by the local boards of management on behalf of the Government. The machinery was supplied partly by the Government and partly by borrowing from local engineering works, and a good many engineering works very patriotically assisted us with lathes, etc., at some sacrifice to themselves. These national shell factories have answered two purposes. Many of them have been conspicuously successful. They have increased our supply threefold. They have minimised our labour difficulties—there have not been the usual questions between capital and labour. They have enabled us to check prices, and I will show later the value of that when we come to consider the matter of finance. In addition to these national shell factories, of which we have thirty-three, we have a co-operative scheme by which we utilised the plant of private firms who up to that time had not been occupied in turning out any munitions of war. It is

    107
    very difficult to disentangle the firms that have done nothing in the past from the firms which have perhaps done something in a small way, but I think I am entitled to say, after some examination, that hundreds of firms which before the constitution of the Ministry of Munitions never produced any ammunition have been engaged in turning out shells and components of shells. The services of the boards of management are purely voluntary. They are composed generally of great business men in the neighbourhood who place their services at the disposal of the State gratuitously. In each area there is a superintending engineer and his assistants, a labour officer and his assistants, a representative of the Admiralty and generally a trench mortar representative, and the result of this organisation has been that, although those firms never turned out any ammunition at all, and for some time, no doubt, they made several mistakes—so did the national shell factories—they made starts. A shell was not what it ought to be; they had to start again; it was inevitable; it was quite new work; it was premature to criticise them; they were just finding their way to doing the work. But although they have been engaged only for two months, last week they turned out three times as much high explosive shell bodies as was turned out by all the arsenals and works in the United Kingdom in the month of May last. This is not a comparison with the 2,500 complete shells per day, because the actual shell bodies delivered then were more than that. These are private firms which have never done anything in the way of turning out shells before. But they did more than that. They either themselves, or through firms which they helped the Ministry of Munitions to discover, turned out prodigious quantities of components to enable us to complete not merely shell bodies which they delivered, but shell bodies on order before. We owe a great deal to the patriotism of these manufacturers—they came forward so readily; they turned their works inside out; they gave up work which was highly remunerative, in order to undertake something which they knew nothing about, which they were not quite sure they could successfully manufacture, and the result of their operations has been of a most gratifying character.
    I should like just to say a word about American orders. I shall say something
    108
    later on about American orders from the point of view of finance. Soon after the Ministry was appointed, Mr. Thomas, an old Member of this House, went over to America to report upon the position, to let us know exactly what was going on there, to place fresh orders, and, if possible, to accelerate orders already placed. He went there independently of agents, and I am bound to say to the House, and I am sure that the House will be glad to know it, that he comes back speaking in the highest possible terms of the services rendered to this country by Messrs. J. P. Morgan and Company, not merely for the selection of firms for the supply of munitions and the orders they have placed, but because they have saved many millions of money to this country by the efforts they have made to reduce the rather inflated prices which were prevailing before they took the matter in hand. Mr. Thomas assisted in organising the purchase and inspection of machinery both in the United States and in Canada, He has helped very considerably in speeding up, in effecting economies, and in placing absolutely essential orders for the supply of necessary munitions for this country. To sum up what has been done with regard to gun ammunition, I should say that the Ministry has endeavoured to help the contractor to obtain better deliveries of raw material, of machinery, of additional supplies of skilled labour; and technical and financial assistance has been given in a large number of cases. With regard to fresh orders, we have organised the engineering resources of this country into factories of a national character or the adaptation of factories employed on non-war production. By co-operative efforts we have done a good deal to develop Colonial and foreign markets of the United States of America, Canada, France, Switzerland, and elsewhere. Every effort has been made to simplify specifications and make them understandable by inexperienced manufacturers, to simplify patterns in order to eliminate unnecessary processes, and to accelerate processes and make the best use of skilled labour, of which there is a scarcity. Attention has been given to the decentralisation of inspection and the avoiding the loss of time arising from inspection generally. Woolwich has been taken over and some progress has been made in the introduction of modern methods of inspection of material and of factories. The problem of relieving congestion at Woolwich has been

    109
    dealt with by an elaborate system of well-distributed storage, and the railway congestion there has been decreased. What is the net result of the steps we have taken to increase the output and delivery of gun ammunition? I have given the figures for May. I cannot give the figures for November as yet. The House will be entitled later on to get them. All I can say is that the quantity of shells fired in the recent operations in September was enormous. The battle lasted for days, and almost ran into weeks, but there was no shortage. On the contrary, the Chief of the Staff assured me that they were perfectly satisfied with the quantity of shells. This was the result of four months' careful husbanding, but it will be reassuring for the House to know that the whole of the expenditure was replaced in a month, and we shall soon be in a position to replace it in a single week.
    7.0 P.M.
    Now I come to the question of guns. Large orders for field guns were placed in 1914. In June deliveries were fair, although not up to promise. Medium guns and howitzers were largely in arrear, but I am glad to say that there has been a considerable improvement in the last few months, and the machinery of the Department has rendered most valuable assistance in this respect. In regard to these guns the House may take it that the position is thoroughly satisfactory. Now I come to the more important problem of the heavy guns. I experienced some difficulty in speaking about it last time, because whatever you may say about it must to some extent advertise your resources to the enemy. Before I made any statement to the House I consulted the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister thought that it was well to endeavour to let not only this country know, but our Allies know, that we were putting forward very great exertions to equip our Forces with the heaviest possible artillery. I am of opinion that the decision that the Prime Minister gave was a right one. There are certain things you cannot hide from the enemy. It is a great mistake to assume that they do not know. After all, they know what shells you have, what size of shell you have, how much heavy and how much light, exactly as we know about theirs. These things are not produced merely for the delectation of our soldiers. They are used in order to send them across to the enemy, and the enemy knows that the moment you have got them they will be passed on, and if they are not
    110
    passed on the enemy comes to the conclusion, not at all unnaturally, that you have not got them. On the other hand, your Allies want to know that you are putting forward all your strength; it encourages them, and therefore the Prime Minister came to the conclusion that it was better that the facts should be divulged Up to midsummer of this year, big guns on a large scale had not been ordered. We came rather late to the conclusion that on a large scale big guns were essential to the successful prosecution of the War. I am not surprised. The House will recollect the kind of gun which was regarded as a prodigy in the Boer War; it was just a poor, miserable, medium gun. Now the soldiers are doubtful whether it counts in the least in trench warfare. Someone told me that in that very interesting novel about the invasion of this country by the Germans, which was published about three or four years ago, the big gun which was to terrify everybody, as described in that novel, was the 4.7. That is nothing compared with requirements now. The heavy siege gun which we had at the beginning of the War is now the lightest, not only because there has been such a change in the ideas of the military, but because the facts have forced the conclusion on us that it is only the very heaviest guns that will enable us to demolish these trenches. The trenches are getting deeper and deeper still; there is trench behind trench, trenches at every conceivable angle, labyrinths of trenches, with concrete emplacements, and nothing but the most powerful and shattering artillery will enable our men to advance against them, except along a road which is the road to certain death. Therefore, the War Office came to the conclusion that it was essential to success and victory, and essential to the protection of the lives of our soldiers, that we should have an adequate equipment of the heaviest possible artillery. We are erecting great works in this country, and I have no doubt some hon. Members have seen some of them. They are mostly associated with the programme for the production of these guns and the supply of adequate projectiles. I am very glad to say that we are making rapid progress with these structures. We have placed at our disposal the services of one of the ablest contractors in this country; I think he is manager to Sir William Arrol's firm. He came to our assistance gave up his work, and voluntarily and gratuitously placed his services at the

    111
    disposal of the Ministry of Munitions to help in pressing forward the construction of these works. The help which he has given us is of a very conspicuous character. That is all I can say under that head.
    I come now to the equally important question of machine guns. The dimensions of the machine-gun problem will be realised if the House will consider not only the increase of the size of the Army, but also that the number of guns per division has increased many-fold. When the War began our ideas were that each battalion should be supplied with two machine guns. The Germans supply each with sixteen machine guns. There is no doubt that the machine gun is by far the most destructive weapon in the whole of their army; it has destroyed far more lives than their rifles. In fact, I was told the other day that the machine guns and artillery between them are probably responsible for more than 90 per cent. of the casualties, rifles being responsible for not much more than 5 per cent. We were rather late in realising the great part which the machine gun played in this War, and I think I am entitled to say that the first time that the importance of the problem was impressed upon me was by the Prime Minister after one of his visits to the front in June.
    The PRIME MINISTER: The first visit.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When my right hon. Friend returned from the front, he impressed upon me, in the gravest possible language, the importance of supplying machine guns on a very large scale; and one of the first steps was to make arrangements for multiplying many-fold, and as quickly as possible, our output of machine guns. We immediately placed large orders at home and abroad. But we have taken steps, so far as the home orders were concerned, to see that they were executed. We assisted firms with machinery, labour, and material. We completely equipped a new large factory for the manufacture of the Vickers gun, and all the machine tools and equipment have been delivered, but production is delayed for want of skilled labour. In another part of the country an existing machine gun factory has been extended in order to increase its output of machine guns. This has been done, substantially, for weeks, while a new factory to produce a similar amount has been built and equipped in the same district. Two new factories have been erected elsewhere to
    112
    turn out other types of machine guns. There is one type which is best for defence, another type infinitely better for attack, and another which is best of all for aeroplanes. Therefore, we have to turn out various kinds of machine guns. At two other works extension of plant has been made for the production of machine-gun plant in order to increase machine-gun production. The net result since we began these operations has been to increase the production five-fold; we turn out five times the number we were turning out in June. In the New Year there will be a production greater still, and, in short, our requirements are well in sight of being fulfilled.
    With regard to rifles, we have taken steps similar to those taken with regard to shells and machine-guns. The plant has been extended at home, and large and important orders have been given to worth mentioning. We have "peddled out" a large amount of work to certain firms; they have not turned out rifles, but some have made certain component parts, while other firms turn out other parts of the rifle. We peddle out these parts to a great many firms, and we propose to have them assembled under the supervision of some expert firm like Enfield, and by that means obtain a considerable increase in the possibilities of output.
    I come now to the trench mortar. This is almost a new development, and yet, although it is a new development, there is no part of this War where the soldiers have resorted more to old methods—catapults, spring-guns, and, of course, grenades, and the helmet. All that I can say about this is that since we undertook this task the grenade output has increased by forty times—and this is an output entirely new to the trade. There has been a school established for instruction in connection with this work. The output of trench mortars has greatly increased. The present output in a fortnight is equal to the whole output in the first year of trench mortars; at any rate, if the increase in regard to mortars which we turn out now is taken, I think the House will regard that as satisfactory. There are other developments in this respect which I dare not mention. There has been valuable experimental work of a kind which I had better not discuss.
    There are several branches of work which I might have dwelt upon, for instance, the output of optical munitions.

    113
    We were so dependent on Germany for optical glass that when the War broke out there was an acute famine in this country. Orders have been placed wherever possible abroad. Steps have been taken to extend largely the operations of the few firms in this country. With regard to explosives I have already told the House of the steps which we have taken, and of the important new works which have been constructed in different parts of the country, so that I feel confident that while the output of shells and munitions becomes very considerable, the amount of high explosives and propellants to fill them will be quite adequate. Not only that, but I think we shall be able to supply, as we are supplying, very considerable quantities, especially of high explosives to our Allies who are in need of them. During the last three weeks there has been an addition to the powers of the Ministry. Hitherto, whilst manufacture was in our hands, design was in the hands of the War Office. The fact that you separated the design from the manufacture necessarily caused delay, and there had been a good deal of unnecessary delay, for which I blame no one except the system by which you separated the control and the direction of the two branches. In France the manufacture and the design were under the same control. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in charge at the War Office when I put the whole case before him, and he took the view that it was infinitely better in the interests of increasing output that the Minister of Munitions should be responsible for both, and the effect of that has been that the Ordnance Board and the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich have been transferred to the Ministry of Munitions. We are able now to co-ordinate design with manufacture. We have made very important changes in the Ordnance Board. We have placed at the head of this new Department one of the most distinguished Artillery officers in the British Army, and one who had experience for about fifteen months in directing Artillery in France. He has had the assistance of two or three others, who also had experience at the front, and that in itself is a great advantage when you want to manufacture the right design to have the actual experience of men who have been directing operations at the front.
    I come now to a consideration, the last, and which perhaps some hon. Members will think was the last consideration in my mind. I mean economy, and I should like
    114
    to deal with that before I come to labour. I should like to tell my hon. Friends below the Gangway why I put economy first and labour second, and why I am putting them so near together. The Ministry took over from the War Office certain members of its financial staff, and during the first few weeks, and I think months, of our administration, we had the advantage of the services of Sir Charles Harris, who is one of the ablest men in the Civil Service. The work was too great for him, and we had to make other arrangements. Even before the Government examined the problem of supervision of the expenditure of the great spending Departments, we had created a special organisation for the purpose of revising prices and costs. There was a very able accountant, a member of one of the most important firms in this country (Mr. Lever), who placed his services, gratuitously at our disposal. We set him to the task of scrutinising contracts and examining prices and generally seeking out methods of cutting down and keeping down expenditure. He gathered around him a staff of experienced business men and accountants. He first of all devoted his attention to the question of gun ammunition, because that is the largest item of expenditure; incomparably the largest item of expenditure. The prices were fixed for gun ammunition when the need was very urgent. There was no time to bargain, and that is true both of the War Office and of the Ministry of Munitions. New firms were also taken on, but at first the actual cost of production of unaccustomed and inexperienced firms is very considerably higher than that of experienced firms, so that for one reason or another prices were high.
    The Committee have examined very carefully the cost of production, and, as I pointed out earlier in the course of my statement, the national shell factories helped us there, because we discovered, and we knew from our experience in the national shell factories what the actual cost of production was in every operation. This new Committee came to the conclusion that prices could be considerably reduced. A new scale has been devised, but, of course, it is only applicable to new contracts and to renewal of old contracts. Therefore it has not yet come to full fruition, but I will just give the House an indication of the saving which will be effected by this means. The cost of the ammunition for 18-pounders, which is a very considerable item, running into

    115
    millions, has been reduced by 40 per cent., and the cost of the ammunition for 4.5 howitzers has been reduced by 30 per cent. since the Report of this Committee, and all the new contracts are based on those prices.
    Sir W. PEARCE: Is that for the complete shell or the body of the shell?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The body of the shell. I am speaking of the gun ammunition, which is the most important item of expenditure. The gun is a comparatively small matter compared with the ammunition, and there is no item of expenditure which compares with the expenditure on shells. Therefore Mr. Lever's Committee devoted its energies to examining the cost of shells, and that Committee is still going on. They took first of all the lighter guns, because that is a considerable item at present, but they are proceeding to examine the heavy ammunition, and they are going on to examine the whole of the items of expenditure in the Ministry of Munitions. By this means we hope we will save, and save very considerably—save in millions, in tens of millions—upon the expenditure which we are incurring. Here I should like to make an appeal to the local committees. Contracts are being placed very largely through these local munitions committees. At first it was always necessary to let contracts at fairly high prices, because there were unaccustomed firms coming in, and they would not make much out of it, although the prices were high. But now the time is coming when the local boards of management should assist us in placing all the new contracts and all the renewals upon the new scale. As we have had a good deal of decentralisation in the letting of our contracts a good deal of responsibility necessarily falls upon those committees, and we must have their co-operation in achieving this very important result in the interests of national economy. When we regard the prodigious cost of the War every million saved is of vital importance, not merely for the future, but actually in order to conserve our energies for the carrying on of the War itself.
    I have already pointed out the economy which has been effected in taking control of the metal market. We have to examine the prices in this country, compared with the prices of similar metals in America and elsewhere, to find how sub-
    116
    stantial those economies are. We have saved in the course of a single year something which is equal to 6d. or 7d. in the £ of Income Tax in the metal market alone. There is another method of saving—and here I am coming very near to labour—by altering the proportion of home and foreign orders. When the Ministry was formed the proportion of foreign orders in the most expensive items, like gun ammunition and rifles, was two foreign for one home. What does that mean? The more foreign orders you have the greater your exchange difficulty, and the prices are always higher, even in times of peace, in America than they are here. You have no control over the industries there, and therefore you cannot prevent inflation of prices, except by competition. But when every available firm is working hard to produce for you there is practically no competition, but the moment you reduce your orders there you are in a position to dictate terms with regard to prices. The next consideration is the desirability of leaving the American market as much as you possibly can to the equipping of those Allies who have not the same industrial and engineering resources as we have. Therefore, from every point of view, it is vital that you should do everything to increase the proportion which we manufacture here in comparison with what we order from abroad. There are other reasons as well. Our aim ought to be to develop the home resources, and we have already effected a very substantial change in the proportion of the orders, especially in the more expensive articles, but the success of this essential object depends entirely upon labour—entirely, and I come to that now. We want labour to man the old factories. There are machines now standing idle—machines of the most modern type for the manufacture of machine guns for which oru Armies, and the armies of our Allies, are clamouring, and which are essential for offence and for defence. We cannot put them out because we have not the necessary skilled labour. There are some things for which you must get skilled men. There are other operations for which you really do not need skilled men. That is the whole problem. If you can get the skilled man from the place where the unskilled man or woman can do the work just as well and put him into the factory where you must have a skilled man, the problem of the War will be solved.

    117
    So much for the old factories. What about the new factories? We require for these new factories 80,000 skilled men, and from 200,000 to 300,000 unskilled men and women. Upon our getting them depends, as I think, our success in the War. But take the lowest view of it. Upon that depends entirely whether we are going to alter substantially the proportion of orders in favour of this country, and consequently reduce the cost of the War by tens and scores of millions of pounds in the course of a single year. It depends upon that whether we can furnish our Armies with guns, the right sort of guns, plenty of the right sort of guns, rifles, machine guns, projectiles to enable them to make next year's campaign a success. I should like to dwell a little more upon two considerations, because they are of overwhelming importance. I have heard rumours that we are over-doing it, over-ordering, over-building, over-producing. Nothing could be more malevolent or more mischievous. You can talk about over-ordering when we have as much as the Germans have, and even then I should like to argue how far we have to go. So mischievous is that kind of talk that I cannot help thinking that it must have been originated by men of pro-German sympathies, who know how important it is that our troops should, at the critical moment, be short of that overwhelming mass of material which alone can break down the resistance of a highly entrenched foe. In spite of our great efforts, we have not yet approached the German and French production. We have got to reach that first and not last. France is of opinion that even her colossal efforts are inadequate. I have consulted generals and officers of experience in the British and French armies. The conferences which I have had with the Minister of Munitions in France have given me full opportunity of obtaining the views of the most highly placed and distinguished officers in the French Army. Before I quote their opinions let me point out that all these generals up to the present have invariably underestimated the quantity of materials necessary to secure victory. I am not surprised. It is so prodigious. I remember a great French general—one of the greatest—saying to me that it was one of the surprises of the War. He had studied tactics with the highest authorities, and he says that that is the great surprise of the War. Every battle that
    118
    has been fought has demonstrated one thing: that even now it is an under-estimate and not an over-estimate. Take the last great battle—that of Loos. You had a prodigious accumulation of ammunition. There is not a general who was in the battle who in giving his report does not tell you that with three times the quantity of ammunition, especially in the heavier natures, they would have achieved twenty times the result.
    It is too early to talk about over-production. The most fatuous way of economising is to produce an inadequate supply. A good margin is but a sensible insurance. Less than enough is a foolish piece of extravagance. £200,000,000 will produce an enormous quantity of ammunition. It is forty days' cost of the War. If you have it at the crucial moment your war might be won in the forty days. If you have not got it it might run to 400 days. What sort of economy is that? But it is not merely that. It is this—and this is a fact which I mean to repeat in every speech that I make on the question: What you spare in money you spill in blood. I have a very remarkable photograph—I do not think I ought to say where I got it—of the battlefield of Loos, taken immediately after the battle. There was barbed wire which had not been destroyed. There was one machine gun emplacement: intact, only one. The others had been destroyed. There, in front of the barbed wire, lay hundreds of gallant men. There was one machine gun—one. These are the accidents you can obviate. How? Every soldier tells me there is but one way of doing it. You must have enough ammunition to crash in every trench wherein the enemy lurks, to destroy every concrete emplacement, to shatter every machine gun, to rend and tear every yard of barbed wire, so that if the enemy want to resist they will have to do it in the open, face to face with better men than themselves. That is the secret—plenty of ammunition. I hope that this idea that we are turning out too much will not enter into the mind of workman, capitalist, taxpayer, or anybody until we have enough to crash our way through to victory. You must spend wisely; you must spend to the best purpose; you must not pay extravagant prices; but, for Heaven's sake, if there are risks to be taken, let them be risks for the pocket of the taxpayer, and not for the lives of the soldiers!
    The right path of economy is therefore not to reduce the output, but to reduce the

    119
    cost, and labour alone can help us here. There are only 8 per cent. of the machines for turning out lathes in this country working on night shifts. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I am coming to the reason why. We have appealed to the employers. They say, "We cannot get the labour." It is true. They have not got the skilled labour. But there are many of these operations which could—I will not say just as effectively, but effectively enough—be discharged by unskilled men and women. We have done everything we could to supply skilled labour. We have done our best to increase the efficiency of labour. We have had a most able Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir George Newman, trying to increase the efficiency of labour by seeing that the men and women get good conditions for working. The abolition of Sunday labour has been recommended. There are committees on fatigue. There are questions of health welfare. There are questions of canteens. All these questions are being gone into with a view to improving the strength of the men, enabling them to endure and to do better work while they are at it. We have done our best by means of a great system of munition volunteers to fill up the gaps. It is no use going into the question why we did not get more than 5,000 or 6,000. We are trying to get men from the Colours, but it is a great rearguard action. It is like getting through barbed wire entanglements without heavy guns. There are entrenchments behind entrenchments. You have not merely the Army, the corps, the division, the brigade, the battalion, and the company, but the platoon, and even the squad—everybody fighting to prevent men from coming away. I am not surprised. I am not blaming them. Skilled men at any trade are skilled men at every trade. Your intelligent skilled man is a good man in the trenches, and nobody wants to lose him. Therefore every corporal fights against parting with a good, intelligent, skilled workman. As my hon. Friend points out, the men themselves feel that they are running away from danger in order to go back to comfort and high wages and emoluments, and they do not like it. It is a very creditable story. At last I think we are" beginning to get over these difficulties, largely through the pertinacity and tact of Major Scott. Let me again acknowledge the very great assistance we
    120
    have got from hon. Members of this House. Hon. Members have assisted very materially, not merely by what they did, but by their very presence. They have no idea how much that counts. The fact that it was known that hon. Members had taken particular interest in the matter and were helping enabled us to get the men. We have got a very considerable number, but nothing like what we want. It all depends upon organised labour. Unless they allow us to place unskilled men and women at work which hitherto perhaps has been the monopoly of skilled men, in order that we may take the highly skilled men away and put them into other work, we cannot do what we want. You may ask why it has not been done? I will tell the House why. It is far better that the House should be told quite frankly. The leaders of the trade unions made an agreement, but we found exactly the same difficulties as we found in the release of men from the Colours. If you go down, down, down, there is an action to be fought in every area, every district, every town, every workshop, every lodge—they all fight against it. The weakness is this: Our bargain was that we should restrict the profits of the employer. To a certain extent the fact that we have kept our bargain has been against us. Why? A few employers have done their very best to what we call dilute the labour, and they have been met with unquestionable resistance. It has taken us weeks to overcome this resistance. The rest of the employers know this, and say, "At any rate, we have no personal interest in the matter. If we increase the output by means of night shifts it does not increase our profits." The personal interest has been completely eliminated, and when men are working hard superintending their work, and anxious enough work, and suffering from over-strain, they really do not feel like embarking in a conflict with their own men in order to increase the output which so far as their works are concerned makes no difference. So that really we are suffering because we carried out our bargain with labour. There is only one appeal to employer and employed; it is the appeal to patriotism! The employer must take steps. He is loth to do it. It is a sort of inertia which comes to tired and overstrained men—as they all are. They must really face the local trade unions, and put forward the demand, because until they do so the State cannot come in.
    An HON. MEMBER: Martial law!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We have had an Act of Parliament, but the law must be put into operation by somebody. Unless the employer begins by putting on the lathes unskilled men and women we cannot enforce that Act of Parliament. The first step, therefore, is that the employer must challenge a decision upon the matter. He is not doing so because of the the trouble which a few other firms have had. Let us do it. Victory depends upon it! Hundreds of thousands of precious lives depend upon it. It is a question of whether you ere going to bring this War victoriously to an end in a year or whether it is going to linger on in bloodstained paths for years. Labour has got the answer. The contract was entered into with labour. We are carrying it out. It can be done. I wonder whether it will not be too late? Ah! two fatal words of this War! Too late in moving here. Too late in arriving there. Too late in coming to this decision. Too late in starting with enterprises. Too late in preparing. In this War the footsteps of the Allied forces have been dogged by the mocking spectre of "Too Late"; and unless we quicken our movements damnation will fall on the sacred cause for which so much gallant Wood has flowed. I beg employers and workmen not to have "Too Late" inscribed upon the portals of their workshops: that is my appeal.
    Everything in the next few months of this War depends upon it. What has happened? We have had the co-operation of our Allies. Great results have been arrived at. At the last conference of the Allies decisions were arrived at which will affect the whole conduct of the War. The carrying of them out depends upon the workmen of this country. The superficial facts of the War are for the moment against us. All the fundamental facts are in our favour. That means we have every reason for looking the facts steadily in the face. There is nothing but encouragement in them if we look beneath the surface. The chances of victory are still with us. We have thrown away many chances. But for the most part the best still remains. In this War the elements that make for success in a short war were with our enemies. All the advantages that make for victory in a long war were ours, and are still! Better preparation before the War, interior lines, unity of command—those belonged to the enemy. More than that, undoubtedly, he has shown greater readi-
    122
    ness than we to learn the lessons of the War and to adapt himself to them. He had a better conception at first of what war really meant. Heavy guns, machine guns, trench warfare—that was his study! Our study was the sea. We have accomplished our task there to the last letter of the promise. The advantages of a protracted war are ours. We have an over whelming superiority in the raw material of war. It is still with us in spite of the fact that the Central Powers have by their successes increased their reserve of men and material. The over whelming superiority is still with us. We have the command of the sea that gives us ready access to neutral countries. Above all—and this tells in a long war—we have the better cause. It is better for the heart. Nations do not endure to the end for a bad cause. All these advantages are ours. But this is the moment of intense preparation. It is the moment of putting the whole of our energies at home into preparing for the blow to be struck abroad. Our Fleet and the gallantry of the troops of the Allies have given us time to muster our reserves. Let us utilise that time without the loss of a moment. Let us cast aside the fond illusion that you can win victory by an elaborate pretence that you are doing so. Let us fling to one side rivalries, trade jealousies, professional, political. Let us be one people! One in aim, one in action, one in resolution to win the most sacred cause ever entrusted to a great nation.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I certainly did not intend to speak, but the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, as it was to labour, requires, I think, some immediate answer. The right hon. Gentleman has clearly indicated that the responsibility for winning this War depends entirely, in his own words, "upon the attitude that labour is likely to adopt." I am, therefore, justified in saying at the outset that labour has not yet been appealed to without making an adequate response. Every appeal that the Minister of Munitions has made has been sympathetically met by the trade unions of this country. I am satisfied that, instead of replying in this House, the best course will be for the Minister of Munitions himself to appeal direct to the labour forces, and they themselves will be able to deal with the situation. One startling admission in the moving and eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman is that the real problem in his opinion at this moment is not the shortage of men,

    123
    but the shortage of the requirements for the men. At this moment, in his opinion, 380,000 skilled and unskilled men are required. Therefore I respectfully submit that it is the duty of the Government immediately to apply themselves in a scientific and businesslike way to provide for that shortage. It will not appeal to the ordinary man in the street to hear from the Minister of Munitions that there is this terrible shortage, that these men are absolutely essential, when simultaneously we are asking everybody not to make munitions, but to come and fight the battle by enlisting. I shall possibly deal with that aspect of the question at another time, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember this: He has made an appeal to labour. Whether he knows it or not, it is much better to tell him one or two plain facts which will help to clear the situation. It is true that an appeal was made to the labour leaders in Parliament. He will, I think, be the first to admit that the labour leaders themselves did all they could, but the right hon. Gentleman himself, by his own charges at Bristol, very largely prejudiced their position.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEwas understood to dissent.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. THOMAS: I am going to be quite frank. I say you might not have intended it, but it does not help us in the least to get over the difficulties by skipping over the facts. I am going to submit frankly that the series of charges made at Bristol would not bear investigation. Investigation took place afterwards with the result that a great number, if not the majority, of those charges bore an entirely different interpretation when they were examined. It is useless burking the fact that when the leaders went back to the men the men said it was the right hon. Gentleman's duty to have answered these charges at once, and their decision was very largely prejudiced as a result. In September the right hon. Gentleman made the charges and from September on there has been all this bitterness. I do submit that the working man—no one ought to know him better than the right hon. Gentleman—is at least entitled to a fair deal, and the best way to get the best out of the working man is not to make charges, is not to start to bully him, but to show him the real necessities of the situation. The working men of this
    124
    country have proved up to now that they are not unmindful of their responsibilities: When we talk of trade-union rules do let the House remember that those rules have been set up after years and years of agitation, sacrifice and misery, and I believe the one guarantee to ensure even those rules being broken down would be for the Minister of Munitions to say, "I will table a Bill that will guarantee the status quo for the trade unions for everything they sacrifice in this War."
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We have done so.
    Mr. THOMAS: Not, Sir, in the form of a Bill. If you have, it is not understood by the workers.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This is rather important. It has been said that the Munitions Act contained for the first time a statutory guarantee that the privileges will be restored at the end of the War.
    Mr. THOMAS: Yes, I know, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the request was made to him, and had been repeatedly made by the labour people and the trade unionists; it was simply a solemn pledge that both parties would do their best. That was the strong point urged upon the right hon. Gentleman, and what I am leading up to is this: Here at this moment a statement is deliberately made by a Minister, and, whatever one may say, we are all agreed, so far as the Minister of Munitions is concerned, that his one thought is to win this War. Give him credit for that, and he must at least give us credit for understanding some of the difficulties of the situation. I want his appeal to labour to be successful; but it will not be successful unless he frankly shows that when he made his statement at Bristol there were certain facts that have come to his notice since that have altered the whole situation. If he was wrong, the workers are entitled to be told that a mistake was made, and they will be the first to appreciate it. Therefore, without going into too many details of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, speaking for myself, I say as a labour leader I will do everything I can to win this War. Even on the drink question I never hesitated to take my stand in the interests of the worker. I will do the same on everything that I am satisfied is for the best interests of the nation. I believe that is the opinion of the overwhelming mass of the working classes of this

    125
    country. I believe that is the view of the majority of the labour leaders in this country; but, nevertheless, I say that the responsibility rests very largely with the Government. Every man that is now turned into a soldier simply aggravates the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman. If there is a shortage of munitions for your present Army, every additional man that you make a soldier must of necessity increase that difficulty. Therefore, it is for the Government themselves to come down with businesslike proposals and say to the House of Commons, as they ought to say to the House of Commons, "Our contribution to the Allies can be best done by maintaining our trade, by giving them an abundance of munitions, and maintaining our financial position." That, I believe, is the lesson; that is the moral of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is one at least that I hope the nation as a whole will take to heart, and that labour will play its part.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I beg to remind the House that I failed to put the Question at the end of the speech of the Minister of Munitions. May I assume that the hon. Member for Derby has seconded him?
    Mr. THOMAS: If that will help you, Sir, yes. I beg to second the Motion for Adjournment.
    Major Sir CHARLES HUNTER: I listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with very great pleasure, and I think it is a greater pleasure still to know from him that those shells are being made, and to see them, as I have, pouring into the German lines at a ratio of thirty to one, when last year we know perfectly well the ratio was exactly the opposite. Not only do I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman most heartily on the energy which he has brought to bear in his new office, but I also think I may be allowed to congratulate all those business men who have given their great services gratuitously to obtain this very satisfactory result. When we talk of munitions the minds of ninety-nine people out of 100 at once fly to shells, because they read more about them and hear more about them, and they have been the one absorbing topic of labour. But anyone who knows anything about the equipment of an up-to-date Army, knows that there are not only shells, but hundreds—I may almost say thousands—of other articles, some of which are almost as important as shells. I propose to deal in a few words with two of
    126
    those articles, namely, rifles and machine guns, and, if I may be allowed to say so, I have some little claim to address the House on this subject. I have been through many various courses, both of rifle and machine gun work. All my life I have been mixed up with fire-arms, and since the War began I have had the absolute entire training of two divisions of the New Armies in both rifle and machine gun work. When I speak about rifles I wish it to be understood that I am only referring to the Mark III. rifle which fires the service ammunition. I leave out of account altogether all those strange weapons that have seen the light lately and are perfectly useless for war purposes. I know that I cannot at this time go into the actual details of the training of the men of a division because I should be getting on exceedingly dangerous ground, and I should possibly be giving information to the enemy, which, of course, I should be one of the last persons in the world to do. But I cannot help saying this—and, of course, I say this from no party point of view, because I should be criticising every Government for the last fifty years—that when this War began we had—I will not say the actual number—but very few Mark III. rifles in stock, and, what is worse still, those rifles that were in stock had to be utilised for other purposes for some time than arming the men who had enlisted in the New Army. It was nobody's fault, but it was a very unfortunate occurrence that the Indian Contingent, on landing at Marseilles, had to be entirely rearmed. That took 70,000 rifles out of the supply we had in store, and beyond that the wastage on the retreat from Mons amounted to nearly 30,000 rifles. That took 100,000 rifles, leaving very few—I will not mention the number—to be rearmed with these rifles.
    As a musketry officer—and I feel I am speaking more as a musketry officer than as a Member of Parliament upon these details—I have no hesitation in saying that from start to finish of the training of these New Armies the one thing that has hampered and hindered us all along has been the want of Service rifles. The right hon. Gentleman rather skated over this question of rifles, and, of course, he was not going to tell us, and no one would ask him, what amount we have and what amount we are turning out now; but I should very much like to hear, and I think the House would like to hear, from the hon. Member on that bench who is responsible now, whether he is satisfied as

    127
    regards the supply of rifles that is being turned out. I am speaking for every one of the musketry officers throughout the whole of these new divisions in the New Army, and I know every general officer will support what I am saying now. The men who had to vise old rifles in these New Armies were extraordinarily keen and were extraordinarily well grounded in all their work. They were looking forward for months and months to carrying out their musketry practice, which was to carry with it a certain amount of proficiency pay, and which aroused emulation amongst them. It was the greatest regret to them, therefore, that they had to carry out their practice very often with an inferior rifle, and I only hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a satisfactory answer as regards the number of rifles that are coming along at the present time.
    I am going to turn for a few moments to machine guns. The Minister of Munitions was perfectly right when he told the House of the enormous power and development of machine guns. I have no hesitation in saying that four machine guns are equal to a battalion of Infantry. If you knock out four machine guns you destroy twelve men; if you destroy a battalion of infantry you destroy 1,000. It cannot be repeated too often, as I think was repeated in another place some time ago, that I might almost say in the first year of the War we were placing men against machines. I know perfectly well that when I speak of machine guns anyone who knows anything about their work knows there are only two sorts in general use in the Army at the present moment. There is another one coming along. That is the Vickers-Maxim and the Lewis gun. They are both excellent guns, and no fault is to be found with them whatever. What we suffered from in the early months of the War, and what hampered us in the training, was the small number we had at our disposal. We had to get hurriedly our detachments trained at the last moment. We had been teaching many of them with a wooden gun before, and then you had suddenly to teach them with a real gun during the last fortnight before they went out on service. I am glad to think that a very large school has been established abroad which is working most admirably, and they have really got more guns than they want, and very soon I hope in this country we shall have more guns than we have men. In
    128
    modern warfare no one at all can look forward to what is going to happen. After visiting, as I have quite recently, some of the fields of the bitterest fighting carried out by the French Army, I think it will come as a great surprise to hon. Members of this House to hear that the rifle was almost out of date in that great attack which the French made in the Labyrinth and Souchez, and I think I am right in saying that they never used from start to finish a rifle at all. I doubt whether they took the rifle with them into the front trenches, and the whole of that attack was carried out with short daggers and grenades. It was fought in very narrow trenches where you had no room to wield your rifle or to turn round.
    No one can possibly foresee what extraordinary changes modern warfare will lead us to. I blame nobody for the shortage of machine guns in this country at the beginning of the War, because our experience was based on what we had learned in South Africa. There we never had a target, and machine guns were wasted, and naturally we thought that in future wars probably machine guns would not play the prominent part they had done. I know the Germans had thousands more machine guns than we had; they took no chances, and they armed themselves with every weapon science could devise with the prospect and probability of some of them turning out trumps. They were perfectly right as regards machine guns. I do not think when the War began the Germans had any more knowledge or forethought as to the tremendous part machine guns were going to play than we had ourselves. In the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech he referred to taking these men away from different divisions for munitions work, and he was perfectly right in saying that every single officer, from the general downwards, is very reluctant to allow those men to go. I know I had some of those gentlemen who came down to take men from my division, and I assure you I hated the sight of them. They were men I had been training for months and months, and these gentlemen came down to take the very best men I had trained. I know you cannot help that sort of thing, and it is only natural that one should take a dislike to these people for the time being taking your best men after you have spent many months in their training. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to let me know that he is satisfied about the number of Mark III. rifles, and

    129
    that he will be able to say either that they are being delivered or are being made here at the present moment, so as to better arm all these training units, so that they may take more care and trouble and interest in their training.
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDE: The Minister of Munitions has made a most interesting speech upon which I would like to offer him my congratulations. In congratulating the Minister of Munitions we ought not to forget the personnel of the Ministry over which the right hon. Gentleman presides. There is no doubt about it that whatever success—and great success has attended their efforts—is largely due to the extremely able staff which the right hon. Gentleman controls. This Ministry really has done most amazing work in a very short time. I have had considerable experience of Government offices and officials for a number of years, and I must say that of all the Government offices with which I have ever been connected I find the Ministry of Munitions by far the most satisfactory, because they seem to be gentlemen who intend to do business, and there is very little red tape about them. In congratulating the Minister of Munitions I should also like to congratulate the Ministry upon the result they have achieved. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members who sit below the Gangway opposite I do not profess to know anything about, but whatever it is I hope it is in the way of a speedy settlement, because it is everybody's interest in these islands, capitalists, labour, soldiers, sailors, and taxpayers, that this War should come to an end as speedily as possible. It is to all our interests that this War should be brought to a triumphant conclusion absolutely and finally and without any of us squabbling amongst ourselves while the War is going on. Therefore, whatever little difference exists between hon. Members below the Gangway and my right hon. Friend, I hope it will be settled speedily so that the fullest output possible in the shape of munitions may be produced. It is all very well to have soldiers and sailors fighting for us and defending us, but they cannot do that unless we give them the wherewithal to fight. If you do not give them arms and munitions it is no use expecting them to do what is manifestly impossible. Everybody in these islands is behind the Minister of Munitions, and we all wish to help him in the success of these gigantic undertakings.
    130
    I have risen to say a word or two in relation to my own country. In Ireland, when the Ministry of Munitions was started, we were far behind everybody else except in the North-Eastern part of the country. In the rest of Ireland we were in a very backward state, for we had not been properly organised, and it is owing to the representative of the Minister of Munitions in Ireland that a very great change has come over the state of affairs in that respect. I think I may safely say now that Ireland has prepared herself very efficiently according to her opportunities, and is now prepared to do her share in this work to the best of her ability. I imagine that the Minister of Munitions really intends this Debate to take a business turn, and I would like to offer him a few suggestions so far as my own country is concerned. The resources of Ireland have not really been properly utilised, and I am perfectly satisfied that we can do more than we have done in the matter of munitions. The request I would make generally is that we should be given a larger opportunity of assisting the right hon. Gentleman in his work. He alluded to the fact that it is possible now to get munitions of war of the most expensive type at a considerably lower price than when the War began, and when the first contracts for the Ministry of Munitions were placed. I quite agree with that principle. It is in the interests of everybody in this country that the taxpayer should get the best value possible for his money, and in whatever I say about Ireland's participation in munitions contracts I ask for no favour whatsoever. I do not ask that we should be given exceptional prices for our output in munitions in any respect. I ask simply that we should be put on an equality with other parts of the Kingdom, and should be merely given equal opportunities. We are making Shells up to 4.5, and I am told that our 4.5 shells are a very great success. I should like to see more shells turned out in Ireland, and I would earnestly ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry to make a note of the fact and see whether we cannot have an opportunity at all events of tendering for more shells and grenades. We can supply him with shells up to 4.5 and grenades in millions. I am told that we can even turn out 9-inch shells. I would ask that we should be allowed to send a sample of Irish 9-inch shells. If you do not like them, you need not have them, but Irish; manufacturers ought to be

    131
    allowed to tender for them. I think they could make them satisfactorily.
    We can produce ammunition boxes on a very fair scale. There are over twenty places in the south and west of Ireland where we can make ammunition boxes on a very considerable scale, and we can turn them out quite as cheaply as the manufacturers on this side of the Channel. We can use Irish timber for the manufacture of the boxes, thereby saving the considerable cost of importing timber. I would very much like the Minister of Munitions to give us an opportunity speedily of tendering for the manufacture of munition boxes. As a matter of fact, we have made a good many, but I understand that nearly all our contracts are exhausted. There are one or two districts in my Constituency where these boxes are made, and the makers are most anxious that they should be given an opportunity of making more.
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also give us an opportunity of supplying the Army with boots. I do not think that sufficient attention has been paid to our ability to make boots in Ireland. I hope, too, that Irish bootmakers will be given an opportunity of tendering for contracts for our Allies. With regard to woollen supplies, we can accommodate the Army to a great extent with the cloth of which uniforms are made. We can make excellent cloth, and I hope we shall be encouraged to do so. There is one point which I should like to impress upon the Minister of Munitions. Irish supplies of cloth or boots, or whatever it may be, ought to be examined and passed in Ireland. At the present time the Irish cloth to be made up into uniforms is sent over in the piece, and is examined and passed here. That might very well be done in Ireland. If it were examined in Ireland it would be cheaper, it -would save time, and it would be more satisfactory. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this question of stationing inspectors in Ireland, so that Irish contractors may have their products examined and passed without delay at as small a cost as possible
    Another question is the filling of cartridges and shells. There is no such thing in Ireland at the present time. We make explosives on a considerable scale, but there is no place where we can either fill cartridges or shells. I think that is an omission which might be remedied. If we can make shells, there is no reason why
    132
    we should not fill them, and, quite apart from the consideration of cheapness, it would mean the employment of a large number of unskilled workers, who under proper supervision might easily perform the work; at all events, the knowledge is acquired with small practice. It would be an excellent thing if the Minister of Munitions could establish in Ireland within as short a period of time as possible a factory or two for the filling of cartridges and shells.
    There is just one remark I should like to make with regard to what the hon. and gallant Member (Major Sir Charles Hunter) said about taking skilled workers from the Army. Personally, I quite sympathise with his view. It is very hard on a commanding officer when he finds that a good man is suddenly taken away and his regiment is worsened to that extent. I must say that my experience of commanding officers has been extraordinarily good. They have not only assisted me and my friends, but they have shown us the greatest courtesy, as also have all regimental officers. I found that the only objection the men had to leaving the ranks to become munition workers was that they were missing the sport of going abroad and fighting. That was the great objection they had to leaving the Colours. They had all joined for the fighting, and they did not see why they should be taken away to make munitions, and one had to explain to them that they were doing-better work remaining at home making munitions for their friends to fire off. We are all heart and soul at the back of the Minister of Munitions. We intend to support him to the best of our ability, and all we ask, so far as my country is concerned, is that we should be given a fair opportunity of participating in the work.
    Sir W. PEARCE: Listening to the speech of the Minister of Munitions, one could not help realising what a great asset it is to have at the head of that Department a Minister who is not afraid of doing too much. Perhaps the most valuable work he yet has done is the way in which he has been able to speed-up the production on the old contracts. After all, I should imagine that up to the present all the munitions supplied to our Forces in the field, or nearly all, must have been supplied before the present Minister took charge of the Department. There are some limitations, in spite of my praise, which it is impossible to get over, and I

    133
    was very glad to hear him remark that he intended to stop further purchases in America to a very large extent. The works we are putting up in this country will require an enormous amount of raw material. Unfortunately, there is a natural limit to the world's production of a good many of these raw materials. It is not possible to make nitro-glycerine without glycerine, or T.N.T. without toluol, or picric acid without benzol or carbolic acid. There is not an unlimited supply in the world, and the stoppage of orders in America might tend to increase the amount of such materials available for this country. I imagine the Department have considered how far these limitations really operate. I am not suggesting that the present works cannot be fully employed, but I have felt and do feel there is a danger that, if large orders for manufactured materials continue to be placed in America, the supply of raw material for our own works may be reduced, and the Minister of Munitions may find himself handicapped by not getting sufficiently large quantities of the materials he requires.
    I have spent most of my time in factories, and every week there is brought home to me the increasing difficulty of getting a full supply of labour. Without going into that great controversy in which so many people in this House take sides, but in which I have never taken part, I do want to assure the Minister of Munitions that if he requires the workmen he describes he will have to be considerate in his scheme of recruiting, and in the number of men spared for the Army. A good deal has been said to-night about rifles. There was one remark the Minister made which caused me a certain amount of apprehension. He is relying for his rifles upon what he calls the peddling out system. There is a difference of opinion whether that system is likely to be effective. It is very difficult to put the various portions of rifles together when they come to the place of assembly, and I have heard a strong opinion that unexpected difficulties may happen. There is a good deal of apprehension in some quarters at the course the Government appeared to have decided to take. Another article, in regard to which there may be a real limitation, is fuses. In the manufacture of explosives in this country difficulty is more likely to arise from a limitation in the supply of fuses than of anything else. The whole question is one of extraordinary
    134
    difficulty and complexity, and my sympathies are entirely with the Department in the problem they have to solve. I hope what I have said will not be taken to be carping criticism, but rather an honest endeavour to point out the rocks which may possibly not have been realised.
    There is one other point on which I wish to say a few words, and it is in reference to the policy of the Department with regard to controlled businesses. Under the Extension of the Munitions Act, which we finished on Friday, we gave the Department power to take over a very much larger series of controlled businesses. Two thousand businesses are at present under the control of the Department, and under the old Bill, with the present extension, the number will be almost inexhaustible. I hope that this power will be used with discretion. I agree that the Department ought to have power to take over almost every business. It is necessary to get over the difficulties with regard to labour, and certainly for labour reasons, in some cases it is desirable the businesses should be controlled. Employers again may be selfish, and wish to run their businesses in their own hands. In these cases, too, it may be necessary for the Ministry to control the undertakings. But with these two exceptions, I strongly believe in allowing these businesses to go their own way. There are 2,000, after all, under control, and the more you multiply them, the more trouble you will get, and the more trouble you will have at the time of settlement. I suggest the Department should follow my advice, and not do anything themselves which other people do as well or better. I feel with the rest of the House that the prospects of victory very largely depend on the successful management of this enormous undertaking. I wish everybody concerned in it the greatest success, but I cannot shut my eyes to the enormous difficulties they have to face.
    Sir CROYDON MARKS: I want, if I may, to reinforce the appeal which has been made to the Labour party, because of the experience I personally have had in connection with the dilution of labour for the production of munitions. At the present moment there is a vast amount of skilled labour doing work that might readily be performed by unskilled persons, and if those now concerned with skilled work would only realise that they are not lessening their skill, or losing their position by allowing other people to come and

    135
    do that repetition work which they themselves are doing, a great deal of the misunderstanding and misconception that has arisen in their minds will be removed. It has been made clear to our labour friends by the Minister of Munitions that nothing in the way of privilege, or in the way of status, so far as the trade unions are concerned, will be affected by their giving way now, and permitting persons to come and do this skilled work which has become unskilled by repetition, and that the conditions obtaining during the period of the War are not likely to obtain at the end of the War, for the simple reason that most of the work which these people are doing now, and which unskilled people are required and needed to be brought into, is work that is not commercial, and is simply connected with war munitions, which a little experience makes unskilled persons just as competent to perform as skilled persons. Therefore I want, if I may, to suggest to those who have been connected with the labour movement to listen to the appeal which has been made, and should represent to their followers that the output can be increased very materially by the skilled men going to do that skilled work elsewhere, and leaving women and unskilled men to do the repetition work which they themselves are wasting their time upon.
    I know works in this country where men are using their skill in a way that is really a waste of energy. Men can be employed and their full skill be used to the greatest advantage if they can only understand that by being transferred as proposed they are not breaking down the system of the trade union to which they are attached. I do not want to indulge in any recriminations such as the hon. Member for Derby used in his references to the speech of the Minister of Munitions, when he suggested that the bargain that had been made had not been kept, because I could, of my own personal knowledge, give instances where trade unionists have not kept their part of the bargain, and where, by not doing so, they have retarded the delivery of things badly needed in this War. I have visited works where I have seen 1,600 men on strike, and while they have been on strike the very articles they have been making have been badly needed for our Army and Navy. I mention that to show that there is still some necessity for them to be careful when suggesting that one is not keeping a bargain and
    136
    alleging that they on their side have kept their whole bargain.
    The time for recrimination has gone. The time for unity exists, and if our friends will throw on one side the suspicion they have that there is an intention to break down the trade-union rules by bringing unskilled persons to do the work of skilled persons, then we would have no further trouble. They could quite well have this understood if they would let it go forth as the pledge of the Minister that there is no such intention and that the bringing in of these people is just a bringing in to meet the needs of the nation in the hour of its necessity. There are many operations which, when the skilled man originally performs them, takes the whole of his skill, but subsequently continuing in those operations he is no longer a skilled man. It is repetition work that other persons could readily be taught in a few weeks. I have seen women working in Manchester in works producing munitions after two weeks' training and producing them as well as the skilled men whom they had displaced, the skilled men being better employed and serving their nation's need better by using their skill for that which the unskilled persons could not produce. I want to reinforce that from my own experience. It has been my good fortune to be associated with some trade unionists who assured me that they would do all that they could to help in the dilution of labour, but that their own men felt suspicion in connection with that which was being done, and because of that suspicion the efforts of their own leaders have been futile. At the present moment there exists in districts known to some of us a difficulty that arises not because of the advice given by their leaders, but because of the suspicion entertained by the men that their trade unions were to be broken down when this dilution was brought about.
    Therefore I want to suggest now that what we need most at the present time is for the unskilled person to be brought in to do the work that the skilled person is wastefully and extravagantly doing, in order that the skilled person might do better work elsewhere, where that better work is needed. There are many workshops in this country where skilled men are sought. There are many places where the machines are not fully used. There are many articles that are not being made because of the lack of skilled men; yet, at the same time, we have skilled men in many works who could easily be displaced

    137
    if the trade unionists in that place would permit them to come in. I appeal to night, as one who has been trying to do his little in order to bring about the dilution of this labour, to the trade unionists outside to join with their leaders, because their leaders have advised them, in responding to the appeal that Las been made here to-night by the Minister of Munitions, so that the energies of the unskilled person can be used to the advantage of the State while the greater energies of the skilled person can be better used by their coming in. If that is done the War, which is concerned with machinery, will be earlier won. If it is not done the more we drag out the more lives we lose, as the Minister of Munitions has pointed out. If I may reinforce that which has been so well put by the Minister of Munitions, I would ask our labour leaders to disabuse the minds of their friends of the suspicion they entertain in order that this dilution can take place without taking a single man from the Army, without robbing a single man of the badge of enlistment that he wears, without taking a single man who is in the trenches, but by taking the women who can do this work and taking the men who are able to do this work, without depleting the Army and without removing any who have enlisted. This would give a great impetus in our shops to the reserve of labour which is only ready and willing at this moment to come in if the trade unionists will permit them to come.
    Sir J. D. REES: I think the House is quite satisfied that the Minister of Munitions and his staff are working hammer and tongs and doing their best, and that it is a good best. For that reason I do not think it is worth while to consider whether the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was an eulogy of the Government as it is or a condemnation of the Government as it was, he himself having been a Member of both Governments. It was a rather astounding admission that it was only after nine months of war, and after the visit of the Prime Minister himself to the front, that the Government appreciated the fact of our hopeless deficiency in respect of machine guns. I leave that there, because I do not wish to touch upon it. Nor do I think I can follow the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Esmonde) from Ireland in his account of the goods which he can supply to the Minister of Munitions. All I can say is, that if the right hon. Gentleman will invite me to walk into his parlour at Whitehall, I will
    138
    show him specimens of our goods equal to anything in the long list which the hon. Baronet said Ireland produced and I will back the Queen of the Midlands against Dark Rosaleen. I do not mean to suggest by that that Nottingham is not doing great things, but that she is willing to do more. I know that what she has been doing has been acknowledged by the Government. I do not wish to make any more remarks in the sense of the phrase "M.P. turned traveller." The last speaker made an appeal to trade unionists. I hope I shall be in order in making an appeal to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) begging him, in the very responsible and influential position he occupies, not again to say that to win the War with Conscription would be equal to losing it. That is a terrible statement to make.
    My object in rising is to refer to one or two questions regarding the action taken by the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic). I put a question to-day to the Minister concerned, in regard to the case of the magistrates at Bristol who fined a man for treating his wife. In it self, that a man should treat his wife is, perhaps, a praiseworthy performance, and that the magistrate should have to fine him for that seems to me to be a regrettable necessity. The Minister of Munitions, instead of dealing with the question as he ought to have done, invited me to suggest how the publican concerned could discover by outward and visible signs whether the lady who is treated is or is not the wife of the gentleman who treats her. It is not for me to do that. It is for the Ministry of Munitions to say that the Central Control Board, which I cannot but think acts certainly with his approval and I suppose at his instigation—it is the duty of the Ministry of Munitions to say that no bench of magistrates should be put in the painful position of being bound to fine a perfectly innocent roan, engaged in a perfectly innocent and praiseworthy action. Another question I raised a day or two before concerns the fact that a man ordering wine, beer, or anything else now, unless he sends a cheque with the order, is actually liable to a fine of £100 or imprisonment with hard labour. This is another monstrous order by this same Board. It is intolerable tyranny. Again the Minister of Munitions said no fine was actually imposed. That may be so, but any Member of this House, or any mem-

    139
    ber of the public wanting to indulge his legitimate taste for drink, or to supply his house with whatever is required in the practice of elementary hospitality, if he is too proud to drink himself, is actually driven to this proceeding that he has to send a cheque with the order, otherwise he is guilty of an offence. That, also, is perfectly intolerable. Suppose this principle of making credit illegal were extended in other directions, the whole fabric of British trade, upon which the greatness of this country rests, must fall to the ground. It is a monstrous principle, and the Minister of Munitions really did not meet me in any way, so that I am bound to trouble the right hon. Gentleman. I want to know why we have not got some satisfactory answer, and whether the Ministry of Munitions will not impress upon the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) that its function is to facilitate the making of munitions of war, and not, under cover of that function, to persecute an already persecuted trade or to interfere with the legitimate rights of the subject in respect of liquid refreshments.
    9.0 P.M.
    The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there have been meetings in all parts of London protesting against these regulations, and a manifesto backed up by fifty trade union branches and by 200 employers of labour representing all kinds of trades, and particularly those in which he is concerned, in Lancashire and elsewhere, has protested that these restrictions must lead to discontent amongst labour, which it is so important and which the Government goes to such lengths to conciliate. That is my own experience. It is the duty of a Member of Parliament in these critical times, if he is in the habit of getting about the country, to learn what he can at first hand of the feelings in this respect. I protest, and I believe the hon. Member (Mr. W. Thorne) has several times expressed the same opinion in the House—and he knows a great deal about labour—that there is this fear of raising discontent if they proceed further on these lines. I, personally, may have the misfortune of not being able to appreciate the thin partition which exists between Socialism and social reform in these things, but that really does not matter. The point here is something far simpler than that. It is a question how far these regulations are really required for the Defence of the Realm at present and the
    140
    production of munitions, and how far they are unwelcome, improper, and excessive interferences with the liberty of the subject. There was a large meeting the other day in London at which a protest was delivered against the drastic Orders of the Central Control Board. I protest, for my part, as a citizen, that it is perfectly ridiculous that I should not be able to buy, say, a consignment of light French wine made by our Allies, and good for every man, and why I should be put to this inconvenience of having with the order to send a cheque. It is a perfectly ridiculous restriction, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell me his chief is prepared to relax. My colleague in the representation of Nottingham shire, the hon. Member for Mansfield, asked whether any steps had been taken to ascertain the wishes of the people at Worksop, and the Minister could not say there had been. He said he believed it was usual. In fact, no opinion was taken, and no opinion is taken in these matters. This Central Control Board is like a Star Chamber. Anything it does is at once not only condoned but approved, on the ground that it favours the conduct of the War. That is begging the whole point. If once we are convinced that it does so, no one is likely to object to it. That it affects it in any way I profoundly disbelieve. But however that may be, surely something less drastic than these measures could be devised. Meanwhile while there are all these excessive restrictions clubs are not placed under the same restrictions as public-houses, and when I appeal to the Home Secretary on the matter he refers me to the Temporary Restrictions Bill, under which no action can be taken except upon the motion of the chief constable of the county concerned, who may be under the thumb, for all I know, of some association connected with the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones). I also appealed the other day, by question, which is the only way open to me, to the Minister of Munitions, and asked him to remove from the Board the hon. Member (Mr. Snowden), not that I have anything against the hon. Member, but because, when a man is supposed to exercise quasi-judicial functions, he is supposed to exercise quasi-judicial discretion and not to make a speech against the liquor trade when his function is to hold the scales equally between the liquor trade and the Central Control Board. I

    141
    had no success there either. I protest again that for the hon. Member to sit upon that Board seems nothing less than a scandal after the speech he made. I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to arrange that clubs should be put under Section 13 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations through the medium of an Order in Council. I have already appealed to the Home Secretary to that effect, and I repeat my appeal to the hon. Gentleman. I hope he has kindly noted the various matters through which I have quickly gone, because one duty of a Member of Parliament at this time is not to speak at any length, and I have always endeavoured to carry that out since the War came, even if I may have offended on some occasions before it began.
    I must not shrink from saying this, because I do it in a perfectly friendly spirit to the Minister of Munitions, who, I am convinced, acts entirely, in his belief, in what is the public interest and against whom I make no charge whatever. But it is the case, and it is useless to blink the fact, that when we are dealing with the public we must consider the personal equation, perhaps more than any other factor in the case. The right hon. Gentleman is himself an extremely ardent teetotaler. He is in the closest connection with the hon. Member (Mr. Leif Jones), who reduces to an absurdity the claims of temperance. But there you have these extremely drastic and very strong Orders passed, appeals for restraint are disregarded, and you have at the head of the Ministry of Munitions a Minister, who, whatever his merits, his eloquence, his capacity and his present attention to the duties of his important office, is nevertheless credited personally, and I know correctly, with the strongest possible bias towards the strictest temperance political view. Is not that a factor in the case? Does that not colour the whole case? Is it not natural that those people who are affected by these Orders should consider that? I find it very difficult even to keep it out of my own head, although I speak in perfectly good faith in saying I credit him with good faith. If I have spoken with any heat, and I hope I have not, it is due to the fact that it is extremely hard to get in any way forward on this subject here. What is a question when you have a Minister sitting there with a row of secretaries behind him, with the last word always on his side, with the power of putting aside a question, of queering the
    142
    pitch, or disregarding an issue. This makes it impossible for a Member of Parliament to have any real success in questioning Ministers, particularly if the Minister is for any reason, good for him, or as the Member might think, bad, disinclined to meet thim. This is the first occasion I have had of saying a few words on this subject. I hope I shall be excused if I have spoken too strongly, but I shall look forward with some interest to hearing from the hon. Gentleman (Colonel Lee) that he will put this matter strongly before his chief, the Minister of Munitions, and endeavour to do justice.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In regard to the question of the new liquor regulations, it is quite true to say that there is a great deal of difference between myself and some other Members of the Labour party. I do not expect that there is any body of men but are divided upon this question. I live in a division where a very large number of workmen reside, and I have had no end of resolutions from branches of various trade unions, and I have also received a good number of letters from various individuals, in consequence of what they call these very bad restrictions which have been issued by the Board of Control. My own view about the matter is that if they had left it alone it would have been much better, because with this new trade Order for the closing of public-houses and with the number of restrictions down in the dock area, there is a great deal of irritation taking place at the present time in all parts of London. I am not prepared to say that in consequence of the new regulations there has been interference with the output of munitions, because I do not think there is a single workman in London who will attempt to shirk his responsibility in consequence of these new liquor regulations. I do say, however, that it would be very much better if the Minister of Munitions would give some attention to the views of organised labour in regard to this particular question. It not only affects men working in the dock areas, but it affects a very large number of men who go to work very early in the morning at Smithfield Market—I am led to understand that some little help has been given in that direction—you have the men starting work at two o'clock in the morning and finishing at eleven o'clock in the forenoon. Then there is the case of the Cattle Market, the Borough Market, and Spitalfields Market, where people have to start work early in the morning, and you have other

    143
    cases of people who start work in the early morning, all of whom are prevented from getting light refreshment. At the docks I think arrangements are being made to set up canteens. That, I think, is a very good idea, but I do not think the Government are speeding the matter up. I think they ought to get to work quickly and erect these canteens where the men can get light refreshment.
    The reason I rose to speak was the very damaging speech made by one of the hon. Members for Cornwall (Sir G. Croydon Marks). Anyone who reads that speech to-morrow morning would be led to believe that, so far as trade unions are concerned, there has been absolutely no relaxation of their rules. I suppose that there is no trade union organisation in the country, so far as I know, which has not relaxed its rules from top to bottom in regard to overtime, the apprenticeship system, and so on. As a matter of fact, so far as the trade unions are concerned, it practically means that we have got no rules or regulations to-day. The result is that in every direction—and I do not care what trade union you mention—in every trade union in this country the men are working at the very highest speed possible. They are working with very long hours, with many hours of overtime, and in many cases it has been proved that the men have almost worked themselves to a standstill. When the hon. Gentleman makes this very earnest appeal to organised labour to remove these restrictions, I should like to know where these restrictions are in operation at the present time.
    I quite believe that it is a rather difficult job to get the number of men required for what one would call very skilled and very special work. On Saturday morning I made it my duty to call and see the manager of the Labour Exchange at Derby, and he showed me a letter he had received from an employer who wanted a certain number of tool makers—I think, about thirty. If he could have supplied those thirty tool makers and tool setters, the employer could have brought forty machines into working order, and that would have meant the employment of something like 200 or 300 women or ordinary general labourers. Do not put that down to the fault of the ordinary unskilled man; do not put it down to the engineer; do not put it down to slacking on the part of any skilled workman. If it is not possible to obtain tool makers that is your
    144
    difficulty. It is difficult to obtain tool makers for the purpose of making tools, and it is difficult to obtain tool setters. If the Minister of Munitions could see his way clear to make inquiries from the Tool-makers' Society and try to get more tool makers—and I believe there are a great many of them who have joined the Colours—you would find to a great extent that some of your difficulties would be removed, because there is no doubt that it is in regard to tool makers that we are experiencing difficulty in different parts of the country.
    So far as the ordinary general labourer is concerned, I do not think there has been any complaint in that direction. I recognise that you cannot very well expect even a skilled man to be transferred from Manchester to Newcastle, or vice versa, unless-provisions are made for removing that man from one place to another and giving him some reasonable compensation for removing his home. If a man is called upon to keep two homes—for that is what it amounts to—unless some compensation is paid to the man you cannot expect him to-transfer from one district to another. I believe there are Rules and Regulations in the Munitions Act, or under some Order in Council, where a subsistence allowance is allowed amounting to 17s. 6d. a week. I am not sure whether that meets all the extra cost the man will be put to, because of the extra cost of living in all parts of the country.
    I listened to the major part of the speech of the Minister of Munitions, and I note that he complained about the cost of the various articles which are being made now in all parts of the country in regard to munitions, guns and so forth. There is one very important raw material which is brought into play in all these things, which he never mentioned, and that is coal. Everybody knows that there is no-kind of munitions made at all unless coal is a very important factor, and the result is that in consequence of the very high price of coal nearly all the things that are being manufactured to-day in regard to munitions have been increased something like 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. I would give one illustration which I am well acquainted with. In my own organisation we have a very large number of men who work on blast furnaces, and I think I am right in saying that it takes about two and a half tons of coal to make a ton of pig iron, in addition to the coke that has to be used. If the price of coal

    145
    has only been increased 5s. a ton—and that is a very modest estimate, because it has been increased more than 5s. a ton in some directions—that means that at least 12s. 6d. a ton has been added to the cost of pig iron alone in consequence of the higher price of coal. Moreover, if you go into the question of steel smelting, the same thing is brought into operation, because there is a great deal, I do not say the best of coal, but a certain amount of coal used for the purpose of generating the gas supply of smelting furnaces. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that if you go into this question you will find that the increase in the price of coal certainly adds to the cost of everything that is being turned out in regard to the munitions of war. If that is so, I should like to know why the Government do not tackle this question. You have tackled many other questions. I know it is a large question to tackle, but we know that very large profits are being made by the coal-owners in different parts of the country, and if you investigate it you will be bound to come to the conclusion that the extra cost of coal has been an important factor in the cost of production. You have tackled the meat question, the freightage question, and why not tackle the coal question, for the benefit of the whole nation, and work and control it in the same way as you are controlling other industries? I believe if you do you will find that you will be able to sell coal to all the factories where munitions are being made at between 5s. and 10s. less than now. I want to emphasise one other point which has been made by the hon. Member for Derby. No doubt he made a very important statement with regard to the charges made by the Minister of Munitions at the Bristol Trade Union Congress, but some of these charges have been made before the right hon. Gentleman attended the Bristol Trade Union Congress, and in some cases they have been investigated and disputed. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress was called on to investigate these charges. They did investigate some of them which proved to be absolutely untrue. When the workmen find serious charges made that are not true they feel they are not being fairly dealt with. If any Member of this House had a charge laid against him that was not true he would feel very much aggrieved, and he would like to have it investigated and have a disclaimer at the very earliest oppor-
    146
    tunity—little things like that, and many other things—the question of the Munitions Act, and very serious prosecutions against workmen, cases where men have been imprisoned for certain offences without the option of a fine. It is true the Minister of Munitions said that the employers have paid their fines in every case. Yes, but that is put down as part of the ordinary working expenditure of the firm. If workmen are called on to pay fines of £5 and £10 it is an impossibility for them to pay without having to bear great hardship in their households. I know that men have been brought before these tribunals for pettifogging offences. Some members of our own organisation have been fined sums up to 20s. because they refused to work overtime. Their reason for refusing was that the manager refused to pay them the proper overtime rates. In such cases the employer should be brought to book as well as the workman. If the Minister of Munitions would tackle the employers in the same way as the workmen are being tackled at present it would cause more contentment in the factories and workshops, and the way to speed-up the output of munitions is to treat men as they should be treated, and you will get more out of them than by imprisonment and bullying. When I was at work, if I was working under a foreman who would treat me as a man ought to be treated, I would do more work for him than I would for one who was always bullying me. Men will do more with a little persuasion than they will when they are bullied. I am firmly convinced that the major part of the workmen in all parts of the country are doing their level best for the purpose of supplying the Minister of Munitions with all the materials required, and they have certainly made up their minds that they will both work and fight until the War is carried to a successful termination.
    Mr. MOLTENO: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down in that portion of his speech where he dealt with the restriction on the liquor traffic. I entirely sympathise with the effort to reduce the opportunities for excessive drinking. At the same time, there may be hardship inflicted on men by the rules made by the authorities. However, I do not propose to follow him in that, but I would like to make a few remarks on the speech of the Minister of Munitions. I listened with interest to that speech, but I am not sure I got much information. It

    147
    appeared to me to be a series of Algebraic formulae, with the symbols unknown. You could not get exact information on any of the subjects he professed to enlighten us upon. We all felt that especially when he said he had the leave of the Prime Minister to make a disclosure in a certain part of his speech, and we were all disappointed that the disclosure did not go further than it did. I do not propose to dwell on that, but I should like to make a few remarks in regard to what he said concerning economy. He mentioned that he had received criticism and information from Members of this House, and that he welcomed them. It is in that spirit that I should like to make a few remarks on the question of economy. It is clear to everybody that it is of the utmost importance that we should not spend more money than is necessary; that we should spend freely but not extravagantly or unwisely. It is in that spirit I desire to draw the attention of the hon. Member who now occupies the Treasury Bench (Colonel Arthur Lee) to some of the instances that have come under my observation. I need hardly emphasise the fact that finance has become of growing and vital importance. The Prime Minister told us that the financial position is serious. The Colonial Secretary told us that we were risking bankruptcy. These are very serious statements made by some of the most responsible Members in this House. In connection with the Ministry of Munitions the Colonial Secretary pointed out that the increase in cost is very great indeed, and the right hon. Gentleman told us to-day that by instituting a certain Committee—a Committee I think he called it—headed by a chartered accountant who had come forward patriotically to give his assistance, economies ranging up to 40 per cent. of the cost had been made. I suggested some time ago that the evidence and conclusions of the War Committees on the South African War might have been availed of, and that a financial adviser should have been appointed at once in these questions of Army contracts and expenditure. Apparently it has not been done, because in a Treasury Minute, issued by the present Minister of Munitions when he occupied the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, in January last freed the War Department which then had charge of munitions from any supervision by the Treasury, so that Department has been quite uncontrolled by the Financial Secre-
    148
    tary or by any financial official until quite recently, when this Committee was appointed. I am very glad the Committee has been set up, and that an economy of 40 per cent. has been effected. The Colonial Secretary said, on the 18th November last in this House:—
    "One of the disadvantages of that, and I think one of the most serious, perhaps, of all, is the scale of wages which is established all over the country. One has some hesitation in speaking about that when you see people, as I know from experience, making very large incomes in business as a result of the War, and very large incomes even after the Excess Profits Tax is taken from them.
    When you see that, one hesitates to dwell too largely upon the scale of wages throughout the country. After all, it is a question of arithmetic. I have looked into it in regard to the cost of some munitions. The rate of wages we are paying means now, as compared with the old times before the War, that the things necessary for the conduct of the War are costing us three or four times as much as they would have cost if the old conditions had prevailed."
    I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Member on the Front Bench to what I consider to be extravagances and waste that are occurring in the Munitions Department, whereby the cost of output must be enormously increased. We hear a great many stories of extravagances and waste. But the worst of the results is that the rate of wages in various districts are raised to an unnecessary extent, and this has the effect of driving up the rate which has to be paid by private employers, the wages reaching a point which renders it quite impossible for them to carry on their business if they are to be maintained. I think it most proper that the workers should be properly paid, especially when they have to go to other districts, and perhaps have to keep up two establishments and incur other expenses consequent upon their working away from their home. In these circumstances I think they are entitled to the utmost consideration, and due regard should be paid to the position in which they are placed. But I am not calling attention to cases of that character at all. My purpose is to call attention to cases where there has been unnecessary waste. I shall give some details of wages that are paid and which are mentioned in a letter which I intend to read to the House. Not only are high wages paid but time is being wasted as well. Men in some cases who are being paid very high wages are doing nothing. I have come across cases in which conscientious men in munitions departments have refused to receive these great wages for doing nothing whatever.
    A man who, from patriotism, desired to serve his country, volunteered at an early stage to do munition work. He was

    149
    put to a lathe, and work was given to him. He worked hard. There was a double shift at the factory, a night shift and a day shift; he was on the day shift. At the conclusion of one day a portion of a shell he was engaged upon was un finished, and he left the shell in the lathe, it being his time to leave work. He was succeeded by his relief at the end of the shift. On the following morning he returned to his work, and he found the shell in exactly the same position as he had left it. He said to his relief, "Why, how is this? This shell is exactly in the same condition as when I left it." The relief replied, "Oh, yes; we have done no work; we have been playing cards all night," and he put his hands in his pockets and said, "Here are my winnings." It is clear that there is enormous waste occurring, and that work is not provided. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that a private shop?"] This is a munitions establishment. I may say that in my own Constituency I have had universal complaints from manufacturers that they are being deprived of their men—that if something is not done they will be brought to a standstill. They say they will be absolutely paralysed if further men are taken away from them. They also point out the enormous increase forced upon them in wages by reason of the high standard set up by the munitions factory in their neighbourhood. Farmers also are at their wits' end. They say that they dare not cultivate their land because they are unable to see how to meet the cost. I am constantly receiving representations from my own Constituents. I should like to read a letter, one of many, which I have received. I have sent a copy of this letter to the Munitions Department, who have been very kind to me in every way, and offered to do everything they can in these matters. But the fact remains that nothing is done, and the trouble is still going on. This is the letter:—
    "I do hope that you may be able to effect some improvement soon. I have preached to my people publicly on the necessity for thrift, and I am advising the working folks privately to lay aside one-half of the extra pay they are getting just now against the hard times that are sure to come after the War. But what is the use of all preaching and teaching when the Government Departments are making such a woeful display of public extravagance? I could give you instance after instance from my own observation in which hundreds of pounds have been wantonly wasted through sheer incapacity. …. I wish you could do more, however, to prevent the wholesale demoralisation of our countryside that is going on, and which cannot be defended on the plea that it is helping to end the War Can you stop the extravagant payment of boy labour and the taking of apprentices away from their situations?"
    150
    I will not mention names, but will just give an illustration to the House of what has occurred. A two and a half years' apprentice, about eighteen years of age, left his work for munition work and is now getting 33s. per week for assisting in one of the contractor's stores. Another two apprentices are earning 40s. 6d. for a fifty-four hour week; another, seventeen years of age, and over a year an apprentice in a cycle shop, is getting £2 14s. 8d. for his week's work. Of two boys under fourteen years of age, relieved from school attendance, one gets 25s. a week and the other—a "nipper" employed to heat navvies cans—is getting 30s. An apprentice to a grocer at 6s. or 7s. a week is now in possession of 20s. a week. These are a few instances, the writer states, and that this has been going on all over the district, and apprentices and young lads, after receiving such high pay for six months or more, may be ruined for life, for they will never return to their apprenticeship or occupation for a few shillings a week. The letter goes on to say that rates of pay are far in advance of anything ever dreamed of in the writer's part of the country. He gives various illustrations and speaks of needless and useless Sunday labour.
    "Many steady working folks complain of the slackness and loafing that goes on all over the place. One man who has just returned after a few years in Canada, says he has been on several big railway and other contracts in Canada and never saw one so wastefully mismanaged. …. I hear also of huts erected that have to be pulled down again because they were planted across a road, or railway line projected. … These are not a tithe of the complaints I hear."
    Those are actual facts. At a time when every penny ought to count and ought to be saved, it is most important that an example should be set to the country of careful economy, and it is most disastrous that we should have cases of this kind now occurring on a very large scale. I am entirely in favour of men being properly paid, particularly where they have to make a move to what are perhaps very uncomfortable and difficult quarters. We are told of these cases of absolute waste in regard to boy labour and Sunday labour. I understand a circular has been issued with regard to Sunday labour, but I am not sure if it is being carried into effect. The case may not be one entirely of munitions work. At any rate, the want of economy and Sunday labour extravagance has been established by the Report of the Commission which was circulated to-day. It seems to me that our departments are working almost isolated with regard to the effect on other departments. We have Lord Derby getting men at all costs.

    151
    The right hon. Gentleman told us to-day that he has factories with machinery at the present moment standing absolutely idle and no work being done, with valuable machinery capable of turning out what is the most urgent necessity, machine-guns, for want of men. Again he tells us of the urgent need of 380,000 workmen, and of from 250,000 to 300,000 unskilled workmen. What does Lord Derby say to that? What must be the effect upon that state of thing of making further enormous drafts on the labour of this country. Then we have another recruiter who is recruiting at any cost and at all costs, and that is Lord Murray, who is recruiting for munitions. He does not mind what he pays. He pays any rate, apparently, from the illustrations I have given, to get men, and not only men, but boys. It seems to me we are getting into the position of every department working for itself alone regardless of harmonising the requirements of the whole country and fitting in with other departments. It is a most extravagant way of carrying on the affairs of the country for one department to act in oblivion of, and without regard to, what is happening in another department. The result, it appears to me, is that we are getting dangerously near to chaos. I do not propose to go into the question in more detail to-day, but it is getting very near that chaos when one I do from my own Constituency and elsewhere, of the serious condition into which our industries are now falling for lack of material and for lack of men. I ask that we should have some attempt to harmonise the requirements of all those various departments.
    I think I have said enough to establish the fact that there is very serious waste going on in these very large spending departments of the country. The Prime Minister has told us that the cost of the War has gone up enormously recently because of the advanced cost of munitions. We can all see that munitions must form a larger and larger portion of the cost of the War. Therefore it becomes more important that the department of the expenditure which is occupying the greatest area must be the department where the greatest opportunity for economy comes in, and where it is most necessary that it should be brought about without delay. The right hon. Gentleman made a very striking appeal with which we sympathise entirely, and we shall do our best to sup-
    152
    port that appeal, that now at once, without delay, every effort should be made to get all that is necessary for the proper conduct of the War. He told us how "Too Late" was written over so many efforts either of the present Ministry or the Ministry which has just disappeared—we do not know which. Surely that appeal ought to be most effective to the Ministry of Munitions over which he himself is the head. Let it not be said too late we entered on the economies which ought to have been made in good time, and which, if made in good time, will be most effective in producing the result which we expect from economy—that is, the saving of the precious national resources. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us whether we had sufficient munitions or not in the sense as to whether our Forces are at the present moment adequately supplied with munitions. In June he told us that if we had had munitions on an adequate scale we could have been at the Rhine. He has not given us any estimate of that kind to-day. He told us he had a photograph of some trenches, or, rather, of some barbed wire, which had not been destroyed, but he did not tell us whether that was due to want of shells or to the want of placing shells on the proper spot. So far as I could gather, I understand we have sufficient munitions at the moment at the fighting line, but we shall be very glad to be assured that that is really so.
    Mr. CROOKS: I regret exceedingly that the Minister of Munitions has gone away, as I wanted to say a word or two to him about slackers and men who have neglected their work. I think I may honestly claim to have addressed as many munition workers as any other man in this House. All I could find amongst them, and I am talking not of ones or twos, but of tens of thousands, was intense anxiety to do the right thing for the country and to make any sacrifice to do it. At the very last meeting I addressed, on Friday of last week, a firm admitted to me that such service they had never known in all their fifty years of experience as they were getting now, and I was told that some of the men were working eighty hours per week. The fact of the matter is that it seems to run in the minds of Ministers and in some newspapers that the blacker you make the thing the harder men will work. That is a very big mistake. I remember a very old maxim told me by my mother, which is, that there are more flies caught with treacle than with vinegar. If you get that

    153
    into your head you will say nice things instead of nasty things. "If I am to work hard and be bullied at the end of it, do it yourself"—that is characteristic of our race. When a man is doing his best, for Heaven's sake tell him he is doing his best! I have frequently drawn the picture of a man awakened in the middle of the night, when the forces of life are at their lowest, being told by his wife that their child is dying, but unable to get up to help her, and how much he regretted it at six o'clock in the morning. I have drawn the moral: "Here you have an opportunity of doing over and above the work for your daily bread—a little bit for love. Do not live to regret that you did not do a bit extra." Although I have spoken to tens of thousands of men there has not been a single case where that has not been received with cheers. I recollect saying once that somebody had been pulling the Minister of Munition's leg. "But," I said, "he does not know working men like we know each other."
    Again, they do not like to be told that they have neglected their work. What are you going to say to the seventy-six men in the Royal Carriage Department at Woolwich Arsenal who have just received notice that their temporary employment will be terminated on Friday next? The danger is that to-morrow, on top of the right hon. Gentleman's speech telling us that he cannot get men, these seventy-six fitters will spread this news, and they will ask, "What about us?" There may be a satisfactory answer; I do not know. But it seems to me an awfully foolish thing to serve men with their notice in a week when you are asking for more men. There ought to be some satisfactory answer; but be the answer never so satisfactory, the men had no right to receive notice at all; they might have been transferred to some other Department in a proper manner. Here you have seventy-six men discontented. They are told that the country wants them, and yet they get notice to leave on Chrismas Eve, and they are wondering what will become of them in the New Year. Another thing I want the right hon. Gentleman to do is, when sending men from one town to another, to choose the men who desire to go. It is a little hard for a London man to be sent to Coventry and a Coventry man to be sent to London. There is no organisation about that. But I particularly want to know what I am to say to these seventy-six men who have received notice at Woolwich Arsenal.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire (Mr. Molteno), I was struck by many of the details he gave as to the high wages being paid, but after listening very attentively I was at a loss to know what he suggested as a remedy for this state of affairs. No doubt what he stated was not an isolated case, but as to the statement that working men were accustomed to playing cards, while no doubt there are some such cases, I do not think he can really mean that that is a common thing at the present time. We all know that the working class, like every other class, has come forward, and, I believe, on the whole, is doing its best not merely for material reward, but from a high sense of patriotism. No doubt extravagant wages are being paid, and there may be some bad after-effects; but what are you to do in view of the great scarcity of labour owing to the War, when many employers are at their wit's end to get men or boys to carry out the work which is pouring in upon them We have to face the problem of getting the work done; and so long as that is the position we must have regard to the fact and not comment too unfavourably upon the employers who pay these high wages. The Minister of Munitions, in that great speech to which we listened this evening—a speech which showed that certainly he is heart and soul in the Department over which he so honourably presides—brought home to me one outstanding fact. He very frankly stated that when we entered upon the War we were entirely unprepared to face the enormous demands made upon us. I hope that that will be impressed upon the outside world. It is to me a most eloquent testimony to the fact that we certainly did not enter upon this War from an aggressive point of view, but that we went into it with the honourable intention to carry out our solemn obligations. The very fact that we were unprepared is, to my mind, a most redeeming feature. We did not expect to have to raise a great military organisation of something approaching 4,000,000 of men. My right hon. Friend's frank statement as to the enormously increased output of munitions and as to the various plans and organisations which have been set up to meet the position is a testimony to the proficiency of his Department at any rate, and to the work in which he is engaged.
    On a previous occasion my right hon. Friend referred, apparently rather longingly, to the methods adopted in France

    155
    and elsewhere on the Continent with regard to the organisiog of the working classes in the various factories. He seemed rather to coquette with the idea of compulsion, and I think he stated that the Munitions Act was a substitute for the Continental method. I hope my right hon. Friend will not pursue that further. While I can quite believe that any great Minister, anxious for the proficient and speedy carrying out of his work, must feel aggrieved at any opposition to the success of his plans, I hope my right hon. Friend will have regard to the fact that the Continental method of compulsion is entirely alien to the British character. While he may for the moment think that the Continental method has its advantages, he must remember, on the other hand, the spirit infused into our people, and that we have been almost overcome by the number of volunteers, both military and industrial. There is no question as to the spirit of our people. That is in itself worth a great deal. It gives an impetus and endurance to the workman of this country which a mere conscript and compulsory industrial labourer on the Continent is not able to understand or to share. When the Minister of Munitions was speaking in that sense I was reminded of a great foreign Minister, Canning, who, comparing the policy of this country with the policy of the Continent, said that the whole spirit of Continental statesmanship and the spirit of compulsion were alien to the genius of British statesmanship. What is the genius of British statesmanship? Surely it is freedom; and the fact that we have men willing to go forward of their own free will! The hon. Member for South-West Ham spoke feelingly, and as a working man himself, when he said that he was always more prepared to do ten times the amount of work for a foreman if he spoke to him in a persuasive and kindly manner than if he adopted a bullying policy. I think we may take it that the man who speaks from actual experience speaks with greater weight than the man who merely theorises. We have seen it over and over again that if our men are appealed to upon the high ground of patriotism and in a persuasive manner, that on the whole—there are exceptions, of course—the country is more likely to get the best out of them than if coercive measures are attempted, or anything in the shape of compulsion is adopted.
    156
    Reference was made by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire as to the question of Sunday labour. I should like to offer a few observations upon a very interesting Report which has recently been issued, and which I hope hon. Members will peruse. The Report is that of a Committee appointed to consider the health of the munition workers, and the chairman was Sir George Newman, M.D. This document, to my mind, shows in the most conclusive manner, from the point of view of efficiency, the failure of Sunday labour. All through this Report there are pregnant passages, and the Committee, be it remembered, was composed of very eminent men, who have gone into this question impartially and solely from a patriotic point of view. The Report will well repay hon. Members devoting some little time to its study. There is one passage in which the Committee say that from a physical point of view intervals of rest are needed to overcome mental and well as physical fatigue. Then in the fifth passage the Report says:—
    "That the great majority of the employers consulted are unfavourably disposed to Sunday labour."
    They go on to give their objections, and point out that from a religious and social point of view there is considerable feeling that the seventh day as a period of rest is good for body and mind. Therefore employers generally are opposed to Sunday work, which has been widely adopted. The Report goes on to show that the high rate of pay—referred to by the hon. Member for Dumfries—has been the means of attracting into Sunday labour both women and boys. The conclusions of the Committee generally are that even from an efficiency point of view seven days' labour only produces six days' output. When we have a document of that character showing that from the point of view even of getting an increased output the seven days' labour only produces six days' output it ought to carry great weight with hon. Members in any conclusions to which they come in regard to Sunday labour. The Report continues that while not taking a narrow-minded or bigoted view—because there may be, as they say, sudden emergencies, work on particular sections, repairs of furnaces, etc.—in which there may be need for Sunday labour, the general conclusion of the Committee is that it is a mistake and that it is bad for a man mentally and physically; that it does not at all lead to

    157
    increased output, or increased efficiency. Finally they say:—
    "The Committee desire to emphasise their conclusions that some action must be taken in regard to continuous labour and exhausting work if it is desired to secure and maintain over a long period the maximum output."
    10.0 P.M.
    To-day the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions has spoken of another year's campaign. God forbid that this War should be a long war! All of us desire that it should be brought to a speedy and honourable conclusion. But here is a conclusion come to by a Committee which shows that if you are faced with a prolongation of this campaign that Sunday labour is a mistake, that you do not get increased output by engaging in it. The conclusions of that Committee are that over a long period it rather tends to a minimum output than a maximum. They also say in their final words:—
    "To secure any large measure of reform, it may be necessary to impose certain restrictions on all controlled establishments, since competition and other causes frequently make it difficult for individual employers to act independently of one another."
    I hope I have quoted sufficient from Dr. Newman's document to show the inefficient and mistaken policy of Sunday labour, both from a physical and mental point of view. It has been proved to be a mistake. I should like to conclude, perhaps from a higher point of view, for after all man has a soul, and if he has no food for that soul, it will die. If the soul of a nation dies, then the nation decays. If we are wishful to preserve, as I hope we are wishful to preserve; if we believe, as we do believe, that we are engaged in a just cause; then I sincerely trust, if we are going to pursue that righteousness which exalteth a nation we shall do our utmost against Sunday labour.
    Mr. JAMES MASON: I think that the House will have been satisfied this afternoon by the speech of the Minister of Munitions that, at any rate, he is conducting his Department with energy and determination. I think the House will quite agree, too, on the other hand, that the speech was a terrible indictment of the Government, the original Government, and even the present Government—for after all the principal offices in this Government are filled by the same men who filled them in the last. Everyone knows that we entered into this War in a state of unpreparedness which was lamentable. But what has been demonstrated this afternoon more clearly, I believe, than we have dreamt of before is that after months
    158
    of war this state of unpreparedness was not being met. The right hon. Gentleman told us that so late as the month of May, when the War had already been in progress for a very considerable period, the output of munitions was lamentably small. The month of May was a very few days after the well-known speech made by the Prime Minister at Newcastle, in which he told us that the question of munitions was satisfactory. What are we to think of statements of that kind? We are faced with these conflicting statements by different Ministers, and are shown that at the moment when we were assured by the Prime Minister that there was no shortage of munitions, that it was not so. Months afterwards it comes out that the output was lamentably small. Again, the right hon. Gentleman told us that it was only in the month of June, after the Prime Minister went out to France, that he became aware of the shortage of machine guns. What are we to think of the Government, that after all these months, when everybody knew that the machine guns were short, and that the Germans had sixteen guns to a battalion to our two, only discovered that the guns were short after the Prime Minister himself went out to see? I am afraid that the whole position really is summed up in the words with which the right hon. Gentleman finished his speech—the dreadful words, "Too late!" Those words apply to far too much that has gone on already. There has been far too much of this want of decision, want of energy, and postponement of doing the right thing till it was too late.
    There is another point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in respect to the question of controlled establishments, and that was the use of unskilled labour or female labour for work which has hitherto been done by skilled labour. He said that one of the difficulties with which he was confronted was the fact that the controlled establishments had their profit limited to a definite sum equal to the profit before the War, plus a fixed fifth. Manufacturers had not sufficient interest in increasing the output to face their men or the trouble which the change of labour would entail. That obviously shows the defect to be a very real one which I pointed out when speaking on the Munitions of War (Amendment) Bill the other day. The defect in the controlled establishments' machinery is that you fix the possible limits of benefit to the manufacturer in such a way that, even if he is a

    159
    patriotic man and does all he can, he will not be inclined, when he is to get no advantage out of it, to face difficulties such as were described by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I say there is no necessity to give the manufacturers any more profit than you do now, but instead of it being a fixed fifth part of the previous year's profit, let it be some fraction of the increased profit due to the increased production, however small that fraction may be. I believe it is well worth while for the Minister of Munitions to consider whether at an early opportunity he should not take advantage of changing the basis of this remuneration to manufacturers and bringing it, in fact, more into line with the principle adopted in the case of other factories which come under the Profits Tax. I feel sure that for many reasons it is desirable to bring these two classes of factories into line, and that the proper basis is to fix a proportion of division between the manufacturer and the State of the excess profit made over and above that which was made previous to the War. That is the point which I would ask the hon. Member to consider, and I would refer once more to the general position of affairs—which, to my mind, is extremely serious—that was unfolded in the speech of the light hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I cannot help saying what I deeply feel, and that is that the Government must adopt a more energetic and a more decided management and conduct of this War if they wish to avoid the fateful epitaph of "Too Late."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): The points made by hon. Members in the course of discussion do not, I think, call for a detailed reply, but there are one or two points of especial importance on which, perhaps, I ought to say something as to the action of the Minister of Munitions. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Molteno) raised important questions relating to finance, but I should like to call his attention, in respect to the works which he mentioned, and which appear to be chiefly the ground of his criticism, to some considerations from which we cannot escape. It is quite true that when we set about putting up a large factory which is to be put up against time, it must of necessity cause a serious dislocation of labour in the neighbourhood. That is one of the unfortunate consequences of being at war. In respect of this
    160
    particular factory, I remember some time ago we had serious complaints because the labour which it was absorbing seriously disturbed certain manufacturers who were making a certain kind of preparation of oatmeal. I am afraid the deputation which came to me received rather unsympathetic treatment, because I said we happened to be at war, and, instead of having this special kind of oatmeal, ordinary oatmeal was equally nutritious. It is impossible to carry on an organisation of this kind without hurting special industries. No matter of re-arrangement will prevent the war seriously interfering with many industries. We do it, I am sure, as little as we can, but the fact remains that that must be to some extent unavoidable. I think also the hon. Gentleman was not quite fair to the Department—not intentionally, I am sure—in respect to our efforts for economy. Now in connection with this particular place I believe the original contracts, which were not found to be satisfactory, were both abrogated on account of the very complaints to which he directed our attention, and later on, the rates of wages were fixed by arbitration under the Board of Trade. There is also this we cannot forget. If you decide to create a factory miles away from a town, you have to attract people to go there somehow. They do not naturally gravitate there, and it is a defensible proposition that you must expect to have to pay a certain amount of wages higher in those circumstances than if you employed labour next to its own door.
    Then we have had some criticism, not from the hon. Member so much, but from others in this connection, that certain contracts are carried out on the time-and-line system. I should like to take the opportunity to say a word on that. Seeing that the supplies of labour are so exceedingly uncertain for months ahead, that the prices of many materials have been singularly varying, we have found it absolutely impossible in many directions, in factories and in other ways, to get anybody to quote for a lump sum contract in the case of a large number of contracts at the present time. The particular contract to which the hon. Member alludes is the case of a factory that has to be done by a certain date. We require the produce of that factory by a certain date next year, and, whatever it costs, we must have it. That is the long and short of it, and you cannot get a man under the existing circumstances to undertake a contract of that

    161
    kind at a lump sum. Therefore, I do not think it is quite fair to charge us with extravagance of public money because we cannot under these circumstances obtain the usual form of tenders which are open to us in peace times. But we really do try, and we are making a most serious effort to reduce expenditure as soon as we can ever find a good ground for doing so. The hon. Member knows we have very elaborate machinery for assisting us in so doing.
    Some hon. Members have criticised the action of the Central Control Board. Members know that the Minister of Munitions is responsible for sanctioning the area which is to be controlled, but once the area is controlled the administration of the control, and the determination of the extent of control within it, is a matter for the Board of Control itself. The case which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees), where a man was not allowed to treat his wife, seems, when stated of course in that raw fashion, to be exceedingly unreasonable, and I agree, as everybody must agree, that the purpose of the War cannot be served by refusing to allow a man to treat his wife. That is obvious; but, of course, if I may say so, the hon. Member rather missed the point of the Regulations that the publican has got to be satisfied that it is the man's wife. That is the whole point, and it would be very unfair on the publican for the Control Board to make a Regulation which, in the course of its administration, might get the publican, who is trying honestly to administer it, into serious trouble. That is why the Regulation is in its present form, and if the hon. Member can suggest a form of words which will enable the Control Board to escape from that dilemma, I shall be very glad indeed to recommend it to their attention.
    The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) raised some very important considerations, and already the Central Control Board has taken them into consideration in the case of Smithfield Market, Billingsgate, and the docks and other places, and they have allowed various exemptions in the case of men coming to work very early in the morning. There is one particular case from Woolwich which has been dealt with, and it is only reasonable that these kind of cases should be met. I can assure hon. Members that the chairman of the Control Board will be only too glad to con-
    162
    sider any cases where the restrictions imposed by the Board require to be modified to suit special local circumstances. Another point mentioned was in connection with the purchase of spirits which have to be bought in advance or for cash paid there and then. I believe that to be a reasonable provision, although it seems a little unnatural when you consider that an ordinary moderate drinker does not require to purchase drink by the quart. The Control Board, however, found that the sale of spirits sold in the way complained of had to be regulated in this way because it resulted in a considerable evasion of the other parts of this Order, and that was the reason for this particlar Order. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. James Mason) said that in estimating the excess profit we should have regard to increased output. My right hon. Friend only deals with the larger and general issue involved, but in the rules for the estimation of increased profit there is a special allowance made for increased output, and that point has, to some extent, been met.
    Mr. J. MASON: Is that in addition to the fifth fixed?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is one of the things which is taken into consideration. The Board determine what shall be the standard of profit, and it might or might not be in addition, for that depends on the circumstances of the case. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the rules. The hon. Member for Wexford (Sir T. Esmonde) invited us to do more in Ireland. As the hon. Member knows, we have done a good deal in Ireland, and we have tried to meet the views of the different localities, and as a matter of fact I believe with the exception of the shipbuilding yards in Belfast, which are needed for other purposes, there is hardly a lathe in the whole of Ireland which we have not got hold of. With regard to some of the other places mentioned, they are not dealt with by the Minister of Munitions, and they come under the control of the quartermaster general. Might I say one word with respect to the labour question? I will inquire into the matters raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) with respect to the fitters, and see what can be done in the matter. There certainly must be some misapprehension. I can hardly think that these men were fitters in the sense in which the term "fitter" is used in engineering,

    163
    because there is simply a famine of fitters at the present time, and we can find employment for a thousand by to-morrow night without any delay or difficulty. However, I will look into it. A point was raised by some hon. Members that they did not think that we should do as well as we expect by giving out small peddling orders. We find that this process of giving out different orders for small parts is most successful. Provided that you have the right specifications and gauges, there is no reason why the parts should not fit when they are brought together just as well as if they were made in the same town or in the same works.
    My hon. Friends below the Gangway did not take in the full or right spirit my right hon. Friend's remarks on the labour question. The hon. Member for Woolwich attributed to my right hon. Friend some such expression that men were slackers and were not putting their best into the work, or something of that kind. I am sure that my right hon. Friend never used any such phrase and never suggested any such reflection. He said that the labour was not being diluted so as to enable a sufficient number of night shifts to work. There was no suggestion that the men who were working on the day shifts or on the night shifts did not do their level best, and he would not make any such suggestion. We know that they do their best, and the reports which we have had from Members who have been into the munitions works are almost unanimous in giving an excellent and glowing account of the way in which the men are doing the work. The point of my right hon. Friend's observations was that the introduction of unskilled labour so as to spread out the skilled labour over both day and night shifts was not going on fast enough. That was his point, and it is quite true. When we have allowed for the large number we have taken for the British Army at home and abroad, when we have allowed for those who have been moved under the Munition Volunteer Scheme, there is still a shortage in sight of at least 40,000 skilled workers. When we have made every allowance for all those, that 40,000 can only be obtained from one source. They can only be obtained from the skilled labour which at the present time is either being used on non-essential work or else is being extravagantly used on work which might be done by less skilled persons. We must get those
    164
    40,000 skilled workers from that source—there is no other source from which they can come—if we are to have our national factories running by the time they are built and equipped. That need presses on our mind every day, and it was that to which my right hon. Friend was referring. There was no question of slacking at all. We must dilute down our skilled labour, take it off non-essential work, and take care that it is not extravagantly used, if we are going to obtain sufficient men to man our national factories.
    Major Sir C. HUNTER: Could the hon. Gentleman say something about the supply of rifles?
    Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and gallant Member raised some points about the supply of rifles and machine guns. I am glad to say that we had a satisfactory account from him of the supply of machine guns for the training stations, so that I need not say anything further upon that point. With respect to the supply of rifles, the hon. and gallant Member knows that a rifle is not a very easy thing to make, and that you cannot increase the supply of rifles in a few weeks simply because you wish to do so, or even by placing orders for them. Beyond a certain point you have to build the machinery for making them. I can, however, tell the hon. Member, without saying more than I ought to, that the supply of rifles has very greatly increased, and that we are meeting with greater success in our peddling-out system and in other directions than we anticipated. As to the extent of the supply and the volume of the weekly or monthly output, the hon. Member will, I am sure, not expect me to go into details.
    Mr. D. MASON: What about the Report on Sunday labour?
    Dr. ADDISON: We have issued the Report and circulated it to the 2,000 controlled establishments, and intimated that they are expected to carry it out. I think that is a sufficient indication of the mind of the Minister on the subject.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: Can the hon. Gentleman say anything about the supply of oleum?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am sure the hon. Member will recognise that that is not a question for public discussion in this House. I may, however, say we have made provision for a long time ahead.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: It is a question of urgency.
    Question, "That the House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

WAR LOAN (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

WAR LOAN (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Post Office Stock Register.)
  (1) The Treasury may provide for the establishment of a Post Office stock register (in this Act referred to as "the register"), and may direct any four and a half per cent War Loan Stock, 1925–1945, or any other stock issued in connection with any loan raised for the purposes of the present War, which is not inscribed in the names of individual holders in the books of the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland, shall be inscribed in the register.
  (2) The Treasury, in conjunction with the Postmaster-General, and in conjunction with the National Debt Commissioners so far as any regulations relate to those Commissioners, may make regulations with respect to the keeping of the register, and the stock required to be inscribed therein, and in particular with respect to:—

  (a) investments in and sales of any such stock and the receipt and payment of dividends thereon; and

  (b) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which stock may be transferred either from the name of one holder inscribed on the register to that of another, or from the register to the books of the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland, and vice versâ and

  (c) the commissions and fees payable in respect of dealings in stock inscribed in the register; and

  (d) the maximum amount of stock which may be inscribed in the register in any one holding in any one year, or at any one time, and the exceptions which are to be allowed from any such limits in the case of friendly societies, trade unions, or other similar bodies.

  (3) Regulations made under this Act may provide for the total amount of stock inscribed in the register being held by the National Debt Commissioners and inscribed in their names in the books of the Bank of England, and for the application, with such modifications as appear necessary or expedient, to stock inscribed in the register, or to bearer bonds issued under this Act, of any of the provisions of the National Debt Act, 1870, and of any Act regulation or warrant relating to savings banks, and may contain such consequential and supplemental provisions as appear necessary or expedient for giving full effect to the Regulations.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), to leave out the word "another," and to insert instead thereof the words "any other person" ["or from the register"].
  I have put down this Amendment because from information that reaches me that it has been made quite clear than what is necessary, if we are going to really popularise the investment of small sums, is that the investor shall feel that he has the best possible chance—I may put it even higher than that—that he has a certainty of being able to get out his money at any moment he may urgently need it. That is the feeling he has had in the past with regard to the Post Office Savings Bank. I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact that Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 is permissive. It provides that the Treasury in conjunction with the Postmaster-General may make regulations for certain things, and one of those things is:—
  "the manner in which, and the conditions subject to which, stock may be transferred either from the name of one holder inscribed on the register to that of another, or from the register to the books of the Bank of England, or the Bank of Ireland, and vice versa."
  That is a limitation of the discretion of the Treasury to transfer from one person who is a stockholder on the Post Office register to another person who is also a stockholder on that register. Therefore any person who wishes to get rid of his investment must, as I read the Sub-section, sell to another person on the same register. There are provisions in this Bill which show that it is contemplated in Clause 3, that—
  "The interest on any stock inscribed in the register which does not exceed the

  167
  nominal amount of two hundred pounds shall be paid without deduction of Income Tax; but any such interest shall be accounted for and charged to Income Tax under the third case of Schedule D, subject, however, to any provisions of the Income Tax Acts with respect to exemptions or abatements."
  Therefore it is contemplated in the Bill that persons who are chargeable with Income Tax may have a holding on this Post Office register and receive the interest free of Income Tax. I will give a concrete case which I have in my mind—
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): I propose to accept the Amendment
  Mr. PETO: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. I need not pursue that point further. I will only add the hope that the powers given to the Treasury to put in their regulations anything they like with regard to tranfers to the general register or anything else will be used. I am very glad to feel that any small investor will not have far to look in case he wants to invest in some other way, say a shop or a house, or anything else, but will find the nearest likely person who has the money to buy his little bit of stock, and will be able to get on with his other business. I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him. I wanted to save his time and the time of the Committee. I quite agree that the Clause as drafted does bear the interpretation he put upon it, although it was not intended. My legal advisers inform me that it would be better if he would move his Amendment in the form to leave out the word "another," and to insert the words "any other person so inscribed or to be inscribed," the object of it being that we shall know what to do with the other person who has bought the stock.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), paragraph (d), leave out the word "another," and insert instead thereof the words "any other person so inscribed or to be inscribed"—[Mr. Peto].
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 2 (Issue through Post Office of Bearer Bonds) and CLAUSE 3 (Income Tax on Stock Inscribed in the Register) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Settlement of Disputes.)
  (1) If any dispute arises between the Postmaster-General, or the trustees of any savings bank, and the holder of any stock inscribed in the register, or any person claiming to be entitled to any such stock, the matter in dispute shall be referred in writing to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.
  (2) On any such reference being made, the Chief Registrar may proceed ex parte on notice in writing sent by post to the Postmaster-General or trustees, and may inspect the register, and may administer oaths to any witnesses appearing before him; and his award on the matter in dispute shall be final and binding on all parties.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add a new Sub-section,
  "(3) In the application of this Section to Scotland and Ireland, the assistant registrar for Scotland or Ireland, respectively, shall be substituted for the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies."
  This Amendment substitutes for the Registrar the Assistant Registrar in Scotland or Ireland, which is in harmony with our mode of Government and in conformity with the words of the Savings Banks Act.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  CLAUSE 5 (Regulations as to Loans Raised through the Post Office), CLAUSE 6 (Regulations to be Laid Before Parliament), and CLAUSE 7 (Power to Remove or Alter Temporarily Limit on Savings Banks Deposits) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Custodian Trustee of Property of Friendly Societies, etc.)
  (1) The Public Trustee may, notwithstanding anything in any enactment to the contrary, if rules of the society, union, or branch are made for the purpose, be appointed as custodian trustee of the property of any society registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, trade union,

  169
  or society approved for the purposes of Part I. of the National Insurance Act, 1911, or any branch of any such society or union, and any such appointment shall have the like effect as the appointment of the Public Trustee as custodian trustee of a trust under Section four of the Public Trustee Act, 1906.
  (2) The appointment shall be made in such manner as may be provided by the rules, but the executive body of any such society, union, or branch may, pending the making of rules, appoint the Public Trustee as custodian trustee of any four-and-a-half per cent. War Loan Stock, 1925–1945, held by or on behalf of the society, union, or branch, as though it were so provided by its rules.
  (3) This Section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the second day of July, nineteen hundred and fifteen.
  (4) This Section shall not apply to Scotland.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I beg to move to leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2), and to insert instead thereof the following new Sub-section,

  "(1) Notwithstanding anything in any Act to the contrary, any part of the funds of any registered friendly society or any branch thereof, or of any registered trade union or society approved for the purposes of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and any stocks, shares, or securities held by or on behalf of any such society, union, or branch may, if the Public Trustee agrees to such transfer and rules of the society, union, or branch are made for the purpose, be transferred to the Public Trustee.

  (2) The Public Trustee shall invest, in accordance with the rules, any funds so transferred to him, and shall pay the interest on any stocks, shares, or securities acquired by or transferred to him in pursuance of this Section to the trustees of the society, union, or branch; and shall, if and when so required by those trustees, transfer the capital of the stocks, shares, or securities to them, or realise the same and transfer the proceeds to them.

  (3) Pending the making of rules, any War Loan Stock, 1925–1945, held by or on behalf of any such society, union, or branch may, if the Public Trustee agrees to such transfer, be transferred to him
  170
  as though rules were made for the purpose.

  (4) The Public Trustee shall be completely exonerated from any liability in relation to any stock, shares, or securities held by him in pursuance of this Section, and no action shall lie against the Public Trustee in respect of any such stock, shares, or securities, provided that he acts in accordance with the provisions of this Section."

  The whole object of this Clause was to enable trade unions and friendly societies to invest in Government Stock. They were not able to do it in the past because the Bank of England would not accept an investment in the name of the trustees of the society, but only by the trustees of the society in their own name, and the stock had to be re-registered whenever the trustees of the society changed. Therefore, in conjunction with the trade unions and the friendly societies, we tried to draw the Clause as it appears in the Bill. Since then difficulties have arisen owing to the use of the words "custodian trustee." I submit to the Committee that this is a matter purely between the trade union interests and the Treasury. All we desire is that trade unions should invest their money, and it is therefore necessary to get the Clause into form with their wishes. Without going into a long explnation of the differences between the Clause and the Amendment, I am convinced the amended Clause will enable trade unions and friendly societies to invest their money. As the Clause stands they will still be shy of so doing.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Investment of Funds of Friendly Societies, etc., in Scotland.)
  (1) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment to the contrary, it shall be lawful, when provision is made therefor by the rules of any friendly society or trade union registered in Scotland, or of any society approved by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners for the purpose of the National Insurance Act, 1911, or of any branch of such society or union, for any funds of such society or union or branch which may lawfully be invested in stock issued in connection with any loan raised for the purposes of the present War, to be

  171
  invested in such stock in the name of the "Accountant of Court," provided that pending the making of rules so providing it shall be lawful for the executive body of such society, union, or branch to invest any such funds in the said stock in the name of the "Accountant of Court" as if such provision were made by the rules.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Accountant of Court" ["in such stock in the name of the 'Accountant of Court'"], and to insert instead thereof the words "trustees of the society."
  I move this formally in order to ask if there is any object in the cumbrous procedure which seems to be contemplated in Scotland of paying the dividends and so forth to the Accountant of Court, who in his turn, under Sub-section (2), may hand it over to the trustees of the society. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way clear to accept these Amendments and allow the trustees to act?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The Accountant of Court in this case is chosen as the nearest analogy we can get to the Public Trustee. If you put in the trustees of the society the same difficulty would occur as occurred in England. Since the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Younger) put these Amendments on the Paper I have explained the situation to him, and he has expressed himself satisfied.
  Mr. T. WILSON: I am quite satisfied that this will simplify the investment of the funds of trade unions. I have no objection to it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS (No. 2) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL.— [Lords.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time."
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. J Cave): The effect of this Bill will be to I enable the Judicial Committee to divide itself into two parts in order to expedite the hearing of Causes before the Committee. There is a considerable number of Prize Court appeals pending, and it is desirable to expedite them as much as possible. Fortunately the business of the House of Lords is very well advanced, and if it is possible next Sitting to form two Divisions of the Privy Council, they may deal with these matters without delaying ordinary Causes. There can be no objection to it; it involves no additional cost whatever. I hope the House will allow me to get it through to-night.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill.—(Sir G. Cave.)
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen minutes before Eleven o'clock.