Commons Sitting of 22 December 1915

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

PRIVATE BILLS.
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill),
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 20th July, and agreed to.
London County Council (Celluloid, etc.) Bill—Suspended Bill.
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Whitley.]
Mr. KING: Can we have an explanation? Many of us have taken great interest in this Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member objects, the Bill must go over.
Mr. KING: I do object.
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): May I make an appeal to the hon. Member? This represents two years' trouble and negotiation, which has been brought to an end to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. I, therefore, hope the hon. Member will not press his objection.
Mr. KING: Certainly. That is just the explanation I desired, and, having received it, I am very glad to withdraw my objection.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 20th July, and agreed to.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Return ordered, of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which
444
in the Session of 1915 have been reported on by Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings in each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before the Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders, the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders, the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved;
And also a Statement showing how all Draft Provisional Orders of the Session have been dealt with.—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]

CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) (POPULATION).
Ordered, That the Order [6th May] for a Return relative thereto be read, and discharged.—[Mr. Flavin.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    SS. "WOODFIELD" SUNK BY ENEMY SUBMARINE.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the crew, captain, and the survivors of the crew of the steamer "Wood-field," which was sunk by an Austrian submarine on 9th November, 1915, are now kept in confinement by the Spanish authorities on the Island of Melilla; and whether he will take steps to procure their immediate release?
    The following question also appeared on the Paper:—
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the transport steamer "Wood-field," which was chartered by the Government to carry a cargo of petrol to the Dardanelles, was attacked on 6th November last by an Austrian submarine and several of the crew killed and wounded; whether, after three hours' fighting, the

    445
    captain decided to abandon the vessel, but himself remained on board, though injured, in order to look after the ship's wounded carpenter, who eventually died in his arms; whether the vessel was in the end torpedoed by the submarine and sunk, and the captain was picked up after many hours by one of the ship's boats; whether two of the boats landed on the island of Melilla and another on the mainland of Morocco; whether the crew and captain have been interned by the Spanish Government at Melilla; whether the Government have made any and, if so, what provision for the support of the families of the crew dependent on them at the time of the disaster; and whether the Government intend to make any acknowledgment to the master of the vessel in recognition of his conduct?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I had intended to give the following answer in reply to Question 1. As it deals with the same subject, perhaps I may give it in reply to both questions. The "Wood-field" was sunk by an enemy submarine off the coast of Morocco on the 3rd November, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, on the 7th instant. As then stated, the casualties amongst the military and crew were six persons killed and fourteen wounded. The survivors, forty-five British and nine Arabs (firemen), are all understood to be now in the hands of the Spanish authorities, by whom they have been treated with every consideration and kindness, the wounded in particular being well looked after. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been and is in communication with the Spanish Government. I understand that the owners of the vessel are making suitable arrangements in regard to the families of the survivors. As regards the other statements in my hon. Friend's question, I have, so far, no information.

    H.M.S. "TARA."
    Mr. E. GRIFFITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will now give particulars of the loss of His Majesty's ship "Tara," and publish a list of survivors, so as to relieve the anxiety of the relatives of the crew?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I regret that I have little to add to the statements which have
    446
    ready been issued to the Press in regard to the loss of the "Tara" and the whereabouts of the survivors. The vessel was in the Bay of Sollum, on the frontier of Egypt and Cyrenaica, on the morning of the 5th November. We have no first hand evidence of what occurred, but there is no doubt that she was torpedoed there by an enemy submarine, and that the greater part of the crew were forced to land and fell into the hands of the local tribesmen. We have no knowledge of the names of the survivors, except that it is credibly reported that Captain Gwatkin Williams is among them. We are necessarily dependent on somewhat vague native reports as to the numbers and whereabouts of the party, but there is every reason to believe that they are being well treated. A list of survivors will, of course, be published as soon as the endeavours which are being made to procure this information are successful.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: Any further news, I suppose, will be given to the Press in the ordinary way?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly.

    LOSS OF H.M.S. "ANGLIA."
    Mr. GRIFFITHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will now give particulars of the loss of the "Anglia," and publish a list of the survivors, so that the relatives of the crew may have information as to the extent of the casualties?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have nothing to add to the War Office statement issued on the 17th November to the effect that the vessel in question struck a mine on that day and sunk, about 300 being saved out of a total of 385. The second part of the question should, I suggest, be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, but I may point out that casualty lists have already been published.

  RECRUITING.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT CORPS.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether members of the Anti-Aircraft (London) Corps have been in formed that, in the event of compulsory military service being introduced, no obstacles would be placed in the way of their

    447
    being enlisted; and whether permission has been given or refused to such members to attest in their respective groups under Lord Derby's scheme?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford on Monday last, all members of the Anti-Aircraft Corps who wish to join the Army have always been given their discharge and every facility has been afforded them. A considerable number of them have already sought their discharge from the corps in order to join the Army. Apart from this, it would not have been possible for them to attest under Lord Derby's scheme, since they were already enrolled in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.

    BRITISH CITIZENS IN PARIS.
    Mr. GRIFFITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs 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?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): Inquiry has been made, and as soon as I receive a reply I will inform my right hon. Friend.

    RESERVED OCCUPATIONS.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether attested persons in reserved occupations who were unaware when presenting themselves that it was necessary, as stated in the Local Government Board circular to local tribunals R 18, to inform the recruiting officer will be allowed to appeal?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): If such a man receives a notice calling him up for service he should at once see his employer, who should forward the notice forthwith to the recruiting officer who has issued it, together with a certificate signed by the employer stating the precise occupation in which the man is actually engaged, and the name, address, and business of the firm by which he is employed. On receipt of these particulars the recruiting officer will provisionally cancel the notice calling up the man, and if, on investigation, it is found that the statements made
    448
    by the employer are correct, a mark will be placed in the Army register against the name of the man.

    APPEALS.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether appeals should be lodged at once by attested persons belonging to all groups, or whether members of groups not called up should defer appealing until the public notice of the calling up of the group to which they belong?
    Mr. TENNANT: A claim may be sent in any time after attestation, and there is nothing to prevent the military representative and the Advisory Committee from considering claims at once. Where a claim is not assented to by the military representative, however, it cannot be dealt with by the local tribunal until the group in which the man has been placed is within not more than eight groups of being called up.

    LORD DERBY'S SCHEME.
    Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether, in inquiring into the number of unmarried men who have not attested, he will see that a differentiation is made between unmarried men who have no responsibilities and unmarried men who have in many instances greater responsibilities than many married men, in view of the fact that such information can be got from the National Register?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Instructions which are being issued for the administration of the group system provide for careful consideration being given to cases of the kind mentioned in the question.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position, or likely to be in a position, to give any further information with regard to the recruiting returns before the House adjourns for Christmas?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matter was under the consideration of the. Cabinet to-day, but they were not able to complete their deliberations. I do not think I can hold out any hope of being able to make a statement to the House before the Adjournment.
    Mr. HODGE: Would it not be possible to give the aggregate figures, because of

    449
    the moral influence that they would have amongst our Allies, as well as in the mind of the enemy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That has been suggested, but I am afraid that if we gave the aggregate figures without the details it might afterwards be said that we were misleading the public, and that, I think, should be avoided.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate being able to give any information to the House or to the public before the House reassembles?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think it ought to be given in the House.

    ADMIRALTY STAFF, CARDIFF.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received a letter dated 20th November, 1915, from Mr. F. T. Mortimer, of No. 120, Mardy Street, Cardiff, who complains of having been suddenly and with insufficient explanation dismissed from his post in the trades division of the Admiralty at Cardiff; if so, why no answer has been returned to Mr. Mortimer; and whether he has taken steps to inquire into his case and to see that justice is done to him?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The gentleman referred to in my hon. Friend's question was engaged for temporary clerical employment under the usual conditions, and he received the customary notice when it was no longer necessary to retain his services.
    Mr. KING: Was any answer given him to his letter of protest?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say. I dare say there was. But he was engaged on terms which made it quite clear that it was quite a temporary appointment, and he was dismissed with proper notice.
    Mr. KING: He was given a verbal assurance that his position was as good as permanent.

    ADMIRALTY TRANSPORT (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).
    Sir J. WALTONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state what additions have been made to
    450
    the Advisory Committee in connection with Admiralty transport and the requisitioning of ships to bring food supplies?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is proposed to add to the membership of the Committee, but arrangements are not yet complete.

    GERMAN AGENTS IN NEW YORK.
    Sir J. WALTONasked why the British Goviernment should have considered it advisable to grant safe conducts to Captain von Papen and Captain Boy-Ed, thus enabling them to direct their energies towards the injury of this country nearer home?
    Lord R. CECIL: In deference to the officially expressed wish of the United States Government, His Majesty's Government and the French Government consented to give safe conducts to these officers.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will any escort or retinue be allowed to accompany these gentlemen? Will any men of military age be allowed to go with them?
    Lord R. CECIL: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Colonel YATE: Will any steps be taken when releasing these two individuals, to secure the release of Colonel Napier and Mr. Stanley Wilson, M.P.?
    Lord R. CECIL: It is not a question of releasing the individuals. It is whether they are doing more harm in America than they will do in their own country.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY (TREATMENT).
    Sir J. SPEARasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the ill-treatment of British prisoners in Germany, he will consider the desirability of endeavouring, through the American Minister, to induce the German Government to consent to the removal of these prisoners for internment in a neutral State, this country agreeing to similar facilities for the removal of German prisoners in England?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have very great sympathy with this proposal, but I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland yesterday.

  EXPORTS OF DYE-STUFFS.

    GERMANY AND UNITED STATES.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked whether the Government have modified, or contemplate modifying, the Orders in Council so as to allow the United States of America to get a supply of dye-stuffs from Germany; and, if so, on what grounds is this being done?
    Lord R. CECIL: In April last His Majesty's Government expressed their willingness, on the urgent representations of the United States Government, not to interfere with the shipment to the United States of America, on certain conditions, of two cargoes of German dye-stuffs already paid for by the American importers. This decision was published at the time in the United States of America. The German Government have, however, apparently been unwilling so far to allow the export of these cargoes, and, so far as I am aware, they have not yet been shipped. The arrangement involved no modification of the policy announced by the Order in Council, and no such modification is contemplated.

    KIAO-CHOU (TRADE CONDITIONS).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked if the trade conditions existing before the War have now been re-established at Kiao-chou?
    Lord R. CECIL: There has naturally been a complete dislocation of trade at that port, but it would appear that the Japanese authorities have done their best to facilitate a return to normal conditions.

  PEACE PROPOSAL.

    JAPANESE INTERESTS (IMPERIAL COMMISSION).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked whether the Japanese Government have already appointed an Imperial Commission to investigate matters that will come up for determination at the Peace Conference to take place after the War; and, if so, whether it is the duty of this Commission, which is composed of representatives of the Army, the Navy and the Foreign Office, to study all questions pertaining to Japan's interests that may come up for discussion at the Peace Conference of European nations, so that the Japanese representa-
    452
    tives at the Conference will be in a position to offer positive proof of their contentions and be ready to defend them?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have no information on the subject of the hon. Member's question.

    CEYLON RIOTS (PROSECUTIONS).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many cases arising out of the recent riots in Ceylon were tried before courts-martial, and how many convictions were secured?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): The number of persons who were tried before courts-martial was 412, and of these 358 were convicted.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked when Papers will be published with regard to the recent riots in Ceylon?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Papers on this subject are now in course of preparation, and I hope to lay them before Parliament at an early date.

  UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether it is the intention of the Government to invite the Government of the Union of South Africa to pass legislation on the lines of the Trading With the Enemy (Extension of Powers) Bill; generally what steps are going to be taken to secure uniform legislation on the subject of enemy trading throughout the Empire; (2) whether a Public Trustee has been appointed to administer properties and businesses of persons and firms and companies of German association in the Union of South Africa; and (3) what steps are being taken to prevent trading with persons, firms, and companies of enemy association in the Union of South Africa?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Information with regard to legislation and executive action dealing with trading with the enemy, including the Bill recently introduced, is regularly communicated to the other Governments of the Empire. Absolute uniformity is not, I fear, attainable, and it must rest with the Governments of

    453
    the different self-governing Dominions to decide how the general principles underlying British policy in the matter are to be applied. The Union Government has recently introduced a Trading With the Enemy Bill, but I have not at present received the text.
    Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman communicate to the House the text of the Bill when received?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consult the Secretary of State. I do not think there will be any objection.
    Mr. BOOTH: Does the reply mean that there will be conveyed to the Colonial Governments the text of the Bill suggested by the Foreign Office, and the new Bill promised by the President of the Board of Trade?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is, I think, no question that if the new Bill is passed into law it will be communicated in the same way as the other.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether dividends of the General Mining and Finance Corporation, and other mining companies in South Africa, are still paid on stock to bearer deposited with the Schweizerische Bank-verein and Schweizerische Kreditanstalt at Basle and Zurich; and what steps are taken to ascertain that no dividends so paid are passed on to and actually reach Germany?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no information with regard to the particular dividends referred to. The general position remains, I believe, as stated in my reply to my hon. Friend of 14th October.

    WAR OFFICE (MR. F. C. BOVENSCHEN).
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Mr. F. C. Bovenschen, a gentleman of German parentage, who was appointed by Lord Haldane to be his assistant private secretary while Secretary of State for War, was promoted to the position of a senior clerk in the finance department of the War Office on Lord Haldane's resignation of office as Secretary of State in 1912, and is still employed in that department; whether Mr. Bovenschen is of military age and whether he is a naturalised British sub-
    454
    ject; and if he will explain why an alien enemy, or a person of hostile origin or association, has been allowed to remain in employment at the War Office during the War?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Before the right hon. Gentlemen replies to this question, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if there are any means of preventing questions of this sort from being published in the public Press before the, appropriate answer is given? In this case Mr. Bovenschen, who is a distinguished public servant, a public schoolboy, and a double first at Oxford, has been for days—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite in order in asking the question, but he is not entitled to make a statement. I am not a censor. I have no power of censorship by striking out questions which are against the public interest, or which convey unfair imputations on Members outside or inside this House. I have no control over them.
    Mr. McNEILL: May I ask, Sir, whether you intend to rule that this particular question makes an unfair imputation upon anyone?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know what the answer is going to be. My private information is that Mr. Bovenschen is a gentleman of the most undoubted loyalty to this country, and has deserved very well of his compatriots, and that this is a very unfair and unjust imputation upon him. That is only my private information, because I have never had any official communication with him.
    Mr. McNEILL: May I ask you, Sir, whether we are to understand that we are not entitled to ask questions for the purpose of getting information? May I say that I ask this question in quite good faith for the purpose of getting information, having no such private information at my command as you, Sir, appear to have?
    Mr. SPEAKER: A very little research on the part of the hon. Gentleman would have given him all the information necessary.
    Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps I may be allowed to give the reply. Mr. Bovenschen's appointment to be a private secretary was on the initiative of has Departmental chief, and came in the ordinary course of office seniority amongst the qualified clerks. Advancement to be an

    455
    acting assistant principal—there is no such grade as senior clerk—had nothing to do with Lord Haldane, and took place several years after he had ceased to be Secretary of State. Mr. Bovenschen is, as stated, serving in the Finance Department of the War Office, which he entered by open competition in 1908. He is a natural born British subject. I understand that his mother is English and that his father, who is now dead, became a naturalised British subject in 1887. I can assure the House that the loss of so valuable a public servant, who is neither an alien enemy nor of hostile origin or association, as the hon. Member chooses to assert, would weaken the Department and would thus be of material assistance to the enemy.
    Mr. McNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this gentleman's father was a German? I understood him to say he was a naturalised British subject. Is he of German parentage?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have no knowledge. He is now dead. He became a naturalised British subject as long as twenty-eight years ago.
    Mr. REDDY: Why not Lord Milner?

    ROYAL FUSILIERS (EMPIRE BATTALION).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Report of the Military Court of Inquiry, of which the Attorney-General formed one, into certain matters connected with the British Empire Committee is being further considered by the War Office, in view of the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to take no action; and whether, the Court having found that Messrs. Ernest Devereux and T. Watson made an unwarrantable use of their positions as members of the British Empire Committee to obtain money from a Mr. Hand, and that no new contracts of any kind ought to have been given to them, Messrs. Devereux and Watson have been black listed or are directly or indirectly concerned in any Government contracts at the present time?
    Mr. TENNANT: The names of the two gentlemen referred to have never been included in the War Office list of contractors, and, so far as is known, neither of them is directly or indirectly concerned in any War Office contract at the present
    456
    time. The question of the removal from the War Office list of the Construction and Contracts Company, in which they are interested, is at present under consideration. Apart from the erection of the hutments for the Empire Battalion, this firm has held no contracts for the Department. For the rest, the Army Council, after giving full consideration to the Report of the Court of Inquiry, have taker all the action which they consider necessary in the matter.
    Mr. HOGGE: What is the use of the Government holding a Military Inquiry in which the Attorney-General in the present Cabinet comes to the decision that these men have obtained money by threats in the course of doing public duty, if no further action is taken?
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend is, of course, well aware that he is putting to me a question which involves another Department of the State; therefore I am very reluctant to give him a full answer. I am quite sure he realises, as well as I do, that that is the case. We have to place ourselves in the hands of our advisers in relation to prosecutions and abide by their decisions. That has been done in this case. When my hon. Friend asks me what is the use of holding a Military Court of Inquiry and then doing nothing, I think that is a very wrong method of describing the action—the very drastic action—which the War Office has already taken in this matter.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does not my right hon. Friend feel that the War Office cannot be sufficiently protected when, after the Attorney-General comes to that decision, no prosecution is taken?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is not really for me to answer a question of that kind; it is quite another Department who advises the War Office, and we have to abide by their advice.

    ROYAL FLYING CORPS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there are now enough pilots and observers in the Royal Flying Corps to enable those at the front to be sent home for at least a month's rest after every two or three months' flying?
    Mr. TENNANT: Arrangements are made whereby officers requiring rest are sent home when necessary.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the flying pay of officers in the Royal Flying Corps is often much in arrear; and whether he will take steps to accelerate such payment?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I am not aware of any delay in the issue of flying pay, but if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case inquiries will be made.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Germans constantly use non-commissioned officers as pilots in their flying corps; and whether it is proposed to utilise some of our best mechanics in that capacity and so save some of our officers for observation purposes?
    Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second that what is suggested is already being done.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether men joining the Royal Flying Corps in England are allowed to learn flying at once, but at the front have to do three to four months' observation before they are allowed to come home and take their flying ticket, and whether in that case their seniority should rank from the date of joining in France?
    Mr. TENNANT: Seniority is not affected by the date of appointment to the Royal Flying Corps. The question asked does not, therefore, arise.

    AEROPLANES (DUAL CONTROLS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether every German aeroplane has a dual control to enable the observer to bring the machine down safely in the event of an injury to the pilot; and why so few of our machines are so fitted?
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand that though a small number of German machines are fitted in the manner described, the majority are not; and I may add, as regards the second part of the question, that dual control is being fitted in those types of aircraft where it is desirable.
    Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the machines are so fitted?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I cannot give the hon. Member that information.

    CROWN PRINCE OF PRUSSIA.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War why the Crown Prince of Prussia remains in the official Army List as Colonel-in-Chief of the 11th Hussars?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member is, I think, misinformed. The name of the Crown Prince of Prussia, together with those of the two Allied Emperors, was omitted from the Official Army Lists, both monthly and quarterly, as long ago as October, 1914. I believe a statement has appeared in the "Almanach de Gotha" to the effect mentioned in the question, but I have, of course, no control over that publication.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the name of the Crown Prince of Prussia does not appear in the existing Army List?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir. It has not appeared since October, 1914.

    DISCHARGED WOUNDED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the complaints made by discharged wounded soldiers from the hospital because they only receive from the Regent Street pay office very small amounts, in some cases only about one-tenth, of their pay that is due to them; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have no information to show that the Regimental Pay Office in Regent Street is not carrying out the official orders in this respect. Perhaps the hon. Member will communicate to me details of any failure that may have come to his notice.

    CAVALRY OFFICERS (TRANSFER TO ARTILLERY OR INFANTRY).
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary for War (1) whether

    459
    any measures have yet been taken to induce second lieutenants, lieutenants, and captains of the Regular Cavalry to transfer to the Artillery or the Infantry if promoted on transfer from lieutenant to captain and from captain to major; and (2) whether any inducement has been offered to lieutenants and captains in the Yeomanry to transfer to the Artillery or the Infantry with promotion on transfer to the next higher commissioned rank?
    Mr. TENNANT: Steps have been taken to ascertain whether any Cavalry officer are desirous of promotion into Artillery and Infantry units, and each case is being considered on its merits.
    Sir J. JARDINE: If they supersede officers of the same rank now in the Infantry or Artillery are they to come in in promotion over the officers as they stand at present?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is a very complicated question. I do not think so. I should think the answer is in the negative.

    HUTS (HALTON CAMP).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken to drain the camp and make watertight the huts at Halton?
    Mr. TENNANT: Improvements to surface drainage are being carried out by the Road Board. Leakage in huts, when reported, is being repaired as soon as possible.
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was very wet last week?
    Mr. TENNANT: It was very wet, I agree.

    INTERNMENT CAMPS (ALSATIANS AND GERMANS).
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the complaints of Alsatians who are interned with Germans that they are subjected to espionage from Germans, and that even their letters are censored by them; and if he will give instructions that, as far as possible, the Alsatians may be placed in a separate camp?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I was not aware of the complaints mentioned in the
    460
    first part of the question. The question of placing Alsatians in a separate camp is under consideration.

    ENLISTMENT UNDER AGE.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Private Bernard D. Campion, 2/4th Leicester Regiment, enlisted when he was seventeen years of age; whether a birth certificate to that effect has been put in his possession by Mr. Campion's brother; whether a request has been made to him that, in accordance with his statements in this House, Private Campion should not be sent on foreign service; whether the officials at Lich field have replied stating that the official age of Private Campion is twenty years and three months and declining to accept the birth certificate and regard Private Campion as ineligible for service abroad; and what action he proposes to take on these facts?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full statement I made regarding the method of dealing with these cases in an answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 2nd November.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will a birth certificate be considered full evidence in all cases?
    Mr. TENNANT: Oh, yes. A birth certificate is always regarded as full evidence of a man's date of birth, but if he has been already enlisted, and. has called himself nineteen and is over the age of seventeen, we keep him.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by his reference to a reply to myself? I have not the slightest recollection that he ever gave me a satisfactory answer.
    Mr. TENNANT: I will refer the hon. Member to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 2nd November. It is a very long answer, I agree. Of course I know I am seldom so fortunate as to give satisfaction to my hon. Friend, but I explained quite clearly and succinctly the methods adopted by the War Office.

    HORSES (EXPOSURE TO WEATHER).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the fact that last winter hun-

    461
    dreds of horses purchased for Army purposes died or were rendered unfit for service by being exposed in all weathers for the alleged purpose of hardening them; whether this is again being done this winter, particularly at Whitmore Reans barracks, Wolverhampton; and whether any consideration has been given to the practicability of other means that may achieve the desired results?
    Mr. TENNANT: Where suitable stables are not available a number of horses are again this year standing in the open, and are taking no harm therefrom. My attention was called to the condition of the horses which were standing out at Whit more Reans barracks, Wolverhampton, and I found that it was good.

    PRE-WAR CONTRACTS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to cases of hardship arising from the liability of contractors in relation to contracts entered in before the outbreak of war; whether, in the case of building contracts in particular, contractors are under legal obligation to pay heavy ground rents for sites which cannot be utilised under present conditions, and to effect clearance of sites and schemes of rebuilding under onerous time penalties which the existance of war conditions as regards labour and finance make it impracticable as well as inexpedient in the public interest to proceed with during the War; and whether he will consider the question of establishing a war emergency Court with power to suspend the liability created by pre-war contracts in such cases as it may appear just and expedient to do so?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for North Islington on 1st December.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND SWEDEN.

    COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Prime Minister whether there is in contemplation an agreement between Great Britain and any commercial body or association in Sweden on the lines of the agreement recently made between this country and the merchant associations of Denmark?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: A Memorandum fully explaining the nature of the measures taken by His Majesty's Government in pursuance of the policy laid down in the Prime Minister's announcement in this House on 1st March, 1915, is about to be laid. It would be convenient if the hon. Member would await the issue of that Paper.

    PRIVY COUNCILLORS OF ENEMY BIRTH.
    Sir J. WALTONasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to introduce legislation to amend the Act of Settlement or other Acts in order to prevent British subjects of enemy birth having the right to sit in the Council Chamber of the King as Privy Councillors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Sir J. WALTON: Why should the nation be called upon to make unlimited sacrifices in order to crush our enemies whilst the Government deal tenderly and protectively with men of enemy race?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am rather sorry my hon. Friend put his question in that alternative form. There is no reason to think naturalised British subjects sworn in His Majesty's Privy Council are not loyal subjects of this country and will not do their duty.

  MUNITIONS.

    CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Mr. O'GRADY'asked the Prime Minister whether he has received a protest against the Orders of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) applying to the West Riding of Yorkshire, stating that the Orders imposed by the Board were against the weight of evidence as to the making of munitions being delayed through workmen drinking, and requesting that the case of the West Riding should be submitted to the arbitration of an impartial tribunal; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to meet the request for arbitration?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend has not received the protest and request referred to by my hon. Friend. I am informed that convictions for drunkenness show a remark-

    463
    able decrease since the Order came into operation, and that in other respects the Order is having the beneficial results which have been generally observed in other areas. My right hon. Friend does not think it necessary to take the steps suggested.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the evidence of the Chief Constable of Leeds in particular and the Watch Committee of Leeds is quite contrary to his own statement just now made?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chief Constable of Leeds and the Watch Committee of Leeds tendered evidence at an inquiry held at Leeds by the Board of Control in favour of the regulations which were afterwards imposed?
    Dr. ADDISON: I understand that is the case.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Is there any objection to submitting this case to a Court of Arbitration? Surely one side or the other is right or wrong.
    Dr ADDISON: I do not understand the hon. Member. I have not heard the other side yet.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why this was extended to Pontefract and Nottingham? Is he aware that there is no necessity at all for this meddlesome legislation in my Constituency?

    APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTORS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Minister of Munitions how many inspectors of munitions have been appointed; by whom are these officials appointed; what qualifications are required for these positions; and if the Ministry of Munitions have assured themselves in all cases before making the appointments that the person to be appointed possesses the necessary technical knowledge for the work?
    Dr. ADDISON: The following numbers of assistant inspectors have been appointed to the inspection staff, Woolwich, since the commencement of the War: Officers, 57; civilians, 112. These have been selected and appointed on the advice of the chief inspector, Woolwich. The officers were selected for their Service knowledge, and the civilians are all qualified mechanical engineers. Both classes
    464
    require training at Woolwich before being put in executive control of inspection work. I think my hon. Friend is referring to the class of men who are more properly described as examiners. I am not now in a position to give him information in regard to these men, but an inquiry is being made.

    TRIBUNALS (FINES IMPOSED).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions the number of cases tried before munitions tribunals, giving, respectively, the number of cases in which employers and workmen have been fined and the number of cases, respectively, in which the maximum fine has been imposed?
    Dr. ADDISON: A detailed Return of the results of proceedings of munitions tribunals up to and including 27th November is now in course of completion and will be laid on the Table before the Adjournment. Most of the information desired by my hon. Friend will be found to be included in it.
    Sir J. D. REES: May I ask whether the Members of the munitions tribunals possess the necessary qualification of impartiality?

    CHRISTMAS TRAVEL FACILITIES.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Minister of Munitions whether any arrangements have been made to enable munition workers to get the advantage of cheap bookings for any short holiday they may receive at Christmas?
    Dr. ADDISONas stated in the reply given to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Deptford on 14th December, where reduced week-end tickets are under existing circumstances issued to workmen, available from Saturday to Monday, the period of such tickets will be extended at Christmas time so as to make them available on Friday, 24th December, until Tuesday, 28th December. The issue of the tickets referred to is made only to munition workers in Government or controlled establishments, upon direct application from the firm, and is subject in all cases to the consent of the superintendent of the line.

    MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT KILLED IN ACTION.
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINSasked the Prime Minister whether, when the Motion is made to issue a writ for the election of a

    465
    Member in the place of an hon. Member of this House who has fallen in the War, some method can be arranged, such as Members rising in their places when the Question is put, or some other simple but effective way, whereby this House can show its appreciation of the supreme sacrifice made by the late Member in giving his life for his King and country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is open to the House to adopt such method as most commends itself to hon. Members of signifying their sense of the occasion referred to. At present Members uncover their heads.

    INDIAN ARMY OFFICERS (PRISONERS OF WAR).
    Mr. MacCAWasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a British officer of the Indian Army, if made prisoner of war, is only entitled to Indian Army leave pay during the period of his detention, whereas an officer of the British Army is entitled to full pay and allowances under similar circumstances; and, if so, can he see his way to remove this disability inflicted on Indian Army British officers?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): Indian Army officers who are prisoners of war receive, after sixty-one days on full Indian pay, the British pay and allowances drawn by similarly situated British Service officers, or Indian Army leave pay, whichever is greater. I do not consider that any alteration is required.

    WAGES (PAYMENT IN WAR BONDS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government, in view of the favourable reception accorded to the proposal to pay war bonus and wages in part by War Bonds, intends to give further consideration to this proposal?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): As the hon. Member will be aware, the whole question of the encouragement of savings by the popularisation of War Loans for the small investor is at present receiving close consideration by the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary of the Treasury.
    Sir J. D. REES: This particular proposal amongst others?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think any proposal is escaping their attention.

    FIRST EASTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL (KITCHEN ARRANGEMENTS).
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked the Under-Secretary whether the kitchen arrangements in the First Eastern General Hospital were planned for 520 patients, and whether they now have to provide for 1,500 patients; whether the commandant of this hospital is in charge of two other institutions; and what salary does he receive?
    Mr. TENNANT: The facts are substantially stated in the first part of the question. The hospital has expanded and outgrown the original kitchen accommodation. The question of improving the kitchen arrangements has been taken in hand, and I hope the defects will soon be remedied. In the expansion, two other section hospitals have been formed, which are in the general charge of the commandant of the hospital and administered under him by officers commanding sections. The commandant is a colonel in the Territorial Force Army Medical Service, and draws pay of his rank.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that with the existing kitchen accommodation proper food is given to the patients?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not like to say offhand, but I hope so.

  PARCELS FOR TROOPS.

    CUSTOMS DUTIES.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that parcels of tobacco sent to the' front to soldiers who have been invalided home are returned to the senders, together with a claim for the payment of Customs Duties, which sometimes amount to a considerable sum; and whether, before returning such parcels, he can take steps to ascertain by means of a reply postcard whether the senders are willing to have the parcels distributed among other soldiers?
    Mr. TENNANT: The regular procedure as regards the comparatively few parcels

    467
    of tobacco returned from the front to senders is to inquire of them before the parcel is sent on whether they wish to pay the duty or abandon the goods. There is an arrangement in many battalions at the front to share in common parcels of tobacco addressed to men who have lost their lives or who have been sent home.
    Mr. HOGGE: If the parcels are so few, cannot the Government see their way to omit the duty altogether?
    Mr. TENNANT: I should be glad, but I am afraid I cannot answer. The question had better be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    POSTAL RATES.
    Mr. HORNERasked the Postmaster-General whether, having regard to the fact that the postal rates on small parcels from the United Kingdom to soldiers on active service press with severity upon poor people, he can rearrange, in conjunction with the War Office authorities, the entire scale of rates and reduce them, or at least reduce or abolish the rate on parcels not exceeding 3 lbs.?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I regret that it is not practicable, in view of the vast and growing bulk of the parcel mails for the Expeditionary Forces, and of the difficulties of providing adequate transport both in this country and abroad, to effect any reduction in the rates of postage on parcels for the troops abroad.
    Sir HENRY CRAIK: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take care that this saving is made before he makes any concession to the people on whose behalf the two previous questions were asked?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am afraid that in present circumstances it is not possible to make any concession to anybody.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether it is possible to arrange that the holder of a ring paper should have the right to send once a month at a reduced rate a parcel to a soldier who made the allotment in respect of which the ring paper was issued?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer the hon. Member to an answer which I gave this afternoon to the hon. Member for South
    468
    Tyrone (Mr. Horner), and I would also say that there are certain practical objections to the adoption of this proposal which J am afraid render it impossible to sanction it.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that this would reduce the number of parcels and very likely reduce the weight also of parcels sent?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. I think any reduction of rate would be likely to likely to increase the number.

    CHRISTMAS TRAFFIC.
    Mr. MACPHERSON(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he can communicate to the House any information regarding the steps he has taken to secure the safe and rapid delivery of letters and parcels, during the Christmas period, to the troops in the various theatres of war?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The number of parcels posted in the United Kingdom for the troops in France and Flanders on one day, December 13th, was about 500,000, and about 300,000 on each of the following days. The number of letters has varied between 1,000,000 and 1,500,000 a day. For the Mediterranean and Salonika Forces nearly 14,000 bags of letters and parcels were dispatched on November 25th. The total additional number of parcels sent to all the Forces during the Christmas season has been over 1,500,000. In order to cope with the Army mails at Christmas and subsequently, it has been necessary to erect a large temporary building in Regent's Park. The War Office have been good enough to give the Post Office very valuable assistance by the loan of a large number of motor lorries. Six special trains, and four special boats across the Channel, have been run daily to carry the Army mails. The large staff employed have worked with admirable industry, and all letters and parcels posted by the dates announced by the Post Office have been sent oversea, and it is anticipated that all will be delivered by Christmas Day.

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY.
    Captain WRIGHTasked whether, in view of the ever-increasing importance of aerial warfare, both in attack and defence, he recognises the necessity of organizing

    469
    Anti-Aircraft Artillery, either in conjunction with the Royal Flying Corps, or as a separate branch of the Royal Artillery with its own administration and promotion, so that there may be some definite organised body responsible for the provision of the necessary equipment and weapons and for training the men who are to use them?
    Mr. TENNANT: The necessity referred to is fully recognised, but it is not desirable to make public any changes in organisation which may have taken place or others which it may be desirable to effect.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: May we have an assurance that changes are being made in the sense suggested in the question?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would rather not give an assurance on that, but everything that is considered necessary is being done.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Under-Secretary whether he is aware that promotion up to the rank of sergeant in the Anti-Aircraft Artillery, Royal Artillery, is by the officers commanding sections or batteries, but above that rank is by various authorities differing in respect of noncommissioned officers from the Royal Horse Artillery, the Royal Field Artillery, and the Royal Garrison Artillery, but agreeing in taking from anti-aircraft work back to the other branches of the Royal Artillery those non-commissioned officers who are the most experienced and skilful in anti-aircraft work; and whether he will consider some other system of promotion whereby this loss to Anti-Aircraft Artillery work can be remedied?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Commanders-in-Chief of the Armies in the field have not made any suggestion that the present system of promotion is unsatisfactory, and as they are satisfied and are the responsible authorities, it is proposed to make no alteration.
    Captain WRIGHT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he recognises that if the system is such as is stated in the question, that the Anti-Aircraft Artillery are bound to suffer?
    Mr. TENNANT: The Anti-Aircraft Artillery is bound to suffer if that happens.
    Captain WRIGHT: Through losing their most efficient non-commissioned officers?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think that is the case. However, I will have it looked into.

    APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE (LOST RAILWAY WARRANTS).
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that officers, non-commissioned officers, and men employed on the lines of communications, and applying for leave to England, are required to sign a certificate that they are prepared to pay the expenses of the journey both ways before their applications for leave are considered; and whether it is the intention of the War Office to claim at some future time the payment of these expenses by those who have already proceeded on leave to England?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I am not aware of any such practice as that mentioned in the first part of the question. If officers, non-commissioned officers, or men lose their warrants or tickets they have to pay, but not, I am informed, in any other circumstances.
    Captain WRIGHT: May I give the right hon. Gentleman information as to cases where certificates from officers, non-commissioned officers and men asking for leave are required that they are prepared to pay the expense of the journey home and the journey back to France?
    Mr. TENNANT: I shall be glad to receive the information from the hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that in every case which I have heard of no charge has been made except where the warrant has been issued and has been lost.
    Captain WRIGHT: What about the claims for repayment?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is perfectly possible to claim repayment when the ticket or warrant has been found.

    BASE CAMPS (FRANCE).
    Captain WRIGHTasked if inquiry is from time to time made into the average age, efficiency for duty, percentage of sick, and defaulters among noncommissioned officers and men passed from hospital as for permanent base and employed at the various camps at the bases in France or on the lines of com-

    471
    munication; and, if not, will he appoint a small Commission to visit those camps and report on these matters?
    Mr. TENNANT: The appointment of a Commission to inquire into the manner in which the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, British Army in the field, exercises his duties in regard to the important matter in question is not contemplated.

    ESPIONAGE.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary for War how many persons have, since the start of the War, been tried for espionage, how many have been condemned, and how many acquitted; and what have been the nationalities of the accused?
    Mr. TENNANT: It would not, I am afraid, be in the public interest to give this information.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any Germans who have been naturalised have been condemned, including those who are Privy Councillors?

    ARMY DISCHARGES.
    Mr. HORNERasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that delay occurs in discharging men from the Army who are pronounced by the medical officers as unfit for service, and that in consequence of this delay unnecessary outlay is incurred in their pay, clothing, food, and accommodation; and will he have inquiries made into the matter and instructions issued to expedite such discharges?
    Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the written answer which I gave on Friday last on this subject to the hon. Member for Wirral, a copy of which I will send him.
    Mr. HORNER: May I give the right hon. Gentleman information? I have received from a commanding officer a letter in which he gives information regarding twenty-seven of them—
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for the hon. Member to give information. It is for the Government to give information.

    LEATHER GOODS CONTRACT (WAGES)
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that Messrs. Hepburn, Gale, and Ross, Limited, of Long Lane, Bermondsey, contractors for leather goods, are paying skilled workmen from 7d. to 8d. per hour; that they refuse to pay extra for overtime worked; that they are paying women workers, who are doing the work of skilled men, from 3d. to 4d. per hour; and whether he will communicate with that firm with the object of compelling it to pay its employés a living wage?
    Mr. FORSTER: Certain complaints as to the wages paid by the firm in question have been received and are under investigation. If the hon. Member will be so good as to furnish me with particulars as to the precise nature of the work on which the skilled workmen and the women workers referred to are respectively engaged, I will see that the matters raised by him are included in the inquiry.
    Sir R. COOPER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the fact that the War Office now fix their own price for a great deal of the leather they require, it would not be just for all the employers to pay the same standard rate of wages?
    Mr. FORSTER: The arrangement is that where firms are employed by the War Office we insist upon the terms of the Fair-Wages Resolution being properly carried out.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that other firms are better?
    Mr. FORSTER: What I said was that certain complaints as to the wages paid by the firm in question have been received and are under investigation.

    MESOPOTAMIA OPERATIONS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for India if he can give the number of casualties sustained by General Townshend's Force in the fighting which has taken place since its return to Kut-el-Amara; whether Sir John Nixon is still at the front; and what is the latest information he has received from Mesopotamia?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total casualties of all ranks up to the 18th December

    473
    were 1,127. This includes 200 deaths, of which forty-nine were from disease. Sir John Nixon is in chief command of the Forces but is not actually at Kut. The latest information received up to that time was published in the Press yesterday morning. Last night I received a telegram from Sir John Nixon stating that General Townshend reported that the 19th was a quiet day.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS ACT (STATUTORY AID).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to state the names of the members of the Statutory Committee of the Naval and Military War Pensions Act, the name of the chairman, and the name of the paid vice-chairman; whether he can say if instructions have been given for the setting up of the local committees, or whether these will not be set up until the Statutory Committee gets to work; and whether he can give the address of the offices, temporary or permanent, of the Statutory Committee?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes shortly to make an announcement.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman advise what may be done with the question in the hope of getting an answer?
    Mr. McKENNA: Certainly. If my hon. Friend will let me know to-morrow perhaps an announcement can be made.

  WAR LOAN.

    SCOTTISH SUBSCRIPTIONS.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to repeated statements made recently by the chairman and secretary of the Glasgow Stock Exchange and by other leading business men in Glasgow, the general tenor of which is that the Bank of England, by introducing charges, delays, and restrictive practices and by failing to give properly full information to the public as to the various methods of stock registration now available, has placed obstacles in the way of Scottish subscriptions to recent War Loans; whether he will give consideration to those complaints in advance of the next
    474
    issue of War Loan; and whether he will issue an official memorandum dealing with these complaints, either specifically or generally, with a view to satisfying public opinion in Scotland either that the complaints or some of them are unreasonable or, alternatively, that they are regarded as reasonable and will be satisfactorily dealt with?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am aware that complaints have been made from this particular quarter, and I can assure the hon. Member that I am anxious to facilitate by all possible means subscriptions from Scotland. I have already taken certain steps, and I will consider the matter further. So far as the attitude of the Bank of England is concerned, I need hardly say that there is no foundation for the charges that there has been discrimination to the prejudice of Scotland as compared with other parts of Great Britain, and it appears to me that those who brought them have not made reasonable allowance for the difficulties inseparable from conducting loan operations of this magnitude.

    PRIVATE TRADERS' INTERESTS.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to appoint representatives of private traders to the Committee formed to advise on the means of obtaining contributions to the War Loan from the working classes?
    Mr. McKENNA: I fear I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brighton on Wednesday last. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

    VOLUNTARY COLLECTORS.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the advisability of appointing voluntary collectors to collect weekly contributions towards the War Loan from wage earners, in the manner of insurance companies and collecting societies?
    Mr. McKENNA: This propoasl is one which falls within the terms of reference of the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

    SUGAR COMMISSION.
    Mr. BIRDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that the

    475
    sugar refiners, the multiple-shop companies, and co-operative societies have each a spokesman on the Sugar Commission, he will also appoint a representative of the individual grocer, drawn from the Grocers' Association, the recognised organised representative society of the general retail grocery trade throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. McKENNA: Having regard to the size of the Commission as now constituted and to the fact that it has worked very well, I am not prepared to recommend an addition to its numbers at the present time.
    Mr. BIRD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable loss was incurred by the smaller traders by the sudden reduction in the price of cube sugar, which might have been obviated had they had the same representation on the Commission as their more privileged competitors?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not prepared to admit that they have privileged competitors, nor am I prepared to admit that heavy losses have occurred. My hon. Friend must not forget that if they make losses on the reduction of price they may make gains on the rise of price, and there had been a rise in price very shortly preceding the drop in price.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are the retail interests to have no consideration?
    Mr. McKENNA: I think that in forming the Commission there was adequate representation of the retail interest. I think it would be of doubtful value in a Commission of this kind to take in representatives of every interest in the country. No case has really been brought to our notice in which the interests of the traders have not been fully safeguarded.
    Mr. LARDNER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no representation of the Irish sugar trade on this Commission?

    AMERICAN SECURITIES (TRUSTEE INVESTMENTS).
    Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the provisions of many trusts the trustees are empowered to hold certain classes of American securities but not to invest in the same; whether
    476
    he has considered what will be the position of such trustees who have transferred their securities to the Government and received Exchequer Bonds in exchange when these bonds mature; and whether he will consider the advisability of making provision to allow trustees in such cases to reinvest in such securities?
    Mr. McKENNA: I do not think there would be sufficient justification for such an interference with trusts as is suggested.

    TREASURY ADVANCES TO FIRMS.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount was advanced by the Treasury to firms in Lon don to enable them to meet their obligations in the early days of the War; and what amount has yet to be refunded to the Treasury by the individuals and companies to whom advances were made?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is undesirable to give figures in detail, and I am unable to give separate figures for London. The total amount advanced under the Treasury schemes formulated with a view to the protection of credit at the outbreak of war was about £200,000,000, and the amount outstanding at 30th November, 1915, was £35,500,000—that is to say, of the original advances over 82 per cent. has been repaid.

    TRANSFER OF BRITISH FIRMS TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any wealthy British subjects have recently transferred their domicile and chief administrative centres of business to a neutral country; and whether, having regard to the fact that restrictions have been placed on the emigration of men of military age, he has taken, or proposes to take, any action to prevent the transfer from this country of wealth which may be required for the successful prosecution of the War?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for the Egremont Division on Monday last, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that reply did not deal with the second part of my question,

    477
    which asks what action he proposes to take to prevent the transfer from this country of wealth which may be required for the successful prosecution of the War?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him about the money transferred from Germany for the purpose of using it for the Hamburg-American Line trading against the British, and sent by the firm of Speyer, now gone to New York?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: What about the second part of my question?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not prepared to take any action.

    EXCHEQUER BONDS (APPLICATIONS FREE OF EXPENSES).
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the present issue of Exchequer Bonds, no arrangement has been made by his Department to receive applications in the provinces free of all expenses and charges, the banks there having no authority to receive the net sum of the application, but insist on the applicants paying the remitting charges to London; what is the reason for this difference between the present issue and the former War Loan where the net sum was received; and is he aware that these small charges militate against the success of the issue?
    Mr. McKENNA: So far as I am aware there is no difference between the arrangements made by the Bank of England concerning the present issue of Exchequer Bonds and those made in connection with the War Loan. No charge is made for collecting on Government account cheques from the provinces forwarded directly to the Bank of England by a subscriber. The terms upon which a principal may undertake to put through an application for a client must depend on the circumstances of the individual case.

    SALE OF SCRIP VOUCHERS.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state to what denomination does the expression "certificate" apply in his recent announcement that the sale of scrip vouchers and scrip certificates had amounted to £5,000,000 sterling?
    Mr. McKENNA: The scrip certificates in question are the £5 scrip certificates which were placed on sale on 3rd August, and were exchangeable into stock on the same terms as scrip vouchers.

    POSTAL LETTER RATES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that many letters are only slightly over 1 oz. in weight, he can see his way to concede a new rate of postage of l½d. for l½ ozs?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I regret I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. The loss of revenue would be considerable.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the 1-oz. letter has, in the average of cases, a margin slightly over that weight, owing to the absence of facilities to weigh them, and that this is a cause of inconvenience to the senders?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Over 90 per cent. of the letters posted are under 1 oz.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to complaints made regarding the burden imposed upon friendly societies in consequence of the increased postal rates; and, if so, whether he pro poses to do anything to assist them?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have not received representations from any friendly society with regard to the new postage rates since their introduction. I cannot see my way to devise a new rate of postage for packets sent to and from friendly societies.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the approved societies under the Insurance Act have made strong representations to the Treasury, who promised to convey them to him?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think that was before the concession was made allowing printed papers to go at the same rates as before.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is a very heavy burden, and that it means the reduction of benefit, and is not therefore an economy?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No such representation has reached me.
    Mr. BOOTH: I will see that it does.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the friendly societies have sent documents—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We must get on with the questions. There is a great number on the Paper.

    ALIEN FIRMS.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether Mr. Schumacher, of the firm of Schumacher and Brocker, of Aldersgate Street, is an alien enemy; whether Mr. Brocker of the firm is a naturalised German; and whether any permission has been given to Mr. Schumacher to carry on his business in competition with British firms?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): Mr. Schumacher is a German who has resided in England since 1889, and has been exempted on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. Mr. Brocker is a naturalised British subject. The partners being resident in this country no permission is required under the existing law for the carrying on of the business.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is this alien enemy still carrying on a non-essential business?
    Sir J. SIMON: I cannot say whether the business is essential or non-essential; it is being carried on, but not with Germans.
    Sir R. COOPER: Can any Englishmen in Germany carry on business in the same circumstances?
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Home Secretary whether Carl Fuhr, residing in Well meadow Road, Catford, who has a business in Middlesex Street, in the City, is an alien enemy or a naturalised British subject?
    Sir JOHN SIMON: The person to whom the hon. Baronet probably refers is an alien enemy and was interned in November last. He has a nephew of the same name and address who was interned in June last.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Has he not been let out?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Baronet—he has not.

    ALSATIANS (INTERNMENT).
    Mr. C. WASONasked the Home Secretary if, in view of all the circum-
    480
    stances of the case, he can now arrange for Alsatians, if their internment is necessary, to be placed in different camps from Germans, owing to the espionage from which they suffer and annoyances of all sorts; and if he has now arranged for the release of the Alsatian, sixty-five years of age, now in camp in the Isle of Man, an Alsatian who fled from Alsace to escape German rule and has been ever since in this country and has two sons in our Army?
    Sir JOHN SIMON: The first part of the question has already been answered by the Under-Secretary of State for War. Arrangements have been made for the release of the Alsatian referred to in the second part of the question.

    FEMALE NURSES IN ASYLUMS.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that female nurses are now taking the place of male attendants in a number of large asylums in England; if he will consider the objections which have hitherto prevented such a departure as the one referred to; and whether, in the meantime, whilst he is collecting evidence on the subject, he will take steps to prevent any further appointments by asylum committees of female nurses in place of male attendants?
    Sir JOHN SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for the Devizes Division of Wiltshire on the 16th September last. The Board of Control is watching the matter carefully, and the employment of female nurses to release men for enlistment is allowed in suitable cases and under proper safeguards.

    COMMITTEE ON COAL SUPPLIES.
    Mr. RICHARDSasked the Home Secretary whether the Committee on Coal Supplies are inquiring into the reason for the short time worked at a number of South Wales collieries; and whether he will instruct the Committee to ascertain and publish a list of the British ships engaged in carrying cargo between foreign ports and how many of them were engaged in the export of coal from British ports prior to the War?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I understand that the Committee

    481
    have had before them the question of the short time worked in certain South Wales collieries and that one of the causes is the shortage of tonnage. I doubt if any useful purpose would be served by publishing a list of the ships at present engaged in carrying cargo between foreign ports. A licence has to be obtained in each case, and one of the main considerations in determining whether licences can be granted is the need of tonnage in the United Kingdom.
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that, owing to the shipping freight obtaining, Irish consumers are required to pay excessive prices for coal, and that in Belfast the war emergency committee of the corporation have failed to induce the coal merchants, during the War, to agree to charge a reasonable sum for profits and cost of distributing the coals; if the Requisitioning Committee appointed to carry into effect the Order in Council of the 10th November has this matter under consideration; and if he will take steps to ensure that the benefits of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act shall be given to consumers in Ireland equally with those in Great Britain?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: A sub-committee of the Belfast Corporation met representatives of the local coal merchants and reported that they had satisfied themselves that the merchants were not making unreasonable profits. The corporation rejected this report and appointed a special committee to go into the matter afresh, but the merchants declined to attend a further conference. The Price of Coal (Limitation) Act applies to coal raised in the United Kingdom and sold in Ireland. The question of tonnage for the Irish trade has not been referred to the Requisitioning Committee.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the complaints of coal consumers in Belfast?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes.

    WAR LEAFLETS (CONVICTIONS AT LEEDS).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if he has considered the evidence in the case of T. H. Ferris, who has been sentenced to six months' imprisonment at Leeds for the publication of a leaflet sett-
    482
    ing forth the Christian doctrine of war from the text, "Blessed are the peacemakers"; is he aware that Ferris has for the last twenty years been an apostle of Christian pacifism; and, in view of the facts that no evidence was given at the trial that the leaflet had caused, or was likely to cause, disaffection, will he advise a reduction or remission of the sentence?
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case at Leeds, on 10th December, when Messrs. Thomas Howard Ferris and T Sydney Overbury were charged on the evidence of a clergyman with causing disaffection by distributing certain leaflets; whether he has read those leaflets; and whether he will consider the desirability of reducing the sentence of six months' imprisonment as being unduly severe?
    Sir J. SIMON: I will answer this question and that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Elland Division of Yorkshire together. Ferris and Overbury were convicted under the Defence of the Realm Act of attempting to cause disaffection. Further charges of publishing statements likely to prejudice recruiting were, therefore, not proceeded with. I have considered the evidence given at the trial and read the several leaflets published by the accused. The leaflets do not by any means correspond to the description given in the questions, and in my opinion the magistrate was justified in convicting. I regret that I am unable to advise any remission of their sentences.

    RAILWAY GOODS WAGONS.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is still the general practice for goods wagons belonging to one railway company which have been sent on to lines belonging to another railway company to be returned empty even though they might have been utilised for goods awaiting transit; and whether he will take steps to put an end to the great waste of time, labour, and material which is involved in this practice?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I understand that some time ago the railway companies entered into an arrangement between themselves under which goods wagons belonging to one company which have been sent on to the lines of another company are, if there is sufficient traffic, loaded back in the direction of the owning company.
    Mr. HARVEY: Is not that too often a paper arrangement, and does not the old practice still continue? Will my hon. Friend look into the matter?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The facts are as I have stated them. I cannot exactly describe what is done in every case.

    HOLDING UP RAW PRODUCTS.
    Mr. BIGLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that national interest of moment are being jeopardised by the purchases by foreign firms of raw products in this country; that these stocks are held off the market, the owners refusing to sell the same at any price; and that such action is unjustifiably locking up British capital and blocking our warehouses to the disturbance of trade, preventing British industries obtaining their normal supplies of raw material (some of which are necessary for manufacturing munitions of war); and whether he will promptly take action to remove this menace to British interests?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: If the hon. Member will let me know what transactions he has in mind, I shall be happy to make inquiries.
    Mr. BIGLAND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one firm holds in this country a large stock of oil, 140,000 gallons, and that the consumers in this country cannot get any?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think the facts are rightly stated by the hon. Gentleman. I have looked into that transaction, and I should be glad to give my hon. Friend the facts.

    OILS AND FATS (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).
    Mr. BIGLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the continued leakage through neutral States of kernels, nuts, seeds, oils, and fats into enemy countries, he will consult with the Secretaries for the Colonies and India with a view of prohibiting the export of these commodities from British Oversea Dominions except to this country and our Allies; and also prohibit the export of these articles from the United Kingdom to all neutral countries contiguous to Germany and Austria?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The exportation from the United Kingdom of animal and vegetable oils and fats and of oleaginous nuts, seeds, and kernels, is already prohibited to all destinations other than British Possessions and Protectorates, and they can, therefore, only be consigned to neutral countries or even to Allied countries under licence. A similar prohibition has been imposed on the exportation of these commodities from some of the self-governing Dominions and Colonies, but the practice is not uniform, and in the rest of our Possessions the prohibition relates only to foreign countries in Europe other than Allied countries and Spain and Portugal. My hon. Friend will, therefore, see that the steps he suggests have already been taken. He will also realise that the enforcement of absolute prohibition by the refusal of all licences might increase direct shipments to neutral countries from sources of supply outside the British Empire. The whole question of oils and fats is being vigilantly watched.

    ANILINE DYES.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any figures to show the output in weight of aniline dye-stuffs in this country during the present year in comparison with the imports for the year 1913?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I regret that I am not in a position to give any statistics of the kind desired by the hon. Member.

  TRADE BETWEEN FOREIGN PORTS.

    SHIP LICENSING COMMITTEE.
    Mr. RICHARDSasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say who are the members of the Expert Committee dealing with the issue of licences permitting British ships to trade between foreign ports and the number of such licences issued since the 1st December; whether, having regard to the shortage of tonnage necessary for adequately dealing with our home trade, the total prohibition of licences is contemplated; and whether there is any evidence to show that this transfer of ships from British to foreign trade is seriously affecting the industries of this country and having a prejudicial effect upon the price of food?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The members of the Ship Licensing Committee are:—

    Mr. Maurice Hill, K.C. (Chairman),

    Mr. Burton Chadwick,

    Mr. H. F. Fernie,

    Mr. F. W. Lewis,

    Mr. J. P. Purdie,

    Mr. Harold Sanderson,

    Mr. A. Scholefield.

    The number of licences issued from 1st December to 20th December inclusive was 118. The total prohibition of licences is not contemplated. There is no evidence that there has been any such transfer of ships from British to foreign trade as is suggested in the question.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: How many of the members are shipowners?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Several of them.

    SHIPS TRANSFERRED TO NEUTRAL FLAGS.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade how many ships of 100 tons and over have been transferred to neutral flags since the outbreak of the War; and whether he will state the names of the shipowners, together with the gross tonnage, for the transfer of which they are severally responsible?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Particulars of ships transferred to foreign flags are given in a monthly return issued by the Registrar-General of Seamen. I am sending my hon. Friend a set of these returns.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Does that give also the names of the shipowners in question?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I think not.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Can they be supplied?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I will consider that.

    GERMAN TRADE WAR COMMITTEE (FOREIGN DEPARTMENT).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any Reports on any of the transactions of the Foreign Trade Department of the War Committee of German Trade; and whether he can state their purport to the House?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I regret that I have no information with regard to the transactions of this Committee.

    COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS (VANMEEL v. THE KING).
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware in the recent case of Vanmeel v. the King, in which the Government undertook to pay £9,500 and costs, that Mr. Justice Scrutton expressed the hope that the results of all the commercial contracts entered into by the Government were not as disastrous as in this case; will he say what was the contract referred to as disastrous by Mr. Justice Scrutton; why the State has been called on to pay the sum of £9,500 to Mr. Vanmeel; and who is Mr. Vanmeel?
    Mr. McKENNA: Mr. Vanmeel is a Dutch gentleman in business in Amsterdam. In September, 1914, the Sugar Commission entered into negotiations with him for purchase of sugar from Holland, to be delivered in September and October. The dates of delivery were of the essence of the arrangement, and Mr. Vanmeel having failed to deliver any of the sugar in September, the Commission declined to proceed further with the business. Thereupon he brought an action against the Commission. Before trial, the Commission was advised that the correspondence constituted a legal contract, of which the whole could not be terminated because of a failure in part; and the case was, therefore, settled out of Court. None of the facts were brought before the Court, so that the judge's remarks cannot be regarded as conveying any comment upon them.

    COAL SUPPLY (LONDON).
    Mr. ROWLANDS(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take immediate steps to urge the railway companies to deliver coal to the coal merchants at Erith; whether he is aware that on account of the shortage people are paying 2s. 3d. and 2s. 4d. per cwt.; and whether the coal merchants have sent out notice that they cannot get railway-borne coal through to meet the requirements of the district, and

    487
    owing to the high freights that they will have to charge 42s. per ton for some seaborne coal they have secured?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: No complaints on the subject have yet reached the Board of Trade, but inquiries will be made.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will look into this matter at once, as I have information that people will have no coal for Christmas?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: We will inquire into it at once. It is the first we have heard of it.

    SOUTHERN COMMAND (CHRISTMAS LEAVE).
    Mr. GWYNNE(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, by orders issued by the Southern Command and Central Force, the Christmas leave to men is limited to 10 per cent., and whether this means 10 per cent. at a time, or whether the total Christmas leave for each regiment is to be limited to 10 per cent.?
    Mr. TENNANT: The order means 10 per cent. at a time.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is now satisfied that the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Somerset has been overcome; and will he state the number of animals slaughtered in dealing with the disease, together with the sum paid in compensation, and also the sum received for salvage?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): All infected and contact animals had been slaughtered by the 10th instant, and no fresh cases have been confirmed since the 6th instant. One thousand two hundred and sixty-five cattle, 482 sheep, 382 pigs, and one goat have been slaughtered, for which £27,136 9s. 6d. is payable as compensation. Against this sum is, however, to be set off the amount recoverable by the salvage of the carcases of the slaughtered animals. The amount so recovered up to the present is £5,326 18s. 9d

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SITTINGS AND BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That this House do meet To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock."
  Mr. KING: May I appeal to the Prime Minister to tell us exactly how late we are to sit to-night?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That will be more relevant on the next Motion.
  Mr. BOOTH: Might I suggest that what my hon. Friend has in mind is that if the subsequent Motion is passed, the interval between the Adjournment tonight and the sitting to-morrow may be too short?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know what the hon. Member has in his mind. The next Motion on the Paper raises the question of how late we are to sit to-night, and it seems to me that that would be the proper place to put the question.
  Mr. BOOTH: The difficulty is when we come to that Motion the House will have determined to meet at twelve o'clock to-morrow, and I presume you would rule that we could not raise that question again. The two points are connected, if I might respectfully say so. If the House determines to meet at twelve o'clock tomorrow, that becomes an accepted decision of the House, and it may be that in deciding to pass the second Resolution the House might regret having passed the first. It would therefore be an advantage if we could have from the Front Bench an indication whether the House is likely to be late to-night.
  The PRIME MINISTER: As far as the Treasury Bench is concerned, the House will certainly not be delayed, but of course I cannot anticipate the duration of the Debate, as that is in the hands of hon. Members not on the Treasury Bench. I hope it may be possible for the House to adjourn at a comparatively early and reasonable hour. I see no reason why it should not. All that the Government propose to take is the first four Orders.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that the House is to take the Report stage of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Bill in the absence of the Minister of Munitions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend is away on a mission of great public importance. It is of the utmost public importance that the Bill should be passed through this House without further delay. I am sure that all the Departments will be adequately represented on the questions dealt with.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Are the Government sure that, if the Bill passes through its remaining stages in this House to-day, it will become law before the House reassembles?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that is so.
  Mr. HOGGE: How will the House receive the benefit of the information which the Minister of Munitions is securing from the deputations of workmen whom he is meeting in Glasgow and Newcastle if we proceed to discuss the Bill to-day?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Bill can be passed without that.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the Proceedings on Government Business, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. KING: The Motion we have just passed gives me another ground for appealing to the Prime Minister not to proceed with this Motion. I do not intend, if I can restrain myself, to prolong the proceedings to-night, but it is perfectly obvious that we cannot sit as we did till half-past five this morning, have another late sitting to-night, and meet at twelve o'clock to-morrow without a great deal of strain upon Members and Ministers. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are not here."] If they are not here, the fact that we have been sitting so much without them must make their consciences uneasy. The strain not only upon Members and Ministers, but also upon the Reporting Staff and all the persons connected with the service of the House is very great. I would respectfully represent to the Prime Minister that the very important speech by the President of the Board of Trade last night was delivered at such a late hour that it does not appear in some of the London papers this morning. That speech, in my opinion, was far

  503
  and away the most important that we have heard from the Government Bench for a long time. It was heard with a great deal of sympathy and interest in all quarters of the House, and I look upon it as nothing but a public misfortune that several of the morning papers have no reference whatever to the speech. I dare say the Prime Minister has read the speech, or, at any rate, knows the purport of it. I suggest that it would assist the country at this time to come to a decision on very important matters, and it would assist the Government and this House if we were not carrying on our business in such a way that an important speech of that kind was delivered at such a very late hour. With regard to the business for to-night, it surely is a matter of very great disadvantage that, when we have on the Report stage of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Bill no less than eight pages of Amendments—a large number of which are put down by the Government itself—and one, at any rate, referring to the Appeal Court put down in quite a new and unexpected form, we cannot possibly have from the Minister of Munitions himself his reason why he has come to a decision to put down this most important new Amendment. I appeal to the Prime Minister as to whether he really thinks it is quite fair to the House —[Interruption]—whom it is desired shall assist in putting this Bill through its Report stage. I believe that a fortnight's delay with this Bill will be well repaid by having the Bill in a more generally acceptable form. I do not speak now—[Interruption]—in order to prevent or in order that the business of this House might not be done decently, effectively, and in order. The remarks I am making for the purpose I have in view the Prime Minister knows are made in perfect good faith, and with no other desire than to assist the business of the House.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to make a few observations on the Bill to which my hon. Friend opposite has referred. I wish to recall the attention of the House to what happened on the Committee stage of this Bill on Friday. It was announced by the Prime Minister on Thursday that the Munitions of War (Amendment) Bill would be taken on Friday, and that we would not sit late. We were kept sitting till half-past seven, an hour later, for a
  504
  Friday, than we have sat on any Friday since 1909. That is the case; and owing to the lateness of the hour considerable numbers of Amendments were not thoroughly discussed. Many of us who stayed and were anxious to have the considered opinion of the House were unable, owing to the conditions, to take the opinion of the House on some of the questions involved in the Bill. We are now invited to take to-day the Report stage of the Bill in the absence of the Minister of Munitions, the person responsible, and the only man who can speak with authority upon the Bill and upon the experience of the working of the original Act. The Government cannot tell what are the arguments which hon. members are going to put forward in favour of their Amendments. In spite of that, apparently, our Amendments have to receive perfunctory attention from Under-Secretary for Munitions without the authority of the Minister in charge. That is not treating this House with proper respect. After all, it will only mean a delay of about a fortnight. The Government have had plenty of time during this Session to bring this Bill before the House. When we reassembled I asked the Minister of Munitions if it was proposed to amend the original Act? We then had three months' experience of its failures, and of the grievances to which it had given rise in various quarters of the country. He said there was no intention of dealing with the matter just then. Week by week and month by month has gone by, nothing has been done until the matter of a month ago, when a number of private conferences were held. We in this House are not going to be bound by any decision of private conferences; the only legislation which can be satisfactory to the people of this country is legislation passed in the light of day, and not behind closed doors. For that reason we now claim that these very important outstanding questions should be thrashed out on the floor of the House, so that those concerned may know the decision come to by their representatives in this House.
  There was a further point. The whole question of the position of labour is intimately connected with the decision upon compulsory military service which is at present in abeyance. If compulsory military service is accepted by the Government, which now seems probable, the whole situation in regard to the Muni-

  505
  tions Act will be completely revolutionised. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Instead of any harm resulting from delay such as the Prime Minister suggests, I believe it will be an advantage for the House to consider the problems of labour and of military service in relation to compulsion in view of the considered judgment of the Government upon this question of compulsion. For these reasons I appeal to the Government not to proceed with the Report stage of this Bill to-day, but to give us a fortnight, so that the matter can be the better considered by the House.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I do not know the speech of the President of the Board of Trade to which reference was made by the hon. Member below the Gangway (Mr. King). I was here between ten and eleven last night, and I had the pleasure of hearing the President of the Board of Trade make a singularly able and exhaustive speech on the subject which was engrossing the attention of the House, and in regard to which, so far as I was able to form an opinion, he gave universal satisfaction to Members. The hon. Member who has just sat down claims that the House of Commons is not, in this case, treated with due consideration. I think he is the last man in the House who is entitled to make that charge. No Member is treated with more consideration than the hon. Member. I have heard him over and over again speaking with an almost interminable verbosity.
  Sir W. BYLES: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member opposite and the hon. Member behind me, and I would venture without joining in any attack upon the Government, to ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister if he will not, in the future, give his personal attention to the arrangements of the business of the House so that there may be some greater regularity in it. There should not be laxity at one part of the Session and congestion at another. We have been sitting here week after week for three days a week only, and now at the end of the Session we are called upon, as we were last week to sit for five days, and to sit on Friday for seven and a half hours. That was when very many Members—not myself— desired to go to their homes in the country. It is very undesirable that we should have this state of affairs at the end of the Session. If business is hastily
  506
  arranged and executed it cannot be properly digested and debated. May I point out to the Prime Minister that the Vote for the additional 1,000,000 men for our Army was passed in this House by about 5 per cent. of the Members—5½ per cent. at the most—at five o'clock this morning?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Everyone in this House has such a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon that we do not wish to give any reply by way of recrimination to his attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle). But really the right hon. Gentleman is unjust to my hon. Friend, whose contributions to the discussions of this House have been of a most valuable character. Hon. and right hon. Members above the Gangway, after twelve months, have only just found their tongues. What I want to point out to the Prime Minister is this, that we again have the old question "Too Late." We sat here till 5.30 this morning. There was no obstruction. My hon. Friends and those who act with them were entitled to take up the time they did. We have taken up a good deal of the time of the House during the past twelve months, and we are entitled to do so, because other hon. Members have never at all joined in the discussion. I desired to speak last night, and I rose in my place at 4.30 and continued to do so until between eleven and twelve o'clock without being successful in catching the Chairman's eye. I then joined in the discussion. I ask why, when the Prime Minister, as he did two or three weeks ago, says that the House was not to sit late, everything is put off to the last moment, and the work crowded into one week? The Prime Minister was asked whether it would not be better for the House to sit four days a week, and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was, "No, it is not necessary." Yet at the last moment the Government is rushing all this legislation in, asking the House to suspend the Eleven O' Clock Rule, and keeping us sitting here. It was only by a fluke that the Government saved their Bill last night, and that was by the Chairman not correctly counting the number that came into the House.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I hope the Prime Minister will agree to postpone this Munitions Bill. It was taken last Friday afternoon, on the first Friday sitting for a very long time, and the result was that

  507
  a large number of Members—some of my own colleagues included — who were anxious to be present during the Committee stage of the Bill were not able to be here. The Bill as amended by the Committee was only circulated with the Votes yesterday. I submit that that interval has been far too short for a further consideration of the Amendments. In regard to the second point—the urgency of the measure—I am quite sure that it will not lose by postponement for a fortnight longer. We were told a month ago that the matter was of such urgency that the Bill must be proceeded with without the loss of a single day. Three weeks, nearly a month, has gone by and the same tale is told to us again. My firm belief is that the absence of the Minister of Munitions is nothing less than scandalous, and that the Government should attempt to force the Report stage of this Bill in the absence of the Minister of Munitions responsible for it. I do most earnestly and respectfully request the Prime Minister to at once postpone the Report stage of this Bill.
  Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition has referred to my hon. Friend's interminable verbosity. I would like to point out that when my hon. Friend rises, as my right hon. Friend opposite can observe, he seldom occupies a column of the OFFICIAL REPORT in making the observations which he does towards our Debates. It comes very badly from the right hon. Gentleman to accuse my hon. Friend of "interminable verbosity." At any rate he has got more sense than my right hon. Friend — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—for, with regard to the Plural Voting Bill, which is under consideration, the Amendment on the Paper in the names of my right hon. Friend opposite and his colleagues is the product of the brain of my hon. Friend, and would not have been observed by hon. Gentlemen opposite had it not been for my hon. Friend. It involves a principle which they hold dearly, but we provided the material for their Amendment. I hope that before the right hon. Gentleman again speaks of "interminable verbosity" he will take the trouble to discover matters of that kind. In regard to the Bill that we are asking the Prime Minister to postpone, I would like again to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman, who, after all is a Scottish Member, like some of us in this corner; he
  508
  knows that a great deal of difficulty in regard to this munitions question has arisen in the Clyde Valley. That district, while contributing very largely to the provision of munitions at this moment, is very largely concerned with certain of the proposals of this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions has gone down to Glasgow as well as to Newcastle. In Glasgow he is meeting at least 900 delegates of the munitions workers in the Clyde Valley. It is true that he is not meeting the men, but the delegates; but it is obvious that those delegates will be discussing with him the very matters which we are proposing to discuss this afternoon. These involve some very serious questions. For instance, the Prime Minister must know the reluctance of every Scotsman to go to gaol.
  One of the points, as the Prime Minister knows, in the Munitions Bill is the provision of the penalties which involve imprisonment. These are being discussed to-day, and will probably be tomorrow, by the Minister of Munitions in Newcastle and Glasgow. We passed the first Act on account of urgency, and we are now taking up the time of the House by amending that Act by this Bill. If you conclude the discussion to-day on the Amending Bill, it is absolutely certain that there will be other things which will require to be amended. If that is not so, will the Prime Minister explain what is the use of the Minister of Munitions going down to Newcastle and Glasgow? He has gone there for purposes of conference, and in order, as a result of his conference, that this Amending Bill may meet the wishes both of the Government and of the men. The Prime Minister has said the Derby figures are not to be given until after the Recess. I understand we are coming back on 4th January, and surely the few days that intervene between now and 4th January will give the Minister of Munitions time to consider the result of his conferences at Newcastle and Glasgow, and permit probably of much easier progress for the Government's Bill than they are likely to get to-day if they force us to come to conclusions on matters which are very vital to many of our constituents, and which involve questions relating to the prosecution of the War. I hope, therefore, the Prime Minister will see his way, on the request of so many of us who represent those districts and have to hear the objections of the workmen, to postpone it until

  509
  4th January. It is not a great deal we are asking, and by that time the Minister of Munitions will have the result of his conference. With that knowledge in our minds we shall be much better able to address ourselves to the problems which arise out of this Amending Bill.
  Mr. BOOTH: I only rise to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who purports to lead the Opposition to withdraw the expression he used against my hon. Friend.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I am quite willing to call it exuberant and rather lengthy eloquence.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has set a most excellent example to younger Members of this House in that graceful courtesy which is supposed to belong to a past age. I differ very frequently, as is well known, and I may do so in the near future, from my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, but I want to say, so far as discussions go, no one is more frank than he is, and no one is more prepared to place his ability even at the disposal of those who fight against him. Again and again he has contributed points even to those who disagree with him, and the late Conservative party bear testimony to that on the Agenda Paper to-day, owing to a speech of my hon. Friend, which was an example, even to the right hon. Gentleman, of clearness and conciseness. To give one example: he pointed out on the Parliament Bill what the position was, and the Members of the late Conservative party have quite properly taken advantage of that and put an Amendment down. I think, therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman again seizes the opportunity so dear to his heart to make one of his well-known brief and concise speeches, he will have to amend still further his remark as to my hon. Friend.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I was hoping the Prime Minister would have said a word or two in reply to the appeal which has been made to him. Probably he is going to do so before a Division is taken, and no doubt the House will be interested to hear what he has to say. Why I rise is to point out that really the question before us at the present time is whether the House is going to decide to sit, should it be necessary, after eleven o'clock to-night. Of course it is very easy for the right hon. Gentleman, who probably very wisely goes home
  510
  to bed at eleven o'clock, to give a vote to-day in favour of the House sitting late, but there is really a much larger question than that. It is whether we are really acting in the best interests of the country in discussing very important matters after eleven o'clock at night. There were only three members of the Government here beside the Whips during the all-night sitting. I suppose this afternoon Ministers will unanimously be willing to give their vote in favour of the House sitting to-night, and probably not one will be here to hear the business discussed. Let me give what I think is a very important instance. Last night we were discussing, for the first time, the vote of 1,000,000 men. Nobody will deny that that was a most important proposition, and gave opportunity for raising matters of the greatest importance. About four o'clock this morning, when many Members wanted to raise different subjects of Army administration, which had been barred because of the recruiting question that had been introduced yesterday, the Home Secretary—who was treating the Committee, I must say, very courteously— told us that, unless we passed the Vote, in his opinion it would absolutely stop recruiting for the time being. I say it is not fair to put the Committee in a position of that kind, because many matters had to be raised. So far as I can see, there is no reason whatever why this Vote could not have been introduced about a week ago. I may say the same about the Parliament Bill. The Government knew they had to introduce it, and to pass it practically before the House adjourned for Christmas; and, as regards the Munitions Bill, although I know that has taken a lot of discussion, Members in different parts of the House still think that was introduced too late.
  Therefore, I would appeal to the Government whether, after the adjournment for Christmas, they will not really give a little more attention, if it be possible, to the arrangement of business, so that we shall not have to sit at a late hour at night. The House will remember that two or three weeks ago I indicated to the Government the exact position of things would happen as has happened. At that time I drew a time-table which was laughed at on the Government Bench. They said it was ridiculous to suggest that all our business would not be cleared up long before Christmas. The Prime Minister indicated that it would be done without any anticipation of

  511
  any late sittings. Well, we have had the sitting rule suspended on three days, and all because the Government have kept their Bills back till the very last minute. In view of the very peculiar position which now governs the House, namely, that private Members have no medium of communication through the old channels which used to exist, from the fact that there is no Opposition to express any wish at all, I submit it really calls for greater consideration on the part of the Government in regard to the whole body of private Members, and I would just repeat my appeal that, after the Recess, the Government will be able to introduce matters of an important character before they get into such a position that the House must either kill the proposition altogether or accept it just as it is brought forward by the Government. I sincerely hope the suggestion will be considered, because I can tell the right hon. Gentleman there is a good deal of feeling about it in various quarters of the House.
  Mr. CLYNES: There is just one other standpoint from which an appeal can be made, in addition to the appeals already made, and I want to join with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), and others who have spoken, in order to strengthen, if I can, the request to the Prime Minister to defer this Bill. There are some few of us in this House who are closely associated with some hundreds of thousands in organised trade unions who have not had any opportunity whatever in connection with the Committee stage of this Bill of expressing their views. Owing to the way in which this Bill had to reach its Committee stage on Friday last, and the absence of notice in any way of advantage to us, we were not able to be in our places, and we had no thought whatever that the Committee stage would be taken on that date. Now, we are all well aware that one of the three or four principal instruments for winning the War is an amply supply of munitions. This Bill deals with the whole framework of keeping that supply as complete and as ample as possible, and yet we are asked, in the absence of the Minister of Munitions, to deal with the Report and final stages of this measure. The Prime Minister can be certain that if the last stages of this Bill are forced upon us in this manner, the labourers, and skilled tradesmen as well, will be very much dissatisfied, and that the mission of the Minister of Munitions to
  512
  the Clyde and to Newcastle will really fail in its purpose. The experience gained can be far better used on his return, and there will be nothing whatever lost by delaying the measure for a fortnight, and so give us a chance to consider it at our leisure. On the whole, I think it would not be merely gracious but really a wise decision on the part of the Prime Minister that he should defer the further consideration of this Bill until after the New Year holiday.
  Mr. HOLT: I should also like to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. I do think every hon. Member has a right to protest in the strongest possible way as to the manner in which the House has been treated with regard to this Bill. It is ridiculous to tell us there is any urgency. If that is so the Minister of Munitions and his assistants ought to be dismissed from office for not having introduced it long ago. It is a trick of the Government to introduce in the last few days of the Session a measure which they assert is a matter of urgency. They do it for the purpose of preventing it being discussed in this House. The Committee stage of the Munitions Bill was taken, I think, about three days after the Second Reading. Owing to the fact that it was an Amending Bill it was very complicated, and three days were not sufficient to enable Members to consult friends outside, and to put on the Order Paper Amendments properly framed which they could recommend to the House. I venture to say that, if we are to have proper Parliamentary discussion, we ought to be allowed at least a week between the Second Beading and the Committee stage in order to get our Amendments in proper order. The Committee stage of this Bill was taken on Friday. We did not get the Bill as amended and printed put into our hands until Monday. We have had no time whatever to frame properly considered Amendments to put on the Paper. There were several Amendments I would have liked to put before the House but we have had other things to do. It was absolutely impossible to put considered Amendments dealing with the points raised on the Paper in sufficient time to secure proper discussion on Report. It is monstrous that the House should be treated in that way, and I do hope, therefore, the Prime Minister will agree to put this Bill off until after the Recess, and give us a reasonable period of Parliamentary time to consider it.
  Mr. PRATT: I wish to support what the hon. Member has just said in regard to

  513
  the bearing of the Adjournment on the Munitions of War (Amendment) Bill. I am very anxious that the Amending Bill, when it is passed, shall result in a minimum of disturbance in the industrial districts, and especially on the Tyneside. It is well known to the House that the original Munitions Act was the cause of much trouble on the Clydeside, and it would be nothing short of a national misfortune if this Amending Act was the cause of fresh trouble on the Clydeside. Many of the points in dispute between the Minister of Munitions and the Clydeside workers are to be discussed to-day, and probably they will not be reached till the small hours of to-morrow morning. That is not satisfactory in the circumstances. In the second place the Minister of Munitions is not to be here, and he undertook on Friday to hold a conference with certain hon. Members who made certain suggestions in Committee, and that conference has not taken place yet, and it certainly ought to take place before the proceedings on Report. The Minister of Munitions is to hold a conference to-morrow with the Clydeside workers. I think it is an extraordinary proposal that when the Minister of Munitions is to have the opportunity to-morrow of hearing at first hand what the representatives of the Clyde-side workers have to say that the door should be absolutely closed against any further Amendments which he himself may consider desirable as the result of that conference. I appeal to the Prime Minister to bear in mind that on the Clydeside there has been and still is the possibility of very serious trouble. The leaders of the men there and the representatives of labour and those of us who represent industrial constituencies in Scotland are very anxious that everything should be done to allay the trouble and the irritation at present existing in that great industrial centre upon which so much depends. I am confident that the adjournment of this business until we resume our sittings will undoubtedly further the interests of the Ministry of Munitions, and will not at all put them at a disadvantage. I trust the appeal which has so generally been made will not fall upon deaf ears, and that we shall be given further opportunities in the Recess to make the new Bill a much more perfect and efficient instrument in the hands of the Minister of Munitions.
  Mr. W. THORNE: I apologise for not being present during the whole of the debate on this question, and I am not
  514
  quite sure whether any Members of the Labour party have conveyed to the House the definite decision which the Labour party arrived at last night in discussing this matter. The Labour party decided unanimously that this question should be adjourned until after the holidays, because we had been definitely promised by the Minister of Munitions that he was going to consider various fundamental Amendments, which in my humble judgment will have to be considered, and in consequence of the Minister of Munitions not being present, it does appear to me that this measure should be adjourned until after the holidays. If this Motion is pressed to a Division, so far as the Labour representatives are concerned, we are in duty bound to vote against it. That is my opinion, and I have heard nothing to the contrary that has been arrived at since the decision that was come to last night at our party meeting. I would like to say to the Prime Minister, so far as many of us are concerned, that we have decided definitely to back up the Government in every instance, but there are times which must arrive when it is almost impossible for some of us to vote with the Government. Therefore I make another appeal in addition to those which have already been made on this question, because I feel convinced that if the Prime Minister refuses this Motion and insists upon this Bill being brought forward before the holidays, I am very much afraid you will not get the result at which you want to arrive. I am perfectly convinced that by this measure being held over it will not retard the work of the Minister of Munitions in the slightest degree, and the munition workers will go on exactly the same. That has been proved by the fact that the Minister of Munitions has come to the definite decision to give the workers a longer holiday than was anticipated. I want to appeal to the Prime Minister to consider all the appeals which have been made to him and let this matter stand over until after the holidays.
  Mr. HODGE: What my hon. Friend who has just sat down said is perfectly correct. We were unanimously of opinion that owing to the short period of time between receiving the Bill and the Amendments promised by the Minister of Munitions the time was too short to fully consider what the effect of those Amendments would be. It was suggested that we should convey this information to the right hon. Gentleman, but I suggested that that

  515
  would hardly meet the case, and that it would be very much better if we could have a personal interview with the Minister of Munitions for the purpose of putting our reasons before him for delaying this stage of the Bill. Accordingly, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Duncan), we waited upon the Minister of Munitions last night and placed before him our ideas, and suggested that a fortnight's delay would not be unreasonable. The Minister of Munitions placed before us facts and figures relating to the urgency of the question which caused us to withdraw our claim for delay, and the right hon. Gentleman assured us that, as the result of the lack of the Bill, the manufacture of heavy guns was being held up on the Tyne, and that it was absolutely essential that he should get the Bill for the purpose of carrying through his arrangements with the engineers in respect to the dilution of labour. I think we are all aware that without these heavy guns we cannot help our men on the West front as we want to do, and it was only on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that I, at any rate, felt in the face of the gravity of the statement he made that I could not persist in the demand that was made for delay.
  One of the questions which I put to the right hon. Gentleman was, "Supposing we go on with the Report stage and get your Bill and the Third Reading passed tomorrow night, can it pass the House of Lord before we adjourn?" I have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that that had all been arranged, and that the representations he had made to the responsible leaders of the other Chamber had been of such a character as to convince them of the necessity for the measure going through all its stages and getting the Royal Assent before the House rose. With respect to one of the points raised by the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) relating to imprisonment on the Clyde, I placed before the Minister of Munitions the strength of the feeling of the Scottish Members and the strength of our own feelings as well as the report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I urged that this made it almost impossible for the Government to retain imprisonment in the Bill. After mature consideration the right hon. Gentleman said he would give instructions that that should be deleted, and that he would accept the
  516
  Amendment to be moved on this question. I also urged that the delay of a fortnight would not mean anything serious in regard to the Munitions Bill, and it was only upon the very grave representations of the right hon. Gentleman that I felt I could not take upon myself the responsibility of causing any delay in a matter where the lives of our soldiers at the front were concerned.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am always anxious, as anyone who has the honour of occupying the position of Leader of the House must be, to arrange the order of business in a manner which would be agreeable to the general convenience and the predominant feeling of the House, subject always to the superior interests of national necessities. With regard to the Vote for the Army and for the men, the Committee stage of which was taken last night and the Report stage of which is to be taken tonight, those necessities are absolutely irresistible; otherwise we cannot proceed with recruiting, and we cannot keep up our Army at the level which everybody admits it ought to be kept. In reference to the Bill in regard to which so many appeals have been made by hon. Gentlemen in various parts of the House, I believe it to be a measure of great importance and very considerable urgency. Of course, I cannot be insensible to the number and the weight of the arguments which have been addressed to me. With regard to the absence of the Minister of Munitions, I wish it to be clearly understood that it is out of no disrespect to the House, because the engagement he is fulfilling is one which has been postponed again and again, and it is very important that he should fulfil it before the Christmas holidays begin, and this is the last night on which he could possibly have carried out his engagement. Therefore, so far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, his absence is unintended, and I am sure much regretted on his own part and on the part of everybody else.
  From the information I have received, I believe that the Report stage of this Bill will take a very short time. The Amendments put down in the name of the Minister of Munitions are mostly concessions to demands made in Committee or outside, or developments of those concessions in the sense in which the concessions themselves are asked for. I am afraid, however, that my expectations on that point have been disappointed. Although I do

  517
  not believe there is any serious opposition I on the part of those who represent labour or in any quarter of the House to the main provisions of the Bill, there does appear to be a desire to discuss in some detail and at some length not only the main principles, but even some of the more subordinate proposals. Of course, if I thought the delay would be absolutely pernicious or injurious to the best interests of the country, nothing would induce me to assent, but in all the circumstances of the case, and with a desire that the business should be conducted in the best spirit and with mutual good will, I am reluctantly coerced to respond to the appeal and consent to a short postponement of the consideration of the Report stage of this Bill. It must, however, be taken on the first day after the Adjournment, and then I hope we shall pass both the Report stage and the Third Reading. Having said that, and having shown a disposition to meet the several suggestions made by hon. Members in various quarters of the House, I hope I may be absolved from going into any general question as to the conduct of business by the Government. It has been suggested by one hon. Member that the President of the Board of Trade, when he spoke last night, chose an abnormal and almost ungraciously late hour to deliver his speech. May I point out that my right hon. Friend spoke between ten and eleven o'clock, and when I first entered this House, thirty years ago, we were generally just beginning the evening at that hour?
  Mr. W. THORNE: You have more sense now.
  The PRIME MINISTER: We never thought of rising at eleven o'clock at night. We used to sit without any rules of any sort or kind, and we used to sit regularly till one, two, or three o'clock in the morning as part of our daily Parliamentary life.
  Mr. KING: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Press now go very much earlier to print than they did then, and that is a very material matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend is perfectly right, and it is a very-good reason for not suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule, because, if hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House do as they did last night and deliver most fruitful and interesting speeches, they do so without any possibility of the country deriving
  518
  any benefit from them. Although I am moving this Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night, with a view to the importance of getting Vote A for the Army, I earnestly hope the House will take care that it rises at such a time that the speeches may be quite faithfully reported in the earliest editions of the Press. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) is one of our candid Friends. I do not object to friendship even when it is candid. The right hon. Gentleman made something in the nature of a general arraignment of the Government in the conduct of business, and he hoped that when we resumed our sittings after the Adjournment we should turn over a new leaf and practise better ways. I have been accustomed for many years to hear that admonition expressed to me by my right hon. Friend who now sits on this Bench (Mr. Bonar Law) and by his predecessor in the Leadership of the Opposition. It is so familiar, and I have so often kissed the Rod, without, I am afraid, any serious or permanent amendment of character or of habit, that although I recognise that the admonition now comes from a different quarter I am not very sanguine as to whether my right hon. Friend will see a serious improvement, but I will do my best. As a matter of fact, I do not think there has ever been a Session since I have been in the House—and that is a very long time now—that the House has been so rarely asked to sit up late than it has during the present Session. The Eleven o'Clock Rule, I think, has been suspended three or four times, and last night was the first repetition—
  Mr. PRINGLE: When the Committee stage of the Munitions Bill was taken on 30th June we sat until five o'clock in the morning.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Be it so. Then this is the second occasion. It used to be almost the recognised practice to have an occasional all-night sitting and to thresh out things under the free and unrestrained conditions which prevail at that hour of the night. It has happened very rarely this Session. I have always been in favour of short sittings. I believe we do our business much better before eleven o'clock than we do after eleven o'clock. But without going into any general question of the conduct of Parliamentary business, I hope after what I have said in the way of meeting my hon. Friends on the

  519
  Munitions Bill that we may be able to get through the remainder of the programme —the first four Orders of the Day—by eleven o'clock without any necessity of taking advantage of the Motion which I now make for the sake of precaution and in order that the Government may secure the necessary Vote for the Army.
  Mr. PETO: May I remind the Prime Minister that he has promised the first day after the Adjournment for the consideration of the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins):
  "Prosecution of the War,—That, with a view to increasing the power of the Allies in the Prosecution of the War, His Majesty's Government should enter into immediate consultation with the Governments of the Dominions in order with their aid to bring the whole economic strength of the Empire into cooperation with our Allies in a policy directed against the enemy."
  The PRIME MINISTER: Then I am afraid I must alter it.
  Mr. PETO: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to consider the convenience of the Government in this matter. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Debate will take place on 5th January?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say the 5th, but I will take care that it takes place at a very early date.
  Mr. CURRIE: May I ask the Prime Minister to supplement his statement on one point? When we meet to discuss the Munitions of War (Amendment) Bill, may we rely upon having at our disposal a statement from him as to the result of the Derby scheme? That appears to me to be of the highest importance.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not quite follow when the hon. Gentleman asks me to supply that information.
  Mr. CURRIE: I do not so much care when it is supplied; but when we come to discuss the Munitions of War (Amendment) Bill shall we have a statement before us as to the result of the Derby scheme?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think I can give an undertaking of that kind. I do not think the two things are so inter-
  520
  related as to make the discussion of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Bill impossible without the other information, but the other information will be given as soon as the Government are in a position to give it.
  Captain AMERY: As the Prime Minister has informed us that he is going to take the Munitions Bill on the first day after the House meets again, and as he has intimated that the Motion standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) is also to be taken on one of the first days, could he inform the House whether he is going to give the House the decision of the Government upon Lord Derby's Recruiting Scheme on the second day that the House meets, or at any rate, on one of the first two or three days, because that, after all, is the most important question?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I never like to commit myself to a definite date. I have found such commitments very dangerous, but it will certainly be at the earliest possible moment.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  PARLIAMENT AND REGISTRATION BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  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 five years and eight months 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.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "five years and eight months," and to insert instead thereof the words "six years."
    The reason I move this Amendment, and the reason I have anything to say upon it at all, is really contained in the history of

    521
    this measure. A few weeks ago we were told that the Parliament and Registration Bill was to be introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but at the last moment the Bill was suddenly withdrawn, and we were told that it would be produced a few days afterwards. It is common knowledge that, if the Bill as it was originally drafted, and as it was approved by the whole of the Cabinet, had been introduced, we should have had a longer extension of the life of Parliament than was contemplated in the Bill as introduced. When this Bill was introduced, in substitution of the one originally brought forward, there was in it a proposal for the extension of the life of Parliament by one year, instead of eight months as now appears in the measure. During the Debate upon the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke) threw out the suggestion that under these rather unusual circumstances it would be more reasonable to make the period of extension a Session rather than a year. The Prime Minister who, at the time, was not at all in possession of the views of the House, said that he was not in the least wedded to the time set out in the Bill. When the Committee stage was reached, without waiting to hear any opinion of any section of the House at all, the Prime Minister himself moved the Amendment reducing the period from twelve months to eight months. I was always under the impression that when a Coalition Government came in we should have more, and not less, chance of taking the sense of the House upon proposals put before us, and I do not understand the system under which a Minister, however eminent, comes down to the House and before hearing any Debate throws over proposals that are apparently the united product of a united Cabinet and suddenly puts forward totally different proposals. The Prime Minister no doubt did it merely with a view of saving time. I venture to doubt whether, as a matter of fact, it will be found to save much time, but undoubtedly it was done entirely for that object.
    I want to point out to the House that the Debate which followed made it perfectly clear—and not only am I fortified in my view by what I heard in the Debate, but also by what I was told by Members in all quarters of the House following upon the Division—that as a matter of fact the majority of the House would have preferred the original term of a year
    522
    in the Bill. I believe that is the case, and if the Government thought otherwise I cannot conceive why they wanted to put the Whips on with regard to a matter which is eminently a matter which the House ought to have been allowed to decide for itself. The real fact of the matter is that Coalitions have their greatest danger, not from the strength of their enemies, but from the lack of enthusiasm of their friends. If merely because a few people raise a question of the reduction of the Government proposal the opinion of the majority of the House is to be taken as of no account, and we are to pass Bills merely because the minority is in favour of them, all I can say is that if such procedure is to be carried out to any extent in this House, the Government will find itself in a very different position from that in which they are at present.
    Mr. BOOTH: We had a Division.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: We had a Division, as my hon. Friend below the Gangway says, and he knows perfectly well that his interruption is purely irrelevant, because Members supported the Government because they did not want it to appear that they desired to throw the Government out or were hostile to the Government. I never expected, when we forced a Division on that occasion, that we should get the real opinion of the House reflected. Everybody knows perfectly well that the real opinion of the House was not reflected on that occasion. I am not, as I said on the Second Reading, an opponent of the Government, nor do I in any way think that the Government have done badly. On the contrary, I wish to see them stick to their original proposal, because I believe the majority of the House realises that a year is the least possible time to give them. We cannot possibly proceed with registration upon the lines that we discussed on the Second Reading or upon any other lines, unless we give a longer period than eight months. The whole object of limiting it to eight months is a sort of affront to the Government, and a sort of suggestion that they cannot be trusted longer. Further, it puts the whole of the question, not in the control of this House, but in the control of the Members of the other House, and against that I absolutely protest. Therefore I suggest to the House that the original term proposed is the shortest term possible. No doubt we may

    523
    hear something from the Government Benches to-day that may make us reconsider our views, but from all I have heard up to the present I believe the House would welcome the longer term, and I have, therefore, taken this opportunity of moving my Amendment restoring the longer term which was the original considered opinion of the Government.
    Mr. PRINGLE: No, not the original opinion.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: I am referring to the original proposal in this Bill. I am not in the secrets of the Government like my hon. Friends below the Gangway, and I do not know what the other Bill was. I support the longer term because it was the original intention of the Government. I believe it is also the opinion of the vast majority of this House, and I move the Amendment particularly as a protest against giving away Government proposals in a lamentably weak way merely because a few people who do not in any way represent the majority in the House make suggestions.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    5.0 P.M.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Simon): My hon. and learned Friend proposes to the House that we should reverse a decision which was taken in Committee on this Bill a short time back. I hope I can, in a few sentences, give some good reasons why we should not reverse the decision that has already been arrived at. My hon. and learned Friend will not suspect me of any special or particular enthusiasm for altering in this respect the Bill as I presented it on behalf of the Government to the House. The Bill is itself a compromise, or an attempt at a compromise, and I do not think that he and I are likely to differ in what he said as to the advantage, so far as may be, of maintaining a compromise. There is, however, an overwhelming reason, as it seems to me, why we should not endeavour to change this Bill. After all, what was done the other day was done on the Motion of the Leader of the House, the head of the Government, on behalf of the whole Government, and was in effect, and in the way the Debate went, a bargain. Now a bargain is a bargain, and it makes no difference to me whether the desire to alter it is a desire
    524
    to alter it in a direction which might be in my favour or against it. I think it would be a very unfortunate thing, especially in a delicate matter of this sort, where controversial feeling is easily aroused, if we went back on what was in fact a compromise and a bargain. There were hon. Gentlemen opposite who suggested an even shorter term than eight months; six months, I believe. I think myself, and I said it in Debate, that there are practical inconveniences and disadvantages in making the term too short; but everybody agrees in what the Prime Minister said on behalf of us all, when he said that there was nothing sacrosanct in the number twelve, and that in this, like all other matters, especially where there is a possibility of controversy breaking out from under the surface, when we come to a bargain do let us stick to it. Apart from the merits of six, eight, or twelve months, or years, I would appeal to the House without doubt or question to say that this Bill should remain as it stands. I do not desire to go into the question of what may be the history or origin of this Bill. It is a compromise, and that is the best way in which we can hope to deal with a matter of this sort when we are preoccupied, or ought to be preoccupied, with the overwhelming subject of the conduct of the War. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies said, on the Second Reading, that the Bill as it was then before the House was in a form which was his own suggestion. That is quite true, but in this particular it was changed, in order that we might arrive at a common understanding with the general consent of the House, and certainly by an overwhelming majority of those who spoke, and I trust we shall not have any more Divisions, but shall be prepared to take it, as it is intended to be taken, as the best bargain that can be arrived at for the time being on this awkward, but none the less secondary, subject.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) intends to go to a Division on a proposal of this kind, but I venture to say that if his attendances were not so few he would never have put down an Amendment of this kind to reverse the decision of the Committee. I do appeal to him to come into our midst more frequently so as to get into the way and routine of transactions of this kind. He seems to forget that we voted on this question

    525
    largely on his instigation, and that the vote was twenty-three for his point of view and 158 for the suggestion of the Government. Then he comes down here to-day and tries to make the House believe that the 158 belonged to him and the twenty-three to us. I venture to say that if he pursues his vocation with the same ability, a more distinguished career awaits him than he has yet attained. I appeal to him to withdraw an expression he used, namely, that to bring this proposal forward was an affront to the Government. I took particular notice of that. If he was going to use that term he should have given notice to the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Duke). I do not think a member of his own profession should so describe an expression put forward calmly and in good faith in this House by another Member, without warning him that he was going to describe it as an affront. The proposal came from the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, and he and the Prime Minister in accepting that suggestion, used very definite words. Clearly the Prime Minister never regarded it as an affront, and he accepted in general terms the proposal of the hon. and learned Member when it was made in the spirit in which it was made. The language shows that quite clearly. The Prime Minister said: I understood him to suggest—
    "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 he said for that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Tuesday, 14th December, 1915, col. 1984, Vol. LXXVI.]
    That good deal is not abuse, but an acceptation of the point, and not worthy of the language the hon. and learned Member for Norfolk has used. It is a very simple matter. The hon. and learned Member seems to think that it is the result of some kind of conspiracy in some quarter of the of the House. It is nothing of the kind. The well-known editor of the "Observer" suggested three months, and some Members of the House, with whom I do not agree, suggested an immediate election. The Government proposal was twelve months. Some Members wanted a year after the War, and others eighteen months from now, and as his was about midway, and his suggestion was put forward in the proper spirit, we decided to put it down, so that in case the Government decided to use it it would be on the Paper. I venture to hope that the hon. and learned Member will see his way to withdraw such
    526
    an expression as that, especially as the hon. and learned Member for Exeter is not in his place to defend himself.
    Mr. HEMMERDE: Having regard to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I have no desire whatever to press this Amendment to a Division, and I beg the leave of the House to withdraw it.
    Leave withheld.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to."
    Sir R. FINLAY: I beg to move in Subsection (2), after the word "Commons" ["passed by the House of Commons"], to insert the words "before the first day of October, 1916, and."
    The object of this Amendment is to provide that the provision of the Parliament Act as to successive Sessions shall apply only during the extension of the life of this Parliament which this Bill grants—that is, the additional eight months. These eight months will expire on the 30th of September next, and accordingly I propose by this Amendment that we should say that the Sub-section dealing with this matter should read thus:—
    "Section two of the Parliament Act, 1911, shall in relation to any public Bill passed by the House of Commons before the first day of October, 1916" … and so on… "have effect as if the Session ended in September, 1914."
    I submit for the consideration of the House that it would not be reasonable that in making provision for this particular extension we should alter the provision of the Parliament Act, excepting in regard to the additional time so granted. If at the end of that time a further extension is wanted, it will be for the House when that proposal comes before it to say what it desires to do with regard to that extension, and it ought to approach the matter with its hands perfectly free. In the Debate which took place on Monday, on a Motion made by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), it was said by Members on this side of the House that the Bill, as drawn, did not extend beyond the operation of the extension of the Bill itself, and speaker after speaker on this side said that the Clause which it was moved to omit was not to be regarded as a precedent in the case of another Bill of the same kind. My right hon. Friend was appealed to by some of his own Friends

    527
    to consent to the withdrawal of his Motion on the ground that a compromise had been arrived at, that the circumstances were very special indeed and intended to meet a particular case, and that it would be no guide for the future. The Amendment was accordingly negatived, as my hon. Friend did not press it to a Division. Just before it was negatived, however, the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) pointed out that in his opinion the view taken of the effect of the Clause was erroneous, and on the Motion that the Clause stand part of the Bill the hon. Member for the City of London appealed to the Home Secretary to have his view on that point. The right hon. Gentleman said that he adopted the view, and stated his view as being that which had been submitted by the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire. I have looked carefully into the point, and I agree with both my learned Friends on it, that the Bill in its terms would apply automatically in the case of any further extension, so that the point would not be undecided, so to speak, when Parliament approached the consideration of another Bill for a longer extension of the life of the present Parliament. That is how the Bill stands. I cannot believe that it was the intention or purpose of the Bill that it should have that effect. I submit to the House that it is not right, and I bring forward this Motion for the purpose of having the matter corrected and leaving the hands of Parliament absolutely free and untied when we approach, if we should ever be asked to approach, the question of a further extension. It is no use saying you can repeal the Clause when you consider proposals for a further extension. You are in a very different position when you have to ask the House to repeal a Clause which has already been enacted from that in which you are when you ask it not to introduce a Clause that would have that effect. The question would be as the matter stands prejudged, and when we asked to have a Clause put in to repeal it, we should be told that Parliament has considered this matter and decided upon it. It was with a view to making such a predicament as that impossible that I bring forward this Motion. It is a very short one, and I beg to move it.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I hope my right hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press this Amendment. It seems
    528
    to me to be a question of form much more than one of substance. My right hon. Friend has just said that Parliament must be free to deal with the new situation when it arises. Of course, Parliament must be free, and it must be so in any case. When this period of eight months comes to an end, this Parliament will automatically come to and end, and if the life of Parliament has to be extended, it must be by a new Bill, which can only pass into an Act of Parliament with the consent of both Houses. Therefore it does not seem to me the difference between the two Motions is very substantial. I earnestly put it to my hon. and right hon. Friends on either side, that we have had a good deal of trouble in connection with this Bill. This is not a matter of substance because, in fact, the only difference between the two proposals is that this will extend the life of Parliament, and obviously the life of Parliament cannot be extended save by a new Bill. The idea in making this proposal is to postpone that which I certainly hope will never take place. If it does, we can resume our freedom of action with all our rights, and it really is not worth while delaying this Bill when we have the power of doing that. Nothing in this Bill will tie the hands of parties.
    The hon. Member for North Lanark complained about the trouble which had arisen. I wish there were more of my hon. Friends present to hear what I have to say. I do not believe, whatever trouble there is in connection with this measure, it should ever have arisen, as the feeling of both sides was that we would accept any settlement which was acceptable to our party. That has been our view from the very beginning. I think the Prime Minister went out of his way to show that he was anxious to treat the Bill in that spirit when he made the concession to which the hon. Member now objects, and I think we should meet him in the same spirit. I should like to observe this—although I do not care to say it—there has been talk about misunderstandings, and there have been a few complaints about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in that respect. But those who have a right to complain of misunderstandings are not the Unionist Members or myself. I think we have been met fairly, and if, as I believe, this is only a matter of form and not of substance, I do think my hon. Friends on the other side of the House will do well to show the same spirit as has been displayed

    529
    by the Prime Minister in regard to the matter, and not insist on making a change in what has been practically accepted by both sides.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I have no wish to press the matter too far, especially after the speech of my right hon. Friend. But what is in my mind and what caused me to put my name down to the Amendment was this: It is always well to be candid with the House. I was afraid that when the time came, if it ever did, when a new Bill was brought in to prolong this Parliament, the Title might be so drawn that it would be impossible to introduce any Amendment beyond an Amendment dealing with the purpose of prolongation. Understanding from my right hon. Friend that he does not think there is any chance of such an event taking place, and he has told us it is merely a matter of form and not of substance, and if that is the opinion of the House generally, and we are really at liberty to raise this question should another Bill ever be brought in, I should personally not desire to divide.
    Sir R. FINLAY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    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"
    530
    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, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert,
    "Provided always that where an assessor in Scotland is appointed under the Lands Valuation Act, 1854, and subsequent enactments, and where as part of his duties the registers of electors are made up by him, nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the power of the appointed local authority to pay him not only such annual salary or. emoluments under the terms of his appointment as assessor to which he would be entitled if this Act had not been passed, but such payment shall be taken into consideration in dealing with any claim in connection with the preparation of any special registers required by Parliament in place of the ordinary registers."
    I have not proposed the Amendment in the form it stands upon the Paper, as it has been suggested to me that the altered form is an improvement. I assume, and please God I am right in assuming, we shall never again see the necessity for freezing the register. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is that!"] Suspending the register. I hope that this Bill is to be the last of the series of these Bills. I take it for granted that if the payment is made in the ordinary way, then, for work done on a special register, it will be within the power, authority, or approval of the Scottish Office to take such payment into account. Really there is not very much difference, except that my Amendment is now proposed on lines rather more elastic.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HOGGE: I want to be clear with regard to this altered phraseology. I am quite in agreement with the principle of the Clause as proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but this difficulty suggests itself to me, that it might enable the authority which has to pay the assessor in the ordinary way for the ordinary work which he will not be required to do at the

    531
    present moment for any special register, and that special register might be very much more expensive.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Oh, no!
    Mr. HOGGE: It might be more expensive, and that would mean a greater expenditure by the local authority, if you gave it permissive power in that way. I want to be quite clear upon this point, and perhaps the Home Secretary can elucidate it. The assessor might get from an indulgent authority his regular allowance for the ordinary register and, in addition, payment for the special register, and that, of course, in the present circumstances, would be a waste of public money. If that is safeguarded against and if the authority can be made to understand what is the real distinction I shall, of course, withdraw my objection at once, but as my hon. Friend knows, when a change of phraseology is made at a moment's notice, it is difficult to see how far it extends.
    Mr. CLYDE: I think the difficulty which my hon. Friend raises very naturally is easily cleared away, if it be kept in mind that the function which the assessor performs towards the ultimate production of the roll of electors consists only of extracting those names from the valuation roll which he thinks prima facie are the names of those entitled to vote. He does not actually make up the voters' roll, and his function will be exactly the same, neither more nor less, whether the roll is the annual roll or whether it is an extraordinary roll. Therefore, I think that the difficulty which my hon. Friend naturally raises will never arise, so far as the assessor's part of the function of making up the roll is concerned.
    Sir J. SIMON: I should be sorry to take part in the Debate on this matter which is actually a Scottish matter if I did not find such agreement amongst Scottish Members in all parts of the House. I have inquired of the Scottish Office and have ascertained that they think the Clause in the form in which the hon. Baronet has now moved it is satisfactory, and really meets the necessity of the case. I understand also that the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Clyde) does meet the point raised by my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Hogge). I trust, under the circumstances, we may take this Clause without
    532
    a long Debate, as if there should be any necessity to revise it there will be an opportunity of doing it. I believe, in its present form, it will be found to be satisfactory.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—[Mr. Walter Rea.]
    Mr. BOOTH: I should like to give a word of warning to the Government at this stage. I admit they have not always profited by my warning, but I venture to hope that they will take notice of this. Some of the old Parliamentarians hold the view that the passing of this Bill will inevitably lead to a loosening of the bonds of discipline, and to greater freedom of expression by Members. I venture to predict that that will be the case. The Bill definitely prolongs the life of this Parliament. It is not an extraordinary thing to do, because we live in great times. I differ from my hon. Friend (Mr. Cowan) in the fact that I willingly vote with the Government. I see nothing else for it at this particular moment. But that may go on again and again. I am not at all with certain of my hon. Friends who think that by passing this Bill we are placing any additional power in the hands of the Upper House. I thought that was a very feeble point to make. I do not see how anyone could make it at this stage. It would not have been made now by anyone in touch with general feeling in the House and the country. I have not hesitated to take part in the controversy with the other House in the past, but that it should be threatened now is repulsive to the great majority of Liberals as well as to everybody else in the country. It was a partisan argument, and I want to repudiate it in the name of the main body of Liberal Members of this House. We are not looking forward, when this Parliament terminates in next September, either to having another party conflict or any conflict between the two Houses. Even if, happily, the War comes suddenly to a termination, there are many grave problems which cannot be settled between now and September and which will keep us united. We do not want to be divided on any old controversy of the kind.
    I venture to submit that, in opposition to leading articles in some of the newspapers which it is my duty daily to read, they have laboured a point which I say is

    533
    a false one and cannot be made. The case was put in the "Daily Chronicle," to my great surprise, that we were giving some point away to the other House by passing this Bill with the five years and eight months in it. It was suggested that we were giving them some kind of power to force a Dissolution. If they have the power of forcing a Dissolution by declining to renew this Bill, I would just as soon have it next September as this Christmas. If we are to have a precipitate election forced upon us, I think we should have it next September rather than on Christmas Day. I do not trouble myself about these things. There is not the remotest evidence that anybody in this House or the other is anxious to precipitate a party conflict. I would point out to the Government that this Bill is brought in by a Coalition Government, not by a National Government. The speeches that have been made to-day have not been made by Members of a National Government such as I wished to see established. They have been made rather by members of a Coalition Government, never forgetting that they sit in the Cabinet on different sides, and with the possibility being present in their minds of an ultimate appeal to this House which is going to divide us into sections. I protest that I am not going to resume a party vote at the bidding of any one of my old leaders while this crisis is on for any consideration whatever. I believe there are many others who take that view.
    As one who suggested that the Prime Minister should gather in his Cabinet Members of various parties, I was bitterly disappointed by their treatment of this Bill and by their speeches. They show that they have not hitherto realised what the country wants. The country does not want a mere Coalition Government of two sides bargaining about a Bill like this and considering themselves as representing two parties. I am sure the House will feel greatly disappointed to hear that point of view put forward again to-day. We hoped that nothing of that kind would have taken place. It ignores entirely the position of the Labour party. All through the discussions on the Bill in this House there has never been a recognition of anything else but that there were two parties from the two Front Benches who formed the Coalition. That is not true. Three Members were taken from the Labour Benches, and an offer was made to the Nationalist Member opposite. Why should we consider
    534
    that this Parliament Bill is a matter of bargaining and compromise between only two political parties? I do not wish, at this stage, to introduce an apple of discord. I mention it so that we may not run the same risk in future. We have run, as we have seen, a very great risk of being split up into sections in this House, not because of anything Members were doing or because of anything demanded by the country, but because the Cabinet could not agree. They were postponing the matter week after week, because they could not agree upon the exact terms of the measure before the House. I venture to warn them. It may be that on this occasion they will not take my warning. They did not do so before. It may be that I shall prove just as true a prophet as I was before. I venture to suggest that when any democratic House like this deliberately legislates for its own continuance and practically decides that it will not go out of office by the mere effluxion of time, but has the power in itself to prolong its life, the only effect will be, when the shadow of dissolution is taken from it, that Members in all part's of the House will exercise greater freedom. I am not suggesting that I shall —probably I shall. I am perfectly certain that cautious observers will see the effect upon this House I warn the Government that in passing this measure they must keep it in mind that their own future is not secure. They cannot be as secure if this measure is put on the Statute Book as they have been in the past. They can be secure by a vigorous prosecution of the War, which is a subject into which I cannot enter now; but if they fall slack, as I hope they will not, I feel sure that the direct result of enacting this legislation will be a greater freedom of criticism, a greater freedom of organisation and of combination among men in all parties, and the development of the formation of groups which has already occurred, and therefore the weakening of any appeals to us on Party grounds. By passing this measure, they can only appeal to us on patriotic and national grounds, and not on Party grounds. I think the lesson will have been fruitful.
    Mr. COWAN: Having moved the rejection of this Bill on the Second Reading, I feel that I ought not to allow this stage to pass without reiterating my protest. I know that in the action I took I was not supported by the general opinion of the House. Nevertheless, I felt it was my

    535
    duty to make my protest. I was a voice crying in the wilderness. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I was almost alone in the view I took, but before now minorities —even very small minorities—have been proved to be right, and, judging not by the feeling in the House, but by the feeling which I know exists, and the growing feeling which exists, in the country, I am persuaded the time will come when it will be recognised that the protest was a proper one to make, and that in extending its own life by its own action, this Parliament took a course fraught with grave dangers to the State and to the authority of Parliament itself. I can only hope that, as the House has supported the Government, the Government will rise to the height of the occasion by showing greater foresight and energy in the conduct of the War. That would enable even me to rejoice that it had this opportunity in its further tenure of power. But I am bound to give notice that, in the event of a further extension of this present Parliament being proposed under similar circumstances at the end of the eight months' term, I shall again renew my protest, with a confident hope of at any rate getting more support. I regret, perhaps more than anything else in this connection, that the Government have not made any provision in this Bill for the preparation of a new Parliamentary Register. I recognise the immense difficulty of doing so. I admit the force of what was said so well by the President of the Local Government Board two days ago, but in spite of all the difficulties, it seems to me that the thing ought to be done. No Government can guarantee us that we shall not be forced to fight a General Election in the course of the present War. If we should be obliged to do so, is it not better that we should have a new Register, however imperfect, than a stale Register? Is it not better that we should make some attempt to enable the country to record its voice and indicate its real wishes? I will again appeal to the Government to take what steps they can, during the few months allocated to them, to put us in the position of being able to ascertain the opinion of the country on the basis of a new and up-to-date Parliamentary Register. I cannot add anything more. I am in a minority, a very small minority. I await with confidence the day when the opinion of the House and the country will be with me.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY [21st December].—Report.
  ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1915–16.

    ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
    Resolution reported,
    "That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 1,000,000, all ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, in consequence of the War in Europe, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."—[Mr. Walter Rea.]
    Mr. PETO: I desire to raise a practical point which was not made in the Debate on the Committee stage yesterday, namely, the utilisation of this additional number of men. On two occasions I have called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the paucity of the numbers of the second-line units in both of the Territorial formations—in the Infantry and in the Yeomanry. Some hon. Members of this House have also raised this question, particularly the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Carr-Gomm), who spoke with authority on the subject, as he is actually commanding one of these Territorial battalions. I have had communications from the hon. Member for Rotherhithe since I spoke in this House in November upon this subject, and I find that so serious is the state of affairs that I did not adequately represent the gravity of the situation, although he was good enough to express his thanks to me, and the thanks of other officers who are in the same unfortunate position as himself. We have been suffering from a lack of men all the summer. I have it from officers commanding a considerable number of these second-line units that they have been slowly deteriorating in numbers, efficiency and training, because it is impossible to train men properly when you have inadequate numbers and when those numbers are slowly or rapidly dwindling. The hon. Member for

    537
    Rotherhithe is not here at present, therefore I shall ask leave of the House to read to them two or three passages from a letter he has written to me describing the situation. He says, with regard to his battalion:—
    "We took a lot of trouble in the spring to induce our men to sign the foreign service form. Now it seems, after all, not much use. After more than a year's work, we are ordered by the War Office letter to reduce our battalion to 26 officers and 600 men, and to send the remainder to the third line, and we have not been allowed to receive a single recruit since May. Of course this is typical of battalions in every division."
    He says further:
    "In very many ways the War Office have worried commanding officers. Ours had a battalion of 1,200 men in May and a fine band. The former is reduced to one-half and the latter abolished by the War Office. Why, except to inconvenience and discourage keenness?"
    When I spoke last, the right hon. Gentleman objected somewhat to my saying that the present policy was a direct discouragement to the officers and men in these battalions, and there I have the confirmation of what I said in the actual words of another hon. Member of this House who is himself commanding one of these battalions. It seems to me that really the War Office has laid out too large a scheme, which it has so far, all through the summer, been unable to furnish. To a large extent we have got a paper Army. We have got these battalions of Yeomanry units which were worked up by the energy and the enthusiasm of the officers commanding and their officers and non-commissioned officers, to a state of high efficiency as far back as April and May last. Some were in an advanced state of efficiency so far back as November, 1914, and ever since that, for lack of men, not being allowed to recruit at all, having no decision come to whether the object of their existence was foreign service, Home defence, or drafting units—they were first told one thing and then the other—and on the last occasion when I raised this question the right hon. Gentleman informed me that all these three purposes were intended to be served by them.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I did not say "intended"; I said "being."
    Mr. PETO: I will quote the right hon. Gentleman's words:—
    "That is, utilising the second-line units for three purposes—first, as a Home defence force: secondly, as a force that might well eventually have to go abroad to fight; and, thirdly, as a draft-finding machine. In Heaven's name, what more could that unit do? What greater demands can you make."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1915, col. 1798, Vol. LXXV.]
    538
    I want to quote on that my hon. Friend (Mr. Staveley-Hill), who is commanding one of these second-line Yeomanry units. He has taken up this very question in a memorandum he has written on the subject. This is, in fact, a short summary of our position, and the point of the speech to which I want to draw special attention is the one in which he says:—
    "Second-line units were utilised for different purposes, namely as a Home defence force, a force which might eventually have to go abroad, and as a draft-finding machine."
    I will not trouble the House with the detailed reasons he gives why it is quite impossible to train-on a body of men without the certainty that they are intended either for one or other of these three purposes, and when in doubt as to whether they are to be used first as one and then as the other. With regard to the position of his own unit, he says:—
    "When I took over the command of this regiment last July we were at full strength as regards men. A few weeks later we received a large number of horses, which brought us for all practical purposes up to full strength in men and horses. In September I was ordered to supply a large draft for the 1st regiment, which eventually went overseas. I was then left in the position of my having an average of four horses to each man. I need hardly say that this interfered entirely with the training of the regiment and only allowed time for exercise and grooming. Wince we got to our present quarters, on the 30th ultimo (October), I have been allowed to turn out a large number of horses, which practically leaves me with one man to two horses."
    I think that absolutely makes good the point. It is perfectly impossible to train-on a body of men who are meant to be brought up to Cavalry strength in horses and men if you do not know at any moment when you may be required to utilise them for one or other of the purposes or as a draft-finding machine. The whole organisation and training of that unit is disorganised and set back. The men and the officers are distinctly discouraged by finding that after many months of training, when they were at last up to full strength and when the serious work of getting ready for foreign service, as they thought, getting them really up to concert pitch, was just about to begin, the whole thing is thrown into chaos and confusion. That is my reason for raising this question again. The Government are asking for another 1,000,000 men, and the House agreed in Committee that that number must be provided. I ask that the War Office shall not lay out a further scheme, however attractive it may look upon paper, but shall first look round not only to the regiments which have suffered the wastage of war abroad, but those to which my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) referred

    539
    yesterday, battalions which are down to 350. I know of some which are even smaller in strength than that. But these, of course, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us are obviously the very first which have to be filled up. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of economy and efficiency, not to keep these second-line units, Territorial and Yeomanry, hanging about from month to month and from year to year, far from getting nearer to proficiency and ability to take their proper position in the fighting forces of the Crown, slowly going from bad to worse, deteriorating in moral, their officers and non-commissioned officers and men discouraged and disheartened, to make up his mind that if he gets his men he will not have a single unit that is not put in a position to complete its training, and that, in fact, we shall really use the men in such a way that we shall have the most efficient Army that can possibly be produced.
    I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman now that we have reached the magnitude of, at any rate, talking of an Army of 4,000,000 men, whether it is not about time to simplify the whole machine, to do away with the distinction between the Terriorial Force, what is known as Kitchener's Army, and the Regular Army, and the like? I ask if it is not obvious that if you are going to work on three parallel lines with three bodies of men—I do not want to use any technical phrases I am not familiar with myself; I look at it purely from a civilian and commonsense, I hope, point of view—if you are going to have three different organisations which are all going to be used for practically one and the same purpose, is it not obvious that you will save in staffing, in recruiting, and in a hundred different ways, if you recognise once for all now that we are at war, whatever may have been the merits of Lord Haldane's Territorial scheme as a preparation for war— that I do not want to discuss—we have one business in hand, and that is to organise the greatest possible number of complete and efficient units, all of them used wherever their striking power is most required, and all these little differences of recruiting offices on opposite sides of the street, and all that class of thing, should be done away with. We should recognise that it is now over six months since we asked the men who volunteered only for Home defence whether they would under-
    540
    take foreign service duties. We got an enormous response to that, and practically all these different units ought to be parts of one cohesive whole. They ought to be under one organisation. You ought to economise in your staffing and your management by recognising that we have really only one Force which we have to recruit and fill up. I am certain that would tend to an enormous economy, and I am quite certain, so far as efficiency is concerned, it is really disastrous to think we should incur such an unnecessary expense. I am told each of these second-line Yeomanry regiments costs £100,000 a year. I do not know how many there are. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us. But there is not one single one of these that is not in a less efficient condition to-day than it was six months ago, and we are spending all this money all the time. There is a full quota of officers, obviously requiring a very considerable part of the total pay of the unit, and we are really doing this for no purpose. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not only to give the matter his consideration and tell us it will be looked into, but really to bring this period of consideration, which has lasted for nearly eighteen months, to an end and let us have the dawn of action which is appropriate to the needs of the country.
    Captain AMERY: I should like to associate myself entirely with what has fallen from my hon. Friend with regard to the very serious disadvantage that it is to the efficiency of the Army to continue this prewar system of a series of different Armies, with different organisations and different standards of promotion. From the point of view of efficiency it would be far better to have only one Army to-day, the King's Army, and not the old Regular Army, the Territorial Force, the New Army, and so on. There is one point of view with regard to which I have often been struck by the immense unfairness resulting from these artificial divisions. It practically comes to this, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite has, no doubt, had many cases brought to his notice. A man who has been a Regular officer, recently retired, let me say, with the rank of captain, goes back to his old regiment as a Regular officer, and the chances are that he is still a captain today. If he had gone round by way of the New Army he would probably be a major or a colonel. If he had gone round, let me say, by the Territorial Artillery he might be a brigadier to-day. It is, I think, one of the things that is felt very

    541
    much by Regular officers that promotion has absolutely lost all principle and fairness in the course of the War. It is really remarkable how few complaints have been heard—I am not blaming anyone in particular; it is part of the general dislocation of our methods—when we consider that one door is practically blocked to promotion, but the same man if he runs round, or is given good advice and goes to another door can find step after step made easy for him.
    6.0 P.M.
    My hon. Friend said our Army was largely a paper Army. I am afraid that is true. But what is still more serious is that it is very much more a paper Army to-day than it was six months ago. I do not agree wholly that our programme is too ambitious. I do not believe that the programme as it stood last spring was too ambitious at all for the immense task in front of us. I am not sure that it was adequate to that task. What is very serious is that when last spring it began to be seen that we could not keep up our programme, the Government did not take measures to meet the difficulty. All through the months of last spring and summer and autumn, as our units were wasted at the front and the units at home consequently depleted more and more, we were met in this House by the constant assurance that there was no recruiting difficulty and that recruiting had never been better than it had been in recent weeks. I remember that is what the Prime Minister said when the House adjourned in July, and it was only when the thing had reached the dimensions of a terribly serious crisis that at last you called in Lord Derby and asked him, at the last moment, in the space of a month or six weeks, to try and revive and put new life into the voluntary system, under conditions which, I admit, were not fair to Lord Derby and were not fair to the voluntary system. I felt a great deal of sympathy with what fell from the hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) yesterday, when he said that Lord Derby's scheme ought to have had six months to prove itself a success. I agree. I think I mentioned before that in essentials that scheme was brought forward in the War Office at the end of the first month of the War, but for reasons best known to the authorities it was not smiled upon. But where I differ from the hon. Member is in this, that we have not the time now to spend another six or eight months trying to make Lord Derby's scheme a success. Once again
    542
    we are confronted with this issue, "Too late." The Army now is in a very serious condition. Yesterday my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) referred to the fact that three of our divisions in the East have not, between them, in Infantry the numbers of one division. I do not think that is a unique case, and it is certainly not a unique case when you come to deal with the troops here at home. The Territorial divisions ought to be as strong and as efficient as any other divisions. As a matter of fact, except the divisions of the old Regular Army, they are no more amateurs than a division of what is called the New Regular Army. They were intended to be formed into three lines: the first line for the front, the second line for the front, and the third line for Home defence and for replenishing the first and second lines. What has happened? The calls on the third line have been such that the wastage has had to be met out of the second line. In many cases the second line have sent men direct to the front. In other cases a most peculiar device has been adopted, and that is, of taking men away from the second line and sending them to the third line in order that the third line may be large enough to feed the first line. It is the old story of feeding a dog with bits of his own tail. When the second line had dwindled to such an extent that the officers responsible for the defence of this country said that it could no longer be treated as an unit for any fighting purpose, we had a further idea, and that is, that from this depleted second line should be taken two battalions at a time and blended together into one composite battalion, in which Welshmen and Irishmen, or Welshmen and East Anglians, should lie down together and forget all they have learned about pride in their regiment, waste a good deal of the work and training of the last sixteen or seventeen months in their unit, and begin again as a depleted unit with no proper power of expansion.
    It seems to me perfectly monstrous that at this stage of the War, within a few months of a critical and perhaps the final decision, that we should be left in this state. Yet we are told by a large number of hon. Members that there is still plenty of time to discuss and consider the Derby scheme, that it really is unfair to talk about calling up the single men, that we ought to give single men many weeks more to state their reasons, and that they

    543
    ought to be canvassed and recanvassed again. The fact is, that we want all the | men in this country except those who are absolutely necessary for | indispensable industries. I do not think that piano making, for instance, is an indispensable industry. I mean industries absolutely indispensable for the provision of munitions or food. Any other industry in this country ought to go to the wall for the time being, or ought to be carried on with older men and with women. Yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond) in a speech with a great part of which I sympathise, said that the onus of proof rested upon those who wished to introduce compulsion. I am not sure that I accept that contention. I think that when you are fighting for the life and the very existence of this Empire, when you are fighting for everything that is dear to Britishers, the onus of proof rests upon those who ask you to do with one man less than you can put into the field, or one man less than you think is absolutely necessary to ensure victory. Supposing we admit the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. Supposing we do say that the onus of proof rests upon those who wish to introduce a change in the institutions of this country, even temporary and during a great crisis. I wish to say one word in answer to that. I do not wish to be contentious. I think that perhaps some of the speeches made yesterday had better not have been made. I do, however, wish to make this appeal. If the onus of proof rests upon the Government and upon responsible Members of this House to prove that we require the men, then I say there is another onus that rests upon those who may not agree with the necessity of compulsion, and that is, the onus of cheerful acceptance, of ready endorsement of the policy which the military authorities and the Government find to be necessary. It is from that point of view that I most sincerely regret the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon). The hon. and learned Member for Waterford has shown high patriotism throughout this War. I believe that the efforts which he has made in Ireland to stimulate recruiting have been made with a most whole-hearted desire to help the great cause which is dear to all of us, and I think it is a pity that, without waiting for the figures, without waiting for the proof, he should have tried
    544
    to pre-judge the issue and to some extent— I do not like to use the word menace—to threaten the Government with serious opposition if they feel convinced, after their study of the situation, that compulsory service becomes necessary.
    This is not a question of principle at all; it is a question of how to get the men. If they can be got voluntarily, by all means let them come forward. There is no one in this House who wants to enforce compulsion for compulsion's sake. All we want is to make sure of winning the War. For Heaven's sake do not take the line that it does not matter whether you get in the last 500,000 men or not! The fortunes of this War may depend wholly next spring, or next summer, upon which side can put 100,000 men or 200,000 men in the breach at the critical moment. More than that, when you have broken the breach, upon the surplus men you have behind depends the question of whether you can keep that breach open and push your enemy further back and convert defeat into a rout, or whether you enable the enemy to rally again and put up a new line which, for want of men, you will be unable to pierce. The Prime Minister, having promised a few days ago that we should have the figures of Lord Derby's Report before the Adjournment, has now announced that we are not to have them before the Adjournment. He will not even make any definite statement as to when we are to have them after the Adjournment, except that they will be given as soon as is conveniently possible. These figures have been in his hands since the night before last, and I cannot conceive, though the details may be open to a good deal of examination, that the broad results, the broad question as to whether we are going to get the overwhelming bulk of the eligible men or not, has not been clearly shown by those figures. The figures are not here, but I hope I may be allowed to give the figures of one constituency that came to my notice. They are not exceptional; they are not sent to me for any exceptional reasons, but I came across them yesterday. In this constituency 4,400 people were canvassed. Of these it turned out that 700 had already offered to enlist and had been rejected as physically unfit, leaving 3,700. Of that 3,700, about 2,100 or a little more refused to enlist, though 400 or 500 pleaded as a ground that they were not physically fit for the hardships of a campaign. They

    545
    did not produce evidence to that effect, but they stated that they did not feel physically up to the work of a campaign. Another 1,600 did not give any reason of that sort. Some 1,300 did enlist or promised to enlist. Out of these you have to take the men who are still to be rejected as unfit, or who belong to starred or exempted industries. I doubt if you will be putting the figure low enough if you assume that at the most 1,000 out of those 3,700 eligible or possibly eligible persons will be really available—that is to say, something not very much in excess of one-fourth, if you deduct those who really are required for indispensable industries and those who really are unfit. I believe you ought to get not merely 25 per cent., but 50 or 60 per cent. of the people still to be canvassed. A great many of the 1,300 who promised to enlist may still prove unfit or to be starred persons.
    We have all heard in many cases of the rush for attestation on the part of men who knew that they were not going to be accepted. I have come across cases in which these men have been disappointed. I came across the other day the case of a friend of mine who has felt unable throughout this War, owing to the fact that he has a weak heart, varicose veins, and other complaints, to serve as he would wish to serve in His Majesty's Forces. At the last moment, however, thinking that perhaps he might set a good example to his friends and neighbours, though assured by his doctor that he could not possibly pass, he presented himself for enlistment and was duly passed without a word of query or any closer examination. One has heard lots of instances of people from munition works being sent to attest simply to swell the total. [An HON. MEMBER: "And to draw the money!"] Yes, and to draw the money. I believe they draw 2s. 9d. per head. If these figures are thus swollen unnecessarily by 1,000,000 or more, by men whom we cannot take to the Colours, it means that you are at a time of immense expense to the nation, and at a time when the burden of taxation is so heavy, quite unnecessarily saddling the country with heavy cost. There is another point which ought not to be overlooked. There has been surviving from the old days before the War the practice of "bringing money," under which a recruiting sergeant gets 2s. 6d. for every recruit that is brought in. I regret to say that that practice was kept up even after the War
    546
    began, and I believe that in many places the work of the voluntary canvassers and of the committees has enured to the benefit of some old recruiting sergeant to the amount of 2s. 6d. for every man brought in. I have heard of the case of a recruiting sergeant making £40 or £50 a day, even before the last final rush under Lord Derby's scheme. I do not know what has happened latterly, but I do say that there has been a great deal of unnecessary waste.
    I felt very sorry this afternoon when the Prime Minister not only announced a delay in regard to the Munitions Bill, but when he delayed his answer in regard to Lord Derby's scheme. In spite of all his protestations, we are met once more by that fatal habit of putting off unpleasant decisions. Can anyone doubt that if the Derby scheme had brought in an overwhelming bulk of the unmarried and married men we should not have had the fact proclaimed last Thursday, and that the whole of this difficult controversy would have been settled to the heartfelt satisfaction of everyone in this House? As it is, we are told that the figures will require further analysis, and that the Government must consider them thoroughly. I suppose the subterranean scuffles of last autumn are now taking place again and will take place during the Recess, and that when we meet again we shall have further reason given for a further analysis or for some further delay, while all the time the chances of victory are slipping away. I cannot understand this fatal habit of acquiescing in circumstances which are slipping from your grasp every minute. It is not a case of the old Parliamentary situation in which so long as the Government stays in its does not matter whether a Bill is passed this Session or next Session. The question is, that we are fighting an enemy who does not rest, who does not wait, but who strikes when he can. I noticed the day before yesterday that the Prime Minister treated the withdrawal from Suvla and Anzac almost as if it had been the climax of a great and successful campaign. All of us must have admired the skill and resource with which General Birdwood and his staff got away, almost without a single casualty. It does make us feel that the fault is not the fault of the men at the front, or even the Staffs, at any rate most of the Staffs at the front; but the question we have to ask is the question put by the right hon. Member for Trinity College, Dublin, yesterday, why were

    547
    these men made to suffer during these four months at Suvla? If they could be so successfully removed to some other undesignated sphere of operation, why could they not have been moved at the end of September to help Serbia? They could have been taken to Salonika at that time when the situation was not so fatally—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think this is the opportunity to review the whole situation of the War. The House is now asked to add 1,000,000 men to the Army, and that is the subject under discussion.
    Captain AMERY: I thought that in discussing this Vote for the grant of men that we might refer to the military policy of the Government, not only with reference to the organisation at home, but also with reference to military operations, and I should have thought that this was not wholly out of place. It was certainly discussed in Committee yesterday, but I do not wish, of course, to pursue it if it is out of order.
    Mr. BOOTH: On the point of Order, Sir. I have given notice to raise the question of Serbia, and this Vote is for an additional number of men, not exceeding 1,000,000, in consequence of the War in Europe. I submit that I am entitled to submit that if more enlightened military measures had been taken in Serbia, we should not now require such a large number of men, and the Serbian Army might have, been spared.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know what occurred in Committee yesterday; what took place is not officially known to me at all. I should have thought it now an inconvenient moment to criticise the Home Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not criticise the action of the troops or the generals, or the staff. He can criticise the Home Government, but his criticism must have reference to the proposal to add to the strength of the Army, unless he goes on to say that he has so little confidence in the present Government that he does not think they ought to have a single man more. Of course, that is the very opposite to what he has said.
    Captain AMERY: I was referring to what I regarded as the procrastination of the Government, and in view of the fact that the withdrawal of the men from Suvla and Anzac was discussed at great length in Committee, I was submitting that it might have been of inestimable benefit in
    548
    the whole conduct of the War if our troops had been withdrawn earlier, because it would have added not only to the strength of the Serbian Army, now practically destroyed, but possibly might have brought in the Greek and Rumanian Armies as well, under the conditions which existed then. I do not wish, however, to press the point. The only reason I mentioned it was because it seemed to me only one more illustration of the ineradicable habit of the present Government to put things off. I submit that it would be far better for this country to go short in order to win the War this next summer than to carry on this War—probably badly—on its present scale year after year, and I would say, in conclusion, that I cannot conceive how a policy of putting off is going to win this War. It is not government, it is not administration, it is not strategy. War requires decisive and resolute action, and, up to the present, those qualities are not to be found in the Government as at present constituted.
    Mr. HOGGE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is like a great many Members of this House, inclined, I think, to address his mind to the increase of men too largely from the point of view that all that is required is an addition to the number of men. As the House knows, those of us who sit below the Gangway in this part of the House are as keen and as anxious to see the victory of this country in the War as any of the Members who have already spoken in this Debate. I have been trying to put myself in the position of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and endeavouring to appreciate his attitude with the object of seeing whether his point of view or mine is the correct one. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he said in one part of his speech that a great deal would depend upon whether or not, at some moment next summer, we might have available an extra force of 200,000 men to push home a certain advantage, and if that advantage were pushed home, to follow it up with men at home who were training. I should rather like to have it explained to me by any other Member who takes my hon. Friend's view how, even under Lord Derby's Scheme, this is going to be achieved, because, as we know, groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 are not to be called up until 20th January, and the period of time between that date and the middle of summer, for which my hon. Friend wants the extra men to train for this result, is a period of

    549
    about five months. He will agree, therefore, that, if it depends on troops training for nearly five months, that would not be a particularly good way. Having said that, I would remind the House that the Minister of Munitions took exactly the same view of what is required, that is 200,000 extra men, and, if what the Minister of Munitions said was accurate, we ought to do all we can to supply that extra force of men. The difficulty will be considerable unless he is provided with more skilled and unskilled men for work in the factories which are not yet in active operation. If that be so, I want my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War to answer, if he can, a question which I propose to address to him. I admit the justice of the criticism by other Members of the House about the "too lateness," in very many aspects, of the Government with regard to the conduct of the War. Does not this question of the extra 1,000,000 of men depend upon whether or not the House can be informed about and can appreciate the virtue of national stocktaking? The President of the Board of Trade, in the Debate yesterday, made it perfectly clear, at any rate, that he had come to conclusions with which we can or cannot agree as to how far and in what way we can use the 1,000,000 men that we are now asked for. I want to go even further on this point of national stocktaking, and I should like to see it discussed and some sort of reply given in regard to it. After all, we are not fighting this War alone. My hon. Friend has just pointed out the extreme importance of being in a position, in the early summer, to make such a strategic stroke as will have some effect in quickening the conclusion of the War. I take it that that is the point I must meet, and, therefore, I want to know if the Allies have had any international stocktaking?
    We had the President of the Board of Trade yesterday giving us the results of national stocktaking, and I think his speech was very fair indeed; it did not attempt to conceal from the House where men could be taken from and where men could not be taken from. He specifically mentioned certain trades where he said, according to the information before him, men could be spared, and certain trades in the country from which, according to his view, no men could be spared at all. That brings me to emphasise the point which I suggest might be discussed with advantage, namely, as to whether in these
    550
    circumstances it is worth our while to give the Government more men to put into the fighting line at the moment which Members, like the hon. Member who has just sat down, think it is essential that they should be there. I do not think, and I imagine the hon. Member will agree with me, that if we give the Government 1,000,000 men they can be trained before the summer of next year. I am not a military man, and I do not understand the value of strategy, and so on, except so far as I have been able to make myself acquainted with from outside. I have always been led to understand that, for instance, our Ally, Russia, has a great number of men available, and that her greatest potentiality is soldiers in the field—that is to say, that Russia as a nation can probably put more men, as men, into the field than we as an industrial nation can do. Has the Government made up its mind on this question, as to equipping those men who are not now equipped among our Allies and putting them in the field, whether we might win the War much more quickly than by taking our men from industry? It may be said in reply that that is asking other people to fight for you, but I think every Member will agree that that allegation cannot be made against Great Britain in this War. I do not think that any Ally, or any independent critic, can for a moment say that this nation has shirked its responsibilities in contributions to the War; but that one point seems to weigh with me, and keeps turning over in my mind, as to whether for practical purposes, and practical purposes after all are the purposes which will secure victory, it would not be more worth the Government's while to address themselves to what I have ventured to call international stocktaking, and to see whether or not better or more effective use could be made of any one of our contributions in any particular part of the field.
    If I felt assured on that point, I should feel very happy in granting the extra 1,000,000 of men I have no objection to the Government having the extra 1,000,000 men, or every man that they require to finish this work effectively, but it would be a great satisfaction to me and to many others, who think like me, if we knew that the Government were addressing themselves to this question, as well as to the other questions, such as the Derby scheme. I agree with my hon. Friend that we shall be in the thick of

    551
    difficulties when we come back after the Recess, and we shall be discussing all these kinds of questions, and the more we discuss them the more likely are our minds to be diverted from the real issue before us, which is to get home a stroke which will achieve victory. If the Home Secretary, for instance, or any other Member of the Cabinet, could really assure the House that the Government have given attention already, as I imagine they must have done, to some of these things, and would tell us that they have calculated together with Russia and with France and with Italy what men they have got, and what ships they have got, and what money they have got, and what other facilities they have got to act in co-operation, and so that they could be used effectively; if we were assured of that, I am satisfied we would not quarrel so much about the numbers of the men, and the way in which they are to be used. I do venture to suggest that that assurance might be given to the country. There are a great many other points to which I intended to refer, but I think the one I have mentioned is so important, that by confining myself to that point, I may be able to get a reply; while if I advanced a number of points I might not get that reply.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: The point which the hon. Member has just raised is, of course, in the minds of many Members. I quite agree with him in thinking that it would lead to a great deal of satisfaction and to the avoidance of a great deal of useless discussion, if the Government could see their way to give us a little more information on general questions, than has been given up to now. As a matter of fact, on all the discussions we have had on the subject of men, and the somewhat heated discussion, on the voluntary and compulsory systems, I have always felt it to be a great difficulty, as I am sure many other hon. Members have, that we never have any information before us in regard to figures to enable us to form any kind of reasonable conclusion whatever. In this whole Debate we have had one figure given to us by the Prime Minister, and that was that we had about a million and a quarter of men at the front. We do not know what that vague phrase means. For instance, we do not know whether Egypt is looked on as part of the front, or not. We do not know up to this moment whether the 3,000,000 men Parliament has already voted have been
    552
    recruited or not. Surely we are entitled to know that before we are asked to vote any more men. I can only assume that we should not be asked to vote any more, except that the 3,000,000 men have been recruited, and that therefore a further vote is required. If that is the case, I cannot see what objection there possibly can be to an official statement on the subject. We have been told that it was unwise for us to know how many men we have recruited, because it would be giving information to the enemy. I should have thought that the figure of the men at the front was an infinitely more confidential figure and more useful to the enemy than the figure of the total we have recruited. Without knowing these facts it is extraordinarily difficult to form any intelligent idea on the matter. A great many Members and people outside have a kind of vague idea that when you have three million men recruited they are all in the trenches. We have never had such a War as this, and I really think it would be a very useful thing if some kind of explanatory and general statement were made, though it might seem quite elementary to some, as to the reserves wanted at home in order to keep up the number of men at the front. An hon. Gentleman said just now that the men who are enlisting now would not be ready perhaps by early spring, or even early summer. I do not suppose that the military authorities expect them to be ready, but want to be certain of being able to keep up a certain strength at the front, by having reserves at home.
    Mr. TENNANT: I said that yesterday.
    Sir A. MOND: Yes, but we have never had any kind of figure. We are not told whether you want two men at home for one man at the front, or one man at home for one man at the front, or on what basis the number of men being raised is being utilised. That makes it extremely difficult to comprehend it clearly what the policy is. It is quite true that the Under-Secretary said yesterday, in a general way, that their wastage was very large, and that therefore these men would be required. That is scarcely a sufficient explanation to tell this assembly as to policy. I would go a little further and say that we really find it difficult to follow in any way, and I do not complain of this because it would be impossible to give it to us, the distribution of our forces at present. We cannot of course be told how many men are in the

    553
    different spheres of operation, and I do not say we should, but I think we might be told a little more of the general position, the general figures and policy. For instance, I do not take it, although it has been commonly assumed in this Debate, that these 1,000,000 men will all be recruited and wanted at once. This Debate has largely gone on the basis that these 1,000,000 men were going to be recruited right away in the next few weeks. I suppose that the idea is to take them gradually over a given period, and I think it would be revealing no great secrets to tell us in what proportion, and in what period, it is proposed to call them up.
    With regard to the general discussion we all seem to wander round in a kind of vicious circle, according to our own particular predilection. 'There are those who say we do not want men, but munitions, and there are those who say we want men and munitions, and there are those who say we must keep up trade. Those conflicting interests find partisans, who prove to their own satisfaction that their particular point of view is the most important. This is not confined merely to Members of this House. It seems to me to be in the Government itself, and it seems to be a point of controversial character amongst the heads of different Departments, as to what our policy ought to be. You cannot win a war without men, and during the events of the last few weeks there has been more than one occasion when, if we had more men, we should have been able to achieve more results. We have all heard different unofficial accounts of the battle of Suvla Bay, and, like all unofficial accounts, they are probably more or less inaccurate. I was told, for instance, that if they had had only another division to support them at the time, the battle would have been won, but that they were short of men. That may be true or not, but that is the information I have had from several people who were present. Take the Serbian situation. There is no doubt of the fact that if we had at our disposal more men whom we could have dispatched earlier, we should not be in the mess we are in there now. I cannot, therefore, understand how people can argue that we have got enough men and do not want more. I see that there is much talk about the question of Egypt, and some figures are given which, while not perhaps very reliable, are sufficiently substantial to show that we shall require a considerable
    554
    number of men in order to defend Egypt. When men tell me that it is very important to maintain the American exchange and the balance of trade, I sometimes wonder what would be the value of the balance of trade or of the American exchange if, for instance, we managed to lose Egypt and the control of the Suez Canal. I do not see how you can measure these things in terms of finance. You have got an opponent who is prepared to let the exchange go against him to the extent that we see during the War, and in my opinion yon cannot fight on the lines that you will not mobilise because you want to keep your finances in a better position.
    Nothing could be more misleading than the extraordinary references to the Napoleonic campaign and the kind of theory that at that time we had a great strategy, which consisted in conserving our finances and conserving our sea power, and fighting as little as possible on land. Personally, I cannot see from history that we had any very definite policy at that time. The one thing that is very certain is that the war went on for twenty years, and that it was finally settled in a battle on land, and that it nearly brought this country to bankruptcy. I think every general at that time would have said, and probably did say, that if there had been larger military forces that the war would have been brought to a conclusion many years before. I think what we ought to learn from that campaign is that it is not a cheap process to drag out a war for many years because of insufficient military forces, and that it is really cheaper to suffer temporary financial drawbacks and to shorten the War. That point seems frequently overlooked. If you have got a war costing £5,000,000 per day, or £150,000,000 per month, and if you can close that war two months earlier by putting all your energy into the fighting, you will save an expenditure of £300,000,000. The whole of your exports only amount to £400,000,000 for the twelve months. I cannot understand myself, as a business proposition, why, in order to protect £400,000,000 worth of production for twelve months, you should go on dragging on a war which is costing £150,000,000 per month. I do not want to be understood as saying for a moment that I do not fully understand the gravity of the financial position. I am as much interested in the maintenance of the export trade as most hon. Members in this House. What I say is that all these things cannot be made primary. You cannot carry on war on a

    555
    limited liability system. You cannot say that the number of men must be limited by this or that factor. It can only be limited by the military necessities. All other points must be secondary. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) spoke about the Russian forces. It is quite true that Russia has a very large number of men. She may have 5,000,000 on her frontier, but that may not enable her to put enough men on the Western front and bring about a decisive issue there. It certainly cannot help you to defend Egypt. Therefore the argument as to the number of men and the equipment of Russia cannot be taken in an absolute sense.
    Mr. HOGGE: You will admit the mobility of the Russian troops.
    Sir A. MOND: That may be, but I do not know of any method by which you could transport the Russian Army to the Western front. It is true we once had certain rumours in that sense, and had it been possible it would probably have been done long ago. I cannot imagine Germany not having considered the points raised by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, as they are quite elementary. With regard to the manufacture of munitions and other things, there is an elasticity in production much greater than has been commonly imagined. I do not know that even the President of the Board of Trade—with whose able speech we all thoroughly agree—and his officials have sufficient regard to that question of elasticity. One of the most remarkable facts in this country is that we have enormous bodies of men withdrawn from their ordinary occupations and yet the trade of the country relatively is carried on with much less disturbance than anybody would have dreamt to be possible. That shows that there is an enormous amount of reserve labour, either labour which can do more than it is doing or labour which is not employed in ordinary times. After all, in this country we have done very little relatively in the way of the substitution of women's labour, as compared with what has been done in France and Germany. I can never understand why it should be so much more difficult for us to do things which our Allies or even our opponents can do. We ought to be able to mobilise in this country an equivalent portion of our men to what they can. When I hear that people
    556
    are indispensable to this or that, I often feel that if these people were not there it would be found that they were not indispensable. This is rather against myself because, as one engaged in manufacture, no one knows better than I do the intense difficulty of obtaining labour and of carrying on. But I also know that some of the difficulties can be overcome, and that there are a large number of people who are not employed in any industry which is really valuable or necessary to the country.
    I advocated many months ago that what we wanted was a register of industries. I still believe that that is the right thing. The President of the Board of Trade yesterday spoke about a schedule of occupations. I do not think that occupations are the cardinal thing. Industries are the cardinal thing. If you have industries that you do not want for munitions or export, a great many of those industries can be temporarily abandoned and the people engaged transferred to industries which you want to carry on. Your schedule of occupations does not give you that information at all, nor is it from that point of view of any value. The idea that occupation is decisive contains a fallacy. When you are carrying on munition factories unskilled men are just as necessary as skilled men. Your schedule of occupations would say that you must not take any more fitters, or turners, or skilled men. Your unskilled men do not come into it at all. But all your skilled men are useless unless you have unskilled men as well. What the Government must make up its mind about is not what class of labour they want to retain, but what industries they want carried on. When they have done that, I think we shall be in a much better position. The competition between the Ministry of Munitions, the Army, and other Departments, is disconcerting, and the contradictory statements which we hear every day are confusing and embarrassing to the ordinary Member. I have pressed on the Minister of Munitions himself the getting back of skilled men from the Army. One of the reasons of the difficulty in doing that has been the insufficiency of other men to take their place. Under the present system of recruiting one of the most serious difficulties of the voluntary system has been that the military authorities have been so delighted when they have got hold of a recruit that nothing in the world would make them let go of him. You have filled your Army with boys, and you will not let

    557
    them go again. When you have a boy of seventeen who looks like eighteen and a half you say, "We must keep that boy"; but you would not keep that boy if you could substitute for him a man of twenty. Our military authorities have never been able to say, as the French Minister for War can say, "We have so many men, and can use them in such and such a way." It is not fair to keep on blaming the War Office when that is the state of affairs. The War Office has many stains on its soul, but if you take the position of our Minister for War and compare it with that of the War Minister of any of the Powers that are fighting either with us or against us it will be seen that he is working under a most unfair handicap. The Allies' Ministers for War have practically from the outbreak of the War known to a small fraction the number of men at their disposal, when they wanted them, when they could equip them, and where they wanted them. Our Minister for War has never known from week to week or month to month the number of men he could get, what equipment he could provide, or when the men would come. The authorities have had to take them in rushes, and then there have been long periods when nothing has happened. How can you expect to get any organised or rational system? It is impossible. What is the use of blaming overworked officials if you put them under this colossal handicap? I hope the Derby group system will, at any rate, assist to do away with that. The group system is a very old one. It was proposed by many of us at the beginning of the War, and would have saved a great deal of confusion.
    There is one question which I have raised before, and which becomes more urgent every day; that is, what steps are you going to take to enable the middle-class married man, who is now attested under the Derby scheme, to enter the ranks without suffering grave financial damage, if not absolute financial ruin? In the past you have recruited the Army very largely either from people whose financial position was such that they could go, even at sacrifice, but without absolute ruin, or from classes whom the separation allowance and pay permitted to carry on their ordinary economic existence. Now you are enlisting in the ranks large numbers of middle-class men. These people held back because of the financial difficulty. In France, and other Continental countries, who have thought more about war than
    558
    we have, legislation has been and is being provided to protect the man who is fighting for his country from being evicted from his home. I have proposed that we should pass legislation which would enable any man who enlists to state before a competent tribunal his position in regard to contractual obligations. You have a case of this kind. A man has a lease of a house for five years, at a rent of, say, £75 a year. What is the man to do about that? He goes away and get 1s. 2d. a day, and his wife gets 12s. 6d. a week. How is he to pay the £75 a year? Is the landlord to be allowed to seize the furniture and sell that man up because he has gone to defend his country? Is the man to come back burdened with a debt of four or five years' rent? Surely it would be only common fairness to allow the man to cancel the lease. When the State is calling upon him to undertake duties which make it impossible for him to fulfil his contractual obligations, surely the State must liberate him from those obligations. Or take a man who is paying considerable life insurance premiums. He has to pay, say, £50 a year premiums. Are you going to let the life assurance company lapse his policy, the only provision for his wife and family, to which he has contributed for many years, because he has gone to defend his country? It is unthinkable. Take, again, a man with furniture under a hire-purchase agreement. Is he to lose the benefit of all the payments he has made?
    This question will have to be settled. I have had, and no doubt other Members have had, numbers of letters pointing out these hardships, and asking what is to be done. What I have proposed seems to me very fair and very moderate—much more moderate than what has been done in any other country. In France no action of any kind lies against any soldier under the Colours. The same is the law of Switzerland. A man taken by the State to the Colours is freed from any civil liability, his family pay no rent, you cannot distrain his furniture or his goods. I see they have gone even further. If a man come back wounded or diseased he can go to the Court and claim to have his liabilities reduced or cancelled on the ground that owing to the War and his wounds or disease, he is no longer in the same business position as before. If he is killed, his family can go and claim to be relieved from the obligation. That is a point which will have to be considered,

    559
    because otherwise, not only may a man's little savings be claimed for compensation for the non-payment of rent or the non-fulfilment of obligations, but the man may lose his life as well. I hope that question will receive legislative attention at an early date. Already many cases of very-great hardship have arisen. I really think that, when it grasps the point, this country will not tolerate that a man should be asked to sacrifice his life and health, give up his career, damage his business, and at the same time face financial ruin. It is so monstrous a proposition that it has only to be stated in order that its impossibility may be shown. I know the objection is urged, What is to become of the people to whom this rent is payable? What is to become of them? It may be the only form of livelihood—
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is suggesting a number of legislative proposals. I do not think any of them are relevant to this discussion, which is simply as to whether or not the Army is to be increased by 1,000,000 men. The other questions as to provision for members of the middle classes who give up their houses, and so on, is already a difficulty; but that question does not necessarily arise on this Vote for an increase of men.
    Sir A. MOND: I bow to your ruling. I only introduced the subject because under the Derby scheme you will be calling up a large number of people for whom provision will have to be made. I thought, perhaps, that in that way the matter might be relevant to our discussion; but I naturally accept your ruling, and will not continue that point. I hope, however, that on some of the various points which have been raised we may have some further reply from the Government. I feel quite convinced, in spite of the various and divergent views which have been expressed during this Debate, that only one real fundamental thought underlies the words of every speaker—that is, that we all want to win the War. We may not quite agree as to the best policy to adopt for this purpose, but so long as we are all agreed on the main purpose I have no doubt we shall never very seriously quarrel in regard to the method.
    I am very sorry that in this Debate we have had introduced at considerable length some of the old controversy relating to voluntary and compulsory service.
    560
    Personally, I feel that discussion on these matters for the moment is entirely useless. The Cabinet have got figures under consideration which may prove—I hope they will prove—that this subject may be considered as a closed chapter. Or the figures may prove that the Prime Minister's pledge must be carried out, and in that case any further discussion would seem to be unnecessary. But I cannot understand how a certain section of Members of this House can consider that they are facilitating this matter by various attacks— some of them yesterday—particularly that by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon)—and by stating in advance that they desire to impose another policy upon the Prime Minister. After the solemn promise of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the Government cannot possibly go back. There cannot be the faintest idea of going back upon the pledges they have given, I or the policy they have laid down. I deprecate hon. Members in advance preparing opposition to the Government proposals if they become necessary, and raising difficulties and controversies. It introduces an unnecessary amount of heat into this matter, and seems to me a very serious and a very unpatriotic thing to do. If the Government consider, after examining all the papers, that substantially the single men of this country have come forward, and that they have enough men to go on with, nobody—at least, none of those with whom I have worked—will have the slightest desire to raise any further question. If the contrary is the case— and it is on that basis that we have kept quiet now for two months, and have never raised this question either in or out of the House—we feel certain that the Government will adhere to the policy which has been laid down. On the strength of it, and in the certainty of it, not only have large numbers of married men enlisted, but large numbers of unmarried men have enlisted. It will be an unthinkable thing if, having enlisted vast numbers of unmarried men who were told that if they did not come now they would be fetched, and got them into the Army, you now turn round and say, "Oh, you were foolish to come, for those who stayed outside are going to be allowed to stay outside." It would be a monstrous thing. There would be a revolution in this country if any such step were taken. Such a step cannot be taken, and ought not to be taken. Therefore, I am surprised that practically the

    561
    whole of yesterday was taken up with a repetition of arguments which, though perhaps relevant to the discussion on the remarks of the Prime Minister on 2nd November, certainly are entirely irrelevant to the present situation, and in no sense can have any real effect upon the conduct of the Government when they come to examine the Derby figures and formulate their conclusions and their policy.
    Mr. BOOTH: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on the last point he made. I made it yesterday, so I need not trouble the House with it now. It did seem to me, as one of those Members more or less in an average position, neither in favour of nor against Conscription, and who has taken no part in the controversy, that after the position set up by the Prime Minister, the least we can do is to wait for the result of the Derby scheme without attempting to prejudice it by premature debate. I would like to put a few questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for War. In the 1,000,000 men the Government are asking for, are there included any medical men? I take it that the Government have carefully thought out that point, and will know whether any portion of this Vote is devoted to Army doctors. I have always understood that the proportion of doctors in the Boer War had been adopted on the Continent. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I suggest you do not need really a corresponding increase in the doctors now, especially in view of the fact that many are sadly needed at home. In these days of motor cars and quick movement we need not stick to the old basis of doctors in the Boer War, where the distances were enormous and the field-transit perhaps not so efficient. I put this question at the request of certain doctors who are personal friends, and who have come back from the front, and I think that this perhaps is a good opportunity to answer it. The complaint of some doctors is that they have never been employed even on the busiest days. If some of them are to be connected with this new 1,000,000 men that may mean a further withdrawal from this country.
    The second question I desire to put to my right hon. Friend is as to whether he is in a position to say anything about Serbia. I feel I would rather put this matter in the form of a question than make any statement on this Vote. I make the inquiry because I am deeply concerned about the
    562
    matter. I do not know whether this Vote is wanted for an Army for Serbia. Probably the right hon. Gentleman could not give an answer to that. If he keeps his own counsel upon that matter I will not press him, but it would relieve many of us who are intensely anxious about it, if he could say that the Army was not at fault, and will not be at fault, in the matter of giving help to Serbia. I would like the War Office to be able to assure the House that if there have been any misfortunes, and if the Serbians have been disappointed, that it is not the fault of our Army. In conclusion I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has got a statistical department at the War Office? A million men is a round figure. In business we get very suspicious of round figures. I have never known any well-managed business but what got a little shy of round figures. It looks as if there had been no detailed calculations. We are alarmed upon these points because the Minister of Munitions said there was no statistical department at Woolwich until he took it over. If there was none at the War Office with regard to the output of munitions at Woolwich, have the War Office got a statistical department with regard to men? The question has been asked whether the 3,000,000 men already voted have or have not actually enlisted. I do not want figures, but does anyone know the figures? Have the War Office got them? We got some in regard to the employment of our men abroad. The Prime Minister gave us one definite figure—I thought he was rather bold in perhaps saying what he did, but no doubt his statement was well-considered—that was that we had a million and a quarter of men at the front. We are asked to vote another million. If these all go to the front that will nearly double our fighting forces. When will they go? Has the War Office got a statistical department by means of which they can immediately trace these men. I do not mean that they should publish this list day by day or week by week, but my right hon. Friend will remember that I have never put a single question down in regard to our forces. After about five years of silence, however, I claim the right of free speech. If I put a question down, I do not say it would be in the form of inconvenient questions relating to men, guns, or operations. I have not put one down, and I do not propose to do it now, but I think I am entitled to ask whether the figures are correctly kept—if even my

    563
    right hon. Friend or his chief knows? Do they know? Do they make their staff keep up a daily record? Business men in the House will know the importance of what I am now putting forward. When Coates, of Scotland, took in hand a great firm in the United States to effect economy, the first thing they did was to set up a statistical department at the cost of £10,000 per annum. That was their first item of economy. The same in regard to economy of men. If the Government are fully informed on their merits and where they are available, they really could do less. That is so in every business, and I am perfectly certain it will be so in the Army.
    Colonel YATE: May I just say how-much indebted we are to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea for the conclusive way in which he proved to us how much cheaper it is for us to shorten the War by having an Army at full strength than to allow it to drag on for want of men. We are also indebted to him for pointing out that the military necessities at the front should decide what men should go. We must all, I think, agree with that. Yesterday, I am sorry to say, I heard, I think it was the hon. Member for Hexham, say that we could fight this War better with three millions of men and our trade, than with four millions of men without our trade. I wondered at the time if that hon. Member considered where his trade would be if we lost the War. Has he considered what has happened to trade and everything else in Belgium? I should like to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Captain Amery) as to the state of our second-line units at the present time, and as to the urgent necessity of their receiving more men. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh recalled to our minds a while ago that the new recruits now being called up are not coming up till the 20th January. I am sorry that so long a time has been given. I would sooner have seen them called up in a fortnight than a month, for the sooner we get these extra men the better. I wonder if hon. Members who think that we ought to delay in getting out these men have considered the state of our forces in this country who are now preparing for war?
    Only yesterday I heard of a division of second-line Territorial units which is under orders, I was told, to go abroad in
    564
    March. Now a division, we all know, is supposed to consist of 18,000 to 20,000 men, complete with Artillery, Cavalry, Army Service Corps, medical and all other units, but the main strength is Infantry, 12,000 men. Here is a division under orders to go abroad in March with its twelve regiments with an average strength of 400 men, so that, instead of 12,000 men, it was only 4,800. How can we expect Territorial regiments to be fit to go abroad when they are at that strength? The question of getting these men is a very urgent one, and yesterday I took the liberty of trying to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the enormous amount of wastage in men rejected as unfit, and I do appeal to him to urge a national effort so as to bring in these men and so that those under age may be ready to enlist the moment they are nineteen, and not be allowed to run to waste as at present. I calculate that our wastage of unfit men, the majority of whom could be made fit, is more than 25 per cent. of those who come up to enlist. I have asked for a return of the number rejected, and I sincerely hope the War Office' will grant it. I will not press that further now. I hope that this question will not be left to private effort, but that we shall have a national effort to get in these men and train up these boys so as to be ready to enlist them at the earliest possible moment. I do urge that this new 1,000,000 men should be called up at the earliest possible moment, and that we should try to get on with Lord Derby's scheme with the least possible delay.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I do not rise for the purpose of making a speech, but simply to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, since the whole question is one of figures, and we have no figures before us, he will give an answer to the question as to what constitutes a negligible number of unmarried men not coming forward. If he will give us within 10,000, 50,000, or 100,000, the House might have something to go upon in the future. That is the only measuring rule the House could possibly possess, and we do not possess it. The other point to which I wish to refer arises out of the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. He said, why not turn aside to the question of equipping Russians instead of raising so many men? It is obvious that the equipping of Russians is an extremely difficult thing owing to the lack of communications. It

    565
    is obvious that the great argument for this country to raise men is that we, with our great sea power, can secretly transport men to any part of the world, and, therefore, they can threaten in many directions and force the Germanic Powers to turn aside to defensive measures on many different coasts. It is more important that this country should raise extra men than that any one of our Allies should do so; in fact, the only other country which can raise extra men is Russia, and the difficulty is to equip them and supply them with munitions. Therefore, I do hope that as it is of importance that we should raise extra men, the measuring rule which the Cabinet will apply when they come to deal with Lord Derby's figures—and I agree with my hon. Friend this question could have been settled in two days if they really knew what their measuring rule was—will be a very small figure indeed, and if that small figure is not reached the Cabinet will resort to compulsory powers at once.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea, and many others who have spoken to-day, have entirely misunderstood the comments which have been made in this House with regard to compulsion of unmarried men. It has been suggested again and again that certain persons have been trying to get the Prime Minister to go back upon his promise in regard to that matter—not a very likely enterprise, I imagine, if anybody had undertaken it— but, as I understand the matter, nobody has undertaken it at all, and nothing that has been said in this House has had that object. It all arises, I think, from a misunderstanding of what the Prime Minister did say. The Prime Minister did not, as I think, suggest compelling all young unmarried men who had not enrolled, but he did suggest that it might be necessary to take such steps with those of them who remain unenrolled without reasonable cause. Now that is not the crude statement by any means that some people have made on that subject, and which some other people seem to be anxious to attribute to the Prime Minister. An example of the great difference has been brought to light recently, when it was found necessary to declare that unmarried men with mothers, and the orphans of brothers, and other people dependent upon them, were to be put into the same class as married men of the same age with dependants. Nevertheless, there is a ten-
    566
    dency, which I very much deprecate, to assume that all those unmarried men who have not enrolled have remained unenrolled without any good cause. That is what we have protested against, and we should certainly protest if there were any attempt to act on that assumption—a totally false assumption—as if it were a true assumption. I can say that in the district I represent, which is a typical mining and manufacturing district, I have good reason to believe that the men, whether married or single, who have remained unenrolled without good reasonable cause, are very few indeed. Very nearly all the men of military age in that district are, I believe, accounted for either as having enrolled or enlisted, or as being medically unfit, or as having some other very good reason why they have not enlisted—a large number of them colliers, munition workers, and so forth.
    What we do ask is that, before condemning the unenrolled men, they should be given an opportunity to come before the tribunals, or some proper body, and explain the reasons why they are unenrolled. Then, I think, there should be an attempt made to meet their difficulties and to remove their difficulties. Some of the difficulties have been very well dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea this afternoon. Men of that class such as he spoke of could have their case, I think, put very much higher even than he put it. An appeal is made to them to disregard these considerations and come forward and sacrifice themselves for their country. I believe the great majority of them would be perfectly willing to do so; but are you going to ask them to sacrifice their mothers, in many cases broken-down old ladies, who would be utterly helpless if their sons went away? Are you going to ask them to sacrifice the orphans of soldier brothers who have been killed, sisters they are educating, and so on? You must try to meet the special difficulties of these men, and this you will only do if you give them a fair opportunity of explaining the reasons why they are not enrolled.
    Then there are grievances extending over a much wider area, with regard to dependants' allowances, for instance. I am not going into details now. We have brought them again and again before the War Office, and I am bound to say with very little result indeed. The door seems to be shut by the fact that there was a Committee which sat upon the question

    567
    some time ago and made a certain Report. I do not think that is right, if you are asking people to come forward; and I am perfectly sure that attitude towards dependants' allowances has stood very much in the way of recruiting, if not of enrolling under the Derby scheme. If these opportunities are given to men to explain their position I believe you will find there are very few shirkers in this country. I do not think it runs in the blood of Englishmen. Meanwhile, I suggest there would be no harm done, because the young unmarried men who have enrolled under Lord Derby's scheme are amply sufficient to supply the needs of the Army for many more weeks than would be necessary to make these inquiries. My own belief is— and it is the belief of all of us who stand by the voluntary principle—that by the voluntary principle, if properly applied, and carefully and generously applied, you will get practically all the men who are of any fighting value in this country. Of course, I may be mistaken about that; but if I am mistaken, the steps I have suggested are, in my opinion, none the less absolutely necessary, because without them I do not think it will be possible to go forward to other measures and still maintain the national unity which we all glory in.
    Mr. TENNANT: The Debate has roamed over a large field, and has been a very interesting one. I think, perhaps, I might deal at first with the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), because the subject that he raised was one on which the Prime Minister was expected to say something yesterday in introducing this Vote and was unable to do so, and that is the subject, no doubt, which is uppermost in most minds to-day—I mean the numbers of men who are coming forward, and who have expressed themselves as willing to come forward under Lord Derby's scheme. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me to reveal some figures. I am sure he really did not expect a reply in the affirmative to that request, because I know if he were in my position he would feel debarred from anticipating any figures or anything the Prime Minister might say—indeed, it would not be possible for me to do so. I can only share his hope that the numbers of young unmarried men who have not come forward may be a negligible quantity which he indicated he had in his mind. That, of course, is the sub-
    568
    ject which has occupied a very large amount of the time of the House during the sitting which we had until 5.35 this morning and during part of the discussion to-day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea touched upon the question of whether we should be driven to have compulsion or no compulsion. I would dismiss it by saying that I think the great majority of men—certainly outside this House and a very large proportion inside the House—are prepared to do whatever is recommended by the Prime Minister and the Government in this case. I believe if and when the Government should find it necessary to resort to what I have called other means, then they will have the great bulk of their countrymen with them in asking for such powers. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) began the discussion by asking for information with regard to the taking of drafts from the second-line units. As I have already indicated, it has not been possible for the Government to define with any degree of the permanence which evidently the hon. Member hankers after, what shall be the actual function of the second-line units. I do not think that by drawing upon them, and by placing them in three different spheres of utility, that you are thereby placing them in an impossible position. I realise that to take drafts from them is a worse use to put them to, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that many of the officers in the second-line units would only be too glad if they were chosen as drafts to go abroad, but it would deplete them, and that is not a proper proceeding. Where you have not enough people to draw upon beggars cannot be choosers, and I do not think the Govern-men have done wrong in bringing up the strength of the units serving in the face of the enemy in this way, even at the cost of irritating or annoying the gentlemen serving at home, when the great purpose which they had in mind is achieved merely by that operation. I hope what I have said will give a little hope to the hon. Gentleman, and when the numbers are shown of Lord Derby's scheme I am very hopeful that we shall be able to find sufficient numbers wherewith to bring up to establishment strength all these second-line units and complete their training, which is in a very advanced condition.
    Mr. PETO: Was!
    Mr. TENNANT: Some may have deteriorated, but I cannot believe that that

    569
    applies to the whole of the second-line, and at any rate I hope it is not the case. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman opposite (Captain Amery) has said, I think he might encourage us sometimes with a few of his hopes and not always give us his fears. He might give his hopes a little chance and not always see bad things when he gazes upon the Bench upon which I have the misfortune to sit.
    Mr. W. THORNE: There is a silver lining yet.
    Mr. TENNANT: I would like to give an illustration of how astoundingly the hon. Member looks upon things. Because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions had to go down to fulfil a public engagement to-day the Munitions Bill had to be postponed, and the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) says, "Oh, this is another illustration of the postponements of the Government. They are always procrastinating and vacillating, and they are never ever able to do anything," and this simply because the Minister of Munitions had to fulfil a public engagement.
    Captain AMERY: What I said was that the Munitions Bill having been postponed until the first day after we meet again, we did not have an assurance that we were going to have the question of recruiting dealt with even on the second or the third day after the adjournment.
    Mr. TENNANT: I understand the hon. Member's explanation, but I do not think I have given a very bad example of his mind, which is quite continuous and never varies, and in that he is very consistent. I would like to come now to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Sir A. Mond) who asked one or two questions about the 3,000,000 men whom we have previously voted, and to whom we are now adding an additional 1,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman asked me if the 3,000,000 have already been enlisted. The Prime Minister made a statement on that subject yesterday in which he said he thought we were still on the right side—that is to say, we have not broken the law. I think that is an accurate statement of the fact, and I hope we have not broken the law, although I should not really like to swear to it.
    Mr. HOGGE: I suppose that does not include the Colonial troops, but merely the British troops.
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, that is so. My right hon. Friend asked me to give him figures on this point, but I find it Very difficult to do that. I can, however, give him one figure which, I think, will satisfy him. He asked me what amount of reserves we ought to provide in order to keep our Army in the field up to strength. The figure is for every man we keep abroad we ought to have at home in reserve 1.8— that is to say, 15 per cent. per month is the wastage at the front. I do not think there is any harm in giving that figure. I agree with what my right hon. Friend said that we cannot run the War on a limited liability scale, and that was a perfect answer to the speech made yesterday by my hon. Friend who sits behind me (Mr. Holt). I am sure most hon. Members in this House realise that you cannot say at any particular moment what your requirements in men may be in the course of the next three or six months, or even in a year. I have been asked whether we have come to any conclusion in concert with our Allies as to the relative proportion of duties to be undertaken by us. That is a question of the adjustment of balance, and what is the best thing for each of us to do. The reason I ask the House to have confidence in what the Government is doing is that the Prime Minister disclosed yesterday what had been made public before, that there had been an increasing number of international conferences between the responsible heads of the Allies, and he gave us as an illustration the Paris Conference. I think that is the reason why the House may have confidence that what is being done is founded upon the combined wisdom of the responsible heads of the great fighting departments, as well as the civil heads of the States with whom we are allied. I would also say in that connection that we are able to serve the Allied cause not only by placing large numbers of men in the field, but also by putting at the service of our Allies transports which they have not got, credit in money, and, in some cases, we have supplied them with munitions of war. When one realises those things, one has to form in one's own mind some conclusion as to whether the greatest amount of assistance that can be rendered is being rendered to the cause of the Allies. I know that there are a certain number of right hon. Gentlemen in the House who are genuinely of opinion that we have bitten off a little more than we can chew, and that we have undertaken much more

    571
    than it is possible for us adequately to fulfil. I hope they will not allow those fears to dominate them. Naturally I am of a hopeful temperament myself.
    I do not think that this country is performing a remarkable work in all the Departments I have mentioned. The transporting of vast numbers of men and large quantities of munitions over the seas, the provision of munitions, the provision of credit in money, and the financing of our Allies, together with the putting into the field of over 1,250,000 men, is a task in which anyone who has had the smallest responsibility in achieving, must in future years legitimately feel proud. The hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery) asked me whether it would be possible now to do away with certain distinctions in the Army between Territorials, the New Army, and the Regular Forces. I view with great favour such a proposal, though it does not come to us quite as a novelty, but I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend knows the difficulties in the path of any such reform. These soldiers have enlisted for different terms of years, for different terms of service, and under different conditions, and, moreover, we have for the Territorial Force the Territorial Force Associations, upon which we have relied with great security for the most admirable service in the starting of our new battalions, and not only Territorial battalions, but they came to our assistance when we were in real trouble with our New Army, and we owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for what they did on that occasion. That is the real reason why it is not possible, in the middle of a great war, to change, as it were, the foundation upon which the Army rests; but I do think that in the future, if we have the opportunity before us, that that may very properly form the subject of legislation, if legislation is required.
    Mr. PETO: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "future," after the War?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it is possible to do it during the War, and I mean by the future, in peace time. I think the hon. Gentleman will realise the difficulty. I do not know that there is any other point except one raised by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Aneurin Williams) and by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea with regard to the difficulty of providing for the middle-class person who is afraid, not unnaturally, of
    572
    enlisting, because of the break-up of his home. That is a very serious problem, and one which is rather novel, because it has only just occurred. It is not a problem with which we have been confronted in the past, and it is not far removed from the proposal which I understand my right hon. Friend has in print, for freeing from his contractural obligations the soldier who is serving with the Colours. That, of course, is a very strong line to take, and I am far from saying that it is not a proper line, but at the same time it is absolutely novel. I shall make it my business to consider it further, and if I may have the opportunity of conferring with my right hon. Friend I shall be glad to try and benefit by anything which his experience enables him to place before me on the matter.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ponte-fract (Mr. Booth) asked whether there would be any doctors in the new 1,000,000 men. When we make new formations in the Army, we have, as my hon. Friend is aware, a complement of Engineers, Artillery, Army Veterinary Corps, Army Medical Corps, and so on, and there will be no doubt the proper complement of Army Medical Corps for any new formations. But, as the House is aware, we are not setting up new units with the men we have at our disposal. We are only putting them into reserve for the reinforcement of those battalions now serving at the front, and to replace the wastage of war. So far as doctors are concerned, I should say that quite a negligible quantity would be required for the new million men, because we have the machinery at present here and at the front; but, of course, there is the wastage of war, and to that extent we may require more doctors. There will be a Royal Army Medical Corps, rank and file, or, at least, there must be some, and that will probably require considerable numbers. With regard to the other point of the hon. Member as to the numbers in the units now serving in the field, now training at home, and what the requirements are for the future, I need hardly assure him that those figures are subject to the minutest care from day to day in the Adjutant-General's Department, and in the Recruiting Department, which is also under the Adjutant-General. If my hon. Friend would like to come and look at some of those figures, I shall be glad to show them to him. He will find piles and piles of statistics which are rather bewil-

    573
    dering, but perhaps with his perspicuity he may be able to overcome some of the difficulties which floor me. I think now I have been able to deal with all the points that have been raised.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider my point regarding physical training for men who cannot come up to the standard height and measurement, and for men of over seventeen who cannot come up for enlistment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is outside the Vote, and we cannot discuss it now.
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not want to trespass upon your ruling, but I can reassure my hon. and gallant Friend. I think that completes the list of questions that have been put to me, and I hope now that we may be allowed to get the Vote of 1,000,000 men. In doing so, we can put it on record that this is the largest Army that has ever been raised in this country.
    Mr. CLYNES: There is just one question which I should like to address to the right hon. Gentleman, if it is not too late to obtain an answer. Questions have been addressed to the War Office from time to time on the subject of leave granted to soldiers serving in various ranks in the Army. Some of us have had to deal with individual cases, because of letters reaching us from relatives and often from the soldiers themselves. Those individual cases have been very sympathetically dealt with and handled by the right hon. Gentleman and by his colleagues. Having had quite a number of these cases in hand myself, I would like to thank him for the close and sympathetic attention which be has given to many of them. It is a very large question. The Army which we have raised carries with it, I think in a greater measure than any Army which has left this country before, a remembrance of domestic and home conditions, and reports show that leave has been very inequitably distributed among men at various points. I do not allot blame for it, because it has been almost impossible for things to be absolutely uniform. The right hon. Gentleman has assured us that steps are being taken to make amends and to do justice to the men as far as possible. I believe that a considerable improvement has already been effected, and I merely want to ask if he can give us any additional information.
    Mr. TENNANT: I may, perhaps, by leave of the House, say just one word in
    574
    answer to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend is aware that I entered into communication with the Field-Marshal lately commanding the troops at the front, Sir John French, and asked him whether he would give this matter, which was of almost universal interest to hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House, close consideration. He told me in reply—I am sorry that I have not got his reply with me—that this was a matter which had been engaging the attention of the commanders of corps, of divisions, and of brigades for a very considerable time. It is not always a very easy matter. Take one unit which has been depleted to the extent of being 350 strong, instead of 800. It is difficult for a commander of such a depleted unit to spare men when he has to man a certain line of trench. That is apparent. Therefore, it comes about that these wretched men—I say wretched, but they are glorious and gallant men—of these units which have been most severely-hit in the War get hit both ways. That, of course, does seem to us outrageous, or very nearly so, but it is from the necessity of the case almost impossible to overcome. Sir John French informed me that he had requested commanders to see that this leave was given as fairly and as uniformly as possible, but they were hampered to a very considerable extent by the amount of transport available on the ships crossing the Channel. That is one of the real difficulties of the Admiralty. I know that the Adjutant-General has given this matter very close attention. If occasional hardship appears to occur, and if full justice cannot always be achieved, it is sometimes due to the reason I have just given, and, in the second place, it may be more apparent than real, because the man who thinks himself aggrieved sometimes has not been actually serving in the trenches so long as his colleagues, either owing to sickness or ill-health, or bad conduct. A man is punished now by being sent to the base. Those men, naturally and quite properly, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, do not get leave in the same proportion or so rapidly as the men who have been serving in the trenches the whole time. I think, speaking from memory, that covers the whole of the points of the letter written to me by Sir John French. I can assure the House generally that this matter is engaging the very close and constant attention of the authorities in France.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
  Mr. KING: I do not think that these Amendments need detain us very long. I welcome them most heartily. The redrafting of the first Clause is an improvement.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to raise that question when we reach the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments accordingly considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Evidence of Depositions of Witnesses Engaged on Naval or Military Service.)
  The provisions of Section seventeen of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, and Section seventeen of the Indictable Offences (Ireland) Act, 1849, and Section fourteen of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, which enable the depositions of witnesses in certain circumstances to be read as evidence at the trial shall, during the continuance of the present War, apply to depositions of witnesses who are proved to be unable to attend, having regard to the necessities of the public service, by reason of being actively engaged in the naval or military service of His Majesty, in like manner as they apply to the depositions of witnesses who are proved to be dead: Provided that no deposition shall be read in evidence under the powers of this Section save with the consent of the Court before which the trial takes place.
  Lords Amendment: To leave out Clause 1, and to insert instead thereof the following Clause:—

  CLAUSE 1.—(Evidence of Depositions of Witnesses Engaged on Naval or Military Service.)
  If, during the continuance of the present war, upon the trial of a person accused of an indictable offence, it is proved that any person whose deposition has been duly taken before the justice or justices by whom the accused was committed for trial is unable to attend the trial, having regard to the necessities of the public service, by reason of being actively engaged in the naval or military service of His Majesty, and if also it is proved
  576
  that such deposition was taken in the presence of the person so accused, and that (except in the case of a deposition by a witness on behalf of the accused) he or his counsel or attorney had a full opportunity of cross-examining the witness, then, if such deposition purports to be signed by the justice by or before whom the same purports to have been taken it shall be lawful to read such deposition as evidence at the trial without further proof thereof unless it is proved that such deposition was not in fact signed by the justice purporting to sign the same:
  Provided that no deposition shall be read in evidence under the powers of this Section save with the consent of the Court before which the trial takes place.
  Motion made; and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. KING: I entirely agree with this Amendment. Personally, I think it is a good one, because it avoids legislation by reference. The old Clause which it displaces referred to three Sections of three different Acts of Parliament. Now we have a Clause which is entirely without any reference to other Acts of Parliament, and certainly for the layman, or for a person who is not acquainted with these special provisions of law it is a decided improvement. I hope that it will be supported by the Solicitor-General.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendment: After Clause 2, insert as a new Clause, "Where any person has been convicted of an offence punishable by death upon evidence solely contained in depositions which have been read in evidence at the trial under the powers conferred by this Act, the punishment of death shall not be inflicted, but the Court may pass such sentence of imprisonment or penal servitude as it may think just."
  8.0 P.M.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir George Cave): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It is not quite the Amendment moved in this House, but it is a reasonable arrangement of the matter, and the effect of it is that where the evidence on deposition is the only evidence by which a charge is supported, the death sentence shall not be inflicted upon that evidence alone.
  Mr. KING: I am very glad to find myself in entire accord with this Amendment, and with the view of the Solicitor-General. I must not refrain from pointing out that the idea of this Clause was first suggested by me on the Second Reading of this Bill. It was on that occasion repudiated by the Law Officers of the Crown, and when we had Amendments, not exactly these, but directed to the same object, the Law Officers in this House did not see their way to support them. It is extremely satisfactory to me personally, and I think it will be to all my Friends in the House, that when the Lords take up ideas rejected here we are wide-minded enough to accept and adopt them.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (EXTENSION OF POWERS BILL).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."
Mr. KING: On a point of Order. Ought these Amendments not to be put down for a future date?
Mr. SPEAKER: No; that is only when they are begun before the Orders of the day.
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments accordingly considered.
Lords Amendments: Clause 1, Subsection (1), after the word "persons" ["bodies of persons resident"] to insert the words "incorporated or unincorporated "
After the word "persons" ["bodies persons it appears"] to insert the words "incorporated or unincorporated."
After the word "persons" ["bodies of persons it appears"], to insert the words "incorporated or unincorporated."
Sub-section (2), after the word "persons" ["bodies of persons with whom"] to insert the words "incorporated or unincorporated."
Lords Amendments agreed to.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (WAR RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Question put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendments accordingly considered.
Lords Amendments: Clause 1, Sub-section (1), paragraph (iv.), to leave out the words "and the increased amount payable in respect of such rates shall be separately stated," and to insert instead thereof the words "over the corresponding amount paid in respect of the yearly, half-yearly or other period which included the third day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): These, and the Amendments which immediately follow dealing with the rates question in no way alter the effect of the Bill as it left this House, except to make clear certain doubts as to the amount of the rates, and the means by which it is to be arrived at. They carry out the undertaking I gave to the House when we were in Committee.
Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment: Sub-section (1), par. (vi.), after the word "rent" ["increase the rent"], to add the words "accompanied,
(a) where the increase of rent is on account of such expenditure as is mentioned in proviso (ii.) to this Sub-section, by a statement of the improvements or alterations effected and of their cost; and
(f) where the increase of rent is on account of an increase in rates, by a statement showing particulars of the increased amount charged in respect of rates on the dwelling house, and
(e) where such a notice has been served on any tenant the increase may be continued without service of any fresh notice on any subsequent tenant."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. KING: On this point—and I think on all points where we have a consider-

579
able number of words put in—we ought to be assured definitely that there is no change. I must call the attention—
Mr. LONG: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman in order to point out that I have already said there is no change in the incidence. All we do here is to make it necessary if a landlord charges more rent on account of an increase in the rates, that he must give the tenant particulars as to the increase of rates and the amount in respect of which he charges an increase of rent.
Mr. KING: I quite understood that was the explanation of the last Amendment, but does it cover all the Amendments that the Lords have brought to our notice?
Mr. LONG: This one.
Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that none of these Amendments affect anything in Scotland?
Mr. LONG: Certainly; they affect its application to the United Kingdom, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in them to which he can object. If anyone could object to this it would be the owner on whom it throws a slight additional burden. It is, however, fair, because as we gave him the power to get an increase of rent to cover increased rates which he has to pay. This carries out the undertaking I gave in Committee that we would endeavour, in another place, to make it clear that any claim would have to be accompanied by a statement.
Mr. BOOTH: It would simplify the matter if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether they are Government Amendments which have been inserted in another place.
Mr. LONG: Yes, Sir; they are all Government Amendments.
Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment: Clause 1, Sub-section (3), after the word "employ" ["in his employ"], to insert the words "or in the employ of some tenant from him."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. LONG: This also carries out an undertaking I gave. The House will remember that the question was raised whether the words in the Clause would
580
cover the case of the employé of some tenant. We thought they would, but the Solicitor-General thought it would be safer to put in these words in order to make my meaning perfectly clear. This, also, is a Government Amendment, only inserted to make that perfectly clear.
Lords Amendment agreed to.
Lords Amendment: Sub-section (3), at the end to insert the words,
"and where such order has been made but not executed before the passing of this Act the Court by which the order was made may, if it is of opinion that the order would not have been made if this Act had been in operation at the date of the making of the order, rescind or vary the order in such manner as the Court may think fit for the purpose of giving effect to this Act."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Mr. LONG: In moving to insert these words I need only to remind the House that the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) at the end of our Debate raised the question of certain tenants who were called upon to quit under an execution order already issued, and he appealed to the Government to try and make a provision for those cases. I promised, on behalf of the Government, that we would examine the case, and see if it was possible to remedy a manifest injustice. These are the words the Lords have inserted, moved by the Government, and they enable the Court to review the proceedings and to act as if this Act had been passed at the time of the execution order. I think that will meet the case.
Lords Amendment agreed to.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. BOOTH: I arise in order to ask why the Government cannot deal with the House a little more courteously. I am not challenging the President of the Local Government Board. So far as I can see he has informed Members of the House about this Bill, but I venture to say as one who has sat not only all through the Debate last night and until half-past five this morning, but again to-day, that know-

581
ing how interested we were in the Trading with the Enemy Bill there should have been an opportunity taken to tell us that that Bill would come on. The specific announcement was made by the Prime Minister after questions that the Government would take the first four Orders. I should not mind if he had said six or seven, as I have no wish to obstruct business. But we were not told of this, and the first thing we saw was the name of the Bill going up on the board. We may be told that these are Amendments of a verbal character. If so, it was quite easy to inform us of them. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member who is interested in that Bill was informed of it. It is an easy thing to do. What are the Whips for? There are no by elections in the country, and what have the Whips to do? There are eight of them, and it has been pointed out again and again—I do not blame in this case altogether the Chief Whip because he probably has a good deal on his mind—but somebody ought to tell us something about it, especially as this is in contradistinction to the statement of the Prime Minister. There is a notice board in the Lobby, but I cannot get the Whips to use it. Time and time again, when the House has suspended the Eleven o'Clock Rule at the end of the year, in conditions similar to to-day, there has been a notice put up on the easel as to what measures will be taken. I believe it was established when Mr. Whitley was Chief Whip. I have tried to get to know what business would be taken as it was not on the notice board, and I have been told that that was only used when we suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule. To-day is a case in point, and I have been out to see it. It is a simple thing to let us know, and I appeal to the President of the Local Government Board that some intimation should be given.
Mr. PRINGLE: I think it is very important, even when verbal Amendments are made in the House of Lords, that hon. Members in this House who have taken an interest in the Bills affected should be informed that these verbal Amendments have been made. After all, a verbal Amendment may appear extremely innocent on the face of it, and it is only those conversant with it who can tell us what is really its effect. I can give an illustration from the Parliament Bill. There is a Sub clause of Clause 1 which hon. and learned Gentlemen on the other side of the House interpreted in the wrong way, every one
582
of them. I think it was an inadvertence on their part, and I do not take special credit for this, but I pointed out to them that the words used had not the effect which they understood those words would have, and on investigation every one of those Gentlemen agreed that they had the effect which I placed upon them, and that has turned out to be so. That illustrates the importance of verbal Amendments in a Bill, and it is not asking too much of the Government to make this promise: That when verbal Amendments are introduced in the Lords, Members who have become interested in them should be informed that some Amendments are being made in order that they may be able to inform themselves of the Amendments, read them in conjunction with the text of the Bill as it left this House, say whether any real and effective change is being made in the sense of the Bill, and so be in the position to make a change, if need be, when opportunity arises. That is not unreasonable, and I am sure the President of the Local Government Board will agree.
Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: An appeal was made to me in connection with a particular Bill, and I must say it came as a great surprise to me personally that it should have been taken now. But words which were inserted "corporate or unincorporate" do not make any difference in the matter, and, therefore, I said nothing— in fact, they were Amendments which I had in draft, but which I had no opportunity of moving. But on the general question which has been raised I am entirely in accord with all that has been said. I think it was very unfortunate that a Bill which clearly had aroused a good deal more feeling in the House than was anticipated, and as a result of the discussions on which certain concessions were secured, concessions which I do not think it was meant to concede originally, should have been taken in this way, and I think it is doubly unfortunate the House was not informed that it was going to be taken.
Mr. KING: I was here for the purpose of watching these Bills, and I raised an objection because I was determined to prevent any proceeding with them unless I was assured the Amendments were purely verbal. I had that assurance. I would like to point out to the House that there is on the Order Paper one Bill—the Evidence Amendment Bill—Consideration of Lords Amendments — which has been

583
taken. It stands fourth on the Order Paper and the reason why it was put there is no doubt to be found in the fact that I called the attention of the Whips to this Bill and to the rather important nature of certain Amendments in which I had taken very great personal interest, and they courteously promised me that they would not take the Bill without putting it on the Order Paper. As soon as I saw it there I knew when it was coming on. I should like to make a suggestion which is a step in advance of that made by other hon. Members, and it is that in all cases in which Lords Amendments to Bills are to be considered notice should appear on the Order Paper unless there is some particular urgency for putting the Bill through without a moment's delay. I do not think that that is too much to ask, or that it would be giving any very great trouble to the Whips, while it would prevent any possibility of saying that important Amendments had been put through without the knowledge of Members specially interested in a Bill in the discussion of which they had taken an active part. I hope that that suggestion will not be too much for the Government, and if the Whips will comply with it I am sure it will give a great deal of satisfaction to Members interested in Bills.
Mr. LONG: I can assure my hon. Friends who have spoken that the Government fully appreciate the temporary, but I hope not serious, difficulty in which they have found themselves with regard to the Bills, the Lords Amendments to which have been taken to-night. But they only reached this House from the House of Lords a very short time ago, and there really was no time even, if all the eight Whips had set to work, to circulate the information to Members of the House that it was proposed to take them to-night. There is that urgency to which the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) has alluded in connection with both of these Bills. It is desirable that they should pass into law with the least possible delay. I think everybody will admit that. There is a Royal Commission to-morrow, and the Government desire that these Bills should then receive the Royal Assent. In order that that may be done it was necessary to take the Amendments this evening. I quite agree with the hon. Member who spoke just now and who referred to his discovery that a certain point had escaped notice. These cases will some-
584
times occur, but may I say that, in the main, unless there be some extraordinary reason, the Government do put on the Order Paper the Bills with Lords Amendments on the day before they are to be taken, and it is only when we reach a period of the Session like this, when it is necessary to pass them into law without delay, that Bills are taken in this way. I have for thirty-five years been a Member of this House. I have been actively associated with a number of Governments, and I can assure hon. Members that we have, in this matter, followed the invariable practice. It is not merely in the interests of the Government or of the Front Bench, but it is really in the general interest of the House that we should get the business through at a time like this without delay. May I say if there had been in any of the Amendments any real substance to which Members in any quarter of the House would be likely to object, we should not have taken them without notice, and there would have been full opportunity given for critics to express their views. I may claim, and I think it is admitted in all quarters of the House, that if, at a time like this, a Minister of the Grown rises in his place and assures the House of Commons there is nothing in the Amendments which would give rise to any criticism or objection such as would be likely to proceed from opponents or supporters of the measure that statement is ordinarily accepted, and I can safely say I never knew such a statement made without its being wholly accurate. That is the case to-night. One of the Amendments, I admit, the one I referred to as following out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stockport, was important. It was, however, an Amendment which was indicated in previous stages of the Bill. It had been recommended by the hon. Member for Stockport and approved in various quarters, and, therefore, it could not be said to be an Amendment to which any objection would be taken in any quarter. But I can assure my hon. Friend that the Chief Whip and his associates, to whom we all are, I am convinced, enormously indebted for the work they do day in and day out, will always do their best to make the House acquainted with any business that we are going to take, and certainly will not take advantage of Lords Amendments coming down to pass anything that ought to be criticised or examined here. I

585
hope my hon. Friends will feel that we have acted in what we believe to be the interests of the House, and have taken no advantage of them by the course we have pursued. I will communicate to the Prime Minister the views expressed this evening, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to ensure that, consistently with the progress of public business, there shall be nothing done to which hon. Members can take umbrage, or which will show a lack of consideration for them.
Sir H. DALZIEL: The right hon. Gentleman has replied, as he always does, with courtesy, to the views put forward by private Members. He has assured us that, so far as his experience has gone, he does not think there has been any violation of the general rules which govern these matters. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be the very first to admit that the conditions to-day are entirely different to those which have prevailed during his long Parliamentary career. In the ordinary course of things, when we had no Coalition Government, and an ordinary Opposition, what would have taken place would have been that the principal Whip of the Government would intimate to the principal Whip of the Opposition what it was proposed to take, and matters would be settled, and Members would be informed what business was going to be taken. But we labour under a difficulty at this moment in not having an organisation, or anyone, to communicate with the Whips, and, therefore, the only thing left for us to do is to secure as far as possible, when taking business not on the Paper, that an intimation shall be given to at least one Member who has shown himself specially interested in a Bill. What was the position? We were told by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government this afternoon that they would only take the first four Orders. Those were my marching orders for leaving the House. Many other Members left when they saw that the Lords Amendments to the Evidence (Amendment) Bill had been disposed of. It is not fair to private Members, after the Prime Minister has stated the Government would only
586
take four Orders, and Members have gone away on the strength of that pledge, that we should find that the Government take what they are pleased to call verbal Amendments from the House of Lords, which may be, and in most cases are, of a verbal character. It is not always for the Government to say what are verbal Amendments. I remember a case in connection with the Scottish Small Holders Bill, in which an Amendment, which was declared to be a verbal one, in fact altered entirely the character of the Bill.
In any case we are entitled to form a judgment as to what is a verbal Amendment or as to what is not, just as much as the Government, if not more so. So long as we have no ordinary Opposition, there lurks danger in the fact that we may have a number of things brought up after Members have left the House, believing that the Orders of the Day were over. We do not blame anybody; it is the system to which we object. I know the two Chief Whips do everything they can to meet us whenever we put our views before them, but they must have great difficulty in remembering who is interested in particular business. I would suggest to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that in the case of a Bill in which some of us are interested, if he would inform my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who is in almost daily attendance here, of the fact that the Bill is going to be taken and ask him to inform us, that would possibly meet the views of some of us. We ought not to take Amendments from the Lords without due notice. I would ask, in the first place, that notice should be given on the Order Paper issued every morning. If we had that intimation, everyone in the House would know exactly what would happen. I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courteous reply, and I hope that the short Debate we have had to-night will prevent any recurrence of this in the future.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight minutes after Eight of the clock until tomorrow (Thursday), at Twelve of the clock, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day.