Commons Sitting of 4 February 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords],—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the list reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following cases, namely:—

Altrincham Gas.

Ashington Urban District Council.

Brighton and Hove Gas.

Bristol Tramways.

Deaf and Dumb Poor Asylum.

Eastern Valleys (Monmouthshire) Joint Sewerage Board.

Falmouth Docks.

Frimley and Farnborough District Water.

Ilfracombe Gas.

Mersey Railway.

Neath Canal Navigation.

Northwich Gas.

Ormskirk Gas and Electricity.

Plymouth Corporation.

Prescot Gas.

Rotherham Corporation.

Salop County Council.

Sheffield Corporation (Tramways).

South Shields Corporation.

South Staffordshire Water.

Spennymoor and Tudhoe Gas.

Sunderland Corporation (Wearmouth Bridge).

Sutton District Water.

Warwick Gas.

West Gloucester Water.

Wolverhampton Corporation Water.

Yorkshire Electric Power.

And they have certified that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in the following cases, namely:—

Aberdare Urban District Council (Tramways, etc.).

Halifax Corporation.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Reports from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of Petitions for the following Bills, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—
Aberdare Urban District Council Tramways, etc.) [Lords].
Halifax Corporation [Lords].
Ordered, That the Reports be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
Private Bill Petitions (Standing Orders not complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill.
Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.
Aberdeen Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,
Consideration as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  AMMANFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  "To empower the Ammanford Urban District Council to construct sewage works and street improvements; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  ASCOT DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
  "To authorise the Ascot District Gas and Electricity Company to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  BARNOLDSWICK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  "To authorise the Urban District Council of Barnoldswick to construct new waterworks and to acquire additional lands; to confer further powers on the council in regard to their water undertaking; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  BLYTH HARBOUR BILL.
  "To empower the Blyth Harbour Commissioners to construct a toll bridge over the River Blyth, with approaches thereto; to construct new piers or breakwaters; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  BURY AND DISTRICT JOINT WATER BOARD BILL.
  "To extend the time for the compulsory purchase of lands for and completion of works authorised by the Bury and District Joint Water Board Act, 1903." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  CHELMSFORD CORPORATION GAS BILL.
  "To provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Chelmsford Gas Company to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Chelmsford and to confer further powers on that corporation with respect to the supply of gas; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  DEWSBURY CORPORATION BILL.
  "To empower the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Dewsbury to construct an additional tramway; to confer further powers upon them in regard to their tramway, electricity, and gas undertakings, and with respect to the disposal of trade refuse, and to make further provision for the improvement, health, and good government of the said borough; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL.
  "To authorise the Corporation of Don-caster to construct street improvements;
  110
  to confer upon the corporation further powers with reference to their water and gas undertakings; to make better provision for the health, local government, and finance of the borough of Doncaster; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  FRIENDS' PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL.
  "To incorporate the Friends' Provident Institution and to provide for the management of its affairs; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
  "To authorise the Great Central Railway Company to use certain lands for railway purposes; to extend the time for the compulsory purchase of lands and for the completion of works; to enable the company to raise further capital; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  "For conferring further powers upon the Great Eastern Railway Company; for extending the time limited by former Acts for the completion of works and the purchase of lands by the company, and for the purchase of lands by the Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Committee; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  LINCOLN CORPORATION BILL.
  "To authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Lincoln to acquire and extinguish the rights of the freemen of the city and others in or in respect of the commons in and adjoining the city and to make provision for the management thereof; to provide and work trolley vehicles and motor omnibuses; to make further provision with regard to the supply of gas and electricity and with regard to the health, local government and improvement of the city; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
  "To empower the Corporation of the city of Liverpool to acquire further lands;

  111
  to extend the powers of the Corporation with respect to the leasing of corporate land; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  LONDON, CHATHAM AND DOVER RAILWAY BILL.
  "TO enable the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company to raise further capital; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To confer further powers upon the London County Council with regard to parks and open spaces, the drainage of premises in the administrative county of London, and other matters; to confer various powers upon Metropolitan borough councils; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL.
  "To constitute a company with powers to supply electrical energy in an area comprising the administrative county of London and adjacent areas; to transfer to such company certain existing undertakings and to make provision for improving the supply of electrical energy; to make provisions for transforming the undertaking of the company to the London County Council or other public body; for authorising agreements or arrangements between the company and the London County Council or other public body; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  LURGAN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  "To provide for the transfer of the undertaking of the Lurgan Gas Light and Chemical Company, Limited, to the urban district council of Lurgan; to confer further powers on the Council with respect to the supply of gas, electricity, and water, and to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and local government of the district; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  METHODIST CHUECH IN IRELAND BILL.
  "To constitute and incorporate the trustees of the Methodist Church in Ireland, and to vest in them certain trust properties for the said Church, and to provide for the administration of those properties; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL.
  "To make further provision respecting the capital and undertaking of the Metropolitan District Railway Company; to confer further powers on the London and South Western Railway Company in respect of their Wimbledon and Fulham Railway and on the Wimbledon and Sutton Railway Company; and for other purposes. Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL.
  "To empower the Metropolitan Water Board to make waterworks and other works and to acquire lands; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TRENT NAVIGATION TRANSFER) BILL.
  "To transfer to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Nottingham part of the undertaking of the Trent Navigation Company; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  RHONDDA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS EXTENSION, ETC.) BILL.
  "To authorise the Rhondda Urban District Council to construct additional tramways; to make street improvements; to confer upon the council further powers in relation to their gas and water undertakings and for the better local government and improvement of the district; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  SEAFORTH AND SEFTON JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  "To enable the Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railway Company to create and

  113
  issue a capital stock guaranteed by the Great Central and Great Northern Railway Companies; to revive the powers and extend the time for the completion of the Seaforth and Sefton Junction Railways; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

  SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
  "To authorise the Southend Waterworks Company to construct new works; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  STREATLEY AND GORING BRIDGE BILL.
  "To empower the Commissioners of the Streatley and Goring Bridge and Approaches to construct a new bridge and approaches across the Thames between Streatley and Goring; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  WEARDALE AND CONSETT WATER BILL.
  "To empower the Weardale and Consett Water Company to construct additional works; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
  WORKSOP AND BAWTRY RAILWAY BILL.
  "To authorise the construction of railways in the county of Nottingham and the West Riding of the county of York; and for other purposes." Presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Paper [presented 3rd February] to be printed. [No. 107.]
NAVAL SAVINGS BANKS.
Account presented of Deposits in Naval Savings Banks, and the payments thereof, and the interest thereon, etc., during the financial year 1913–14 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table and to be printed. [No. 109.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 3rd February, 1915, amending the Code of Regulations for Day Schools in Scotland, 1914 and 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 3rd February; Mr. Montagu]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 110.]
BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1914 (ENGLAND) (GENERAL RULES).
Copy presented of the Bankruptcy Rules, 1915, dated 28th December, 1914, made pursuant to The Bankruptcy Act. 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT ACT, 1914 (ENGLAND) (RULES).
Copy presented of the Deeds of Arrangement Rules, 1915, dated 28th December, 1914, made pursuant to The Deeds of Arrangements Act, 1914 [by Act];. to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
Copy presented of Scheme made by the Army Council for the Establishment and Constitution of an Association for the county of Zetland, under The Territorial and Reserve Forces Act, 1907 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 828 (Surveys of British Africa, British Honduras, Ceylon, Cyprus, Fiji, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Malay States, and Trinidad. The Annual Report of the Colonial Survey Committee, Ninth Year, to 31st March. 1914) [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (INDIA OFFICE, RETIREMENT AT SIXTY-FIVE).
Address for Return of Copy of Minute by the Secretary of State for India stating the circumstances under which a member of his permanent establishment has been retained in the Service after he has attained the age of sixty-five.—[Mr. C. Roberts.]
TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
Copy ordered of Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1015.—[Mr. Runciman.]

NEW WRITS.
For County of Cambridge (Western or Chesterton Division), in the room of the Hon. Edwin Samuel Montagu, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.—[Mr. Gulland.]
For County of Essex (Northern or Saffron Walden Division), in the room of Arthur Cecil Tyrell Beck, esquire, one of the Commissioners for executing the Office of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland.—[Mr. Gulland.]
For Borough of Scarborough, in the room of Walter Russell Rea, esquire, one of the Commissioners for executing the Office of Treasurer of the Exchequer of Great Britain and Lord High Treasurer of Ireland.—[Mr. Gulland.]
For County of Wigtown, in the room of John James Dalrymple, commonly called Viscount Dalrymple, now the Earl of Stair, called up to the House of Peers.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
For County of York (Thirsk and Malton Division), in the room of Charles William Reginald Duncombe, commonly called Viscount Helmsley, now the Earl of Feversham, called up to the House of Peers.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]
For County of York (Howdenshire Division), in the room of Colonel Henry Broadley Harrison-Broadley, deceased.—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

WAR.
  NECESSARIES OF LIFE (PRICES).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to present a Petition from the mayor, aldermen and councillors of the city of Norwich, under their corporate seal, representing that the present increase in the cost of necessaries of life presses heavily on the citizens. They acknowledge that this increase may be in part due to causes which in time of war are unavoidable, but they represent that as to other increases they are due to preventable causes, some of which they enumerate, and they humbly pray this House to take such action as may be necessary to deal with this matter so that the citizens may be relieved from needless burdens, and that their food may be obtainable at the lowest possible cost.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  SERBIA AND BULGARIA (SECRET TREATY).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware of the terms of the Secret Treaty between Serbia and Bulgaria of 29th February, 1912; whether its terms have been published; and, if not, whether its full text can now be made known, especially in view of the accusation made against our ally Serbia that this Treaty, while loyally observed by Bulgaria, was violated by Serbia?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): In reply to the first and second parts of the question, a text of the Treaty was published in "Le Matin" of 24th November, 1913. I have a copy, which I will show the hon. Member if he desires.

  PERSIAN GENDARMERIE.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the Swedish officers in charge of the Persian gendarmerie are still performing their duties with that force or whether they have been

  117
  recalled by the Swedish Government; and, if so, what steps have been taken by the Persian Government to maintain the efficiency of that force?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is that a number of Swedish officers continue to be employed with the gendarmerie. The second part does not therefore arise.

  BAGHDAD.
  Colonel YATEasked for information regarding the condition of the British residents of Baghdad and the present state of affairs at that place?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): The latest information received from Baghdad—which is, however, more than a month old—is that when news of the fall of Basra was received there all Europeans were sent to Kaisariyah in Syria. British Indian subjects remained, but under surveillance.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any official information showing that the Turks at Baghdad have plundered the Shiah Muhammadan shrine at Kerbela and have carried off property valued at two millions sterling?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The General Officer Commanding Basra has heard a report to the effect mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member.

  SIR ROGER CASEMENT.
  Mr. MacCAWasked whether Sir Roger Casement is still in receipt of the pension granted to him in 1913; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government to withdraw this pension, in view of the recent disloyal attitude adopted by Sir Roger Casement towards Great Britain?
  Sir E. GREY: Sir Roger Casement's pension has been suspended pending investigation.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Roger Casement is still in Germany?
  Sir E. GREY: I do not know where he is.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Sir Roger Casement continues to draw, and will continue to draw, his pension?
  The statement made just now was that the pension was suspended. I wish to know whether the intention is to continue it?
  No reply was given.

  DUTCH RIGHTS IN RHINE WATERS.
  Mr. BIGLANDasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has information showing that prior to the outbreak of the War the Dutch Government had ceded to the German Government the Dutch rights in the waters of the Rhine; and, if so, whether he will state the view of the British Government as to the effect of this Treaty on the position of Holland as a neutral in the present War?
  Sir E. GREY: The free navigation of the Rhine has been secured by three Treaties: by Annex 16 of the Act of the Congress of Vienna, June 9th, 1815; by the Treaty of March 31st, 1831, between Baden, Bavaria, France, Hesse, Nassau, the Netherlands, and Prussia; and by the Treaty of October 17th, 1868, between France, Baden, Bavaria, Hesse, the Netherlands, and Prussia, These Conventions are published in the "State Papers." His Majesty's Government are aware of no other agreement affecting the lights of the riverain Powers.

  SERBIA (ITALY AND AUSTRIA).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked whether the Government of Austria-Hungary made any intimation in 1913 to His Majesty's Government that they contemplated hostile action against Serbia, and, further, did they inform His Majesty's Government that they had made a like intimation at that time to the Government of Italy, as now appears to be the fact from the Ministerial statement made in the Italian Parliament?
  Sir E. GREY: The answers to both parts of the question are in the negative. We had no knowledge of this matter until the

  119
  revelations made in the Italian Parliament, and the fact that hostile action against Serbia was in contemplation in 1913 shows that the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which took place in 1914, was not the cause, though it was made the pretext, for the events that followed it.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a recent statement by Signor Giolitti to the effect that, a year before the outbreak of the present war, the Italian Government was officially informed of Austria's intention to declare war immediately against Serbia; and on what date His Majesty's Government were first informed of this intended aggression by Austria-Hungary?
  Sir E. GREY: Signor Giolitti's public statement was duly reported by His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome. I had no previous knowledge of the facts which he stated. His Majesty's Government were first informed by the Austro-Hungarian Government on 24th July last that military preparations against Serbia would be commenced, failing compliance with the ultimatum.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Would it be possible to have Signor Giolitti's speech circulated for the benefit of the House?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, Sir, certainly. I think the speech did appear in the Press, but, if it is desired, I will certainly have it included in one of the Parliamentary Papers.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Is it not rather unusual that such a very important matter of this kind should have escaped the attention of the British Ambassador in Rome at the time?
  Sir E. GREY: The British Ambassador would not have any knowledge of it at the time in 1913. It was, as I understand, a confidential statement passing between the Austrian and the Italian Governments. We had no means of knowing anything about it until it was made public by Signor Giolitti, who was in office at the time.

  HAGUE CONVENTION, 1907.
  Mr. DENNISSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the Conventions concluded at the second Peace Conference held at The Hague in 1907 have been ratified by the Government of Great Britain and Ireland, and which of them, severally, have been ratified by the other Powers engaged in the present War and other great Powers of the world?
  Sir E. GREY: A table giving the information which the hon. Member desires will be circulated with the Parliamentary notices.

  CHINA (NEWSPAPERS IN ENGLISH).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the only two newspapers published in the English language in Peking have lately been bought by Germans; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been, or are being, taken to countervail the information given by these papers to the public in Peking and the province of Pechili?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no exact information as to the matter dealt with in the first part of the question, but I understand that the two papers referred to continue to publish British news. It would not be in the public interest to make a statement with regard to the latter part of the question.

  VATICAN (SIR HENRY HOWARD'S MISSION).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning Sir Henry Howard's Mission to the Vatican; whether Sir Henry Howard will represent the interests of the Allies or only this country; and whether the Mission is to be regarded as permanent or only to continue for the period of the War?
  Sir E. GREY: As regards the first part of the question, I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the White Paper (Cd. 7736) wherein the scope and purpose of Sir H. Howard's Mission are set forth. The present Mission is of a temporary character.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Have any representations been made either to this Government by the Italian Government or by this Government to the Italian Government, or have any representations between the two Governments taken place with regard to this point?
  Sir E. GREY: I would ask for notice of that question.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has advised His Majesty to appoint a Special Envoy to the Pope to congratulate him on his election to the Papacy, and to explain to him the policy of Great Britain in relation to European affairs; whether it is in accordance with recent precedent for an accredited repre-representative of the British Crown to be sent to the Vatican; whether it is customary for a Special Envoy from His Majesty to be sent to congratulate the head of any other Christian denomination on his appointment as such or to give him special information touching British Foreign policy; and on what ground is an exception made in the case of the Roman Catholic Church?
  Mr. CROOKS: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies I desire to ask whether the hon. and learned Member who puts this question, before putting it on the Paper, consulted the Noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip and obtained his sanction for so doing?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The last occasion on which a Representative of the Crown proceeded to the Vatican was in 1902, when Lord Denbigh was so appointed. With regard to the last two parts of the question, the hon. Member will see by reference to the White Paper (Cd. 7736) what were the motives, which induced His Majesty's Government to advise His Majesty to appoint the special Mission to the Vatican.

  FRENCH DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the dispatch, dated 22nd November, 1913, from the French Ambassador
  122
  at Berlin to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs (No. 6, in the French Diplomatic Correspondence, Cd. 7717), recording a conversation between the German Emperor and the King of the Belgians, was communicated, or the substance of it, to His Majesty's Government; and, if so, on what date?
  Sir E. GREY: There is no record of any such communication having been made to His Majesty's Government, nor have I any recollection of allusion having been made verbally to these particular reports.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Reports of the French military and naval attachés at Berlin, dated 15th March, 1913, or the memorandum on the strengthening of the German Army by the French Ambassador at Berlin, dated 19th March, 1913, published in the French Diplomatic Correspondence [Cd. 7717] were communicated to His Majesty's Government; if so, on what dates, respectively; and whether any and which of these documents were communicated by the Government to the Defence Committee?
  Sir E. GREY: I have already answered this in replying to Question No. 15. That reply covers this question.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the answer he gave to Question No. 15 applies equally to this question?
  Sir E. GREY: Yes, Sir, it does.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (FRANCE).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has received official notification of the steps which have been taken by the Government of France to prohibit the sale of absinthe and other intoxicating liquors during the War; and if he will issue a White Paper setting forth any despatches or official information received by him on the subject, as was done in the case of Russia?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Ambassador in Paris reports that, though there are

  123
  no special Government regulations on the subject, the Prefects of most Departments have followed the example of the Prefect of Police of Paris, who has prohibited the sale of absinthe and similar liquors in all cafes and drinking saloons in his Prefecture. Copies of the two Decrees in question will be placed in the Library of the House.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT (AMENDMENT).
  Mr. ALDENasked the Attorney-General what steps the Government proposes to take to amend the Defence of the Realm Act by the provisions of which British citizens are deprived of their right to be tried by the ordinary tribunals of the land?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): A Bill amending the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act in certain particulars will shortly be introduced.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Will the Bill be so drawn as to admit of further Amendments, if the House so desires?
  Sir J. SIMON: The form of the Bill I cannot anticipate.

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AMENDMENT ACT, 1914.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked what is the present amount of the fund of alien money which has been created under the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1914?
  The PRESIDENT Of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The moneys received by the Custodians under Section 2 of the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1914, amount to £384,000.
  Mr. TERRELL: Does that represent the whole sum of alien money due to aliens in Germany since the commencement of the War?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, that is not the question.
  Mr. TERRELL: It is practically the question.

  SUGAR CONVENTION ACT.
  Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a new arrangement was entered into under the Brussels Sugar Convention in May, 1913, restricting the freedom of this country in granting drawbacks on the export of sugar; and whether, considering the profits which Germany and Austria have realised from this country for so many years under this instrument, he can now undertake that all entanglements arising out of the Brussels Convention will be finally ended and the Suger Convention Act repealed?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The object of the arrangement referred to by my hon. Friend was to secure British exporters of sugared goods and of refined sugar against penalisation on importation into Convention countries. In return for this important guarantee the only pledge given by His Majesty's Government was to give six months' notice of any intention to give bounties on the export of sugar or to treat Colonial sugar or cane sugar preferentially. I think my hon. Friend will see that this arrangement is greatly to the advantage of our sugar using trades, and that it is undesirable to disturb it.
  Mr. LOUGH: Was not the undertaking given that the Convention should be finally abolished, and is that consistent?

  MILITARY FORCES (NUMERICAL STRENGTH).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked what was the total numerical strength of the Regular Army and of the Regular Army Reserve on the 1st of August, 1914, and how many men have been recruited for the Regular Army since that date: what is the present numerical strength of the Territorial Army and Special Reserve respectively, and how many of each are now on service abroad; how many men have been recruited and accepted for service in the New Army popularly called Kitchener's Army; and if the numerical strength of the existing forces is not sufficient for the purposes required, what further forces, in the interests of the nation and under our obligations to our Allies, are necessary for the purpose of effectuallv prosecuting the War?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): All our military advisers are of the opinion, which is shared by the Government, that it would be detrimental to the interests of the country to publish at present such figures as are asked for in this question.

  CONTINENTAL TYRE AND RUBBER CO., LTD. v. DAIMLER CO., LTD.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether His Majesty's Government proposes to legislate so as to give effect to the dissenting judgment of Lord Justice Buckley in the recent case of the Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain), Limited v. Daimler Company, Limited?
  Sir J. SIMON: Parliament has already made full provision, in the Trading with the Enemy Acts, to deal with the dangers or difficulties that might otherwise arise from the law as laid down by the majority of the Court of Appeal, and further legislation does not appear to be required.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is it not the case that as the law now stands, by technical compliance practically a foreign company obtains advantages which should be restricted to British companies? Is not that the effect of the judgment?
  Sir J. SIMON: No, I do not think it is.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the very important statement by Lord Lindley on this matter urging that the law should be altered?

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT WITH MILITARY FORCES.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the question of allowing Members of Parliament who are now serving their country at the front to give, by means of a new Standing Order, proxies in cases where important Divisions take place affecting their constituents or large questions of policy, in the absence of which their constituencies will be practically unrepresented?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I fear I do not see my way to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

  PARLIAMENTARY RECRUITING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the results of the informal census undertaken by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee to date; whether he can state the cost to public funds of the same; and whether he can state how many of those indicating their willingness to serve have already been called up?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee has not yet completed its work, and in any case I do not think it would be desirable in the public interest to publish at present the results. The cost incurred is approximately £10,000.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can state the amount spent in advertisement by the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed that the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee has not issued any advertisements to the Press. If my hon. Friend desires to know the cost of the posters issued, I will ascertain the figure.

  ENEMY ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government are endeavouring to induce employers to give employment to enemy aliens; and what is its reason for so doing?
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the London police have been used as an instrument for replacing interned alien enemies in their former positions in London; whether he is aware that in some cases these aliens are replacing British subjects; and, if so, whether he will explain why the police have been thus used?
  Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if police constables have been calling on hotel and restaurant proprietors asking them to engage German and Austrian waiters who have been interned; and, if so, what is the reason for such action?
  Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention to continue to use members of the Metropolitan Police force to secure employment for alien enemies as waiters in hotels and restaurants in London?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has given general instructions to release a number of alien waiters and hotel servants, and, if so, wiry this is desirable now more than at any other period of the War; and (2) whether it is by his authority that the police have called upon employers of labour with a view to finding employment for interned aliens, and, if so, why the police should help them rather than Englishmen?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT: (Mr. McKenna): I have never employed the police to find work for aliens released from internment and I have no intention of doing so. In view of the prominence recently given to the matter in the Press and the many fantastic statements which have been published, I should like to give the House the actual number of Germans and Austrians who after release have obtained employment in an hotel, restaurant, or boarding-house in London. In the four months from the beginning of October to the end of January the total number is sixty-two. Of these thirty-two are Czechs, Poles, Alsatians, or other nationalities who, although technically enemy aliens, are in sympathy with this country. Of the latter seventeen were released in January. The remaining thirty have been released after full inquiry and upon money bonds, the sureties being British-born subjects. During the month of January—which covers the whole period when it has been alleged that waiters were being reinstated by the action of the police—the number of released aliens, not including the friendly nationalities already referred to, who have gone back to employment as waiters was three—one German and two Hungarians (one of whom was of Roumanian parentage). I would ask the House, in judging of the reliance to be placed upon the charges made against the action of the police, to compare these figures with the statements made in the Press, which
  128
  have gone so far as to say that 3,000 cases, 40 per cent. of which were waiters, had been dealt with in London alone. The Commissioner informs me that there is no foundation for the allegation that the police endeavoured to obtain employment for enemy aliens. In a few cases persons whose names had been given by prisoners in their petitions as willing to employ them on release have been questioned for the purpose of seeing if the statement was true; but they have never done more than ascertain the facts required by the War Office. The stories that independent organisations have worked in co-operation with, or have been employed by, the Home Office in order to find work for released aliens are also unfounded.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the aliens who have been released still remain under police supervision?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, they will still remain subject to the Aliens Restriction Act.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: What paper gave the figures of 3,000 men?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think I had rather not refer to individual newspapers. As my hon. Friend knows the charges have been extremely general.

  SUGAR PURCHASES.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department: when it is anticipated that the Government stocks of sugar will be exhausted; is he aware that manufacturers are embarrassed by the uncertainty as to future purchases, and that they can now purchase forward at substantially below the rates fixed for this country if the prohibition is to be removed; and can he indicate the course to be followed, for the guidance of British manufacturers, bearing in view the disadvantages of uncertainty?
  Mr. McKENNA: It would be premature to state now when the stocks of sugar held by the Royal Commission will be exhausted, but adequate notice will be given to prevent as far as possible any embarrassment to manufacturers. The importation of sugar was prohibited with the object of preventing the sale of enemy

  129
  sugar to this country or to neutral countries, who might use it to replace sugar bought for the United Kingdom, an object in which I understand the manufacturers are in full sympathy with the Government. The prohibition cannot be removed so long as its removal would be of great benefit to the enemy.
  Sir J. H. DALZIEL: Is it the case that American sugar is still being prohibited for sale in this country, and, if so, why?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, the prohibition is general and includes all sugar. If American sugar were sent here it would be replaced in America by enemy sugar. My hon. Friend is doubtful on the point, but I have documentary proof of it.
  Mr. LOUGH: Has my right hon. Friend considered whether sugar might not be imported from our own Colonies and from other places where it is impossible for German or Austrian sugar to replace it?
  Mr. McKENNA: The amount would be extremely small in any circumstances. I will discuss the question with my right hon. Friend and show him the figures.

  STREET TRAFFIC FATALITIES.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many street traffic fatalities occurred in the Metropolitan Police district and the City of London during 1914?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number is 658.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many street traffic fatalities occurred in the Metropolitan Police area and the City of London in each month of 1913 and 1914, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures with the Votes.—[Sec Written Answers this date.]
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Can my right hon. Friend indicate in the answer the dates on which the two Reduced Lighting Orders became operative?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think I shall be able to do so.

  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (TEMPORARY RESTRICTION) ACT.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked what is the number of districts in England and Wales in which the provisions of the Intoxicating Liquor (Temporary Restriction) Act have now been put into operation, giving the name of the district and the hour of closing in each case?
  Mr. McKENNA: A Return of these Orders is being prepared, and I hope to lay it before Parliament shortly.

  ALIENS IN PROHIBITED AREAS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked how many aliens residing in prohibited areas on the East Coast between Edinburgh and London have been arrested; how many released since Parliament rose; and by whose orders such arrests and releases took place?
  Mr. McKENNA: I cannot give the number of arrests in the prohibited areas; the figures would have to be collected from the police, and they would not be of much value, as many of the aliens removed from the prohibited areas under the Aliens Restriction Order have afterwards been interned from other districts. The War Office informs me that the whole number released from 27th November to 1st February is 1,916; of these only two or three have been allowed to return to prohibited areas. The arrests in England and Wales were made on general instructions issued by me on the authority of the War Office. The War Office alone give the orders for all the releases.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked what is the number of alien enemies now in the London area who are at large; the number of alien enemies now in prohibited areas; and the number of alien enemies who have been interned and subsequently released?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioner of Police informs me that there are about 22,000 male enemy aliens now at large in the Metropolitan Police district, of whom about 16,000 are of military age. In the prohibited areas on the East and South Coasts there were, on 1st January, 695 males and 2,302 females. The number of aliens released by the War Office since

  131
  12th November is about 2,700. I cannot give figures for the earlier months of the War. This is the fullest information I can obtain.
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the published repudiation by the Home Secretary of responsibility for the return of certain enemy aliens to prohibited areas on the East Coast, he will say which Department of State is responsible?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The War Office is responsible. The machinery at the disposal of the Home Office is used to assist the War Office in the discharge of this duty.

  FRAUDS BY SOLDIERS' WIVES.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Secretary for the Home Department whether he is aware that four women, the wives of soldiers on active service, were sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment at Wigan on 1st February on a charge of obtaining money by false pretences from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association; if he can state whether the women had the option of repaying the money before proceedings were taken; and if he can see his way to reduce or quash the sentences?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have made inquiry in these cases, and am informed that the defendants obtained money from the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association by falsely pretending that they had not received their separation allowances from the military authorities. The fraud was repeated in each ease for several weeks, and the women stated that they had spent the money, so that they could not have repaid it. The justices, in consideration of the husbands being soldiers, made the sentences as lenient as possible, and I much regret that I cannot advise any reduction.

  TRANSFER OF OFFICERS.
  Mr. FALLEasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a limit of age has been decided on for all officers and that many who joined or rejoined the service and were accepted in the 1st and
  132
  2nd armies, known as Lord Kitchener's Army, have been and are being pushed out of those armies and appointed to the 3rd army; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter, seeing that these officers joined as fighting men and were allowed to join under the impression that their services would be required in that capacity, and that it is only after having worked hard and submitted to considerable hardships and drilled these armies for five months and more that they are pushed aside for others to reap where they have sown and are practically informed that their rôle is that of schoolmaster and that promotion is to be denied them?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Any transfer of officers which has taken place has been on the grounds of professional or physical disability for field service and not on that of age, for no limit of age has been fixed.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (ENLISTMENT).
  Mr. FALLEasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will permit civil servants generally, and especially Foreign Office, Treasury, and Land Valuation clerks, to enlist or receive commissions in the Army; and, if so, seeing that the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee is calling on employers of labour to get their employés together and induce them to enlist, will he explain why the ordinary employer is asked to do what the Government is not prepared to do?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this subject on 23rd November last to the hon. Member for Sunderland. Many civil servants have either enlisted or received commissions, but it is impossible to release every civil servant who wishes to join the Colours without seriously impairing the efficiency of the State.

  COAL SUPPLY.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the advisability of suspending the operation of the Coal Mines Regulation Act so that miners may not be prevented from

  133
  working more than eight hours per day, under the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Act in the event of war or of imminent national danger or great emergency, or in the event of any grave economic disturbance due to the demand for coal exceeding the supply; and whether he has come to any decision in the matter?
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the price of coal and the shortage in output, he proposes to put in force the powers contained in the Coal Mines (Eight Hours) Act of 1908 by Order in Council to suspend the operation of the Act, in the event of war or of imminent national danger or in the event of any grave economic disturbance due to the demand for coal exceeding the supply available at the time?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Prime Minister has asked mo to reply to the question addressed to him. I will answer at the same time the question asked by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto). The matter is receiving the careful consideration of the Government, but I am not in a position yet to make any statement on the subject.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether the miners' trade union will be consulted about the matter?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir, I think in a matter of this kind both the employers and employés should be consulted before any action is taken.
  Mr. SUTTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Miners' Federation of Great Britain has protested against Clause 4 of the Mines Act being put in operation?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes, Sir; I have seen that statement.

  ENEMY RAIDS (DAMAGE).
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have undertaken or intend to undertake to compensate, and, if so, to what extent, persons whose property has been or may be injured by raids of the enemy by sea or air?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have undertaken to give relief for damage caused by the raids which have taken place. A Committee has been appointed, over which Lord Parmoor is presiding, to advise as to the extent and scope of such relief. I am not prepared to give any general undertaking as regards future events.

  BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the British prisoners at Doeberitz, Germany, both naval and military, are in great need of warm clothing; whether he is aware that quantities of warm clothing have been sent out to Germany from this country to add to the comfort of these prisoners; whether he is aware that none of these comforts have reached the prisoners; and whether he will make inquiries on this matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: Unofficial reports in the sense mentioned in the first part of the question have been received. Four hundred suits of uniform with underclothing have been sent to Germany, and information has recently been received that these articles have, after considerable delay, reached the American Embassy in Berlin, and that their distribution has been undertaken by the staff of that Embassy.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a large amount of clothing which has been sent to the people who are interned has not arrived?
  Mr. TENNANT: Does the Noble Lord mean clothing sent by the War Office?
  Lord C. BERESFORD: No, by friends of these people.
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not able to answer that. If the Noble Lord will give me notice of the question, I will inquire.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question whether it is not desirable to issue definite warnings as to the channels which may be employed in communicating with prisoners in Germany? Is he aware that

  135
  great failures have already occurred in communicating with these people in Germany?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I think that has already been done. I will endeavour to see that wider circulation is given to the instructions.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: May I ask whether the agency of a neutral country is employed in seeing that the delivery of clothing and relief sent to prisoners is properly attended to?
  Mr. TENNANT: My answer is that it is the American Embassy.

  INTERNMENT ENCAMPMENTS.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he has any official information showing that Mr. John B. Jackson, of the United States Embassy in Berlin, has been nominated by the German Government to inspect on their behalf the conditions obtaining at the various internment encampments in this country; and, if so, will he, with the consent of the United States Embassy in London, nominate a gentleman to inspect and report on the conditions as to the treatment and food of British prisoners of war in German internment encampments?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part of the question, although some of the German camps have already been visited by officials attached to the United States Embassies in Berlin and London, it is thought that, instead of periodical visits, more satisfactory results would be obtained by the institution of a definite scheme under which United States officials lent by the United States Governments for the purpose would be in permanent touch with the Commandants of the various camps and, through them, with committees formed from among the prisoners with a view to improving their condition. The United States Government have courteously submitted such a scheme to the German Government and I will make a further statement upon it as soon as I can.

  BRISTOL DOCKS.
  Mr. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will state the reasons for the issuing of an order, dated 11th January, 1915, whereby a number of persons, being British subjects of good reputation, in Bristol and the neighbourhood are prohibited from residing in their homes or following their usual employments after the 15th February, 1915; and whether this order will be strictly enforced in all cases?
  Mr. TENNANT: The orders which my hon. Friend has in mind excluded the persons in question from the Bristol Docks and did not prohibit them from residing in their homes. The order originally made has been rescinded except in the ease of one person, regarding whom further investigation is being made.

  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that some of the duties allocated to the Volunteer Training Corps, and described as removing stock and helping threatened inhabitants, are also those of special constables; and will he consider the desirability, with a view to securing effective action in the event of invasion, of confining; this work to one authority only?
  Mr. TENNANT: The duties in question have been allotted to one authority only in each county, namely, the Central Organising Committee under the chairmanship of the Lord Lieutenant. The duties of the emergency committees, under whom the Volunteer Training Corps will act, are assigned by the Central Organising Committee, and I do not think there is any danger of overlapping.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: May I ask whether the organising committee who have charge of the Volunteers approve of this arrangement? I understand that the Home Office objects to having charge.
  Mr. TENNANT: I have no information on that point, but I will inquire.

  SOLDIERS ON LEAVE (BAILWAY PASSES).
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Government are prepared to authorise the issue of free travelling passes in cases of soldiers who are permitted to visit their homes in circumstances of family affliction?
  Mr. BAKER: It has recently been decided to issue a free railway pass to soldiers visiting their homes in the case of the serious illness or death of parent, wife, or child, during the period of the War.
  Colonel ALAN SYKES: Does that apply to members of the Territorial Force as well as to Regulars?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes; it applies to all soldiers.

  TIMBER PURCHASES.
  Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a timber merchant named Montague L. Meyer, of Dashwood House, New Broad Street, E.C., has been appointed purchasing agent or sole purchases of timber for the War Office; and, if so, what were the qualifications or position of Mr. Meyer in the timber trade which induced the War Office to make such an arrangement with him?
  Mr. BAKER: The Office of Works, after consultation with the War Office undertook to purchase large quantities of timber of the grade required for erecting huts for the troops. They appointed Mr. Meyer as their buying agent. His qualifications were duly considered by the Office of Works, who were satisfied as to his capacity for executing this task under their supervision. I am informed that he is one of the largest importers of soft timber in London. There is every reason to believe that this arrangement has effected both economy and quick delivery of the necessary materials.
  Mr. W. YOUNG: Would the hon. Gentleman state whether Mr. Meyer has been paid for his services at the War Office, and whether he is carrying on business on his own account while acting as purchasing
  138
  agent for the War Office; and, if so, is it not evident to the War Office that this is an unbusinesslike way of proceeding?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of the question, and the terms of it should be handed in at the Table.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE.

    RATIONS.
    Mr. MOUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that 1s. 9d. is the amount at which the soldiers' rations are valued, but, notwithstanding, 1s. 7d. only in lieu of rations was offered to Territorial units to enable them to better celebrate Christmas with good cheer as required by orders issued; and will he state why rations were valued at 1s. 7d. on Christmas Day, while on all other days they are valued and paid for at the rate of 1s. 9d.?
    Mr. BAKER: I am not aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will furnish more precise details I will have inquiry made. I would, however, point out that the allowance in lieu of rations, namely, 1s. 9d., does not necessarily represent the cash value of the ration and that in certain circumstances the contract value is less. When troops are being rationed under contract, they would not be entitled as a matter of course to draw the full allowance in lieu of rations.

    RATES OF PAY.
    Mr. MOUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Territorial soldiers on detachment receive 2s. 6d. a day for lodging and food, i.e., 9d. for billeting and 1s. 9d. for food, and that soldiers of the New Army, commonly called Kitchener's Army, receive 3s. 4½d. under the same circumstances; if he is aware that the schedule of the higher rates is printed on the back of all billeting forms which have to be used by the Territorial Forces; and will he explain the reason for two different rates of payment under exactly similar circumstances?
    Mr. BAKER: No distinction is drawn between Territorial and New Army troops as is suggested. Lodging allowance at

    139
    9d. and ration allowance at 1s. 9d. are given to any soldier on detached duty, if he is not billeted. The rate of 3s. 4½d. is that allowed not to soldiers but to private householders when troops are compulsorily billeted on them.

  INOCULATION AGAINST DISEASE.
  Sir HAROLD ELVERSTONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Colonel Davies-Colley, of the 6th Reserve Manchester Regiment, recently issued instructions that all the men in the regiment must be inoculated against typhoid, and that if any objected force must be used to carry out the instruction; that on the 21st or 22nd January six men, who refused to be inoculated, were brought before Colonel Davies-Colley, who sent them to the doctor under escort; and that whilst an attempt was being made to forcibly inoculate one man Four others escaped and interviewed the brigade officer; whether proper official notice has been taken of the action of Colonel Davies-Colley; and what steps will be taken to prevent further improper instructions being issued by this officer?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. My attention has not been drawn to this case and no action has been taken with regard to it by the War Office. If any incorrect instructions have been issued, I have no doubt that the general officer commanding would take suitable notice.
  Mr. LAURENCE HARDYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the campaign which is in existence for the purpose of discouraging our soldiers in the New Armies from being inoculated against enteric and other similar diseases; whether, in view of the statistics in support of inoculation, as shown during the present War, measures will be at once taken against any organisation which carries on such an agitation; and whether he will consider if the time has now come when inoculation should be made compulsory for all soldiers proceeding to the front on active service, both for their own sakes and those with whom they are in contact?
  Mr. PETOasked whether inoculation against typhoid fever and vaccination against small-pox will, in future, be compulsory for all ranks in the military forces of the Crown before they are sent on service oversea during the currency of the present War?
  Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first point is in the affirmative, and to the second that it is not proposed to take any action against the organisations referred to. As regards compulsion, I am advised that legislation would be necessary. The introduction of a Bill is not at present contemplated, though this may be further considered should necessity arise.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the introduction of such a Bill now would be a breach of contract with the recruits who have joined the Army, and would involve deep dishonour?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not agree with that.

  DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
  Mr. WHELERasked whether, under the War Office scheme of separation allowances, a mother-in-law who is a widow and has been maintained by her son-in-law, who has now enlisted, should be considered a dependant and receive the grants?
  Mr. BAKER: The case quoted by the hon. Member has not hitherto been regarded as carrying a right to an allowance, but I would point out to him that it would fall within the definition of dependence proposed by the Select Committee on Pensions and Grants.

  BURIAL ALLOWANCE.
  Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the allowance made by the War Office for the burial of soldiers who die at home from the effects of wounds or disease is fixed without regard to the circumstances of each case; whether his attention has been called to the case of the Royal Scots Fusilier who died in Linlithgow Fever Hospital on 20th January from enteric fever, and who, but for the public

  141
  spirit and generosity of the citizens of Linlithgow, would have been buried in a pauper's grave; and whether provision will be made to prevent the recurrence of such a case in the future?
  Mr. BAKER: The amount of the allowance to which my hon. Friend refers is decided on the merits of each case. I have no information with regard to the particular case quoted, but if my hon. Friend will furnish me with the name of the soldier I will have inquiry made.

  OFFICERS COMMISSIONED FROM RANKS.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked how many officers have been commissioned from the ranks since the commencement of the War?
  Mr. TENNANT: The total granted to date is 1,155, exclusive of appointments to Quartermasterships.

  RECRUITS (WILTSHIRE).
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a considerable number of Wiltshire recruits have been transferred from the Wiltshire regiment to the Leinsters; and, if so, whether he can state the number?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am obtaining information about this, and perhaps the hon. Member will repeat his question.

  ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS (PAY).
  Mr. STEWARTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether medical officers in the New Army are paid £1 4s. a day, whereas medical officers who have served for years in the Territorial Force, and who have now volunteered for service anywhere, receive only 15s. 6d. a day; and whether he can see his way to remedy the grievance of the Territorial service by putting them on the same scale of pay as the surgeons in the Now Army?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Bridgwater Division of Somerset on 27th August last, a copy of which shall be sent to him.

  RAILWAY FARES (OFFICERS).
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked why an officer recalled from leave and immediately granted leave again is called upon to pay his single fare twice, as was recently done at Christmas time?
  Mr. BAKER: Officers are not entitled under the Regulations to travelling expenses incurred by them in consequence of leave. Any special case not covered by the Regulations is considered on its merits. I am not aware of the circumstances of the case referred to by the hon. Member, but if he will furnish me with the necessary particulars I will have inquiry made.

  EXCURSIONS TO MILITARY CAMPS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the railway companies are advertising excursions to various camps on posters which give the locality of such camps; and whether, in view of this publicity, the Brigadier-General of Supplies can now give the names and addresses of such to British merchants who desire them for business reasons?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on the 16th November is still relevant. The locality of camps cannot, of course, be entirely concealed, but it is a different matter to issue officially lists of the places where they are situated.
  Mr. HOGGE: What about the advertisements?

  WHITE CITY (WINTER QUARTERS).
  Mr. HENRY TERRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War upon whose advice the War Office took the White City as winter quarters for troops; was such advice given in writing; if so, will he lay that writing upon the Table of the House; upon what terms have the Government taken the White City; and will he lay the lease or agreement upon the Table?
  Mr. BAKER: The White City was originally occupied by troops under an agreement made by the Territorial Force Association of the County of London, which

  143
  expired on 31st December last. The War Office then took over the premises on a new agreement, acting upon its knowledge of their suitability. The agreement is not yet signed, but I shall be happy to communicate its terms to the hon. and learned Member if he so desires.
  Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: Does the War Office attend to the sanitary arrangements in the White City?
  Mr. BAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

  NATIONAL RESERVE (BOUNTY).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that men belonging to Class I. National Reserve have been paid a bounty of £10 on joining the Regular Forces or Kitchener's Army, while they have been refused payment on joining a Yeomanry regiment which has volunteered for active service; and will he state on what grounds this distinction is made?
  Mr. BAKER: The distinction to which the hon. Member refers is in accordance with the agreements made in each case with the men. There were good grounds for attaching the higher bounty to the undertaking to serve in the Regular Army.

  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (LOSS OF KITS).
  Colonel WARDEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will inquire into, and take steps to prevent, the constant loss of the kits, money, and private property, of soldiers taken from them when wounded, and in innumerable instances never recovered by them?
  Mr. TENNANT: This matter has been under the consideration of the Field-Marshal the Commander-in-Chief in the field, and orders have been issued with a view to preventing these losses, which are very regrettable. I must point out, however, that when a soldier arrives in a hospital wounded the first consideration is his wounds and that, when the pressure is great, it may not always be possible for those in authority to make certain that no irregularities take place.

  TOBACCO SUPPLIES TO TROOPS.
  Mr. RADFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that more than half of the ordinary capital of the British-American Tobacco Company, Limited, from which the War Office has made large purchases, is held abroad; that such company has a purely foreign trade and the revenues of this country derive no benefit from its products, and that the goods put up and exported by such company are not in fact the products of the firms whose labels and trade marks are used on such goods; and whether the War Office will take steps to place its orders with British firms carried on with British capital who sell goods of their own manufacture under their own name and trade marks?
  Mr. BAKER: I am aware that the business of the British-American Tobacco Company in this country is confined to the export trade. Otherwise I have no knowledge of the statements in the first part of the question, but as no duty is payable on tobacco for the Expeditionary Force the national revenue is not affected. With regard to the last part of the question, tenders are invited from a number of British firms in addition to those included in the British-American Company. All orders placed by the War Office for tobacco and cigarettes have been for manufacture in the United Kingdom.

  SEPARATION ALLOWANCE.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the dependants of many soldiers have not yet received any payment of separation allowance although the allotment papers were signed many weeks ago, and that this delay is causing hardship and consequent dissatisfaction, and is discouraging recruiting; and whether he will take immediate steps to put an end to the grievances arising from this cause?
  Mr. BAKER: I am afraid that in some cases delay is inevitable, as the preliminary investigations made by the pension officer and local pension committee

  145
  necessarily take time. Payment, however, is being expedited as much as possible, and in eases of hardship the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association are authorised to make advances on behalf of the War Office, recoverable from public funds.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In cases in which the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association have made such advances is the money due, when paid by the War Office, paid to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association direct or is it paid to the dependants, and are the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association left to collect it if they can from them?
  Mr. BAKER: The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association recover from the War Office.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the War Office pay the money to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association or to those to whom the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association have already made payments?
  Mr. BAKER: The Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association pays the dependants and the War Office pays the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether, in fact, the War Office does pay the money to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association where that association has advanced the money to the dependants, because my information is that it does not, but that the War Office pays the dependants, and that the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association cannot recover?
  Mr. BAKER: I will inquire what has actually happened. I have stated the terms of the authorisation.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Since this delay appears to be regarded as inevitable, would it not be more honest for the War Office to inform dependants that they are likely to be left for some months to come without any support?
  Mr. BAKER: That would give a very false impression indeed.

  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (BADGES).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether arrangements have been completed for the issue of buttons or badges to workers engaged in fulfilment of Government contracts in works in large industrial centres indicating that they are employed in Government service, and the conditions under which such buttons and badges are issued?
  Mr. BAKER: The matter is at present under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to give a definite reply to the hon. Member.

  MENTAL STRAIN (TREATMENT OF SOLDIERS).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked whether steps have been taken to secure that the treatment of soldiers and sailors suffering from mental strain shall be carried out in hospital wards or other institutions not under lunacy administration, so as to avoid sending all such cases, which are not certifiable, to asylums?
  Mr. TENNANT: Every endeavour is being made to treat patients suffering from traumatic neurasthenia and cases of mental strain in such a manner as to avoid sending those not certifiable into asylums. For this purpose arrangements have been made to treat such cases in certain private and civil hospitals in the United Kingdom, and a Red Cross Military Hospital has been opened in Lancashire for their reception. This latter hospital is administered by, and the patients are under the care of, medical officers holding commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps.
  Mr. MILLAR: Is the War Office prepared to make a Grant for equipment?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think so.

  HOME DEFENCE ASSOCIATION.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state the conditions which have been laid down for the recognition of Home Defence Associations by the War Office, the number of such associations which

  147
  have been recognised throughout the country, and the number of men enrolled in them?
  Mr. TENNANT: These conditions have already been made public, but I can send my hon. Friend a copy of the circular letter if he wishes. It is not considered desirable to make public the number of associations which have received recognition or the number of men enrolled.
  Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy of the circular letter?
  Mr. TENNANT: I will.

  FURLOUGH.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a number of soldiers of the King's Own Royal Lancashire Regiment, stationed at Hendon, Sunderland, have been sent to the front without being given leave to visit their respective families and friends; and if he can state whether it is the practice to send soldiers on active service without an opportunity of furlough?
  Mr. TENNANT: Furlough is and will be granted when possible, but the possibility must continue to depend on the exigencies of the service.

  CHESHIRE YEOMANRY.
  Mr. BRUNNERasked why the Cheshire Yeomanry did not receive a free railway pass for their Christmas furlough?
  Mr. BAKER: I am informed that the Cheshire Yeomanry were among the trained troops to whom Christmas leave could not be allowed owing to military exigencies, but inquiry is being made.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (NOX-ATTENDANCE).
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will take steps to secure the exemption from school attendance during the currency of the war in all rural areas of all boys over
  148
  the age of 12 years who can show that they can obtain agricultural employment?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): It is for the local education authority in the first instance to consider whether in any particular case there is a reasonable excuse for non-attendance at school, and whether proceedings should be instituted to enforce compliance with the by-laws. I have no ground for supposing that the duty of enforcing their own by-laws is harshly or inconsiderately discharged by local education authorities, but in my own opinion no case has been made out, or could be made out, for the wholesale exemption of boys over twelve in rural areas, which is suggested by the hon. Member. Such a course would, moreover, require legislation which the Government do not propose to introduce.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if his Department now sanction military drill in elementary schools?
  Mr. PEASE: The Board are not prepared to sanction the addition of military drill to the physical exercises which are now universal in elementary schools.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if he has considered the question of increasing the facilities for boys in rural districts to be absent from elementary schools for the purpose of assisting in farm work during the period of the War and the shortage of agricultural labour?
  Mr. PEASE: I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member for the Devizes Division of Wiltshire, of which I am sending him a copy.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he can give the approximate number of children who though liable to attend school have been withdrawn and sent to work?
  Mr. PEASE: I am unable to give this information, and I think it would be very difficult to obtain an accurate Return. I am, however, considering what I can do to obtain information.

  TEMPORARY POSTMEX.
  Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the Postmaster-General if he will recommend an increase in the wages of the temporary postmen in the Shrewsbury and similar districts, seeing that the 22s. per week that they now receive, with no extra payment for extended deliveries, cannot be considered a living wage, owing to the increase in the cost of living; and, if an increase be granted, if it may date back to the commencement of employment?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): I am considering whether any improvement in the wages of temporary postmen at Shrewsbury and other similar towns is warranted.

  PARCELS FOR SOLDIERS (POSTAGE).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Post master-General if he is aware that the postage on parcels sent to our soldiers at the front is so heavy as to be a serious tax on the relatives of many of the men; and whether he will consider the possibility of making a substantial reduction in such charges?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to similar questions on the 16th November last. The difficulties of dealing with the mails may be inferred from the fact that there are now about 300,000 letters and 18,000 parcels, or a gross weight of approximately 40 tons, dispatched from this country to the Expeditionary Force every day.

  ROYAL ENGINEERS (TEMPORARY COMMISSION).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Postmaster-General if Mr. G. W. Flood, of 24, Clovelly-road, Hornsey, at present employed in the telegraph service, has asked for permission to apply for a temporary commission in the Royal Engineers; whether such permission has been granted him; and, if so, whether his application has been forwarded to the War Office?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: So far as I am aware permission has not been refused to Mr. G. W. Flood to apply for a temporary commission in the Royal Engineers, and I understand that he has already made such an application to the War Office
  150
  direct without reference to my Department, and that another application on his behalf has also been made through a Member of this House.

  French Yellow Book (Translation).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was with the sanction and consent of the British Government that the first English translation of the French Yellow Book was published by a London journal at the, price of 2s.?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government wore aware that the French Government were having an English translation prepared, but they had no knowledge of the manner or price of this publication until shortly before it appeared.
  Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take means to prevent any important document which may in future be published by our Allies being obtained in this way by private firms in this country for profit?
  Sir E. GREY: That is a matter for foreign Governments to consider in dealing with their own publications. I believe that all we did in this case was to publish a translation of our own and circulate it.

  Intermediate Schools, Ireland (Grant).
  Mr. MacCAWasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the grant of £40,000, which was voted last year for the purpose of supplementing the salaries of assistant teachers in intermediate schools in Ireland has yet been distributed; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): In the absence of the Chief Secretary perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to reply to this question. The hon. Member doubtless refers to the Teachers' Salaries Grant which is payable under the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1914. That Act provides for the Grant being applied in accordance with rules made by the Lord Lieutenant and approved by the Treasury. Rules for this purpose have already been made by the Lord Lieutenant, approved by the Treasury and laid before Parliament, but the rules cannot

  151
  come into operation until the expiration of the period of forty days during which they are liable to annulment if disapproved by cither House. That period will expire some time about the middle of next month, and the Grant can then be distributed forthwith in accordance with the rules.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the rules will ensure that the benefits will accrue to the late teachers?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I think when the Act was passed that was the understanding, but I cannot say definitely on the spur of the moment.

  Somaliland.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give any information as to the present state of affairs in Somaliland?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have nothing to add at present to the official statement as to the situation in Somaliland which was published in the Press on 1st December.

  Imperial Conference.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an Imperial Conference will be held this year?
  Mr. HARCOURT: In consultation with all the Dominions it has been decided that it is undesirable to hold the normal meeting of the Imperial Conference this year.

  School Boards, Scotland (Grants).
  Mr. HARRY HOPEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a memorial from many school boards in Scotland, including Rothesay (Burgh), Ringarth. and Kilmory, in the county of Bute, petitioning that the proposed system of payment of Grants by instalments, outlined in the Scottish Education Department's circular, No. 450, dated August 1912, is of a most inequitable character, and that, in view of the increasing expenditure forced upon school boards in recent years, no system of payment of Grants by instalments shall be instituted which shall reduce the money Grants which the school boards would otherwise receive; and, if so, what action he proposed to take in the matter?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have received the memorial referred to. While I am not prepared to admit that the effect of the proposed system of paying Grants by instalments is accurately described in the question, it has been decided, in view of all the circumstances, not to proceed with the proposal, and the Code has been amended accordingly.

  Children (Withdrawal from School).
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for the Home-Department (1) whether he has received any reports from his inspectors respecting the withdrawal of children of twelve years old from school in order to be sent to industrial work; and whether he will lay them before the House; and (2) what action he proposes to take with reference to the employment of children of school age in agriculture and factories?
  Mr. McKENNA: As regards the employment of children in agriculture, I have no jurisdiction. As regards their employment in factories, the only powers which I possess to sanction their employment otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Factory Act are those conferred by Section 150 of the Act, which authorises the grant of exemptions in cases of public emergency. I have not made any order under this Section modifying the provisions in the Act as to the employment of children, nor should I be prepared to make any such order except in an extreme case where I was satisfied that this was necessary for the purpose of accelerating the work being done under an urgent Navy or Army contract. No proposals have been made to me for the withdrawal of children twelve years old from school, nor have I received any reports from the factory inspectors on the subject.

  Welsh Church Act.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked which of the Commissioners under the Welsh Church Act are paid and what are their respective salaries; how much they have already received; and whether any sum for this purpose has been voted by Parliament?
  Mr. McKENNA: Only the Chairman of the Commissioners, Sir Henry Primrose, is in receipt of a salary—Sir William Plender having expressed a wish to serve

  153
  without remuneration. The Chairman is to receive £1,500 a year, and has already been paid £523 15s. 4d., which has been met out of advances made by the Treasury in accordance with the Act. No sum has been voted by Parliament on account of the Commission.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked how many times the Commissioners appointed under the Welsh Church Act have sat, and whether their sittings have been postponed on account of the postponement of the appointed day on which the Act is to be enforced; and if the Suspensory Act has hitherto suspended any action which might not have been suspended under the original Act?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to inform the lion. Member the number of times the Commissioners appointed under the Welsh Church Act have sat, but they have met very frequently. I understand the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative and will continue in the negative until the expiration of six months from the passing of the Act.

  Employment of Children.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether he will place upon the Table the chief correspondence which has taken place between the Board and education authorities respecting the employment in industry of children of school age; (2) whether he can give a list of the industries the representatives of which have asked for the employment of children of school age; (3) whether he will give a list of the education authorities who have asked his sanction for the withdrawal of children from school before they have reached the school exemption age to assist in agriculture and other work; (4) what replies has he addressed to education authorities who have asked his sanction for the removal of children from school before they have reached the statutory age of exemption?
  Mr. PEASE: Since the outbreak of war the Board have been in correspondence with a number of local education authorities on the subject of the employment of children who would not, in normal circumstances, be exempt from school attendance. I have no power to
  154
  suspend or to authorise local education authorities to suspend the operation of their by-laws, and, consequently, an authority, when considering the question of enforcing its by-laws, has no occasion to apply to me for sanction, though in some cases they may have done so under a mistaken impression. I have, however, corresponded with the following twelve authorities: Cambridgeshire, Derbyshire, Kent, Lines. (Lindsey), Northants, Northants (Soke of Peterborough), Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Somerset, Staffordshire, West Sussex, Pontypridd. The industry in which the employment of children is contemplated is, in most cases, agriculture, in one case the metal industry, and in some cases it is not specified. I shall be prepared to lay upon the Table the chief correspondence which I have had on the subject with local education authorities.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the tenor of the advice given to the authorities?
  Mr. PEASE: The correspondence is somewhat lengthy. I think that the hon. Gentleman had better wait until it is published.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: In future correspondence, would the right hon. Gentleman ask what wages are being paid to attract this sort of labour?
  Mr. PEASE: The matter is receiving, consideration.

  Canada (Postal Rates).
  Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster-General if he has had any representations in favour of continuing the postal rates to Canada which have been in force since 1907; if he can say to what extent the Canadian post increased between 1906 and 1914; what annual payment it would be necessary for the Post Office to make to-maintain the 1d. per pound rate; if he has considered the advantage which the new and heavier rate on British publications, which came into force on 1st January, gives to the circulation of American publications in Canada as compared with British; and will he reconsider the desirability at the present time, when agents of Germany are seeking to influence the foreign Press, of placing no fresh obstacles in the way of Canadians obtaining British publications?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have received representations regarding the new scale of postage, which was introduced on the 1st of January, 1915, on packets of British newspapers, magazines, and trade journals sent to Canada. The quantity of such packets sent by post has increased about sevenfold since the establishment of the magazine post. The annual payment to the Canadian Post Office for the sea transit of these will be about £13,000 until the end of the year 1919. I cannot acquiesce without qualification in the description of the new scale as a "heavier" rate. The only increase (from 1d. to 1½d.) is in the case of packets weighing between 6oz. and 1 lb.; and against this is to be set the decrease of ½d. on each packet weighing between 1 lb. and 1½lb., 2lb. and 2½lb., 3lb. and 3½lb., and 4 lb. and 4½lb. Moreover, the postage of 1d. on packets up to 6oz. in weight provides for the dispatch of single copies of practically every daily newspaper. I have fully considered the probable results in all their bearings, and I do not share the lion. Member's apprehension that the new scale, which was introduced with the concurrence of the Canadian Government, will prevent or hamper in any way the spread of British sentiment for which the magazine post was instituted.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the Postmaster-General whether there is not a large class of publications, very widely read in Canada, which, nevertheless, will have to bear a heavier postage in future?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In ordinary times there are two large daily newspapers which may be handicapped under the new scale, as the hon. Gentleman knows; but, otherwise, I do not think it will affect the daily papers, and I think only a very small part of the weekly papers. However, I am having very careful records kept of what happens with regard to this post, and at a later date, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I shall be very glad to give him the information.

  London and Glasgow Mails.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the delays in the mails between London and Glasgow; whether he is aware that of a test series of five letters posted in London last week before 6 p.m.
  156
  only one was delivered in Glasgow before 1 p.m. on the following day; and whether there is any prospect of an early improvement in the service?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am informed that there has not been any general delay of letters from London for Glasgow. If the hon. Member will let me have the envelopes of the five test letters which he mentions I will have the matter further investigated, and will communicate the result to him.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we shall move the Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates.
  Tuesday and Wednesday we shall devote to a general discussion on the Army Votes A and 1. We shall see what progress is then made, and, of course, if more time be required, we shall be glad to give it later.
  On Thursday we propose to have the discussion that I promised on the prices of the necessaries of life.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask when the Prime Minister proposes to give a day for the discussion of the alien question as a whole?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say; I am not certain, but it will not be next week—perhaps the week after.
  Mr. LOUGH: What form will the discussion take with regard to the prices of food on Thursday next? Will the right hon. Gentleman move a Resolution?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly I shall not move a Resolution. It will be more convenient, I think, that a discussion should be taken after a statement on behalf of the Government.

  SUPPLY.

    CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1914–15.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

    RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.—Class I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the
    176
    Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): Yesterday, the only thing I knew about the Supplementary Estimate for this year was that the Foreign Office had none, for which I was very thankful. To-day, owing to the resignation of my right hon. Friend Mr. Masterman, I am responsible for furnishing the present Supplementary Estimates to the House. I do no think the House will want a long statement in explanation of them, but I think the Committee will feel that some statement of each of the Estimates is required. As to this Estimate of £40,000, nearly half of it, £17,000, is owing to the Government having taken up more property since the War began, and having to pay rates on the property which it has occupied. The rates upon it have increased quite apart from the War. Certain Government buildings have been occupied at an earlier date than anticipated, which means, of course, that the rates have been paid on them earlier than was expected; and secondly, as the local authorities have fixed their rate and their poundage at a date considerably after that on which those Estimates were originally prepared, it is very difficult to foresee what ought to be the correct Estimate of this Vote, and in many cases, particularly in London, the poundage on the rate has been higher than was anticipated at the time the Estimate was made, and that accounts, on the whole total of £763,000, for an increase of £23,000, namely, that part of the £40,000 which is not accounted for by the £17,000 due to the War.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the increase is in the City of London or the county council area?
    Mr. ACLAND: There is a note in the Estimates stating that the additional provision is rendered necessary owing to the increased poundage of rates in London.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: In the City proper or the county council area?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am afraid I do not know, but I can inform the hon. and learned Gentleman privately.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SECRET SERVICE.—Class II.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain this Vote?
    Mr. ACLAND: I think the whole point, about the secret service is that it should be secret. I know that I have been at the Foreign Office more than three years without knowing a single detail myself of any sort or kind about the matter. Therefore perhaps the House will excuse me not endeavouring to give details now. The House has always allowed the Government some freedom in accounting for the expenditure under this Vote. I think the remarkable thing is that normally we get on with so small a sum as £50,000. At any rate we do a great deal more with our £50,000 than some Governments I could name with the enormously greater sums that they expend. I can only ask the House to come to the conclusion that the extra sum is really required, and that it is being spent in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: No one desires especially at a time like the present, to raise any point with regard to a matter of this kind, but I venture, in spite of the reply of the hon. Gentleman, to put the question whether he is going to make any explanation. I was hopeful he was going to tell us that the money would be spent better in the future than it has been in the past. We have never had a discussion in this matter, and the Government have had all the sums they care to ask for without a word of discussion. The hon. Gentleman admits that himself. My surprise is that the House of Commons is willing to give them any money they ask for without a word of discussion when the Cabinet, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was so totally ignorant of the preparations in Germany. With the enormous staff they had at their disposal, I think the secret service money in the
    178
    past must have been very badly spent or there would not have been so much ignorance on the Government Bench.
    Mr. KING: I do not quite take the view that my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) takes I think from inquiries I have made, both privately and publicly in this House, that the money has been on the whole very well spent, that is, as far as intelligence has been given to us. I rise for another purpose. I think we ought to have been told that this is expenditure especially connected with the War, and that after the War the whole expenditure will be reconsidered, and that it is not a definite permanent addition which is being made now.
    Mr. BOOTH: In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement that as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he was absolutely in ignorance of how this money was being spent, would he kindly inform the House which Minister or Ministers does know? I do not want any particulars, but if the Foreign Office do not know anything about it may I inquire how many Ministers do know. May I also ask this further question. When one Government succeeds another does the succeeding Government have access to information with regard to this expenditure?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am not now at the Foreign Office, but I think the proper officials in the Foreign Office do know, and no doubt if anyone is personally responsible it would probably be the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As to the question whether this extra expenditure is war expenditure that is so. It might perhaps have been put down against the Vote of Credit, but it was thought, considering that the House has always given some freedom both in incurring and accounting for the expenditure, that it would be more honest and fair to the House to mention it in the form of a Supplementary Estimate, despite the fact that it was for War purposes and during the War that this extra amount was required. There is no intention whatever of keeping the Vote at this sum after the War is over, and it is not so long ago I think since the Vote was reduced. I think it is much better that it should be increased and reduced as circumstances demand rather than that it should be kept always at the same

    179
    figure. There is certainly no intention of keeping it at the figure for which we have to bring forward the present Vote.
    Mr. BOOTH: May I ask for an answer to my question as to whether when one Government succeeds another, the succeeding Government has access or not to this information?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes, I think that probably is so. It is not any question connected with Ministers. It is a question of the permanent service of the State, and the records are kept by the permanent Civil servants, and no doubt each proper Minister has access to the records and to any knowledge there is. It is not a question of one Minister forming his plans and taking away the knowledge. Whatever is done is done by the permanent Civil servants, and the proper Ministers no doubt are informed and consulted, whoever they may be from time to time.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I do not in the least challenge this Vote for war purposes and I am not going to complain, but I cannot agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. King) that the secret service money has always been on the whole well spent. I believe the history of it in this House, if anybody could get at it, would show that there have been all sorts of things in the administration of the fund of which I hey would not approve. I know that year after year there has been an endeavour to find out what is done with this money—how it is spent and who is paid—but we could never get to know. Therefore if we are wrong we must not be blamed, but we go to the best sources of information. I remember my late friend Michael Davitt, who sat on the opposite benches, had some very considerable knowledge of the administration of the secret service money, and he told me a lot of stories which remain in my mind in a vague sort of way and have always made me extremely suspicious of voting, not this extra Supplementary Vote but the Secret Service Vote annually.
    Mr. HOGGE: I think something ought to be said about this extra sum for secret service. It has always appeared to me that it is a monstrous thing that the Government should consent to do what is against the ordinary moral code of individuals. It does seem a most extraordinary
    180
    thing when one of the subjects raised in this House so frequently is the absolute depth of meanness to which spies connected with another country have descended with regard to this country, that we should be voting extra sums of money towards a similar purpose for our own country. I do not suppose it is any use going to a Division on a subject of this kind, but I do protest very strongly against this nation spending money in this particular way. I think we ought to know how it is being spent, and, for instance, how much Mr. Karl Graves got for writing a book about my friend the Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) and items of that kind.
    4.0 P.M.
    We really ought not to agree to this Estimate in this particular way. It is time some protest was made from the purely ethical point of view. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] If the hon. Member who interrupts does not take that point of view, I cannot help it; but I think it is a perfectly fair point of view to put forward. It seems deplorable that a great nation sharing in the councils of Europe should be expending this money on purposes that would ostracise any man who attempted them in the private relationships of life.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS OFFICE, IRELAND.—Class II.
    Resolved, 3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland.
    COUNTY COURTS.—Class III.
    Resolved, 4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60,650, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts.

    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.—Class III.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,500, be granted to His Majesty,

    181
    to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
    Mr. BOOTH: I am very glad to see a representative of the Irish Office present. I wish to ask whether any compensation has yet been paid to the inhabitants of the Corporation tenements in Dublin whose houses were invaded by the Dublin Police and whose property suffered wreckage. It will be remembered that the Chief Secretary admitted, on behalf of the Irish Executive, that there had been excesses in Dublin on the day to which I refer. He promised to make inquiry, and see whether compensation could be given. I have asked from time to time whether any compensation had been paid, and the Chief Secretary has stated that he was doing his best to trace the delinquents, whom he would deal with in a disciplinary manner. Apparently he was not quite sure whether they were Dublin men or county men. On one of the days when the House was not in the mood to ask questions I had put on the Paper a question with a view to ascertaining what was the attitude of the Chief Commissioner who was asked to retire in connection with this matter. It seemed to me that his attitude was entirely antagonistic. I want to ask whether the new Chief Commissioner will himself inquire into this occurrence. I have no confidence in the inquiry which took place, and which I understand was fruitless. I desire to know whether the new Commissioner has himself appointed—
    The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that this is a Supplementary Estimate, and that on Supplementary Estimates Members are not permitted to raise questions belonging to the main Estimates for a year.
    Mr. BOOTH: I understand that this Supplementary Estimate is asked for because of the incident to which I am referring. That, I think, is admitted. I want to know whether any portion of this money is for that purpose, because the Chief Secretary admitted that these people had suffered at the hands of the
    182
    police. I understand that the superintendent who was in charge at the time when these mistakes were made has actually been promoted, so that he comes in for some of the money we are now voting, while the poor people who suffered at the hands of his own company are still asking for compensation for the property which the police threw into the street. I would like some explanation on that point.
    Mr. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): This Estimate is entirely made up of two items: First, an increase necessitated in the pay of the police owing to an Act passed last Session; and, secondly, compassionate grants in respect of persons killed and injured in July last. I think that is what the hon. Gentleman refers to.
    Mr. BOOTH: One of the points.
    Mr. RUSSELL: £800 has been paid on account of that unhappy occurrence.
    Mr. BOOTH: I am much obliged.
    Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL: There seems to be a direct conflict between the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Russell) as to what the Estimate is for. I understood the hon. Member to ask whether it included an item of compensation in regard to certain persons whose property was injured in Corporation Buildings at the time of the strike in Dublin. I understood him to say that he had made inquiry and found that the Estimate did include something on that head. It turns out now that it does not include anything of the kind, and, as far as I can see, the question the hon. Member has asked remains entirely unanswered.
    Mr. BOOTH: If that is so, I would like to press for an answer. Does any of the £800, of which I have heard, go to those people who suffered at the hands of the police?
    Mr. RUSSELL: £800 has been paid to those who suffered from the incident at Bachelor's Walk. The other unhappy occurrence is a totally different thing, and there is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate in connection with that.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.—Class III.
    Resolved, 6. That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £13,990, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."

    NATIONAL GALLERY.—Class IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Millbank, including a Grant-in-Aid for the Purchase of Pictures."
    Mr. ACLAND: I ought to inform the Committee that this Supplementary Estimate is, in part, due to the decrease of fees paid on students' days during the two months when the Galleries had to be closed owing to the danger of violence by suffragettes. It seems a long time back, but it comes within the year. Naturally, when the receipts decreased, it was not possible in a corresponding way to decrease the standing charges. The Supplementary Estimate is also in part due to a decrease in the fees paid by visitors on students' days, owing to the War. Since the War began there has been a decrease in the number of visitors to the Gallery, and although those in charge of the Gallery have economised to the extent of £975, they have not been able to meet the deficiency by £400. We have, therefore, to come to the Committee with this Supplementary Estimate.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the hon. Gentleman say anything with regard to the steps taken to guard the contents of these Galleries?
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on the Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the £400 required for the general expenses of the Galleries, or is it to make up the amount required for the purchase of individual pictures?
    Mr. ACLAND: It is a question of the Appropriations-in-Aid, which were originally
    184
    estimated to amount to £2,250. The entrance fees have not come up to the amount anticipated, and the balance-sheet is therefore short by £400. The question of any Grant for the purchase of pictures does not come into the Supplementary Estimate at all.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am not clear on the point. The Supplementary Estimate says:—
    "Including a Grant-in-Aid for the purchase of pictures."
    It seems to me that if this £400 is required for the purchase of pictures, there are departments belonging to other nationalities which could quite as well do with the money. If it is required for the expenses of the gallery, I am satisfied; but if it is required for the purchase of pictures, I am not prepared to vote the money.
    Mr. ACLAND: It is not for the purchase of pictures. The words quoted by the hon. Member are simply a repetition of those in the original Vote.
    Sir J. D. REES: Would it be out of order for the hon. Member to state what measures have been taken for the protection of the pictures which the original Estimate was intended to preserve?
    The CHAIRMAN: Yes, it would on this occasion.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SCIENCE AND ART, IRELAND.—Class IV.
    Motion made, and Question proposed.
    8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Institutions of Science and Art in Dublin and of the Geological Survey of Ireland, and Annual Grants to Schools and Classes of Science and Art and Technical Instruction, including sundry Grants-in-Aid, administered by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland."
    Colonel YATE: I see that part of this money is for instruction in first aid to the injured. Is there a similar Grant in England, or is it confined to Ireland?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    TELEGRAPH SUBSIDIES AND PACIFIC CABLE.— Class V.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Subsidies to certain Telegraph Companies and a Grant in aid of the Annual Expenses of the Pacific Cable."
    Mr. ACLAND: This sum is the first quarterly instalment of a subsidy of £8,000 a year agreed to on 10th August last by the House. As the House then agreed to ratify the agreement, the Committee will not, I think, be now unwilling to vote the money necessary to carry out the terms that were then arranged.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    TREASURY CHEST FUND.—Class V.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,759, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for making good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1913–14."
    Mr. ACLAND: The Committee may remember a discussion which took place last year, I think on this occasion, when the use of the Treasury Chest Fund was critised, and when I think the assurance was given that it would not in future be used, if it could possibly be avoided, for purposes such as were then criticised. I can say that in the year which is now under consideration the Treasury Chest Fund was not used for any purpose except to provide money for the payment of soldiers and so on in foreign stations. The use of the fund was confined entirely during the year to its recognised and exact purpose. We have, this year, nothing to explain or to justify. The hon. Member opposite is interested, and I wish to give him an assurance to that effect. Another point I want to make is this: The deficiency
    186
    that is to be made up annually is due, as the Committee knows, largely to the loss that very often arises in valuation, owing to the difference between the purchase and sale price of the Hong Kong dollar. A Treasury Committee was appointed to go into that some years ago. Over that Committee the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Lanarkshire presided. The Report of that Committee has been put into operation, and it is expected that when the new regulations under that Report come into proper operation, the loss will to some extent be avoided. The recommendations of that Committee only came into operation as from 1st January, 1914. Therefore there is still an amount to be made up to keep up the total sum of the Treasury Chest Fund to £700,000 for 1913–14. For this we are now asking the House.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES. —Class VI.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    11. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1915, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate, and Additional Allowances, and Gratuities under sundry Statutes, for Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees."
    Mr. ACLAND: This Estimate is a very difficult one to make, and it was especially difficult for many reasons to make with great exactness this year, because this year for the first time certain processes took place under the Superanuation Act of 1909 which had not previously taken place. That Act laid down a new scale and new regulations for the payment of superannuation and retiring allowances to certain classes of Civil servants. It indicated that those who were over sixty at the time the Act was passed could not be permitted to take advantage of the new scale. This is the first year in which people have been retired under that Act, and of their taking advantage of the regulations of the Act, and it was rather difficult in advance to anticipate the amount that would be

    187
    required. Curiously enough there has also been lately a greater number of retirements of Civil servants who were well advanced in age than was expected. I do not know whether some of them broke down under the strain which has been placed on all Government departments by the War; but for whatever reason, or reasons, a greater number of retirements have taken place, and therefore a greater number of payments of retirement allowances has been incurred than was anticipated. The sum of £21,000 is not a very large one out of a total of £793,000, but I must confess that these allowances are not easy to anticipate with accuracy, and I ask the Committee to make good the sum which we require in excess of what was thought necessary.
    Colonel YATE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether any steps have been taken to do away with the injustice suffered by Civil servants and others in the commutation of their pensions? On this question of superannuation and retiring allowances, perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that officials commuting their pensions have to commute at the rate of 5 per cent., whereas the Government of India and other Governments commute the pensions at 3½ per cent. As the money is borrowed at 3½ per cent., this is an extra amount levied upon the officials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged to me that a profit of £200,000 is being made out of the pockets of these unfortunate officials when they retire by virtue of this extra charge levied upon them by the State. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman may not be able to answer the question at once, but I would ask him kindly to inquire into it, and see what steps can be taken by the Treasury to do away with a serious injustice to Civil servants.
    The CHAIRMAN: That is a matter of policy which can be raised on the main Estimates, and not on the Supplementary Vote.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    LABOUR EXCHANGES AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.—Class VII.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    12. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £91,000, be granted to His Majesty,
    188
    to defray the Charge which wall come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1915, for the Salaries of the Staff and other Expenses of Labour Exchanges, including the Contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and Repayments to Associations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and certain additional Repayments to Associations."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): As this is an emergency Grant some explanation may be desired by the Committee. The Committee will remember that at an early stage of the War there was—happily it did not last very long—a very considerable amount of unemployment. On 24th August the Prime Minister received an important deputation representing the trade unions, the Trade Union Congress, and the Labour party, who set forth the very serious danger that was being run by certain trade unions, especially those in the cotton trade, of an absolute exhaustion of their funds raised for provision for unemployment. As a result of that deputation, and of careful inquiry into the then state of unemployment, an arrangement was made by which Grants were to be made to the associations that were in serious straits in respect to the amount of aid they were granting to unemployed members. The adjustments were made proportionately to the levies made by societies themselves. A number of payments have been made, of which, however, fully 90 per cent. went to unions in the cotton and allied textile trades. In fact, almost the whole went to the cotton trade. Of close upon £60,000 which has been paid in all of emergency Grants under this heading, over £50,000 have gone to the cotton trades. The only other trades that received any considerable sum have been the printing trade, £3,000 odd, and the furnishing trades. The sum indicated in the Estimates for payments made up to the end of January represents substantially the repayments made in the first four months of the War, August, September, October and November. We have thought fit to take credit for another round sum of the same amount to provide for the remaining four months of the financial year.

    189
    It is true, happily, that the amount of unemployment has considerably fallen, but as the rate of repayment has risen in the majority of cases from one-six paid in the first four months to one-third now being paid, we thought the sum of £60,000 had better be provided to cover the possibilities of the remaining period. In this way the tota1 is a sum of £120,000, but as there are savings amounting to £29,000 in connection with the Labour Exchanges and unemployment insurance, these are deducted, leaving the sum asked for, by way of Supplementary Estimate, at £91,000.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I understand from the explanation of the hon. Gentleman that the actual sum which the Government ask for is £120,000. Of that amount £60,000 was spent, practically in the first month or two of the War.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Four months.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by observing that the unemployment occurred only in the first month or two. I think it is within the knowledge of almost everybody in this House—and I myself have made special inquiries—and my information is that, at any rate since last October, which was the third month of the War, instead of there having been any abnormal unemployment, there had been a very great amount of employment; that employment, fortunately, as a matter of fact, has been better than it has been for years.
    Mr. HOGGE: Except in Lancashire in the cotton trade.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Possibly, though I am not even sure that that is correct now. I do not think it is. Under these circumstances I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman two things: First of all, £60,000 is a very large amount of money, if it has been given, as it has, I understand, practically been given to one union; and secondly, as employment is admitted by everyone to be exceptionally good at the present moment, and has been of late, why does the hon. Gentleman, when we are wanting money for other purposes, take another £60,000 in case there should be some further unemployment of which we know nothing at present? I should have thought it would have been much better if this Vote had been confined to
    190
    the sums which actually had been spent and given over to the trade unions in question to meet the deficiency which had arisen. I do not think it is wise to take a further sum to use in case something should arise. It would always have been open to the hon. Gentleman to come down to the House and say, "We find that unemployment has arisen, and it is necessary that some steps should be taken to meet it." But to come down, when we all know that there is practically no unemployment at the present moment, and to ask the House for this power, is I think a wrong thing to do, and I should like some explanation as to whether the hon. Gentleman thinks it is necessary to take this further £60,000 without knowing in what direction it will be spent, that is to say, in what branch of trade unemployment will arise.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: The original Estimate, I take it, was based on the expectation that there would be a considerable amount of general unemployment this winter. Instead of that, there is no unemployment. There may be a little in regard to the cotton trades, but, taking the trade of the country as a whole, though there was an expectation of unemployment, we now find employers tumbling over one another to get workers. Therefore there ought to have been a saving. Instead of this extra deficit we ought to have, under this head, a substantial saving, and I think it points to some lax administration. A case came to my notice the other day of a man who applied for a job to the Labour Exchange. He worked for a few hours at his job, but chucked it up, though he was getting good wages. The next that was heard of him was that he was trying to get back on the unemployment fund. It all points to this: the organisation of the Labour Exchanges really wants looking into. They are of very little use at the present moment to the employers of the country. They may have been, and they may be, of some small use at other times to the working classes, but I am afraid there is lax administration some way. Instead of being met with claims for more money, we ought to have had a substantial saving under this head.
    Sir J. D. REES: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman in his explanation did not put into plain untechnical language what the actual transaction is. As I understand

    191
    it, and I will not apologise for having doubt on the subject, this money was paid out of the Exchequer, to which it is not going to return. I confess that it is not very clear from the note appended to the Estimate. It says "The repayments will be made from time to time." Why repayments? I think the expression requires explanation. What is repaid? What sum has been paid over that is to be repaid? What is the amount paid by the taxpayer? And is it going to be repaid to the taxpayer? I understand not, but I think that is very doubtful from this note. It goes on to say that the repayments, whatever they may be, will be made "upon the basis of expenditure in advance of the Audit of the Accounts." We will let that pass, although I do not think it is perfectly clear. It goes on to say "The amounts so issued will not be liable to surrender." But why not? I understand if the taxpayer's money voted is not required for any particular purpose it should be liable to surrender. That should be an inherent condition of the payment.
    I associate myself generally with what my hon. Friend beside me, with his financial knowledge, has said much better than I could have said. And I also do not understand where the need at present exists. Speaking for such parts of the country as I have lately seen, it is extremely difficult to get any labour of any kind. The hon. Member opposite says there are parts of the country where the case is different, but, generally speaking, it is as I have said. It adds further point to my argument in regard to surrender. The whole system of Labour Exchanges, and so on, was borrowed en bloc from German systems, which, at the present moment, are not enjoying, and are not deserving, particularly great popularity. I think if the hon. Gentleman wants the House to pass this without comment, he would do well if he would very kindly explain further so as to make it clear to the less instructed Members of the House in finance than my hon. Friend beside me particularly, why there should be no surrender if the money is not used.
    Mr. CURRIE: I should like to ask the hon. Member in charge of this Vote if he would be good enough to tell us whether
    192
    it is the case that a number of Labour Exchange offices were closed not long ago on the ground that they were useless, and, approximately, what amount of public money has been expended in the meantime upon their operation?
    Mr. BOOTH: The Board of Trade is a Government Department which takes upon itself the prerogative of examining the accounts of all the accountants, to see that their balance-sheets are right, and so on, and giving their opinions from time to time. And yet their own statement here with regard to this £91,000 is in a form which would not be tolerated in the smallest limited company. Whoever would think of passing an estimate for £91,000, and then explain that it was really £120,000, but that they had made savings on a totally different issue, and therefore put in a net figure of £91,000. If the savings had been made under this identical head, well and good, but, as I understand the statement, £121,000 is wanted for one purpose, but as £30,000 has been saved from a totally different account, we are asked for £91,000. I submit that we ought to have a little more information than is contained in this statement, at any rate by an authority which presumes to dictate in matters of taste concernnig financial statements to the general public. I see one or two members of the Labour party have come into the House, and I would like to ask if one of them can give to us a statement from the Trade Union standpoint with regard to these Grants. I know in some parts there is a great deal of misunderstanding, and I am sure it would be to the advantage generally of the House if one of their official spokesmen could say exactly what the Trade Union view is as to receiving these Grants from the State. It does seem to me that while this may be perfectly good, it is opening the door to the possibility of Government jobbery. I challenge the President of the Board of Trade to say that there ever has been in our history an Estimate of this kind before. It is true it is in the form of a Supplementary Vote, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out that there is no precedent for an Estimate of this kind.
    Under these circumstances, seeing that it is a grant of public money to meet trade unions in their difficulty, and I have no

    193
    doubt it can be defended, does it not open the door to an unscrupulous Government to interfere in labour movements for political ends? That is exactly what they do in the country we are fighting. It is one of the main policies of their programme, but it has not been done here. I merely ask, however, is it not opening the door through which some unscrupulous Government may corrupt labour organisations for political ends? What safeguards has this House in this method? As I understand it, the Government have done this without a vote of the House. I do ask the Board of Trade to suggest some proper safeguard for this House to exercise in the way of control over the Government of the future, so that there may be no misappropriations of moneys under this Act. In conclusion, I would like to ask what is the view of the Board of Trade at the present time with regard to the working of the Labour Exchanges and unemployment insurance generally in the last few months of the War. I am not quite clear whether the savings effected, of which the hon. Gentleman spoke, were owing to the labour experience of that period, or to the natural working of the Act.
    Mr. HOGGE: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, would he make this point quite clear? I do not agree with a great deal of the criticism urged against this, because it is quite true that in the cotton industries, particularly in cities which depend upon industrial occupation for their livelihood, there is a very considerable amount of unemployment. Apart from that, as the hon. Baronet says, we have not much unemployment. The Parliamentary Secretary will, however, remember that under the unemployment insurance' there had already been accumulated before the War started £1,000,000, if not more, for the purpose of meeting unemployment in those trades which were insured under the Unemployed Workmen's Act, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us how these trades have been affected—I imagine the building trade is a case—by the general unemployment which began with the War, and how far money has been spent on trades not insured under the Unemployed Insurance Act? It is unfortunately true that the printing trade has been almost as hard hit as any industry in the country, and I do
    194
    not know that an expenditure of £3,000 on that particular trade is comparable with the unemployment in the cotton industry, particularly in Lancashire. Can he tell us what the experience of the Board of Trade has been with regard to those trades under the Act, compared with those not insured and which have therefore got to make their own unemployed arrangements, in order that we can have some guidance in the future?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Currie) as to Labour Exchanges which have been recently closed, I may say I gave some time ago an answer in the House, giving precise particulars. I do not have them by me, but I should be glad to supply the hon. Member with the statement then made.
    Mr. CURRIE: Did your answer at that time make any mention as to the expenditure of public money on closed offices?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I cannot recollect, but I should be glad to give that information also to the hon. Member. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) as to certain amounts not being liable to surrender, if he reads the rest of the sentence he will see the explanation, "any readjustment necessary when the actual audited expenditure has been ascertained being made upon subsequent repayments." I need hardly explain to the hon. Member that we are not going to pay out in advance a sum of money that could not be made subsequently good.
    Sir J. D. REES: The word "repayment," as he points out, means payment to the Government. If the word "repayment" in the first part of the sentence means payment by the Government, why-describe it as a repayment?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. Repayment in both cases means repayment made to these associations—repayments of the portions of the amount they have paid in relief of unemployment. Subsequent repayments are repayments to be made to those associations in clearing up their accounts.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to get this point clear. When the 31st of March

    195
    comes, supposing out of this additional £60,000 only £10,000 has been expended, will the £50,000 be surrendered as it ought to be in the ordinary way in the payment of debt, or will it be kept for use by the Government as they like on any future occasion, without reference to the House?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: With regard to the special procedure adopted in this case, I should be sorry to lay down the law, but I should think the money would be refunded. I am sure the hon. Baronet will not expect me to be quite certain as to the precise procedure upon an Emergency Vote.
    Sir F. BANBURY: This is a very important matter, but I will wait until the hon. Gentleman has finished his speech.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Baronet's main argument was that in view of the comparative scarcity of labour in many quarters such provision as this should not be made. I tried in my opening statement to explain how the case stood, and" I pointed out that the great bulk of this expenditure had taken place among unions in the cotton trade. The applications from one trade union in the cotton trade for assistance amounted to 140, out of which 124 were granted, and they represented a membership of 195,000. Repayments are often made some time after the total has actually been drawn up, and the repayments are to those unions in the cotton trade, which alone amount to £51,795. This is substantially a matter of the special stress of unemployment which has fallen upon the cotton trade in particular. Hon. Members know very well that before the War the cotton trade was in a depressed condition. Of the men employed in the cotton trade, 13.3 per cent. of those employed in June last left their employment, and 9.6 of that total have joined the Forces, leaving a net increase of 3.7 in the number of unemployed. One of the most remarkable features of the present situation is the great abundance of employment in general, accompanied by a very marked stress of unemployment in one or two sections. In the cotton trade, of those employed at the present time, nearly one-third are on short time. I believe distress is being relieved in the cotton trade, and I hope it will be relieved in the other trades. In the printing trade applications have
    196
    been sent in from eight unions, five of which were granted, and they represent a membership of 20,000. The total expenditure in this case was £3,283, and I trust that in this particular case the distress will also be relieved. Precisely because of the progressive depletion of the funds of the unions it was necessary to increase the rate of assistance. That is why we are asking now for provision for the second four months that come in the financial year, and it is the same sum as that which has been provided before.
    As the hon. Baronet knows, it is sometimes a little difficult to make an estimate of this kind, but we proceeded on the general ground that the rate of relief had to be doubled to those who are still suffering in view of the depletion of their funds. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), I believe that the method of book-keeping adopted with regard to these Estimates is the same as has long been laid down by the Treasury, and I trust my hon. Friend will not visit upon my head or my Department any blame for the method of accounting of which he personally disapproves. In this matter I think I should be inclined in the long run to rely upon the wisdom of the Treasury. The hon. Member suggested that it was dangerous to place a procedure of this kind in the power of an unscrupulous Government in the future. It is perfectly obvious that an unscrupulous Government is extremely likely to do improper things, and with regard to safeguards against such a Government, I may say that they are the same as those which have always been applied by this House. I should never despair of the power of this House to protect itself against unscrupulous acts on the part of any Government while we have such Members as my hon. Friend. Nevertheless I deprecate the raising of such an issue in regard to a procedure by which we are giving special urgency Grants on the urgent representations of the leading authorities of the labour world to a certain number of trade unions, which seem to be running the serious risk of being made absolutely bankrupt, more especially when the unions in question have so loyally and independently fought and paid their way for so many years.
    Mr. WATT: Is this a loan or a gift?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: These are absolute payments made in relief of those unions and it is not a loan. Such a step taken by the Government in a time of great emergency might possibly be quoted as a precedent in the future, but I do not think that fact should deter the Government from giving what seems to be absolutely necessary assistance to one special set of trades which are suffering very much indeed.
    Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman has not answered one of my questions. I asked him why he thought it was necessary to provide a further sum of £60,000 for future gifts to these associations, and he has not said anything about that. If the question of providing a sum for the future had not been raised, I might have been satisfied with what has been said. I do not think there can be any doubt that at the present moment, and certainly for the past month or two, there is no want of employment anywhere in England, and therefore I do not see why it is necessary to make the provision which is now asked for. I think the hon. Member was a little hard on the hon. Member for Pontefract, who has undoubtedly raised a very important point. This expenditure may be a right or it may be a wrong procedure, but, at any rate, it is novel. It may be quite right to give certain trade unions certain Grants of money to preserve them, but it is absolutely new, and if you give money to trade unions, there is no reason why you should not give it to other associations which may be equally good in the eyes of certain people.
    I do not think the hon. Gentleman ought to resent criticism upon his administration, because this is an absolutely new feature, new in the history of Parliament. I should like to know why it is necessary to take a sum of £60,000 on this Vote? I think the explanation given with regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) as to the surrender of these surpluses is very unsatisfactory. He stated that he could not be expected to know what the requirements of the Treasury are. I think the hon. Member ought to know, because he is in a responsible position and he has come to this House to ask for a considerable sum. Therefore he ought to know whether he is asking for it in accordance with the usual
    198
    custom and practice and sanction of the Treasury, and whether the requirements of the Treasury are being carried out. I could not gather whether it was intended that this sum should cover a period after the 31st March, and I think it is important that we should know this. Hon. Members opposite have always said that the expenditure of the year should be met by the payments of the year, and nothing should be carried over. I think we are all agreed upon that point. When we are voting a sum of money which might be badly used for this particular purpose, I think we ought not to leave it in the hands of the Government to say that they need not surrender the balances as they ought to do, but use them for other purposes later on. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case I shall not attempt to divide the House. In the ordinary way I should undoubtedly have moved a reduction on account of the unsatisfactory reply which has been given by the hon. Member opposite. I think I ought to ask for some assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he will look into this matter, and I hope he will give me an assurance on this point. I would like to know under what Act of Parliament there is any authority for this Grant. I have been looking at the Act of 1911, and I have not been able to find any authority there, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to give me some explanation on this point. I doubt whether there is any clear authority in that particular Act for this Grant.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I told the Committee in my previous statement that this Vote mainly represents payments of sums actually paid out by the unions within the first four months of the War. That expenditure is still going on, and there are a number of claims outstanding. Some of these payments were made by the association some time before, and they represent payments which they have actually made, and for which repayment will be expected under the arrangements we have made with the unions. I thought I had made that point quite clear.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I did not understand that.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Baronet seemed to indicate that I had rather

    199
    resented criticism, but I do not think I did anything of the kind. I think, however, I am entitled to express my resentment when the hon. Baronet asks me if I am aware that this Estimate is made in accordance with the usual practice of the Treasury. It is made in a perfectly proper way with the sanction of the Treasury and therefore such issues are perfectly irrelevant. The hon. Baronet desires to know what would be done with the surpluses on the emergency grants at the end of the year. On that point my hon. Friend who represents the Treasury will be able to give a reply.
    5.0 P.M.
    Mr. ACLAND: I think the hon. Baronet opposite was quite justified in his suspicions arising out of the words of the note about these amounts not being liable to surrender. The explanation is that these sums are paid to trade unions on the basis of statements of expenditure in advance of that expenditure being incurred, and it may be found that when the accounts of the trade union are audited they have not, as a matter of fact, expended the whole sum which was given in virtue of the statement of expenditure which was submitted. It is, I think, only to those sums, no doubt, properly paid under the Act to trade unions, that the words of the note apply: "they are liable to surrender any adjustment necessary when the actual audited expenditure has been ascertained being made upon subsequent repayments." If the department has not by the end of the financial year expended the whole sum entrusted to it by this Supplementary Estimate that amount, I have no doubt, will have to be repaid and will go in reduction of debt or be used in whatever way the House may order as in the case of other unexpended Estimates with the financial year.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope that no one misunderstands our object in bringing this matter forward. Xo one makes any suggestion of ill use being made of the money, but we are entitled to more explanation than has been given. Look at the extraordinarily unsatisfactory state of affairs. As I understand it, the Government, under the Act of Parliament, can only make a grant to any society in respect of money
    200
    which they have already paid. This money can only be paid to a society which has already paid it out to somebody else. Therefore, before the money is granted it must have already been paid to somebody else, namely, to the members of the society. Then we are told that some agreements have been made with regard to the future. Surely we are entitled to know what agreements the Government have made. The only power they have got is to repay to trade unions money which has been handed on to their members. What sum has been handed on to their members and what sum has been paid? That question has not been answered, but it is a perfectly simple figure to give if the Government has kept within the four corners of the Act of Parliament. If they have gone beyond the four corners of the Act of Parliament, they have acted improperly and some explanation should be given. The question is not what should be done with some part of this money if it still remains in the hands of the Government at the end of March.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: That was the point put by the hon. Baronet repeatedly.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I quite agree. Look at the extraordinary way in which this note has been drawn.
    "The amounts so issued will not be liable to surrender, any adjustment necessary when the actual audited expenditure has been ascertained being made upon subsequent repayments."
    I think that I understand that sentence, and, if I do, see how absolutely misleading it is to the ordinary Member. "The amounts so issued will not be liable to surrender." Issued to whom? I read it as being issued to the trade unions. If I am wrong, the right hon. Gentleman will doubtless correct me. "Any adjustment necessary when the actual audited expenditure has been ascertained will be made upon subsequent repayments." But you have no right to advance money until you are satisfied that it has been paid by the trade union to its members. Have the Government been issuing money to trade unions without it being properly vouched that they have paid at least a very much larger amount than is being advanced? The Government have not got power to advance any amount they

    201
    like. They are limited, but we have not been told what that limit is. In no case can they exceed one-sixth of the aggregate amount the trade union has paid to its members during the prescribed period. What is the prescribed period? Have you taken four or six months or a year? I am certainly entitled to have an answer to that question. The Statute imposes upon the Government a limit of one-sixth. You cannot pay more, and, if you have paid more, you have acted illegally. You can only grant one-sixth of the actual payments the trade union has made to its members over a prescribed period. You have not told us what is that prescribed period. We are entitled to learn such matters. I might take one broader view. The House of Commons has to watch this and to see it is perfectly rightly done. If this is a proper form of Supplementary Estimate, has not our jurisdiction over it become a farce? The hon. Gentleman told us that £120,000 is really the figure required, and the reason why £91,000 only appears is that there had been a saving of £30,000. Surely that ought to appear on the Estimate, And ought we not to know what has been granted to each society?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I did read out certain figures.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I am not complaining of the right hon. Gentleman, but surely it ought to appear on the Estimates so that the House may know. The right hon. Gentleman did not read to us anything like that. He told us what had been granted to certain societies connected with the cotton industry and the printing industry. He did not tell us to what different societies it was allocated, nor did he tell us on what basis it was granted. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman has acted end acted only under the powers conferred upon the Government by Section 106 of the Act of 1911. If I am wrong, possibly he will tell me under what other powers he is acting. Under that Section the only power the Government has is to repay to any society one-sixth of the sum which they have paid out to their members during a prescribed period. It is for them to say what is the prescribed period. I want to know what prescribed period has been taken in this case, what are the sums they have paid out, and whether they have
    202
    given the whole sixth or only a part of this sixth in these different cases, when one knows that a large amount of these notes is unnecessary? It is the duty of the Treasury to sanction this before the work is done, and, if they do their work properly, then they certainly will not part with any money until they are satisfied that the trade union in its turn has handed at least six times that money to its members. If they have then it is a gift, and there is no question of surrender. There is an objection to anticipating such a large amount of unemployment during the remaining months of the financial year. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was that although he did not anticipate the same amount being granted in the future the agreements made with the trade unions were of such a nature that the sum required would be almost as great. If that is so we ought to know what the agreements are. It certainly looks as if the amount of unemployment will not be anything like as great as it was during the first few months of the year. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me. I do not suggest that there is anything wrong, but it is important that the House should understand the Estimates before passing them.
    Mr. BOOTH: I thank the hon. and learned Member for his remarks, for a certain portion of them came to me as a great surprise. Do I understand the Government to admit that this is the ordinary procedure under the Insurance Act? I did not understand that it was under the Act of 1911 at all.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: It says so on the Estimate.
    Mr. BOOTH: We passed a whole lot of emergency legislation, and I have been under the impression that we should get some explanation that this was probably the first amount of money that had been actually used and accounted to the House which came under that heading. The hon. and learned Member has gone on the basis that this is carrying out the Act of 1911.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Exactly, Section 106.
    Mr. BOOTH: My view is that it is not that at all. It is under an Act we passed in 1914. There is no power that I know of

    203
    under the original Insurance Act which enables the Government to make this Grant.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Oh, yes!
    Mr. BOOTH: If so, why did the trade unionists come in an emergency to the Prime Minister for special help from the Treasury when there was machinery provided in the unemployment part of the Insurance Act? The provision of one-sixth there is a totally different matter. That is given in normal times, and it is given regularly. It was the inducement given to the trade unions to co-operate with the Government in working this Act. It was a reward for their own thrift and industry. The trade unions which themselves paid unemployment benefit were to get one-sixth assistance from the State, and the better they did for their members the larger the Grant they got From the Government. That was in normal times. Now we are told that there is £120,000 asked for from the Government for an emergency not arising out of the Insurance Act at all in its ordinary working. It only shows the position of the House in controlling this expenditure, when we have been discussing the Vote with interested Members in the House criticising it and thinking it came under the Act of 1911.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: The Chairman said so.
    Mr. BOOTH: I do not think the Chairman committed himself in any way at all, and I am perfectly certain that the Government will support me in my interpretation of their own document. I am perfectly certain there is nothing on the Paper to guide the hon. Member.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: It is there.
    Mr. BOOTH: There is nothing which I pointed it out to me that it was connected with the Act of 1911. I understand the emergency legislation passed last autumn has enabled the Government to make this payment; of £120,000. That was my point as regards the form of the Estimate: £120,000 was asked for but, under the head of Emergency Legislation, £30,000 has come to the Government from unemployment insurance, and my complaint was
    204
    that the form of the printed matter was misleading to the Committee. The proof of that is to be found in the fact that it has actually misled the Opposition. I wish to ask the Government to say whether this money was not paid under the emergency legislation.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: In the Supplementary Estimate the amount required up to-the 31st March, to pay certain things, including the contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and repayments to associations, pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of 1 and 2 George V., chap. 55, and certain additional repayments to associations was £91,000.
    Mr. BOOTH: I certainly think we should have some explanation of this. The money was given in subventions to the trade unions as a result of emergency legislation. I will ask the Government if that was not so.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: It is a fact that this was an emergency Grant in the ordinary course of the working of the Act. As regards the mode of accounting, it was the choice of the Treasury that the Estimate should be presented in this fashion, and I think the Committee will agree with me that this mode of presenting it has given the House the fullest opportunity of discussing it.
    Mr. BOOTH: Yes, but under a misapprehension.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I said at the outset it was a special arrangement made under emergency conditions. Surely the hon. Member will bear me out that that was one of the first statements I made! As a result the House has had the fullest opportunity of discussing the matter. I may add that my hon. Friend is quite right when he suggests that this is an emergency Grant.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: I did not understand the Chairman to say that.
    The CHAIRMAN: I did not express an opinion; I simply read out the title.
    Mr. MASON: But when you were reading it out you did not read "pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of 1 and 2 Geo. 5 c. 55," but "pursuant to the Insurance Act of 1911."
    Sir J. D. REES: Does the hon. Gentleman repudiate the statement in the Supplementary Estimate that these repayments were under Sections 85 and 106 of George V., chap. 55, Section 106? The National Insurance Act distinctly provides for these payments, and that is set forth in the Note attached to the Supplementary Estimate.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: They are also called Emergency Repayments.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: This clearly purports to be an Estimate authorised by Section 106 of the Act of 1911. If it was not under that Act of Parliament that these moneys were paid, I want to know under what powers did the Treasury act. No Act was passed last year which gave them power to make any such Grant.
    Mr. BOOTH: There was one which gave them emergency powers.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: If the repayments were made under that Act, why does that fact not appear on the Estimate? Why is not the Section given? I know of no such Act. It is perfectly plain that this has been done under Section 106 of the Act of 1911. There is power to do it under that Act, and there is no reason why it should not be done. But if it has been done under some other Act, I contend that the Committee is entitled to be given the chapter and Section of the Act. This information ought to appear on the Paper, so that hon. Members may check it. I shall move to reduce the Vote, if necessary, in order to get the information under what power the Government has acted in handing over this money to these societies.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The arrangement was made by the Government practically in the exercise of their general powers to devote money provided by the House to a great variety of purposes. There can be no doubt the Government have that power.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Under what Act?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: Under the Act passed last year which gave them power to appropriate money for the relief of distress. I may say, with regard to the mode of accounting, the desire was to make it quite clear that this expenditure was really on the lines laid down by the National Insurance Act. It has been
    206
    sought to make it clear that it is emergency expenditure, and the Treasury considered that this was the best way of putting the matter before the Committee. If it is found, however, that special legislation is required to regularise the payments and to bring these emergency Grants under the heading of expenditure under the Unemployment Insurance Act, I can assure hon. Members that the needful steps will be taken to regularise the matter.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think the hon. Gentleman does not understand the position we took up. I hope my hon. and learned Friend, however, will not move a reduction of the Vote under the circumstances.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I do not propose to press it.
    Sir F. BANBURY: We only want a friendly discussion. What I think the hon. Gentleman opposite does not understand is this: We have a statement made on the face of the Supplementary Estimate that a certain amount is required to pay the salaries of the staff and other expenses of Labour Exchanges (9 Edward VII., c. 7, and 1 and 2 George V., c. 55), and then it goes on to say "including the contribution of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and repayments to associations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of 1 and 2, George V., c. 55, and certain additional repayments to associations." Now we are told that the whole thing was carried out, not under the Acts recited on this particular piece of paper, but under some other Act. That is what we want to have explained, and that is what the hon. Gentleman will not, explain. He keeps on saying that if there has been a mistake, it shall be put right. We want to know why these Acts were cited, whereas, as a matter of fact, the payments have been made under some other Act. The Government might just as well have quoted some old Act of Queen Anne as have put in these particular Acts. I do not want to offend the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will realise that I have no desire to say anything offensive to him personally. But if we are to get our Estimates carried through in a friendly manner, we must be treated openly, and must not have Acts of Parliament put on the face of the Estimate as authorising certain payments when they actually do not do so.
    Mr. BOOTH: I think the hon. Baronet has overlooked the fact that the repayments, at any rate, do come under this Act. The expenditure of £120,000 does not, but the repayment of £30,000, which reduces the £120,000 to £90,000, comes under the Act cited.
    Sir F. BANBURY: It would have been better if, instead of putting "certain additional repayments to associations" they had put certain other payments under the Emergency Act. I hope I have made my point quite clear. I am glad to see there is a Cabinet Minister present, and I hope we shall get some assurance from him that in future the Estimates to be put before us will be framed in a way in which we can understand them, and will not be open to a suggestion of misrepresentation.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease): Perhaps I may say a word or two on this matter. This really was an emergency payment. It was thought at the time that the expenditure did come under the Emergency Act. It had been found necessary to spend more than the one-sixth which the association were entitled to spend under the Act of 1911. But I think, at any rate, the advantage of putting the Vote down in this form has been that it has given the House of Commons an opportunity of going fully into the matter. I admit the question is now under the consideration of the Government Department concerned, and it is intended by the authorities to regularise the procedure. It will be necessary probably to introduce a measure of one Clause enabling the expenditure of more than one-sixth, which is allowed under the Act of 1911, and that will have to be an Emergency Act, which we shall ask the House of Commons to kindly regard as a non-controversial measure, regularising expenditure which we deemed essential in the interests of the country and of the trade unions.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I think the right course for the Government is to ask that this Estimate be withdrawn until the necessary legislation has been put before the House. There is plenty of time between now and the end of March to do that. It is quite clear the Government has spent more than the one-sixth allowed under the Insurance Act, and perhaps it would be better for
    208
    the Chairman to exercise his prerogative, and say that the Estimate is not quite in order, and that it should be brought up another time. If necessary I shall ask leave to move to report Progress.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can move that if he catches my eye again.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I hope some such course will be taken. Although the matter is a small one, it is desirable that there should be nothing set in the nature of a precedent in this direction. This gives us a very excellent opportunity to tell the Government that we desire all these things shall be in regularised form. I see the Vote provides for payment of money for the expenditure on Labour Exchanges, and I wish to take this opportunity of stating my opinion in regard to these institutions. We are told that the terrible conflict in which we are now engaged means the abolition of everything in the nature of Prussianism. Our Cabinet Ministers have been going over Germany and have been introducing here German bureaucratic Prussian methods of legislation. I hope that, in connection with our Labour Exchanges, these bureaucratic methods will be either limited or abolished.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon on Monday next (8th February); Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  RUSSIA (MR. BOURTZEFF'S DEPORTATION).
  The remaining Government Orders of the Day were read and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Resolution of 3rd February, 1915, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. KING: I venture to call the attention of the House to an item of news which has come through this morning, and of which I think some public notice ought to be taken here. I have given notice to the Foreign Office of my intention to refer to

  209
  this matter, and I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his place, although I suppose his work at the Foreign Office is soon to be taken over by another hon. Member. We learn from the "Times" this morning that a very well-known gentleman (Mr. Bourtzeff), who was for some years resident in England and who is a distinguished Russian scholar and gentleman had been sentenced in Russia to deportation to Siberia. This is a matter which must have awakened in a great many hearts a real and deep feeling of surprise and regret. Only upon the 18th September last a very remarkable letter appeared in the "Times" written by Mr. Bourtzeff, to which the "Times" gave the place of honour with large print on the centre page of its issue, heading the letter—
  "Expectant Russia—a Revolutionary View."
  In an introductory note of great appreciation of Mr. Bourtzcff's character and position, they referred to the fact that he—
  "has just left for Russia in order to use whatever influences he may possess in support of the Government."
  It also stated what is very well known, that Mr. Bourtzeff's
  "name is best known in connection with his exposure of Azeff Harting, and other agents provocateurs"
  in Russia. This letter, which was an extremely dignified and eloquent appeal to Russians of all parties to unite in supporting the Government, did not contain one single word of recrimination, criticism, or any qualified measure of support of the Russian Government, but called upon all Russians, irrespective of party, to support the Government in their great national undertaking to achieve a victory against the German threat. It contained several memorable passages, but I will only read this:—
  "We are convinced that after this War there will no longer be any room for political reaction, and Russia will be associated with the existing group of cultured and civilised countries. …. All the parties in Russia, without exception, have supported the Government."
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being
  210
  present Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next, 8th February.

  DEUTSCHE ORIENT BANK OF CAIRO AND ALEXANDRIA.
  On 23rd November, 1914, Sir JOHN ROLLESTON asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Deutsche Orient Bank of Cairo and Alexandria suspended payment in August; whether, when the bank was established seven years ago, it was understood to be subsidised by the German Government; what were the deposits; whether, before the declaration of war, the funds of the bank were removed to Berlin; and whether the mass of the depositors were native Egyptians?
  Sir J. ROLLESTON has received the following reply:—
  "Foreign Office,
  "January 7th, 1915.
  "Sir,—With reference to the question asked by you in the House of Commons on November 23rd last, I am directed by Secretary Sir E. Grey to inform you that a dispatch has been received from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Cairo, reporting that the offices of the Deutsche Orient Bank in Egypt closed their doors for a few days early in August, but reopened them after the proclamation of the moratorium. The Egyptian Government possesses no information to the effect that the Bank is subsidised by the German Government, but they have appointed a Controller, whose principal duty is to safeguard the interests of the depositors in Egypt, a considerable number of whom are native Egyptians, There is no evidence that funds were transferred to Berlin in anticipation of the declaration of War. The assets of the Bank in Egypt, taken at their book value, largely exceed the amount of the deposits, and it is believed that they will realise sufficient to repay the latter in full.—I am, Sir, your most obedient, humble servant,
  A. LAW."
  Sir John Rolleston, M.P.

  PETITION PRESENTED.
  The following Petition was presented and ordered to lie upon the Table:—
  TUESDAY.
  Sale of Intoxicating Liquors.—Petition from Eastwood, for alteration of Law.