Commons Sitting of 17 February 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

BRITISH MUSEUM.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I beg to present a Petition from the Trustees of the British Museum asking for a Grant of public money to enable them to discharge their statutory duties; and I have it in command from His Majesty to signify His Majesty's recommendation of the Petition to the consideration of the House. (King's Recommendation signified.) Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.
Copy ordered, "of Account of the Income and Expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1915; and Return of the Number of Persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1909 to 1914, both years inclusive; together with a Statement of the progress made in the arrangement and description of the collections and an Account of Objects added to them in the year 1914."—[Mr. Harcourt.]

DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
Copy presented of Order No. 9357, dated 5th February, 1915, declaring that the Foreign Animals Order of 1910, and any Order amending it, shall be read and have effect as if Egypt and Cyprus were included in the Prohibited Countries and Parts of Countries specified in the First Schedule to the first-mentioned Order [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF EDUCATION.
Copy presented of Regulations under which Grants are payable to Local Education Authorities in respect of the provision of meals for children attending Public Elementary Schools in England and Wales [by Comamnd]; to lie upon the Table.
DUKE OF SCHOMBERG (PENSION).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 16th February; Mr. Acland]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 126.]
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 833 (British Guiana, Report for 1913–14) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That, in the case of the River Glen Improvement, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That, in the case of the London Electric Supply Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the following Petitions:—

'(a) Bethnal Green Borough Council;

(b) Epsom Rural District Council;

(c) Essex County Council;

(d) South Metropolitan Electric Light and Power Company;

(e) Stepney Borough Council;

(f) Surrey County Council,'

the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

3. "That, in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the 'Surrey County Council,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

4. "That, in the case of the Weardale and Consett Water Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Board of Conservators for the Fishery District of the River Wear and Thomas Charles McKenzie,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

1101

5. "That, in the case of the Streatley and Goring Bridge Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Conservators of the River Thames,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

6. "That, in the case of the Metropolitan District Railway Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of 'Owners, Lessees, and Occupiers of Lands, Houses, Shops, Manufactories, and other properties,' the Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

Resolutions agreed to.

NEW WRIT.
For Borough of Maidstone, in the room of Charles Stewart Henry, Marquess of Londonderry, formerly a Member of this House (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Lord Edmund Talbot.]

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Hew Hamilton Dalrymple, commonly called the Hon. Hew Hamilton Dalrymple, for County of Wigtown.
De Fonblanque Pennefather, esquire, for Borough of Liverpool (Kirkdale Division).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has made any representation to neutral Governments in regard to the ill-treatment of prisoners of war in camps in Germany, and drawing attention to the provisions of The Hague Convention; if so, what answer he has received; or, if not, whether he intends to make such representation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Primrose): His Majesty's Government made strong representations to the United States Government regarding the ill-treatment of British prisoners of war in Germany on 26th December last, and drew their atten-
    1102
    tion to the provisions of The Hague Convention dealing with the treatment of prisoners of war. In a Note dated the 14th ultimo the United States Ambassador stated that his Government had caused these representations to be communicated to the German Government. No answer from the latter has yet been received.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the Report of the trial by German court-martial of a British prisoner of war named John Bramble, and to the evidence given by the German, Sergeant Enskat, to the effect that while guarding the prisoners he was armed with a whip, with which he struck the accused; and whether he has received any report from the American Embassy as to whether it is the practice to set guards armed with whips over prisoners of war?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I have no knowledge of this case beyond what has been reported in the Press, but I am asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to make inquiry.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British captains, officers, and men of the British steamers "City of Khios" and "Assiout" have now been lodged in a Turkish prison at Gottsia; and whether he will use his influence in order that these interned prisoners shall receive the same considerate treatment as is extended to officers and men of the enemy who are now in confinement in this country?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the matter has been brought to the notice of the United States Government with a request that the United States Ambassador in Constantinople may use his good offices on behalf of these persons.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as regards the arrangements he has made in respect to letters and parcels being forwarded to interned British subjects in Germany, he will endeavour to make similar arrangements for the benefit of the captains and officers of British vessels and other British subjects who are now interned in Turkey?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: The conditions in Turkey differ from those obtaining in Germany in that, with the exception of the

    1103
    officers and crews of two merchant vessels interned in the Smyrna district, British subjects have not hitherto been interned in camps of detention. The possibility of making arrangements for the transmission through a neutral country of correspondence for the officers and men of these ships will, however, be considered.
    Mr. SANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the conditions prevailing in the concentration camp for English civilian prisoners of war at Ruhleben—namely, that in one loft or barrack more than 300 of such prisoners are lodged, so that the beds have to be jammed tightly together for want of space, that no room other than the said loft is provided for living or taking meals, that the light is insufficient, the facilities for washing inadequate, and the food insufficient; and whether he will cause representations to be made through the representative of the United States Government to the German Government with the view of securing some amelioration of these conditions?
    Mr. PRIMROSE: From a number of reports received there is reason to believe that the conditions prevailing at the Ruhleben camp are generally as described by the hon. Member, and the matter has been brought to the notice of the United States Embassy. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the answer returned to the hon. Member for Portsmouth on the 4th instant.

  ALIENS.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information showing that a large number of German agents are now resident in Zurich with a view to being naturalised as Swiss subjects and in order that, they may gain admission into this country; and, if so, whether, in the event of their arriving, any steps will be taken to keep a close watch on their movements?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: The answer is in the negative.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made as to the truth of the statements in the question? Is he aware that six months'
  1104
  residence in Switzerland is sufficient to enable the Swiss Government to grant naturalisation papers?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I was not aware of it, but I will take the hon. Gentleman's statement.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Will inquiries be made as to the statements in the question?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: Yes.
  Mr. CHARLES PRICEasked the Home Secretary whether Fritz Gompertz, a Dutch subject, is now detained in Buxton gaol; and, if so, with what offence has he been charged; where was it committed; and on what date?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Gompertz was arrested in Belgium by the Belgian authorities in September last. His custody has been undertaken by His Majesty's Government on behalf of the Belgian Government as a temporary arrangement, as no accommodation for prisoners is at present available in Belgium. There are charges against him of espionage which cannot be tried at present, but there are also ample grounds for detaining him as a prisoner of war.
  Mr. PRICE: Has this man been informed what he is charged with?
  Mr. McKENNA: I think so, but I will make inquiry.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Mr. MacNaughton, chief of the Inverness burgh police, on the 25th October 1914, arrested in one of the hotels at Inverness an alien who had not registered, Inverness being within a prohibited area; whether next day, in examination before an honorary sheriff substitute, the prisoner gave the name of William Gulden and claimed to be an American citizen travelling for pleasure; whether the police were not satisfied with this man's passport, which was not quite in order, and he was sent back to prison while further investigations were made; whether the result of the investigations justified the suspicion of the police, and in a third examination before a sheriff the prisoner admitted that his first declaration was false, that he was not William Gulden but Frederick Parker Dunbar, that he had served for twenty-four years in the German Navy, and had

  1105
  held the rank of kornetten-kapitan; whether he is aware that this man admitted that he was in Ostend when the War broke out, and proceeded thence to Munich and Berlin, afterwards returning to this country viâ Copenhagen and Gothenburg; whether this man is not to be brought to trial, but is simply to be interned as an alien; and, if so, will be explain why this man is not to be tried?
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand that the facts are substantially as stated. They have been carefully considered both by the military and by the civil authorities, with the result that the circumstances of the case are held not to justify proceedings either by court-martial or in the ordinary courts. In view of Gulden's record, however, it has been decided that he shall be interned.
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if Baron von Bissing, of Hove, was arrested; and if he will state the date of his arrest, the term of his detention, and why he was released and who signed the order for his release?
  Mr. TENNANT: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the negative, and the remaining points do not, therefore, arise.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Do I understand that Baron von Bissing was not arrested?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, that is what I said.

  TABRIZ (PROPERTY OF BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the present position with regard to the property of British subjects of Tabriz?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: His Majesty's Minister at Teheran has reported that His Majesty's Consul returned to Tabriz on the 9th inst. and found the Consulate as he had left it, no attempt having been made by the Turks to enter it. In Tabriz no British property—with one exception—had been touched and no houses of British subjects had been entered. This result was due almost entirely to the action of the United States Consul, whose efforts and ability in protecting British interests are much appreciated and very gratefully recognised.

  TRANSPORT, COALING, AND MINE-SWEEPING OPERATIONS.
  Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has obtained the services of all the officers of the merchant service that he requires for transport, coaling, and mine-sweeping operations in connection with the work of the naval and military forces of the Crown?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Yes, Sir; I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the appreciation of the Admiralty of the valuable services which these officers are rendering to the country.

  NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state the amount of the fund now available as naval prize money, and if the new scheme for its distribution is now ready; and whether it will be submitted to Parliament for final approval?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps I may refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement which I made on the subject yesterday. As regards submission to Parliament for final approval, the question should be put to the Prime Minister.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to the amount of the fund?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. Gentleman will read my speech, I think he will find that I dealt with that point yesterday.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS (PRIZE BOUNTY).
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked whether the crews of the British squadron engaged in the battle of the Falkland Islands are entitled to prize bounty under the Naval Prize Act, 1864?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Prize bounty is only payable when His Majesty has declared his intention to grant it by Order in Council or Proclamation. It is hoped that an Order in Council on the subject will be issued shortly. Under the proposed Order the crews of the vessels mentioned would be entitled to prize bounty.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask whether the amount payable to the dependants of men who lose their lives will be paid promptly?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That involves payment in advance. There are many difficulties in the way. But we have not lost sight of that.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Do not these difficulties really apply to prize money and not to prize bounty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They certainly apply to prize money far more than to prize bounty. I will look into the matter. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press me for any undertaking to-day.

  H.M.S. "VIKNOR."
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there are ten survivors of His Majesty's Ship "Viknor" who were nineteen days in that ship and left her as a prize crew on the 18th January; and whether the Board of Admiralty will reconsider their decision not to have an inquiry into the loss of the ship?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think that the members of the crew referred to can, strictly speaking, be termed survivors. In any case they are not in a position to throw-any light on the circumstances in which this vessel was lost, not having been on bard her at the time.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: There is great doubt about the seaworthiness of this ship. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one sub-lieutenant, one signalman, four seamen, and three Marines, a total of nine, only left the ship a short time before, and they are all capable of giving evidence as to the seaworthiness of the ship?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Noble Lord will remember that the First Lord answered a question on this point the other day.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: There may be a mistake. The question is so serious that I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will reconsider the matter?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot. On the question of seaworthiness I cannot add anything to the reply of the First Lord.

  ROYAL MARINE OFFICERS.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked how many general officers and other senior officers of the Royal Marine forces are at present retired whose age and physique would allow of their employment; and whether the Board of Admiralty can see their way to recommend the employment of some of these officers in the New-Army?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There are twenty-eight general officers, Royal Marines, retired. I have taken the Noble Lord's definition "other senior officers" to cover the cases of colonels and lieutenant-colonels retired. Of these officers there are twenty-one on the retired list. I should imagine that few of the forty-nine retired officers in question are now available by age and physique for active service. There are thirteen Royal Marine general officers and four officers on the Reserve List of Colonels, Royal Marines, of whom fifteen were unemployed at the outbreak of hostilities. Since that date two of these officers have been given appointments.

  PRIZES OF WAR.
  Mr. FELLasked if the steamship "Apolda," 4,930 tons, the steamship "Hamm," 4,598 tons, and the steamship "Birkenfels," 5,639 tons, were captured by British cruisers as prizes of war in August and taken to Cape Town; if these prizes with their cargoes are still at Cape Town; if steps will be taken to at once utilise the cargoes and use the ships; and what is the reason for the delay which has taken place in the matter?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The vessels referred to are still at the Cape. I understand that the Overseas Prize Disposal Committee have been using every endeavour to send the cargoes on to Australia, but that many serious difficulties have been encountered. As regards the "Birkenfels," I am informed that an agreement for the navigation of the ship to Australia is on the point of conclusion. In the case of the "Hamm" and "Apolda," which are not prizes but detained ships, it is hoped that it will be possible to make an arrangement at no distant date. There are difficulties in their case which were not present in the case of the "Birkenfels." It was

  1109
  necessary to get into touch with a very large number of consignees before any steps could be taken to make any arrangements for completing the journey. I may say that the proportion of enemy cargoes in these vessels is small.
  Mr. FELL: Cannot the Government do something to expedite cases like these? There are three very valuable ships and their cargoes which have been for more than three months absolutely wasted?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have endeavoured to show the serious difficulties that have been encountered.

  DAMAGE BY AIRCRAFT AND BOMBARDMENT.
  Mr. TICKLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will offer facilities to property owners in Grimsby to insure at a reasonable premium their properties against damage by aircraft and bombardment, as mortgagors are requiring clients to insure against such risks and insurance companies are requiring premiums of £2 per cent.?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): As at present advised, the Government are not prepared to institute an insurance scheme of the kind referred to.
  Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister out of what funds he intends to compensate sufferers through the bombardment of East Coast towns; and whether out of the same funds he will grant compensation to those captains, officers, and crews of merchant ships who through the operations of the War suffer in a similar way by the loss of the necessary effects and nautical instruments which they carry with them?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Relief for damage caused by the raids which have already taken place will be given from Imperial funds. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on the 11th instant.

  PAYMENT OF WAGES (NOTES OR GOLD).
  Mr. WARDLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the payment of wages in notes to workmen results in a great number of cases in the notes becoming soiled, and also of the fact that notes thus paid in wages are not held up, but very soon find their way back to the bank, he will urge the desirability of banks making arrangements to enable employers to pay their workers' weekly wages in gold and silver?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In view of the importance of maintaining the central reserves of gold at as high a level as possible, I think it important to encourage the use of currency notes instead of gold for the purposes of internal circulation. I should, therefore, hesitate to take any step which would tend to defeat this policy, and I feel confident that workers, when they realise it is in the national interest, will cheerfully accept the payment of their wages in paper money instead of in coin.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it not possible to arrange for the banks to issue new notes more frequently than they do, instead of reissuing the old dirty ones?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I shall have much pleasure in looking into that matter.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Is it not merely a matter of habit as to what is used—the Scottish workmen are paid in notes?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I believe that is so; but these notes are very attractive from an artistic point of view.

  SHORTAGE OF LABOUR (AGRICULTURISTS).
  Mr. LEACHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture to what extent and in what districts there is a known shortage of labour among agriculturists?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): No very definite figures are available which would indicate the extent of the present shortage of agricultural labour, but I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on February 8th to the hon. Member for the

  1111
  Exchange Division of Liverpool. Shortage of agricultural labour is known to be general, and is likely to become more acute in the spring. The counties where shortage appears to be greatest are those in the neighbourhood of military camps, or those where enlistment has been heavy.

  FLOUR (PRICES).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the possible continuance or increase of the present high price of wheat and flour, he can see his way, by circular letter or otherwise, to induce farmers and other occupiers of land to utilise all available land for the planting of potatoes in order to secure during the coming autumn a further supply of nutritious food for the people?
  Sir HARRY VERNEY: I think farmers fully appreciate the importance of increasing, if possible, the home-grown supplies of food-stuffs this year, and I doubt whether any action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member is necessary or altogether desirable. But the Board will be glad to supply information and advice to inquirers in regard to potato growing.
  Mr. LEACHasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture the price of flour on 1st January, 1914, and 1st January, 1915, respectively?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The price of English flour in London and Liverpool at or about 1st January this year and last year, as reported in the "Miller," was as follows:—

  Prices of Flour per sack of 280 lbs.

  January 4th, 1915.

  January 5th, 1914.

  London—No. 1 Town Households, ex-mill, for cash

  40s. 6d.

  26s. 6d.

  December 29th, 1914.

  January 2nd, 1914.

  Liverpool—English make, bakers'

  38s.

  26s.

  CHILDREN AND LABOUR.
  Mr. DENMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether it is the policy of the Board to
  1112
  encourage the organisation and use of all other available forms of labour in preference to withdrawing children from school?
  Sir HARRY VERNEY: The reply is in the affirmative.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Education whether attention has been called to the case of George Culpin, a farmer, who was summoned at Northampton for not sending his son to school and who was fined 10s., although he stated that all his labourers had left him to join the Army and he could not work his farm without the assistance of his boy; and whether he will take some steps to provide that people shall not be punished for endeavouring to work their farms so as to produce food that is so urgently required?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend has seen a short newspaper account of this case, but has no information as to the facts on which the magistrates decided it. He has no power to review the decision of the magistrates.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Would it not be possible to put this particular farmer into communication with the Labour Exchanges?

  POST OFFICE CENSORSHIP.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General the names of Irish-American newspapers and other periodical publications addressed and prepaid from the United States to the United Kingdom that are now being confiscated in the Post Office; and, seeing that the postage has been paid, will he arrange to have the wrappers delivered or the addressees informed in some way that their property has been duly posted and confiscated in the Post Office?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have been asked to reply to this question. It would be against the public interest to give the names of the publications transmitted from addresses in the United States which are detained in the Post Office in obedience to the Lord Lieutenant's warrant, and my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General agrees that, in view of the hostile character of these publications, there is no occasion to inform the addressees of their detention.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Postmaster-General whether the mail and telegraph service between London and Paris is now greatly delayed by the Censor; and whether, in view of the necessity of a prompt service for trade purposes, he can see his way to establish for important messages an accelerated delivery and, if necessary, a special fee?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): It is the fact that the telegraph service between London and Paris has been subject to delay due partly to the censorship imposed by the British and military authorities. The postal service between London and Paris has not been delayed by censorship in this country. The Post Office has no information as regards what takes place abroad. Under present conditions it would be difficult to arrange for a special service such as the hon. Member contemplates.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that telegrams are taking twenty-four hours, and letters frequently three days?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I am perfectly well aware that telegrams are taking twenty-four hours.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: And letters three days?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; I am not.
  Sir P. MAGNUSasked the Postmaster-General if he can indicate the nature of the precautions taken to secure that such persons only whose antecedents and character are known and found to be satisfactory are employed as examiners of correspondence and entrusted with the responsible duty of opening and reading letters that pass through the Post Office; and whether he can state what inquiries were made before the appointment of M. Emile Jules Dupuis in the Postal Censor's Department for neutral countries' mails?
  Mr. NIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by whom Emile Jules Dupuis, who was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour on 12th February, 1915, for communicating information to Ruby May Davis, and who was shown to have been previously convicted, in 1902, for forgery and fraud, was appointed to be an examiner of letters in the Postal Censor's Department of the Post Office; was he appointed
  1114
  an officer of the Post Office; by whom was he authorised to open letters sent for transmission through the post; was any express warrant in writing under the hand of a Secretary of State issued to him; and what steps, if any, were taken to ensure that the 200 other persons employed with him to open letters had not been previously convicted of crime?
  Mr. TENNANT: Dupuis was duly appointed by the Army Council to act as Military Censor. The warrant under which the censorship of letters is carried out is not addressed to individual officers, but to the Postmaster-General, who is thereby authorised to submit certain letters for examination to the officer duly appointed. At the time of Dupuis' engagement it was necessary to secure with the least possible delay the services of a large number of persons capable of translating foreign languages. Each applicant was required to produce three references as to character, which have all been inquired into. Dupuis was removed from his appointment before the date of his offence, and was employed for less than a month. I may add that out of the staff originally or subsequently appointed only twelve persons have had to be dismissed for inefficiency or misconduct, and that every precaution is being taken to secure that only suitable appointments are made.
  Mr. NIELD: Is it not the fact that the Statute under which the Postmaster-General acts applies to only one communication, and does not warrant the opening generally of letters?
  Mr. TENNANT: If the hon. Gentleman tells me that, of course I accept it, but the question is one of which I ought to have notice.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Were adequate inquiries made in respect to this person, Dupuis?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; I believe so.

  LABOUR EXCHANGES.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the shortage of labour in the labour market, he will give directions to the Labour Exchanges to tabulate according to their trades the different classes of Belgian refugees who desire to obtain work and to offer them to employers?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): Special Labour Exchanges have been set up at the three main reception centres for refugees in London, namely, Earls Court, Alexandra Palace, and Aldwych, and all Belgians who appear suitable for employment arriving at these centres are urged to register. Arrangements have also now been made to encourage Belgians already resident in various parts of the country to register at the local exchanges. Belgian workpeople registered in any of these ways are submitted for any vacancies notified by the employers, subject to the observance of the two conditions that there should be no suitable British labour available and that wages and conditions offered should be those generally accepted in the occupation and district. As a result of the action described, up to 13th February, 5,843 Belgians had been placed in employment through the exchanges. The object of the hon. Member's suggestion is, therefore, I think, fully met, and it only rests with employers to notify any unsatisfied demands for labour promptly and regularly to the nearest Labour Exchange.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Are the trades being properly tabulated so that employers may readily ascertain whether the class of labour they are seeking is to be had at one of these exchanges?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That is part of the process.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Do the conditions which apply to these appointments of Belgian refugees include conditions under the Insurance Act?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Yes.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: What steps are taken to see that these refugees are not men who ought to belong to the Belgian Army?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The military authorities see to that.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Are you working in conjunction with the Belgian military authorities?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Oh, certainly.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of unfilled vacant situations which have been registered at the Labour
  1116
  Exchanges by employers during the past month; and whether he is satisfied that the Labour Exchange officials are by inter-communication showing sufficient activity in the direction of filling such vacancies?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: During the five weeks ending 15th January last, 142,747 vacancies were notified by the employers to the Labour Exchanges, and, in addition, 43,092 were carried forward from the previous monthly period, making a total of 185,839. Of these 100,828 were filled by the exchanges during the period, 33,002 were cancelled by the employers or filled in other ways, and 52,009 were carried forward. The number carried forward in each case consists of course mainly of vacancies notified during the latter portion of each period. It has always been an essential part of the Labour Exchange system that the exchanges should, by constant intercommunication, bring unfilled situations in one district to the notice of workpeople in other districts, and in August last steps were taken to develop and systematise this work by the establishment of a central clearing house. During the five weeks ended 15th January last, 20,195 vacancies were filled by workpeople from a district other than that to which the vacancy was notified, as compared with the number of 7,699 for the corresponding period of the year before. This comparison shows, I think, that the Labour Exchanges are having growing success in promoting the movement of labour from one district to meet needs in other districts, and I see no reason to be dissatisfied with the results obtained.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman's answer that he is practically able to fill all vacancies?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: These figures I have given the hon. Member show that they are not all filled.

  BREAD AND FUEL (PRICES).
  Mr. LEACHasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps, if any, his Department is taking to prevent the rise in the price of bread and the price of fuel?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the various steps referred to by the Prime Minister in the statement which he made to the House on Thursday last, the effect of which, taken together, will be, I hope, to relieve the situation.
  Mr. HOUSTON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that already a substantial reduction in the price of wheat has taken place since last Wednesday?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, there have been some fluctuations, but I regret to say some of them have been upwards.

  COAL TRANSPORT.
  Mr. GRANTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the shortage of tonnage for the transport of coal from the Whitehaven area and the consequent distress thereby threatened, he can entertain a proposal for the use of interned German cargo boats for such purpose?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: All the available enemy steamers detained in the United Kingdom are being used at the present time for the purpose of bringing coal to London. Inquiries have been set on foot as to enemy sailing ships which may be made available for the needs of Whitehaven.

  RAILWAY WAGONS (POOLING).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any arrangements have been made with the railway companies for the pooling of railway wagons so as to facilitate the transport of coal and other necessaries; and, if so, if he can state the nature of the arrangements come to?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am informed by the Railway Executive Committee that arrangements have been made enabling assistance to be given by companies having a surplus of wagons to those experiencing a shortage. It has also been arranged that wagons belonging to one company which have been worked on to the line of another may be loaded back locally in the home direction, instead of being returned empty, and the question of extending this practice to wagons in docks is under consideration.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: May I ask whether this arrangement applies to the Scottish railway companies?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, this arrangement, in so far as it has gone, applies to Scotland as well as England.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: Is it intended to extend that a little further and deal with large quantities of private wagons?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question of private wagons is much more difficult owing to their different shapes, sizes, and conditions, but I am informed by the Railway Executive Committee that no relief would be obtained by pooling private wagons as well as company wagons.
  Mr. WILLIAM THORNE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the statement, which is now common property, that about three miles of railway trucks near Brentford are loaded with coal, and that the merchants refuse to move them because they are waiting for a rise in prices?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no knowledge of that. I know there are some sidings which are occupied by coal, kept there for naval purposes, and which must of necessity be kept there. If my hon. Friend will give me information about the matter, I will inquire into it.

  STUDY OF RUSSIAN LANGUAGE.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the relations which exist between Great Britain and her Allies and of the expansion of trade expected after the War with such Allies, any provision is or will be made for the study of Russian in any of the public, commercial and other educational establishments of this country?
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON (on behalf of Mr. Pease): The Board of Education are considering, in consultation with the Board of Trade, what steps can be taken to extend the teaching of Russian in commercial schools and classes, and to encourage its study in other types of educational institutions. The Board of Education aid eight evening schools at which Russian is taught, and provision is also made at some universities for the teaching of Russian.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will Russian be included in the languages dealt with at the New Oriental School of Languages, if that is eventually established?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I must ask the hon. Member to give notice of that question.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (PROFESSIONAL CLASSES).
  Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Education what provision has been made for the temporary employment and relief of the higher teaching grades of the musical profession, many of whom are university graduates and public school men and women, whose means have been all but wholly destroyed by the War and who are therefore suffering considerable distress, and yet are unable to make their positions known to those who administer the Prince of Wales' Fund through local committees?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Provision has been and is being made by various voluntary organisations with which the Professional Classes Sub-Committee of the Government Committee for the Prevention and Relief of Distress are in frequent communication.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend say if there is any chance of the Prince of Wales' Fund being put under a Government Committee?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: All grants for the relief of civil distress, as distinct from military and naval distress, are made on the advice of the Government Committee for the Prevention and Relief of Distress.
  Mr. HOGGE: But will he not take steps for securing control of the whole Fund?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Grants for assistance of families of soldiers and sailors are matters for the War Office and Admiralty, and questions relating to them should be addressed to those Departments.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me where I could find the names of the members of the Government Committee on the Relief of Distress?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, in the two White Papers, one on the measures taken immediately on the outbreak of war by the Local Government Board, and the second, which I presented a few weeks ago, on the work of the Local Government Board up to 31st December.

  SPECIAL CONSTABLES (EXEMPTION FROM JURY SERVICE).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the advisability of taking steps to exempt men serving as special constables from service on juries?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I am advised that special constables are entitled to claim exemption. A circular on the subject has been sent out.

  INTERNATIONAL LAW.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the repeated modifications which have proved necessary and of the necessity for subjecting sea-power to as few limitations as possible, His Majesty's Government still attaches importance to the further recognition of the unratified Declaration of London?
  Mr. PRIMROSE (on behalf of Mr. Asquith): I cannot usefully add anything to the reply given on 4th February to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth. Such questions as that put by the hon. Member will probably be considered after the War in the light of experience gained during the War.

  BREACHES BY GERMANY.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether, for the information of the House, he will cause a statement to be issued showing which of the provisions of the Declaration of Paris, 1856, The Hague Conventions, 1907, and the Declaration of London, 1909, are in full force and binding in the present War; and a further statement of the breaches of the provisions thereof which have been committed by Germany?
  Mr. NIELDasked whether, having regard to the manner in which Germany and Austria-Hungary have waged war, he will take steps to ensure that a record be prepared of all acts committed by the enemy since the outbreak of war which are in violation of the accepted principles of international law or constitute breaches of The Hague Conventions, or are acts of piracy, murder, or pillage contrary to the usages of civilised nations at war, or are abuses of the law of nations,

  1121
  whether between belligerents or otherwise; and whether he will cause such evidence as exists in support of these charges to be carefully collected and noted so as to be readily accessible to the Governments of His Majesty and his Allies?
  Mr. PRIMROSE: I will see if a statement can be prepared and if it will be useful to publish it.

  CARGO SHIPS (SHORTAGE).
  Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister what proportion of the steamships waiting their turn to discharge cargo at Genoa are on the British register, and are carrying cargo from foreign countries; and, in view of the shortage of ships for carrying foodstuffs to Great Britain and cargo for British industries, if he will take steps to regulate the supply of shipping, so that British needs may have the first call of British ships?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I understand that nineteen British ships, all carrying cargo from foreign countries, are awaiting their turn to discharge at Genoa. As regards the latter part of the question I cannot say more than that steps are being taken to add to the amount of tonnage available for the trade of the United Kingdom by the utilisation of prize ships and detained ships, and by dealing with congestion at ports.

  GRANTS IN LIEU OF RATES (LOCAL AUTHORITY).
  Mr. EUGENE WASONasked if the Government will be prepared to give a grant in lieu of rates to local authorities in whose districts troops have been quartered since the outbreak of the War?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Where troops are quartered under billeting arrangements which cover all charges for the accommodation provided, no contribution in lieu of rates will be paid from public funds. Other cases in which special circumstances may arise are considered on their merits.
  Mr. EUGENE WASON: If I give the right hon. Gentleman particulars, will he inquire? This is a case where premises which are not rateable have been occupied.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Are not the localities benefiting by this billeting?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, and they are clamouring and competing for them. I will consider the special case mentioned by my right hon. Friend.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will ensure that men who are totally incapacitated, or partially incapacitated, during the War shall receive their pensions immediately their pay stops on discharge from hospital so as to prevent their proceeding home without any money?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Harold Baker): The men referred to have a gratuity of £2 to bridge the gap between cessation of pay and commencement of pension. Everything possible will be done to reduce the interval to the shortest possible time.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether the Government have instituted a sliding scale of pension for men totally incapacitated and men partially incapacitated during the War?
  Mr. BAKER: A scheme on this basis is under consideration.
  Mr. NIELDasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed that the scale of pensions and grants in respect of services in the War and recommended in the Special Report of the Select Committee should be brought into operation; and, in the event of their requiring to be the subject of a Resolution of the House, when will the terms of such Resolution be put down for discussion, and if he had anything to add to the answer he gave yesterday?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Leith Division.
  Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mrs. Martha Sarah Gardner, wife of Sapper Gardner, No. 40,216, has been refused separation allowance on the ground that she was not living with her husband at the time of his enlistment; whether he is aware that Sapper Gardner deserted his wife and four children on the 11th February, 1911, and thereby compelled them to enter the workhouse; that, notwithstanding every effort, Mrs. Gardner failed to discover her husband's address, but that, after the outbreak of the War, she discovered that he had enlisted in the Royal Engineers; that, by letter of the 7th December last, the record office of the regiment informed her that they were unable to grant her separation allowance owing to her husband's allegation that he had been unable to live with her owing to infidelity on her part; that Sapper Gardner, being summoned to appear at the Tower Bridge Police Court on 6th January last, produced to the magistrate a letter written by the major commanding the 62nd (Field) Company, Royal Engineers, asking for the adjournment of the summons for maintenance until after the War in order that separation allowance might be paid to Mrs. Gardner, a course which, with her assent, the magistrate adopted and stated that Mrs. Gardner had not deserted her husband, but had been deserted by him, and that, no separation order having been made, she was entitled to the Government allowance; and that, at the hearing before the magistrate. Sapper Gardner unreservedly withdrew the allegation of infidelity previously made by him; and, seeing the impossibility of tracing Gardner before his enlistment, and therefore of obtaining an order for maintenance and any payment thereunder, he will direct that separation allowance and arrears should be paid to Mrs. Gardner in like manner as though she had duly obtained an order for maintenance and received payment thereunder?
  Mr. BAKER: It appears that Mrs. Gardner was not, in fact, maintained by her husband for a considerable period before the War, and lost nothing by his enlistment. In these circumstances separation allowance is not issuable.
  Mr. NIELD: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that the man deserted and secreted himself and she could not find him to summons him for maintenance? That is the whole gist of the complaint.
  Mr. BAKER: Under the Regulations, separation allowance is not payable when there has been no maintenance by the husband.
  Viscount VALENTIAasked whether the widow of an officer holding a temporary commission in the Territorial Force killed in action is entitled to a pension of the rank temporarily held by her husband at the time of his death?
  Mr. BAKER: The widow of a Territorial officer killed in action is treated in this respect in exactly the same way as the widow of a Regular officer.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if men or women having adopted sons in the Army who have previously supported them at home are not considered as dependants for purposes of separation allowances; and if this disability can be removed without waiting for a general decision on the Report of the Committee on Pensions and Allowances?
  Mr. BAKER: Steps will be taken at an early date which will have the desired effect.
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether the procedure for the lodging of appeals in the case of allowances for dependants is now ready; and, if so, what it is?
  Mr. BAKER: I hope to be able to make an announcement on this point very soon.
  Mr. HOGGE: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "very soon"? These allowances come into operation on the 1st March.
  Mr. BAKER: I mean before the 1st March.
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked whether the restriction that the £5 bounty shall only be paid to those who re-enlisted for Home defence prior to the 11th of August is being strictly adhered to, or whether in some cases it is being set aside; whether there is a feeling amongst the men that as they are all performing the like duties they should all receive the same treatment; and whether the restriction referred to can be abolished?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hammersmith on the 8th instant, a copy of which I will send to him.

  SICKNESS AMONG TROOPS.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked whether rheumatism, ague, and weak heart from the effects of rheumatic fever brought about by service at the front are included as casualties?
  Mr. TENNANT: The figures recently given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were confined to battle casualties and did not include cases of sickness. The latter are, however, reported and notified to the relatives in precisely the same manner as other casualties.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Will they get the same class of pension as other casualties?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Noble Lord must address that question to my hon. Friend.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY OPERATIONS (COMPENSATION).
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend that the losses necessarily caused to individual persons and companies, either by enemy attack or by the taking of land or premises or other operations of the naval or military forces for the purpose of defence, should be left to lie upon the shoulders where they fall in the first instance or, being incurred for national purposes, should be borne by the nation as a whole; and, if the latter, whether they propose to make any statement in regard to the basis and machinery of compensation or to introduce some State system of war risk insurance against such losses?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the question of payment for injury done by the King's enemies, I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent on the 4th instant. The same considerations apply to injury done by His Majesty's forces in resisting actual attack. As regards loss arising out of occupation of land or buildings by the naval and military authorities, or out of the construction of defence works against possible contingencies, the principle of payment for direct pecuniary loss incurred has been accepted, and payment has been made in a number of cases.
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILL: Will Lord Parmoor's Committee be able to consider claims arising from damage as well as occupation? [See subsequent correction, col. 1327.]
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I think so, but I will look into it.
  Mr. BARNESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, as a result of the War, numbers of occupiers of business premises are having to discharge their employés and vacate the premises on account of their being unable to pay the ordinarily high rents; that in a number of cases, particularly in the West End of London where the property is leasehold, the property owners have expressed willingness to reduce the rents by half provided there is a corresponding reduction in the ground rents, but that the ground landlords have refused to agree to this; and whether the Government will consider this matter and see whether any steps can be taken to meet this difficulty and enable the policy of business as usual to be carried out wherever possible?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: At present the Board of Trade have no official information with regard to the class of property referred to, but if my hon. Friend can supply me with some particulars I shall be glad to consider them.

  SOLDIERS' WIVES (EVICTIONS).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to ejectment proceedings at Newport Pagnell petty sessions against Frederick Tysoe, an agricultural labourer, now fighting in the trenches in France; whether he is aware that the man's wife, about to be confined, is to be turned out with three young children; whether he is aware that the number of such cases is increasing; whether he has read the proceedings of the Shrewsbury branch of the Farmers' Union where the president encouraged farmers to eject the wives of enlisted men if cottages were needed for other workmen; and whether steps will be taken to put a stop to these evictions of soldiers' wives?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have no information regarding the particular case to which the hon. Member refers. But the general question is not free from difficulty, especially in view of the importance of maintaining the supplies of agricultural produce, and will receive careful consideration.

  RECRUITING.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister who is responsible for the advertisements concerning recruiting that appear in the newspaper Press; and whether he can give instructions that the advertisements appearing in the Scottish Press should not be addressed to the men of England?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the War Office are responsible for these advertisements. As regards the second part of the question, I am informed that the publication of an advertisement in the "Glasgow Evening News" of the 10th instant, addressed to Englishmen, was due to an oversight. Instructions had already been given that so far as possible recruiting advertisements should be addressed to the men of England, Scotland, or according to the country in which they are issued.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the War Office is responsible for the advertisement calling upon employers to inquire whether they had in their employment any butlers, footmen, gamekeepers, or others who were capable of serving their country; whether the War Office was responsible for this advertisement; and whether the Prime Minister approves of that style of thing?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen that advertisement, but I will look into the matter.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will try and send the right hon. Gentleman the advertisement.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked if there is any official prohibition against brass bands being used by the new battalions; and, if so, the reason for the same?
  Mr. TENNANT: It was decided when the New Armies were being organised that bands could not be provided, as they took fighting men away from their training. Fifes and drums were subsequently sanctioned for each battalion, on condition that the men were not taken away from their training.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Do I understand that brass bands are permitted or not permitted?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes; I think that the hon. Gentleman must understand that they are permitted.
  Mr. G. TERRELL: Does not a drum and fife band take the men away just as much as a brass band?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I think not.

  FOOD PRICES (INCREASE).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Prime Minister the number of resolutions he has received from the various parts of the country supporting the Resolution on the Orders of the Day Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North-East Manchester?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The total number of resolutions I have received on the subject of the increase of food prices is approximately 1,200, but to discriminate between those which support the Resolution referred to in the question and those which support the Resolution in the name of the right hon. Member for East Hull would be a matter of considerable difficulty.

  CLOTHING CONTRACTS.
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that payments for clothing supplied to the War Office are delayed by the contractors and sub-contractors to his Department for months beyond the due date in some instances; that the effect of this is that only the richer tailors are able to do War Office work; and whether he will see that this practice is no longer pursued by his Department?
  Mr. BAKER: Such delay as has occurred has been due to the greatly increased quantity of clothing which has had to be handled. There is no reason to believe that this has stood in the way of any firms which were properly equipped to undertake contracts. I hope that the improved arrangements now in force will prevent any further serious delay; but in case of necessity it is open to any contractor to apply for payment on account.
  Mr. WATT: Is the hon. Member aware that the War Office has a very bad reputation as paymasters?
  Mr. BAKER: The blame is not entirely due to the War Office.

  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS (BRASSARDS).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the central association of Volunteer Training Corps has authority to sanction uniforms for such corps; and, if so, whether such sanction is equivalent to the sanction of the War Office; whether, when such sanction has been given by the central association, the wearing of a brassard in addition to the uniform so sanctioned has in any case been ordered by the War Office; and whether, in the like circumstances, the wearing of a brassard in substitution for uniform has in many cases been ordered?
  Mr. TENNANT: By the rules framed for corps affiliated to the Central Association of Volunteer Training Corps uniformity of dress is permissible among members of any corps, provided that this dress is distinguishable from that worn by the Regular and Territorial Forces. No authority is required for the adoption of any particular dress, but, owing to the large requirements of the Army, woollen fabrics are prohibited. The wearing of a brassard is also permitted.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last part of my question?
  Mr. TENNANT: What I wanted to convey was that there is no order for the wearing of brassards, but permission has been given to wear them.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is he aware that no corps sanctioned by the War Office would wear the brassard, but nevertheless the wearing of a brassard is in order and is in the official orders of this association?
  Mr. TENNANT: I can only say if that be so the War Office is not responsible for the order issued.
  Sir J. D. REES: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: I will make it my business to look into the matter.
  Mr. NIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman's answer consistent with the War Office letter of the 19th November, in which it was clearly stated that the wearing of a brassard is not authorised?
  Mr. TENNANT: That is exactly what I stated in answer to a question.
  Sir W. BYLES: Is it open to any civilian to order a military uniform from his own tailor, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that fraudulent use has already been made of this privilege?
  Mr. TENNANT: That must always depend upon what the status of the individual is. If he is an officer and has received a commission he is entitled to order a uniform, but if he is a member of the Volunteer Training Corps he must conform to their rule.
  Sir W. BYLES: Supposing he is merely a common rascal?
  Mr. TENNANT: Then he should be treated as such.

  INOCULATION AGAINST DISEASE.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that typhoid fever is not considered by the medical profession as contagious in the ordinary acceptation of that term, and that until lately typhoid patients have been treated in general hospitals side by side with others and without infecting them; and, if so, whether he will publish a statement to that effect and circulate it throughout the Army?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. Typhoid is considered to be undoubtedly conveyed by contact, though not to the same extent as scarlet fever for example, and for some considerable time now special wards in military hospitals have been set apart for these cases.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it not a fact that patients are treated as described in the question?
  Mr. TENNANT: That is not in accordance with my information, but I will make further inquiry if the hon. Member has any doubt.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared from time to time to supply lists of the names and addresses and the condition as regards inoculation of men in the British Army who have died from enteric fever?
  Mr. TENNANT: The names and particulars as regards inoculation of men in the

  1131
  British Army who have died from enteric are invariably obtained and filed at the War Office, and I will consider the possibility of furnishing returns from time to time.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether inoculation against typhoid is compulsory in the German, Austrian, French, Belgian, Russian, and Serbian Armies, or any of them; whether any official Returns of the number of cases and of deaths have yet been issued; and, if so, what are the respective numbers of both in each Army?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have no knowledge whether inoculation is compulsory in the Armies referred to. The War Office has received no official Returns in these cases.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether the introduction into the American Army of voluntary inoculation against typhoid was deferred until 1909, after the mission in 1908 of Major Russell to study and report to the American Government on methods in use in England; and in which month of 1911 inoculation was made compulsory?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not know whether the introduction of voluntary inoculation was deferred in the circumstances mentioned. Compulsory inoculation began in the month of March, 1911.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman contradicts the statement of President Taft that compulsion commenced only in the autumn of 1911?
  Mr. TENNANT: If President Taft did state that, I did contradict him, but I was not aware he had made any such statement.

  CHAPLAINS WITH EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked if there are only three Church of England chaplains to a division at the front, and if any steps are being taken to augment this number and avoid the overwork imposed by having to take as many as ten services each on Sundays?
  Mr. TENNANT: At present the number of Church of England chaplains to a division is three. The possibility of increasing this number is now under consideration.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Would there be any objection to increasing the number of voluntary chaplains not charged upon the War Office funds?
  Mr. TENNANT: I will have that matter considered.

  SERGEANT-MAJORS AND QUARTER MASTER-SERGEANTS.
  Sir EDWARD COATESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if sergeant-majors and quartermaster-sergeants who had retired, and were on pension previous to the commencement of the War, have been offered the position of quartermaster to any of the newly raised regiments, and to act as such during the period of the War; and, if so, will he state the number of such appointments that have been made?
  Mr. TENNANT: Up to the present 351 retired sergeant-majors and quartermaster-sergeants have been appointed to temporary commissions as lieutenants and quartermasters in the New Armies, depots, base depots, etc., for the period of the War. Two hundred and ninety-five of these have been appointed to the newly raised Armies, and there are in addition a certain number appointed to the locally raised units, who appoint their own officers.

  KIT ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).
  Mr. RONALD M'NEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether officers rejoining from the Reserve of Officers receive £100 towards provision of kit, whereas officers joining the Army for the first time, although their expenses for kit are larger than those of the former, receive a much smaller sum; and whether he will make provision that in future both classes of officers shall receive an equal and a reasonable sum for this purpose?
  Mr. BAKER: Provision on the lines suggested by the hon. Member was made by Army Order on 4th December last.

  NATIONAL RESERVISTS (ALLOWANCES ON REJOINING).
  Mr. R. M'NEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether National Reservists of Class I. who join

  1133
  the New (Lord Kitchener's) Army are entitled to a grant of £5, with £5 on discharge, and those of Class II. are entitled to the same allowances on rejoining their old units for Home service, whereas National Reservists of Class I. who rejoin their old Territorial battalions for active service receive neither of these Grants; if he will say why this distinction is made; and if he will see that all National Reservists rejoining the Colours shall receive equal treatment in this respect?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Chertsey on the 4th instant, a copy of which I will send to him.

  BANTAM BATTALIONS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in Glasgow and Edinburgh there are at present applications from 2,000 bantams who could be handed over to the War Office at any moment; and whether, in view of these facts, the War Office are now prepared to give their consent to the formal recruiting of such battalions?
  Mr. TENNANT: We are in communication with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Scottish Command, and hope to be in a position to give a definite reply shortly.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend say how the enrolment of these men, who are under the height for joining any other battalion, can interfere with the recruiting of those battalions; and, if they do not interfere, why the War Office does not give authority at once to raise bantam battalions all over the country?
  Mr. TENNANT: The answer is that we have to consider our requirements for providing drafts for the wastage of War, and it is just possible we may use these men for that purpose rather than form them into new battalions.
  Mr. WATT: Is the War Office not aware of the great advantage of being served by bantams?

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS (MESSRS. J. LYONS AND COMPANY).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state what contracts have been held during the
  1134
  last six months for the supply of troops, Territorials and otherwise, by J. Lyons and Company, Limited; whether during that period they employed as buyer one Gottlieb Link; and whether Gottlieb Link is of British nationality?
  Mr. BAKER: Messrs. J. Lyons and Company, Limited, have held since the 1st October last the contract for the supply of bread at several camps in the Salisbury Plain area. They held until 31st December a contract for supply to the Territorial troops to the White City, and they may also have obtained locally other contracts for supply to Territorials or canteens, but these have not been reported to the War Office. I have no information as to the names of the buyers employed by the firm.
  Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the man mentioned in the question has been summoned on several occasions and fined, and that on the last occasion he was sentenced to four months' imprisonment?
  Mr. BAKER: I have no information of that.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries about him?

  FROST-BITE.
  Mr. SANDERSONasked the number of cases of frost-bite among the troops of the Expeditionary Force; whether any and, if so, how many waterproof stockings or trench-waders have been furnished to such troops; and whether any oilskin coats to wear with the same have been supplied in place of the usual Army greatcoats?
  Mr. TENNANT: The total casualties from frost-bite to 24th January last amount to 9,175. Large numbers of gum boots and similar articles and waterproof coats and capes have been provided, in addition to the usual Army boots and greatcoats.

  MILITARY EQUIPMENT (PRIVATE APPEALS).
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether attention has been called to an appeal for funds to provide soldiers at the front with wire-cutters; whether the present regulation allowance for these implements has been found by the military authorities to be

  1135
  sufficient; and, if not, whether he will take immediate steps to see that the deficiency is made good and obviate the necessity of appeals to private benevolence for any part of the proper equipment of the military forces of the Crown?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have no knowledge of the private appeal referred to. The regulation scale of wire-cutters has recently been increased, and is considered to be sufficient.
  Mr. PETO: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman that there is no necessity for appeals in the public Press to private benevolence in these matters for the equipment of the Army?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, the hon. Gentleman may take it that there is no necessity.

  BILLETING (EXPENDITURE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Mr. R. M'NEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in many parishes where troops have been encamped or billeted additional expenditure by the local authorities has been thereby rendered necessary in respect of sanitation and other local services, to meet which increases in rates have been imposed; and whether it is the intention of the Government to make good to the local authorities the amount of expenditure so occasioned?
  Mr. BAKER: The question of making good to local authorities expenditure of this character was considered in October last, and instructions were then issued to all General Officers Commanding defining the extent to which it might be defrayed from Army funds.

  ARMY HORSES (SICKNESS AND DEATH).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the large number of deaths from exposure of Army horses in camps in England since the commencement of the War; and whether such deaths have been due to the horses being taken out of the stables and tied up in the open in exposed places in wet soil and deep mud, without having been gradually accustomed to the change of treatment?
  Mr. TENNANT: Attention has already been called to the alleged effect of exposure of Army horses in the open, but, as I stated in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh on the 8th instant, little or no authority can be directly attributed to such exposure.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether, when, the Eighth Division left Hursley camp, they left behind them without adequate attendants about 500 sick horses suffering mainly from colds and pneumonia, and how many of such horses subsequently died; and whether bad conditions, resulting in the deaths of many horses, also prevailed in the camps at or near Southampton, Cambridge, Bedford, Winchester, and other places?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Eighth Division left behind them at Hursley camp about 500 horses, and by the evening of the date of departure the whole of the sick horses were accommodated in the veterinary hospital at Winchester. About thirty of the sick horses left behind died, but the mortality was due to an epidemic of contagious pneumonia. There were very few-deaths directly attributable to bad conditions at the places mentioned.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Have the rest of these 500 horses recovered and been taken back into service?
  Mr. TENNANT: I believe that to be so, but I will make further inquiries.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked what is the total number of horses that have died in camps in England since the commencement of the War?
  Mr. TENNANT: I regret that this number cannot be ascertained with any exactness.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether, in future, when Army horses are picketed out in the open more care will be taken to select suitable sites for the camps, to take advantage, when possible, of any natural shelter, to remove horses suffering from colds or pneumonia to covered buildings, and to secure more frequent inspection of the horses?
  Mr. TENNANT: Every care is taken to select suitable sites for camps. Horses suffering from colds, pneumonia, etc., are removed to covered buildings as far as possible. Sick animals are inspected by veterinary officers at least once daily, and at all hours when necessary.

  OXON AND BUCKS' LIGHT INFANTRY (PROFICIENCY PAY).
  Mr. G. ROBERTSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that No. 1 supernumerary company attached to the 4th (Territorial) Battalion Oxon and Bucks Light Infantry, and composed of members of the old Volunteer Force, the Territorial Force, the Militia, and the Regular Army, have been receiving proficiency pay at the rate of 3d. a day; that it has been notified that those who have only served in the old Volunteer Force are not entitled to this proficiency pay and must refund what they have received; that this notice affects about one-third of the company and is causing dissatisfaction, inasmuch as all the men of the company perform the same duties; and whether he will see that this distinction is not enforced?
  Mr. BAKER: Proficiency pay is given not in respect of the duties performed by the soldier, but in respect of a certain period of service, and other qualifications. Ordinary service in the Volunteers (apart from war service) does not count for this purpose. It is not possible to abolish the distinction, but I will inquire into the necessity for enforcing refunds of pay already drawn.

  STREET ACCIDENTS (LONDON).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of street traffic fatalities in the Metropolitan Police district and the City of London during the month of January, 1913 and 1914?
  Mr. McKENNA: There were forty-three such fatalities in January, 1913, and thirty in January, 1914.
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the number of persons killed by motor omnibuses and electric tramcars, respectively, during the last four months of the years 1913 and 1914; and the approximate number of such vehicles using the streets during each period?
  Mr. McKENNA: The figures are as follows: In the last four months of 1913, 57 persons were killed by motor omnibuses and 25 by electric tramcars; in the last four months of 1914, 79 persons were killed by omnibuses and 17 by tramcars. I have no statistics as to the number of vehicles using the streets during each period.

  Dominion of Canada (Import Duties).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official intimation that the Government of the Dominion proposes to levy any new Import Duties on the products of British Possessions?
  Mr. HARCOURT: If the unspecified Dominion means Canada, the answer must be that I have as yet no information beyond that which the hon. Gentleman and I share in the Press.

  Indian Immigrants (West Indies).
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Commissioners sent to report on the state of indentured Indian immigrants in Trinidad, Guiana, and Jamaica have submitted their Report; and, if so, whether the conditions under which these immigrants live was found to be other than satisfactory?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Charles Roberts): The Report is being presented. The general conclusion expressed is that the advantages of the system have far outweighed the disadvantages, while some proposals are made for remedying its defects.

  Admiralty Assistant Clerks (Overtime).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked when a reply will be sent to representations made by the Association of Civil Service Assistant Clerks, in October last, respecting the overtime payment of assistant clerks employed in the Admiralty on Sunday duty in excess of 42 hours per week; and whether any increase from 1/365th of annual salary has been made in the rate of such overtime payment and, if so, on what date was the increase granted?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No reply has been sent to the letter referred to in my hon. Friend's question. With regard to the latter part of the question, it has been arranged that, in cases where it is not possible to give a weekday's leave in lieu, Sunday attendance shall reckon as overtime at time and a half rates. Payment is being made accordingly as from the beginning of the War.

  Consumption of Country Spirit (India).
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the annual consumption of country spirit in Bombay city is 443

  1139
  gallons per thousand of the population, whereas in the city of Madras it is only 40.9 gallons per thousand; whether he can state the reasons for this disparity; and what steps are being taken to reduce the consumption in Bombay?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The statement in the papers recently presented, from which the hon. Member's figures appear to have been taken, is inaccurate, as the figure of 40.9 gallons represented the consumption of the Madras Presidency, not that of the city of Madras. The latter was returned at 170 gallons per thousand of the population in the year 1913–14. The smaller consumption of country spirit in Madras city as compared with Bombay is in part at least due to the predilection of its inhabitants for toddy liquor. In Bombay, with the view of restricting consumption, the taxation of country spirits has been raised and the system of licensing altered.
  Sir J. D. REES: May I ask if the ion. Gentleman entirely ignores the superior ethical code which prevails in the Madras Presidency?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: I think I limited myself to saying that the smaller consumption in Madras was "in part at least due to the predilection of its inhabitants to toddy liquor."

  Telephone Service (Staff Sickness).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Postmaster-General whether attendance by the medical officer of his Department is compulsory on all sick telephone operators employed at the General Post Office South who are not sufficiently indisposed to remain at home or become indisposed after their arrival on duty; whether complaints have been made by telephonists employed at these exchanges as to delays and the arrangements for patients who desire attention from the medical officers; whether the number of patients who desire attention is daily so large that it is impossible for the doctor to attend to them in the limited time at her disposal, and that operators are frequently asked, after waiting some hours, to postpone their consultation; will he consider whether the number of the staff employed and the number of applications for medical attention would justify the daily attendance of the medical officers from 10 a.m.; and whether he will cause some inquiry to be made into the sufficiency or otherwise
  1140
  of the medical arrangements at the General Post Office South?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is that if any medical attention is required by a telephonist who is indisposed either on arrival or subsequently, such attention has to be given by a medical officer of the Department. No official complaint that I can trace has been made either as to delay or other arrangements. There has been a considerable amount of minor sickness lately, and a consequent congestion of patients and some regrettable delay, though no one has been asked to postpone their consultation. It does not appear to be necessary to keep a medical officer in continual daily attendance as there is always a trained nurse at the General Post Office South, and few of the cases are serious. I am calling for a report on the whole question of medical arrangements at those centres where there is a large attendance of staff.

  Pit-Props (Supply).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to secure an adequate supply of pit-props for use in the coal mines, looking to the recent shortage of such materials?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the Reports presented to Parliament last December respecting the supply of imported pit timber and supplies of home grown pit wood, which give the information he desires.

  American Spelter.
  Mr. WARDLEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the price of American spelter was up till a few weeks ago from £28 to £32 per ton, and that now the price has risen to £46 per ton; whether he is aware that, having regard to conditions of freight and other considerations, market conditions do not justify a price of more than £35; whether he is aware that the rise in price is an indication of a movement on the part of certain prominent metal merchants to comer the metal; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter and take whatever steps are necessary to frustrate this movement and secure a reduction in the price?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It would appear that during the last four weeks the price of American spelter in this country has risen

  1141
  from under £29 per ton to £40 per ton. The price in New York is reported to have advanced from under £27 early in January to over £37, and for small lots considerably higher prices about a week ago. In these circumstances it is evident that the price of American spelter in the United Kingdom is governed by conditions which cannot be controlled in this country except possibly by the establishment of spelter undertakings on a large scale. This requires time, but I believe the matter is under consideration by those interested.

  Shropshire Education Authority (Third Medical Officer).
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education if the Board have issued a threat to the Shropshire education committee that, if a third medical officer is not appointed immediately, the grants formerly paid by the Board on account of the existing medical officers will be reduced?
  Mr. ROBERTSON (on behalf of Mr. Pease): The reply to this question is in the negative. The Board of Education have been in correspondence with the Shropshire education authority as to the steps which might be taken to provide for the medical inspection of children between eight and nine years of age, which the authority state would involve the appointment of a third medical officer. In this and other cases the Board have undertaken to make every allowance for the difficulties with which authorities may be faced.

  Private Bills.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to a number of Private Bills introduced this Session which are on various grounds opposed; whether he is aware of the possibility of Bills being defeated in the House after much labour and expenditure of money in the Committee Rooms; and whether he will now make a statement indicating what class of Bills fall within the category of contentious public matter so as to avoid heavy loss upon promoters of such Bills and the waste of the time of the Committees?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I refer my hon. Friend to my remarks on the 3rd February last, where I stated that if particular private Bills raised questions of a public character, and of a contentious nature, the Government would naturally
  1142
  feel disposed to prevent further progress. He will see that I do not include Bills where the contentious matter is of a private nature and domestic to the Bill. It is, of course, not easy, prima facie, to determine whether a particular Bill is or is not of the latter description; but where doubt exists, the question could be settled on a Second Reading Debate, and I am sure the House would be disposed to be guided by the view which would probably be then expressed by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

  Welsh Church Act.
  Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether the Government intend to initiate or support legislation with the object of altering the position of the Church in Wales as settled by Acts of Parliament passed last Session?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think it would be convenient to anticipate the discussion in another place to-morrow.
  Mr. KING: Does that mean that the Department are disposed to modify their attitude on this question? Have they been converted?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I do not agree with that inference from the answer I have given.
  Mr. KING: Why cannot a straight answer be given at once?
  Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked if the Welsh Commissioners have concluded the ballot which was being held in the border parishes; and, if not, when it will be concluded?
  Mr. McKENNA: The votes given are all in the hands of the Commissioners, who will now proceed to consider how far they afford a clear indication of the general wishes of the parishioners.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the registrar of the Knighton Union stated that he could not give a voting paper to a qualified voter who had not received a paper, and that he was unable to give it as he had to return unused papers at once; and if this was in accordance with the instructions of the Welsh Commissioners?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have no information as to the case referred to by the hon. Member. The Welsh Commissioners gave instruction that the registrars should

  1143
  collect all unused voting papers on or before Wednesday, 27th January, and should return them to the Commissioners. Voting papers could, however, be obtained at any time during the period allowed for voting from the Commissioners, and were, in fact, sent to those who applied for them.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Is it now possible for people perfectly entitled, but who had no intimation that a ballot was to be taken, to give a vote?
  Mr. McKENNA: If any number have not received voting papers, I imagine that will be a fact which will lead the Commissioners to think that the ballot does not afford an indication of the general feeling of the parishioners. I am unable to answer as to any particular case without notice.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Are the Commissioners to form an opinion without any votes being taken at all?
  Mr. McKENNA: That is not what my answer conveyed. If the facts are as stated by the hon. Gentleman it will probably lead the Commissioners to think that no clear indication of the opinion of the parishioners has been given.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Am I right in saying that a person who never had any notice that a ballot was to be taken, although he is entitled to vote, is excluded by the rule of the Commissioners from voting?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Then how is he to vote?

  Public Trustee (Office Staff).
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps have been taken to assimilate the organisation of the staff of the Public Trustee's Office to that of the General Civil Service; into what clerical classes it is proposed to grade the staff; and what instructions have been issued as regards placing the staff on a permanent and pensionable basis?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): Last December the Treasury intimated to the Lord Chancellor its approval of proposals to place the whole of the professional and clerical staff of the Public Trustee on the footing of Civil servants, subject to the
  1144
  exercise by the Civil Service Commissioners of their discretion as to the grant of Civil Service certificates. Appropriate gradings and scales of salary were approved for the professional staff, and the purely clerical staff are to be classified and to receive salaries on the lines adopted in the Civil Service in the case of staff clerks, second division clerks, assistant clerks and women clerks.

  Grants for Harbours (County Donegal).
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the distress arising out of the interference with the fishing industry on the coast of North-west Donegal, consequent upon the War, the Treasury will now permit the issue of grants, previously sanctioned by them, for the improvement of the harbours of Buncrana, Rathmullen, and Burtonport, and will carry out the engagements entered into in this matter between several Government Departments and the Donegal County Council, on the faith of which the council agreed to raise considerable sums of money by way of loan?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have made careful inquiry, and the evidence placed before me is not such as would justify the issue of these grants at the present time.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: I beg to give notice that in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply of the hon. Gentleman I shall raise this question on the Motion for Adjournment.

WAR.
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    ARMY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the Army Act." Presented by Mr. TENNANT; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]
    DEFENCE OF THE REALM (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    "To amend the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914." Presented by Mr. ATTOENEY-GENERAL; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  NECESSARIES OF LIFE (PRICES).

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [11th February].
    "That this House regrets the rise in the price of the necessaries of life, and calls upon the Government to use every endeavour to prevent a continuance of this unfortunate consequence of war, which is causing much hardship, especially to the poor."—[Mr. Ferens.]
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    Mr. TOOTILL: I beg to move to leave out from the word "Government" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words "to prevent a continuance of this unjustifiable increase by employing the shipping and railway facilities necessary to put the required supplies on the market, by fixing maximum prices, and by acquiring control of commodities that are or may be subject to artificial costs."
    It has fallen to my lot as a new Member of this House to perform the duty of moving the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Black-friars Division (Mr. Barnes). I am led to believe that new Members of this ancient, historic and honourable House need not be overwhelmed with fear and trembling
    1152
    when attempting for the first time to address it. Old, experienced, and, in many respects, distinguished Members of this House have assured me that it is entirely unnecessary to be in any kind of trepidation because of the hypercritical condition of the House. The House is entitled to know why I have taken upon myself the responsibility of what I regard as the stupendous task of moving this Amendment. If I should appear in any way to assume an attitude of self-assurance, I hope that I shall be excused because of the fact that it the first time I have attempted to address the House. I listened with the keenest attention and interest to the tactful, forceful, comprehensive and, from an official standpoint, I am bound to say the complete statement of the Prime Minister on the 11th inst. I must confess that I watched with the greatest admiration his cool, collected and self-possessed manner when dealing with this very exceptional and extraordinary condition of affairs. I was particularly struck with that part of his speech in which he threw himself upon the sagacity, skill, and the ingenious resources of this House. I quite expected that the promised statement of the Prime Minister would have contained suggestions warning unpatriotic capitalists that this was not a time for amassing wealth at the expense of the suffering poor, and, further, that if their policy of grinding the poor was persisted in, in that case they must needs expect justifiable, honourable, and yet effective reprisals for circumventing and counteracting their unfortunate and extremely unpatriotic practices.
    It certainly could not be considered to be altogether incompatible and inconsistent with Parliamentary usage to have followed a course of that kind. In my opinion, the full extent of Parliamentary powers should be employed at a time like the present to make the lives of the poor as comfortable, as bright, and as cheerful as circumstances will allow. It is the duty of the Government to use all the means in its power to prevent the poor from being exploited by those who are in the habit of using their wealth in a manner that is opposed to the public interest. I may tell hon. Members that that principle will always be the dominating force in all my interests in regard to this House. Is it impossible for the Government to prevent or to interfere with causes that unduly force up food prices? If—I say "if" advisably—it is impossible, if it confesses its impotence in a matter of this kind, then it

    1153
    only remains for us on these benches to adopt the only effective policy—that is, to request the employers throughout the country to come forward and meet the situation by an adequate advance in wages. As leaders of the workmen's organisations it was our firm intention to continue to advise our members to strictly and honourably observe the industrial truce to the end of the War. In those circumstances I think we have a right to expect the Government, when and where practicable, to make our difficulties in that direction as light and as easy as possible. We on the Labour Benches fully realise—I do not suggest it for a moment of all Members of this House—the enormous difficulties surrounding this problem. At the same time we are unwilling to accept the proposition that it is one that baffles the wisdom and resources of this House to discover a remedy for it.
    4.0 P.M.
    We think it ought to be possible for the Government to successfully intervene in the direction of preventing excessive profit-making out of causes arising from the present condition of things. We are of opinion, also, that both shippers and merchants in the common necessaries of life have failed to realise that it is up to them to relinquish their profit-making schemes and practices—at any rate during the continuance of the War. To take a mercantile advantage of the present situation to increase profits beyond the normal condition of things is, in my opinion, to be guilty of spying and preying upon the common necessaries of the poor, and such acts of dishonour ought to be followed by adequate punishment of the offenders. The offences could be discovered by a process of investigation, authorised by the Government, under their control, and conducted by specific regulations. I am proud to say that I represent an important Lancashire Division. For twenty years I occupied the position of Labour correspondent to the Board of Trade in collecting statistics regarding food-stuffs and trade statistics generally for Bolton and surrounding areas, so that I feel very deeply concerned and interested in this matter. It is common knowledge that the Lancashire textile trade has been hardly hit in a very exceptional manner by conditions and circumstances arising out of the War, and the Lancashire mill operatives, with whom I am proud to have been associated, have borne the misfortunes of this War with commendable fortitude and composure.
    1154
    They have a right, therefore, to take strong exception to the domestic burdens being increased at the present time, and that, too, by what they regard, and have some ground for regarding, as the questionable practices and methods which are being adopted by the wealthy men in the trading world. The exigencies of war count for much. I do not want the House for a moment to dream that I want to moralise on this position; but if commercial transactions were conducted on the basis of doing unto others as ye would that others should do to you, the nation at large would be sounder, happier, brighter, and better in every respect. Among the numerous suggestions which have been made for dealing with this problem, those relating to the Government exercising more close and definite control of food prices are amongst the most feasible and practical. Why should it be more difficult to control food supplies than to control national finance, which has been accomplished in a successful manner by Government intervention? The life of the nation depends on the one equally as it does on the other.
    If it is the desire of the Government—and we have no reason to suppose it is not—to save the country's trade and commerce from industrial dislocation, surely the time is here and now. Strikes are the very last thing that responsible labour leaders would think about, much less advocate, at a time like the present. We do, however, expect that the responsible Government of the day, just as we expect employers of labour, will show a kindly spirit of reciprocity in saving the trade of the country from unnecessary disturbance. It is a source of great satisfaction to recognise that there is a saner disposition among employers of labour generally in respect to treating their employés on more reciprocal lines of mutual and correlated interest. We claim that His Majesty's Government must use their good offices at a time like this in helping us in our pacifist efforts, and especially whilst contending with an unprecedented condition of things. Reciprocity and an interested desire and purpose associated with a freer manifestation of willingness to co-operate in overcoming acute and critical situations is all that is necessary. The country is anxiously waiting to see what the intentions of the Government are in respect of this life and death matter of the cost of living. If the people are driven to the purchase of inferior classes of food

    1155
    the physical depreciation and the detrimental effect upon the country generally must ultimately become extremely serious. The chain of strength of the nation is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain; so I claim that it is the duty of those in power to promote such measures as will effectually minimise or largely remove the fear of want from the minds of the people. The cost of living touches the concerns of the workman's home as nothing else can possibly do. Some of us on these Benches know what it is to use economy by having to do it on insufficient supplies, and therefore when we speak on this matter I trust the House will accept it that we speak from practical knowledge. It is an everyday truth that forces itself upon the attention of the household in every conceivable and practical direction. I would seriously urge upon the Government the desirability of moving heaven and earth, as it were, to evolve a policy which will minimise, if not put an end, to the excessive profit making arising out of results accuring from this great national emergency.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. PROTHERO: It is fitting that a new Member should attempt to reply to another new Member, and I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member's appeal that we should consider the very real sufferings that War prices inflict upon the very poor with the kindliest and most earnest sympathy. I am sure that at all times those sufferings do claim our attention and consideration, and more particularly now than ever. In familiar phrase, the War has taught us that we are all in the same boat. It has helped men who never thought they could work together to co-operate as friends. It has made men who are fathers in every quarter of the House and in every part of the country brothers in the common anxiety with which they watch the fate of young lives dearer to them than their own, and therefore this appeal today for the sufferings of the community comes home to us in a special sense and with exceptional force as our common concern and our mutual interest, and if I differ, as I do, from the proposals of the hon. Member for fixing maximum prices it is because I think, rightly or wrongly, that such a remedy will rather intensify than remove the evils we all deplore. The hon. Member, in rather vague terms, and the hon. Member (Mr. Clynes), in more precise terms, suggested that British producers
    1156
    of food have been speculatively withholding produce from the market. That is a very grave charge to make in a national crisis like this against any class in the community, and I think the agricultural community ought to be grateful to hon. Members for raising the charge publicly in this House, for it is a charge that has been made repeatedly in a more or less veiled form in the newspaper Press of this country. For my own part, I am convinced that farmers as a body will, so far as their conduct is concerned, stand the test of the most searching public inquiry, and will not be found to have fallen short of the high level which has been so largely maintained by Members of the party opposite.
    British farmers do not set the price of wheat. They are practically powerless in that matter. If you think of the 4 lb. loaf, for instance, and reflect that three and a quarter pounds of it are baked from foreign flour and only three-quarters of a pound from home flour, you will see at once how infinitesimally small is the influence of the British producer upon the price of wheat. The price is set by the foreign producer, and, I admit it, by speculators abroad. Although this year British farmers are profiting by that fact, for forty continuous years British consumers have gained by it, and what the British farmer has lost in those forty continuous years the British consumer has gained. Who are the foreign producers who now fix prices in this country? It is the United States of America. Owing to causes, many of which were enumerated by the Prime Minister, the United States are masters of the situation, and they know it to a nicety. They are now in the fortunate position of being universal providers, and I am afraid that they will continue to be so until the Argentine wheat reaches these parts, or until it begins to exercise a forward influence on prices. I think that there are circumstances which are encouraging even in that position. There may be, for instance, more wheat coming from India of her harvests of 1914 in view of the fact that her harvests this year are so exceptionally promising, but I think the Prime Minister said that that was a difficult and dangerous question, and I shall not rush in where the Prime Minister feared to tread.
    There is another point upon which he did not touch, namely, the fact that the great Continental nations which have been buying up wheat are nations equally hit, and even more than ourselves, because,

    1157
    while they formerly bought their wheat from Russia, they have had to buy from America. America has been in the position of universal provider, and has been able to send up prices; but if these nations are buying only for home consumption their demand will slacken, and the speculator will find himself in a different position. Then again, the Prime Minister hinted that Russian wheat might come in at any moment. The first Russian ship that reaches these shores will send prices down with a run, but meanwhile—and this is hard for the poorer members of the community—we are at the mercy of the United States. As I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Toothill) and the hon. Member for North-East Manchester (Mr. Clynes) what they would like to do is to take over the whole supply to bridge over that interval of six weeks. If I thought that that scheme could be followed with success, I am not sure that I would not support it in such difficult circumstances as we are placed in.
    But in the first place there has been no speculative withholding of wheat by the British farmer. I will put the case against him if hon. Members will allow me in a deadlier fashion than I think they could do for themselves, and I do so because I am confident of the answer. Up to the beginning of December, 1914, when wheat prices were low and moderate, there was quite the usual quantity of homegrown wheat offered upon the market. I may say—and I believe that the hon. Baronet who represents the Board of Agriculture will support me—that there was rather more than the usual quantity. I will tell you why. Farmers were urged to thrash out their wheat directly the harvest was over and to sell a quantity of it in order to check the panic tendency of prices. I myself went down to the Corn Exchange and urged them to do it, and they responded patriotically. I believe they responded all over the country, with the result that prices were kept low and steady through September, October and November. All that time, even during the War period, wheat was offered at prices from 37s. 10d. to 40s. per quarter. But from the first ten days of December onwards prices began rapidly to rise, and very little home-grown wheat found its way on to the market. Is it surprising that gentlemen who do not understand the business of agriculture, and who write in newspapers and so on, should take that
    1158
    as a direct proof of what they say is the speculative withholding of wheat? Yet I venture to say with confidence that there is no evidence of such withholding, and that there is no evidence of any concerted action of farmers to keep up the price of wheat. There is no evidence that any farmer has ever bought wheat himself in order to resell it at an advanced price. Here and there there may be an individual farmer—there are cranks in every trade and profession—who may have refused to sell at an offered price, but these cases are individual, isolated and few, and I say without hesitation that British farmers would gladly have thrashed out and sold a far larger quantity of their wheat if they could, but they could not.
    I say now—and I ask the hon. Baronet who represents the Board of Agriculture to contradict my statement if I do not exactly state what is the fact—that there has been no case of unreasonable withholding of wheat which would justify the price being fixed by a legal tribunal. The Board of Agriculture have inspectors in every district of this country who are keeping their eye on the facts, and sending confidential secret reports to the Board of Agriculture as to whether or not there is unreasonable withholding. There is a body of evidence which I feel sure is available to any Member in this House, and would it not be preferable to seek evidence there rather than in newspapers? I saw in a newspaper the other day a statement that there has been withholding at Braintree Market, and this remarkable sentence occurred in the article:—
    "Farmers, it is stated, have been withholding wheat in spite of the maximum price being reached."
    What does "it is stated" mean? It is meant as a warning from the newspaper that this is unathenticated gossip, that they altogether repudiate responsibility for it, and that if you like to use it you must use it purely on your own responsibility. Instead of going to a newspaper which publishes that kind of evidence, I would say that you should go to the officials of the Board of Agriculture. If you do that, I have no doubt that they will tell you that the real state of things is, as I have said, that up to the first fortnight in December there was the average supply of home-grown wheat on the market. Then it stopped and prices went up, and that is the basis of the charge. But since the first ten days in December we have had almost continuous wet weather. You cannot thrash wheat in the rain. It is not

    1159
    merely that you have to suspend operations the moment rain comes down and re-sheet the stack you have opened. It is not merely that the operation is doubled, and the cost and time are doubled. More than that, the wheat is damaged, and if a farmer takes a damp sample of wheat into the market it is sold, not for human consumption to the miller, but sold as feeding-stuff for cattle. I know for a fact that there are hundreds of farmers in this country who know that if the tops and bottoms of stacks are wet and if the damp has penetrated in some cases right to the heart, the only thing which can save what will be an invaluable source of human food is to allow the wheat to remain in the stacks until it has been thoroughly searched through by the winds of March.
    That is the simple and natural explanation of what has been represented as the speculative withholding of wheat by British farmers. That it is true is proved by the fact that the moment you have a dry week at the end of January the number of wheat samples offered on the market springs up from 10 to 60, or even 70. During the last two weeks the amount of home-grown wheat on the market has been greater by 40,000 quarters than it was in the corresponding weeks of 1914 and 1913. Further, on the evidence of 196 markets, the wheat that has been offered on the market between 1st September, 1914, and 13th February, 1915, was 400,000 quarters more than for the corresponding period of 1914, and something like 700,000 quarters more than for the same period in 1913. Therefore hon. Members will agree that the reason I have given is the simple, natural and true reason. Let me once more repeat that British producers can have very little influence on the price of wheat produced in this country, because the amount is relatively so small. Suppose you took the whole thing—what would be the effect? In the first place, it would compel farmers to thrash out their wheat, and you would be wasting what may be an invaluable source for human supply, and, remember, you would not affect the price of bread by a farthing! Suppose you fix the maximum price at which it can be sold, the effect of that would be, as I believe, to scare away the foreign seller from these shores. Supposing that in the six weeks interval you used up your homegrown wheat, you would have advertised to all the world that you had no reserve, and you would have to pay the uttermost
    1160
    farthing which the foreign seller chose to charge. On all those practical grounds then I am opposed to the proposal of hon. Members opposite, not from any want of sympathy but because I believe that those practical reasons are irrefutable and that we should find ourselves prejudiced by taking the course which the House is asked to adopt.
    I do not feel quite sure whether hon. Members opposite accuse British farmers of holding up meat and milk. Of course, as regards milk, they cannot do it, because no farmer would hold up milk for one day. But there has no doubt been a certain rise in the price of milk. It is due, as I honestly believe, to these reasons: In the first place, London used to supply itself from the East and from the South. That supply failed, owing to the drought, by the end of last year, and we had to find supplies West and North, and these supplies have been drained. Then, again, the concentration camps, military camps and hospitals spread along our coast have created new demands and increased the demand for milk. Again, we must remember that the farmer was urged to sell all his grain and not use it on his farm for feeding-stuffs. He did so patriotically, and the result is that he is dependent upon feeding-stuffs which have gone up more than one-third in price. Therefore there is a rise in the price of milk on that account. The same result also arises because of the shortage of milkers and the very high wages that farmers have to give in the dairy districts. Then there is the very high price of cows for dairy purposes. All those causes have combined, and the farmer is better off if he does not produce milk. He has gone on doing it, I honestly believe, very often if not at a loss at the very scantiest margin of profit, because he has got to work at contract prices which do not expire until March and were fixed months ago.
    As to meat, hon. Members have every reason to be grateful to the British farmer. The British farmer has put meat on the market without stint—so much so that in my opinion we are coming perilously near a time when some of our recuperative powers as a stock-feeding nation will be exhausted. There, again, there is this curious result, that the cost of production has cheapened the meat. That sounds an odd thing to say, but it has been so expensive to keep their stock that farmers had to sell it. Consequently the prices of meat have been kept low. Now I think that whether as to the withholding of

    1161
    wheat or milk or meat, we have no case against the British farmer. I agree with hon. Members opposite that the only thing we can aim at is a rise in wages. I think that the farmer ought to start, and, what is more, I think that he is doing it. You must not suppose that all farmers throughout the country are coining money; dairy farmers certainly are not. The small farmers who sold their wheat at a moderate price and now have to bear the tremendous price of feeding-stuffs have lost money. There are big farmers with large stocks of wheat, and in their case I am sure that the balance will come on the right side. But they are not numerous. The great majority of farmers are no better off, through the present price of wheat, if they sold the larger part of their wheat before the price began to rise. There is a great shortage of labour among men in charge of animals, and wages have been raised enormously. That shortage is acutely felt, and therefore wages rise. There is also a shortage of labour among ordinary agricultural labourers, but at the present moment that shortage is not acutely felt because this is not the time of the year when there is much work done on the farm, and also because the wet weather has suspended all agricultural operations during the last few weeks.
    If we were to argue on the old grounds of political economy, and the laws of supply and demand, there would be an answer there for the farmer against raising the agricultural labourer's wages. "Why should he do it," he may well say, "when he does not want the labourers and cannot use them?" But I am glad to say that in my opinion farmers to a very large extent all over the country have recognised that there are occasions when the moral responsibilities of an employer override the hard laws of political economy. And so, if you inquire in various quarters of the country, you will find that even ordinary wages of agricultural labourers have been raised by something like 2s. per week. I quite agree that 3s. would probably reinstate the men in the position in which they were before the War, and if hon Members will go for that, there we must part company, because I do not think that that can be fairly expected from the employer. But I do think that throughout the whole of the country the wages of ordinary agricultural labourers ought to be raised by at least 2s., and are being raised at the present moment. I hope that I have stated the agricultural side of the ques-
    1162
    tion without offence. There is yet another argument which I should like to use against the proposal to take over the wheat in this country and to fix a price other than that of the market. At the present moment I believe that there is a great deal of wheat in sight for consumption, and there is no reason at all for any panic. But I do confess that I am nervous about the prices in 1915–16.
    Just think of what is going to happen. Russia, instead of being a seller of wheat, will, in all probability, be a buyer. Austria, which used to provide its own wants, will have to buy. Belgium, Germany, and France will all be buying in very much increased quantities, and the question is—shall we, to whom it matters vitally, be able to get the 30,000,000 quarters of wheat that we want, and, if so, what price shall we have to pay for it? Therefore, it is imperatively necessary that every encouragement should be given to the British farmer to put in as much wheat as he can. If you are going to seize the wheat to-morrow on the ground that when he put it in he thought he was going to get 31s. 6d., are you also going to guarantee him the price which he is going to get to-day? If not, there is neither fairness nor logic in the proposal. But, if you do seize it, the farmer, with the shortage of labour and the conditions that exist, is not going to run any risks, and will not put in a single additional acre of wheat this spring. Against every obstacle the farmer has patriotically met the country's demand and largely increased the area of autumn wheat. But what you want is to get in as much spring wheat as you possibly can. You will not get it if you hold out any threat to the British farmer.
    There is only one appeal which I should like to make to the hon. Baronet (Sir Harry Verney) who represents the Board of Agriculture. I am not leading up to any demand for pecuniary assistance; I do not think that the British farmer ought to want it. I think that it is not necessary, and I do not see why the country should be asked to give it. My appeal is that he will try to assist the British farmer in this work of spring sowing, that he will do it, in the first place, by getting out a leaflet with every possible speed, recommending the best qualities of spring wheat for spring sowing. I dare say that the suggestion has been made already and that he is working at it. I understand that he is, but I hope that the leaflet will be published before the summer. My next

    1163
    point is one which is connected with the shortage of labour. I can well understand the reluctance which hon. Members feel to the employment of boys. I myself for many years have been chairman of a committee under a local education authority, and I share the fears expressed that boy labour, unless it is very carefully managed, and arranged, may not be a good thing. Provided that it is carefully arranged, it may be a good thing, because after all, in these days, what woman in the household would not consider the 4s. 6d. a week from her boy, whom she now has to feed at school, a perfect godsend to the home? We ought to think twice before we cut her off from that. But the point which I am going to make with regard to labour is this: There is in our villages a number of men who are quite capable of doing a week's work on end in care of cattle. They are old age pensioners; they dare not work that week because the pension officer would be down on them and reduce their pension. What I would like to suggest is that the pension officer should have instructions, or a hint from the Board of Agriculture, that they need not look too closely at the earnings of old age pensioners employed in agriculture during the War. The last point which I desire to mention in connection with helping the farmer is this: I hope that the Board of Agriculture will set on foot, either through agricultural societies or of their own initiative, some extensive scheme for organising in each county a proper supply of motor and steam ploughs, so as to facilitate ploughing the land, and of getting into it as large a quantity of spring wheat as can be found.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): I may inform the hon. Member that the three suggestions have already been carried out practically, and I will send him a copy of the leaflet.
    Mr. PROTHERO: I am delighted to hear that. I hardly thought, with the vigilant advisers of the Board of Agriculture, and with the hon. Baronet's own experience of farming, that they would not have taken advantage of some of these suggestions. But it is of enormous importance especially that spring wheat should be got in, and I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind that farmers throughout this country are very timid of the action and policy of the Government,
    1164
    and I trust they will not think it necessary to use language condemning the conduct of the British farmers, but that they will exercise great restraint, because I feel sure that the result of any contrary practice will be very detrimental to the national supply of food.
    Mr. W. C. ANDERSON: Part of the ground of this discussion was cleared on the first day of the Debate, so that it is not necessary for me to labour the question of the rise in the cost of living which has been debated, but it is a very serious problem. I would like to point out that even before the outbreak of war, and for many years before the outbreak of war, the workpeople of this country have had their standard of living lowered by the constant and continuous increase of the cost of living that has gone on since 1900, and their position has been worsened. I saw yesterday figures of the Board of Trade which show that in an industrial centre like Sheffield, from 1905 to 1912, retail prices rose by 11 per cent., and the average wages rose only by 5 per cent. They show that, in those years, coal prices in Sheffield, between 1905 and 1912, rose by 29 per cent., according to the Board of Trade's figures, and there have been advances since that time. I think that emphasises the position in which the workpeople now find themselves; and, in regard to food prices, and the prices of coal and other necessaries of life, I should say that since the outbreak of War the purchasing power of the sovereign has shrunk at least by five shillings, so that the poorest of the people, who have to buy in small quantities—and buying in small quanties means that they have to pay more for the things that they buy—are most affected. There has been among the workpeople and the labour circles right throughout the conutry disappointment with the speech made by the Prime Minister last week. We expected something more from the investigations that were being made. Many of the poor people were asking for more powers being taken; they were asking for bread, and the Prime Minister offered them hardly more than the law of supply and demand. They want something more than that. He told us at length that the conditions were no worse than they were during the Franco-Prussian war. That may be a point of academic interest, but it is hardly a point of practical interest for those who feel the pinch at the present time. We are not living in 1871, but in 1915.

    1165
    I received this morning when I came to the House a letter from people who may perhaps have read things that I have written on this question. It is from a family where the father gets 5s. a week old age pension, and where the mother has 3s. a week from the union—8s. a week going into that home, and the man asks, "I wonder how some of the Members of Parliament would like to live on 8s. a week." Where you get large numbers of people living on small wages, even on £1 a week, they cannot be expected to share the official optimism which tells them that probably things will be a great deal better in July. With regard to the law of supply and demand, I would point out that some of the principal Departments of the Government promptly set it aside when they thought it necessary. The First Lord of the Admiralty is obtaining oil at a cheaper rate than existed at the outbreak of the War, and surely that presupposes that the Admiralty were sufficiently alert to anticipate what might happen, and make provision accordingly. In regard to the transport of troops, for instance, and of food for the soldiers, the Government does not depend upon the law of supply and demand, so far as the ships are concerned. They commandeer the necessary vessels, and very rightly and properly so, in order to transport troops or to convey food to the soldiers. We say that if the Government can set aside the law of supply and demand, and commandeer vessels at certain prices, then, equally, it is their duty, so far as the workpeople are concerned, to see that food comes to them without any of the exorbitant charges of the character imposed. The Leader of the Opposition said that at a time like this we ought not to be bound by any maxim about the law of supply and demand. I accept his view as being on an entirely sound principle, and I think the right hon. Gentleman commands more sympathy for that view on our Benches than on those of his more immediate neighbourhood.
    Then we have to remember also, especially to-day, the growth of rings and syndicates, and some of those monopolies before which competition and the law of supply and demand, in many cases, are going by the board. In our view, it is not scarcity which is at the root of this problem—there is no real scarcity. I remember a story of King George I., who, when visiting Hanover, stayed with a courtier at an hotel where they were charged twenty florins for a very ordinary
    1166
    breakfast. His Majesty said to the courtier, "Food must be very scarce here." "No, Sire," replied the courtier, "it is not food that is scarce, but Kings are." The hotel people did not have a King every day, and they sought to make the most of their opportunity. And there are instances in this country where, as we have not a war every day, advantage is being taken of the present opportunity to increase profits. I suggest that from our point of view the investigations have been and are being carried on by the Government Committee on too abstract and too theoretical grounds. The Prime Minister dismisses the rise of wheat by telling us that it is due to a diminished supply and increased demand. He dimisses the increase of freightage by telling us there was a real shortage of shipping, which enabled the shipowners to charge higher prices. I think that with a Committee of this character, which had to go into the matter, the investigations ought to have been closer, they ought to have been concerned with more practical issues, and the consumers ought to have been represented upon any such investigations, especially from the standpoint that they are bearing losses arising from the increased prices.
    There are one or two points that I think this Committee might have tackled, and I believe successfully. There is the question of the price of coal to the poor people in London. They are paying 2s. a cwt. for coal—[HON. MEMBERS: "More!"]—that is 40s. a ton, and in some cases more than that. I am taking a fairly moderate figure. A good part of the coal which is coming into London is still supplied under contract at pre-war rates. That means that at the pit-head, at this moment, hard cobbles are bought at 10s. at a ton; it comes by rail to London at 6s. 7d. a ton; it is placed in the London depots, and the charges amount to 16s. 7d. a ton. The very cheapest at which the London consumer can buy that coal, even by the ton—and the poor man's wife cannot do that—is 32s. a ton. Obviously there is room for investigation on the part of the Government to find out how exactly this arises. I wish to add this further point, a most important one, and that is that the price of poor qualities of coal supplied to poor people have risen out of all proportion to the prices of the good qualities of coal supplied to the richer classes. As an illustration, Wallsend coal last winter—it is a coal of good quality—sold in London at 30s. a ton. At this moment it is being

    1167
    sold at 34s. a ton, an increase of 4s. Stove coal, which is of poor quality, sold last winter at 22s. a ton and this winter it is 32s. a ton—an increase of 10s. a ton for that coal compared with an increase of 4s. a ton for the coal supplied to the rich. There is no argument here about our not being able to control our market. There is no argument here that coal comes from America or from the Argentine. The commodity is right inside our own shores, and I believe that it can be controlled, and that there is not going to be any real improvement in the present state of things until the principle of public control is exercised, as it can be exercised, right from the pithead until the time the coal reaches the house of the consumer.
    5.0 P.M.
    Take the question of freightage. Here, again, the abstract proposition is that in consequence of the shortage of ships the shipowners charge more, but the Government might have gone more closely into the matter. Compare the position of the railway companies with the position of the shipowners. The railways are to a large extent to-day under public control. Even before the outbreak of the War railway freightage was, and is now, to a large extent, controlled by the House of Commons, and the result is that since the War began the ton of coal conveyed by rail from Newcastle to London comes at a cost of freightage substantially the same now as it was when the War began. But if you take a ton of sea-borne coal from Newcastle to London, the freight when the War broke out was from 3s. to 3s. 6d. a ton, and then it rose until it was at one time 13s. 6d. a ton, and it is only 1s. below that at the present moment. In one case the Government exercised the principle of public control in order to keep down rates, and in the other they leave the freightage absolutely unfettered in private hands, and the prices have gone up enormously. It is for that principle of public control that the Labour party and the labour movement is fighting, thinking it to be a sound and wise principle. I come back once more to the question of the reasons for these prices that have been given to us. In one case we have been told that the operations of the Navy have swept all the German merchant ships from the seas. What we say in regard to that is this, that the dangerous work of the Navy, involving the lives of British sailors, ought not to be used by British shipowners to
    1168
    enable them to increase the freightage upon their own people, upon the men and women of their own country. So that in this way we believe, also, that the matter ought to be extended. I think to a large extent the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition agrees with us on this point, because in his speech he said this:—
    "British-owned ships are under British control, and we have just as much right—I do not know whether this is good Tory doctrine or not—to seize this part of the national organisation as I believe we have, if the necessity arises, to seize every able-bodied man in the country."
    The right hon. Gentleman says he does not know whether that is good Tory doctrine. I am afraid that the party truce precludes me from offering any observations on that point. There is, however, one thing I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, and it is this, I think the second part of the doctrine is sounder than the first, and I think he will find as to the seizing of every able-bodied man that his party will be ready to adopt that rather than to adopt the principle of seizing ships.
    Mr. BONAR LAWwas understood to indicate dissent.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am very glad of that, but the right hon. Gentleman did say that the evil would have to be much greater than it was before there was a call for intervention on those lines. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman how much greater and how much longer are we to wait. I desire to say one or two words in reply to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, with regard to the farmers. There are two points I wish to emphasise. It is true, perfectly true, and it will be admitted readily on these Benches that the problem of wheat is far more difficult than the problem of coal. We shall admit that readily, because the supply of wheat comes from the ends of the earth, and supply and prices are much more difficult to regulate than in a case where the commodity is inside our own shores. Nevertheless it is true that the farmer, as the result of the rise in the price of wheat all over the world, and as a result of the speculation even in America, the British farmer is getting prices for his wheat to-day that he has not got for half a century. It is true that there has been a rise in the price of wheat from 30s. or 31s., at which it stood this time last year, to practically double that at the present time. Of that there can be no doubt at all, and surely at a

    1169
    time like the present there is going to be no question of the farmer in spring planting every available acre with wheat and so making this country, so far as it can be made, independent of foreign and speculative supplies. Will the farmer have to be bribed to do so? Surely, in view of what is happening now, there ought to be the clearest understanding, and I believe there is, that a large part of the present trouble is due to a bad land system, and that if there were a better system of land ownership, with more regard to the food of the people and sometimes loss for the pleasures of game preserves for the rich, then there would be far less of a problem than there is at the present time with regard to wheat.
    In view of those profits and of the fact that there is this very large increase going into the pockets of many of the farmers, there is, in my opinion, no case made out for the introduction of this principle of child labour. At any rate, let the farmers tell us first, if they say they cannot get adult labour, what they are prepared to pay for adult male labour, and whether they are at the present time co-operating with the Labour Exchanges. The problem is going to be a serious one, and if the hon. Gentleman who spoke last does represent the farming interest, or is connected with that interest, then I do wish to warn him that the labourers themselves will resist, and resist strongly, any attempt to introduce child labour and to impose that on the community. There is just one point in his speech that I accept very readily indeed, and that is, that if some other questions may involve delay, at least we need not delay about improving wages all round. Here again there is an opportunity for the Government. I do not believe that any sane person wants strikes, or revolts, at the present time. I believe that the condition and wages of the working people can be considerably improved without strikes, or any dislocation, and I believe that that rise is justified by the rise in the cost of living, because if anything in the nature of an industrial truce is entered into it involves a truce all round. It does not mean that the sacrifices are going to be on one side and the profits on the other. It means that there must be fair play and a fair deal. It will be increasingly difficult to maintain anything in the nature of an industrial truce if you convey to large masses of workpeople the idea that interests are doing well out of the present
    1170
    state of things, whilst the poor are much poorer in many respects than before. Those are the main points I wish to emphasise.
    I suggest that the Government is as responsible for ordering the soldiers of industry as the soldiers of war. Everybody wants the soldier of war to be well fed and well clad; they deserve all we can give them for what they are going through at the present time. We say that the soldiers of industry are also important from the standpoint of the nation. The men on the railways and in the mines, the men and women in the factories, and at the dock gates, and so on, are also important and ought not to be left unprotected against a very dangerous form of invasion, namely, the invasion of poverty and of hunger and of distress. That is the labour view, and when hon. Members speak, as they do speak, about sacrifices on the part of the working classes, I suggest that the working classes have made, and are making, and will have to make, very great sacrifices indeed. A war like the present involves sacrifices upon all classes, and many of the well-to-do people are sacrificing that which is to many of them as dear as life itself in the lives of their strong sons, and the workpeople are also doing that, and, in addition, they have sometimes to dread hunger and distress, which makes their lives more terrible still. When this War is over I have faith that there is a great destiny and a great future before the British people. I believe, personally, that by and by the workpeople of all countries will learn some better method of settling their quarrels than that at present employed. I believe that nations in the future will compete against each other, not as to the best way in which they can kill, but as to the best way in which they can make human life the holy and sacred thing human life should be. I believe that in that struggle the British people, the British nation, will play a great part, but if it is to play a great part in that future struggle we must safeguard, by every means in our power now, the life, the health, and the strength of our children and of the generations that are to come, and we must see that they are not debased by hunger. It is from that standpoint I beg to support the Amendment.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The House has been favoured this afternoon in hearing two maiden speeches, and a speech from

    1171
    one of our newest Members, and I think we may well say that the additions which have been made to our numbers in the discussion of social questions have added greatly to the wealth of thought and newness of vision on which this House will have to depend in future days in solving most difficult problems. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who has in eloquent and serious tones spoken of the condition of the poor and the difficulties by which they are surrounded, has to some extent covered ground which is common to us, not only in time of war, but in time of peace. The problem of poverty is not new at the present moment; it is only more intense. The hon. Gentleman, I know, has for many years devoted himself to finding a solution for those difficulties, and he has come to one conclusion, and that is that private effort and private organisation and competition, and the immense driving power of self-interest, are not sufficient for us either in times of war or in times of peace. Therefore it is nothing new to hear him say this afternoon that all our difficulties could be swept away if only the State will here and now step in and do that which has been undertaken in the past by private individuals. His complaint with regard to the investigation undertaken by the Prime Minister and his colleagues has not been made with the full knowledge of what has been going on in Government circles. Let us assure him we did not start out with the idea of proving any political economy doctrine. We were faced with grave difficulties which concerned mainly the poorest of our people, and we are not prejudiced in favour of either one doctrine or another if we could find some practical way out of all the troubles by which they are surrounded.
    The hon. Gentleman has said that we have already discarded some of the laws—as we call them—of political economy. For instance, in finance we did not stick strictly to the old practice of Governments in the past which had nothing whatever to do with the financial operations of the City, and we did not leave severely on one side the banks to work out their own
    1172
    problems in their own way. No. And why not? Not because we wished to safeguard the dividends of the bank shareholders, and not because we were concerned in the solvency of twenty or thirty important financial individuals. We did it in order that the trade into and out of this country should be kept flowing freely to and fro. If we had not departed from the old practice of Governments, and had not set on one side some of the doctrines which many of us have held dearly in the past, it is quite certain that in that great time of stress not only would the trade probably have been stopped inwards and outwards, but we should not have received the necessary supplies on which we are now living, and those very high prices against which we now complain would have been, I venture to say, not twenty or thirty, or fifty, but even a hundred per cent. higher than they are now, but for the financial measures which were taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those assisting him. There could be no more certain proof of the fact that we were not prejudiced than in the action which we took. This discussion, if it is to turn off on to mere political economy problems, and if it is to be concerned merely with the discussion as to the relative values in industrial organisation, of individualism, or socialism, will have been of no value. We have all indulged in those discussions in the past, and I have no doubt that most people have made up their minds on them long before this.
    On the general question, I would only say that a war of such magnitude as the present brings every man, no matter what his views may be, into close contact with first principles. Those first principles have been tested again and again, privately and publicly, and it may be that when the War is over we may have to modify many of our methods. I say quite frankly that I do not feel so perfectly prejudiced in favour of the practices of the past that I would not depart in case of need in the future from many of the doctrines and methods to which we have been attached. But I should want to know in every case whether it was going to make

    1173
    things better or to make them worse; and that is the only test by which I hope the House and the country will judge what was said by the Prime Minister last week as to the view of the Government. I do not want to cover the whole ground of our discussion; that would take far too long; but I would like, in the first place, to say a word or two about the figures given by the Prime Minister last week. He dealt, as the House knows, in a manner characteristic of himself, with percentages and costs which were undoubtedly of the greatest possible value to us. But all figures based on percentages are coloured by the picture which is drawn by individual consumers in individual places. The percentages quoted by my right hon. Friend were correct. The greatest possible trouble has been taken to collate information over a very large area and to bring in every sort of district—town and country, village and large town, metropolis and province—in order that we might be able to ascertain as far as we could what was the general tendency.
    Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM: Does that apply to coal prices?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Certainly. My right hon. Friend pointed out the distinction between the coal markets in London and those in the provinces. He did not refer to the prices at the pithead, about which the hon. Baronet is so well-informed; but he did make mention of the provincial and the metropolitan coal prices. In such a general survey, undoubtedly the average amounts in many cases differ from the experience of individual and separate towns. It is easy in extreme cases greatly to exaggerate the rise which has taken place in many of the main articles of living—if, for instance, you go to the remoter districts and take flour as your test, or if you go into some parts of London and take coal as your test. But if you take the country as a whole, I think I shall not be exaggerating when I say that certainly half of the main commodities on which our households depend have not become materially dearer. Take, for instance, bacon. Bacon supplies a very large part of the dietary of men all over
    1174
    the country, rich and poor alike. The truth is that in a very large number of our provincial towns bacon is just about the same price now as it was in July last. One of my hon. Friends was good enough to obtain over the counter the actual prices charged by grocers in his own town—a provincial town on the North-East Coast. What do I find on looking through that list? Bacon is no dearer than it was; lard is exactly the same price. Lard, 7d.; bacon, 9d. by the whole side, 10d. for slices. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
    Mr. JOWETT: Will you give the name of the town?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: And the shop—that is more important.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The town is Stockton.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I am prepared to verify every statement upon that paper. I had the whole thing from the server, or the man who was waiting in the shop, last Monday.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: What has just happened shows the difficulty of obtaining a general survey as to what are the prices charged. Here are prices actually charged over the counter in my hon. Friend's constituency. They are obtained by himself, and they are challenged below the Gangway. But perhaps I might go on with the list of articles which have not increased in price. It includes coffee, cocoa, soap, salmon in tins, marrow fat peas, tinned milk, and so on. The main increases of price have occurred in other commodities. I am sure that my hon. Friends will believe me when I say that I am not trying to belittle the rise in prices. I am only trying to find out where the rise has been most marked, because even Gentlemen of firm opinions on general principles, like the hon. Member who has just spoken, will find it impossible to deal with this problem unless they ascertain what are the real facts. Far and away the most serious rise is in regard to flour. Flour has gone up in this establishment—and I take this establishment because I want to take an individual establishment where prices are not supposed to have

    1175
    been raised unduly—from 1s. 9d. a stone to 2s. 6d. That is in a part of the world where people are in the habit of baking their own bread.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: That is the very best flour.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend knows what he is talking about. Cheaper flour has gone up from 1s. 7d. to 2s. 4d. in February, and since then it has dropped to 2s. 1d.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: No. I do not wish to mislead the House. I put 2s. 1d. there because I was told that on Tuesday morning flour was going to drop, but I have a telegram to-day saying that flour is 2s. 4d. a stone. It has risen from 1s. 7d. to 2s. 4d.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The expert knowledge of my hon. Friend is most valuable. In any case there has been a rise from 1s. 7d. to at least 2s. 4d.—that is a rise of about 9d. Sugar (granulated) has gone up from 2d. to 3½d.; lump sugar has risen from 3d. to 4d. The cheapest qualities of tea, curiously enough, in this establishment—I give it only as one individual instance—have gone up by only 2d., in spite of the increased duty. Danish butter has gone up a penny, from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 5d.; best rice has risen from 3d. to 4d.; and ordinary rice from 2d. to 2½d. It is quite clear that the main rises in these articles of food are to be found centred round flour and similar products. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sugar!"] Sugar is on an entirely different basis; I will deal with that later. The rise in flour is far and away the most marked, and that is the main reason why my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who have spoken have taken so much trouble to deal with the rise in the price of wheat. It has been said over and over again in this Debate—I do not know whether it is even worth repeating, but it certainly must affect the views which hon. Members form—that the price of wheat is not made in this country; it is a world price. It has been suggested that the importers here, the corn merchants here, the millers here, and the fanners here, have been withholding their stocks from the
    1176
    market. There is absolutely no evidence of that. The Board of Agriculture makes a regular census of all our stocks week by week, but there has not been found in any part of the country any unnatural withholding of food supplies from the market. Of course, our stocks in this country are larger to some slight extent at the present moment than they are in times of peace. Indeed, I should shudder for our safety if they were not. One of the most serious problems we have to face is the continued supply of food, even although the traffic of our merchant vessels may be interrupted from time to time. The stocks which are held in this country are none too sufficient for the operations of milling.
    There is no doubt that millers were for some little time reluctant to buy new wheat or to make fresh purchases, and for a very good reason. They frankly said, "We do not know exactly where we stand. When we have made our purchases of this new wheat, is it all going to be taken over at an arbitrary price. If so, at what price?" It may be suggested that these millers were not patriotically going on with their business; but, as one of them said to me, he was not in business for the good of his health. [An HON. MEMBER: "For the good of the country."] He was there to make a living. He was just as much in business, I may inform my hon. Friend, for the good of the country as anyone else. He is not likely to go on purchasing unless he knows that he is going to be able to sell or has some prospects of selling with a margin that will cover expenses and leave something to live on. If he is left in a state of uncertainty and does not know whether, having made a purchase at 50s. say, he will be bound to hand over his stocks at 45s., it stands to reason that the activity of his operations must be checked. The millers said perfectly frankly when they saw us—and we have been in conference with them more than once—"So long as we do not know whether our stocks are going to be taken over or not, we must go along slowly; we must buy from hand to mouth. We cannot make heavy forward purchases." The first necessity is to have the supplies coming in. Anything that tends to prevent

    1177
    operators from purchasing will naturally interfere with our supplies and not put matters in a better position. It is important that these men should know that their operations can be conducted safely, and that if they do not make undue profits or withhold their stocks from the market when they have bought them, they will be allowed as ordinary traders to proceed with their business. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may not think that that is good doctrine, but it is very practical. Unless you are prepared to give these men, who are at the present moment in command of this great industrial organism, some assurance of security, it will be impossible for us to keep up supplies even to their present level. The first practical consideration is to know that their confidence can be maintained.
    It has also been said that the figures of import values have been higher during the last few months, and indeed during the last year, than they were in the preceding year. That, of course, is partly due to the rise in prices. It is also certain that quantities are higher than they were in the preceding year. That, I think, is due to the fact that, in spite of the high values, every miller knows well that to have his mill interrupted, to have the flow of his supplies checked, will interfere with his operations, leave his machinery standing, put his men out of work, and make his contracts difficult to fulfil. Therefore you have in their minds these two contending thoughts: first of all, they want to keep their mills going regularly; secondly, they want to be sure that their operations are not going by artificial reasons to land them in a loss. The risk of the market is quite enough to prevent their going too fast. The supply of wheat during the last few months has come mainly from only a small number of markets. The closing of the Australian supplies, the lack of supplies from the Black Sea, the fact that the European consumers are buying very heavily, have all had their effect, and they have been cumulative in their effect. It was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that we might, on the outbreak of the War, knowing, as he said,
    1178
    the Government must surely know, that the Dardanelles would be closed, proceed to buy on Government account large quantities of Russian grain—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: He did not say that.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If he did not say that, I will take his next point; but perhaps it was that we should get Russian grain out of the Dardanelles before the vessels were closed in?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: He did not say Russian grain.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Well, then, if the right hon. Gentleman meant that we should buy in the world generally large quantities of grain knowing that the Russian supply was going to be shut off, I will point out the dangers which undoubtedly flow from great Government operations of that kind. If the suggestion which was made by the Leader of the Opposition was that we should buy in the world's markets, no matter where, for Government account, a sufficient amount of grain to make sure of our supply—I think he did suggest holding in order that we might prevent prices going too high—that in itself would be liable to increase the very dangers which millers and corn importers might find hanging over their heads, and would in itself tend to their keeping down operations to a minimum rather than raising them to a maximum. The mere fact that 2,000,000 quarters were received for Government account would have made greater the dangers of the market. The Government did consider the proposal to which the right hon. Gentleman referred with the greatest possible care, and I may add we were greatly attracted towards it; but we came finally to the conclusion that under the conditions as we then found them, and now find them, it would be detrimental to our interests, and not helpful to our supplies. The way in which purchases have been made abroad has had a tendency, as I said, to cause a rise in prices. Why? To a considerable extent because the purchasers were the Governments. I know

    1179
    there are a large number of Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway who would like to see all these purchases made by Governments under the Government control and Government supervision. I can only say that my experience as a business man has been that Governments cannot buy half so well as private individuals. That is exactly what has happened in the United States. I venture to say that the purchases made in the United States for the account of some foreign Governments in Europe have been more expensive in every way than the purchases by private importers into this country. They have been lavish in their purchases. They have competed there, and forced prices up against us, and I think it is really a matter for congratulation rather than for the reverse that, in spite of this heavy foreign competition, our supplies at the present moment have been kept so large. The truth is, if you take the prices in Liverpool and in New York in diagrammatic form, you will find that the curves always harmonise, and that the prices in New York are leading Liverpool rather than the prices in this country leading prices in New York. That I put down very largely to the fact that not only is our market safer, but there is in that market a competition on the part of our private importers and on the part of those Governments from which we, to some extent in this country, are having to suffer.
    The subject of wheat has been discussed at length, and, if I may say so, by none with a greater degree of illumination than by the hon. Member for Oxford University. I would, however, make one remark on the suggestion made by him, and it is this: That with the markets at their present high level, with the demand not likely to come down in this country, the British farmer has, I think, an inducement to grow wheat which need not be added to by any artificial means. There never was a time within this generation when more money could be made out of wheat than during the present season. Farmers who have not the courage to go in and plant wheat for itself with the local markets at 53s. to 56s. per quarter, will not be
    1180
    likely to go in even if you offered a bonus of 5s. per quarter. I have had a good deal of experience during the last few years and I am fairly convinced that with prices at their present high level those farmers who desire to grow wheat will not allow prejudice to stand in their way. The only one serious obstacle which many farmers have had to overcome in the bearing of their land for the growing of wheat and the harvesting of their crop is the shortage of labour. That encourages me to say that I was glad to hear the hon. Member for the Oxford University suggest an all-round rise in wages to agricultural labourers. It may be that 2s. is not enough, and that agriculture will have to get its labour in the ordinary way—by paying for it. Nothing will induce labour to flow into agricultural markets now except better conditions, better housing, and better pay. That is one reason why at other times when we were more controversial than we are to-day we laid great stress upon these three improvements in the condition of the agricultural labour. May I say a word or two about coal? In the hearing of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) I hesitate to say anything about the price of coal at the pit-mouth. My hon. Friend knows so much more about it than most of the Members of this House that I must be careful, but I should like to point out that so far as London is concerned—and it is here, and not in any other town, so far as we can ascertain, that there has been the large proportion of rise in the price of household coal—in the North Country household coal is now being sold by private merchants and the co-operative societies at very little above the price which they were obtaining last summer. Some towns in the Midlands may also be receiving their coal supply at about the same level.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me one of the towns?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me—I was going to say that in other towns in the Midlands, for purely local reasons, and for purely railway reasons, the price of household coal has

    1181
    gone up considerably. There is no doubt that the reason why household coal has gone up so largely in price in London is due—I will not say entirely, but in large part—to the difficulties of bringing it here by rail. Coal that comes here by sea is used mainly for the gas and electricity works for great factories and companies like the Underground Railway, which raise a large amount of electric power. We, at once, realising that the rail-borne coal dominated the household market felt bound to go into the way in which the railways were dealing with rail-borne coal. We found that their facilities had been very largely diminished. I need not tell the House how many trucks are naturally held up for Governmental purposes. It is of the very first importance that the Navy should have its coal whenever and wherever it wants it. It is also true that a very large amount of rolling stock must be kept vacant waiting for the transport of troops in one direction or another, and that has certainly tended to railway congestion. Owing, however, to the efforts which have been made by the Railway Executive Committee during the last two or three weeks, the import of coal into London has been better and more like the corresponding week of last year. That, I believe, will have an immediate effect upon the prices of household coal in London. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that a good deal of coal is sold in London by the hundredweight and at very high prices. I agree that that is true. Indeed, one of the difficulties that we always have in dealing with coal prices in London is that they vary so much in the various districts and according to the quantities which are purchased. I need hardly say that we cannot allow the problem to remain where it is. We are probing deeper to get at the causes, and I can say that we have been trying to bring our influence to bear upon quarters where it may tend to reduce the present high level. If necessary we shall not hesitate to act.
    The pooling of railway trucks as a way out of difficulties was suggested by one hon. Member. The companies have already taken steps in that direction. They have relieved the congestion of the coal
    1182
    traffic and the port traffic by the transfer of trucks from one railway which had rather too many trucks at liberty to another which had rather too few for use. To that extent there has been pooling; but pooling in the sense of utterly ignoring the railways from which the railway trucks come would only lead to confusion. The railway companies have had to alter their method of dealing with their traffic to the extent I have mentioned, but they are now endeavouring to, and succeeding in assisting other companies which are working at high pressure, by sending certain traffic over lines not working at so high a pressure. Moreover, again and again traffic has been diverted on to another line or another railway system, so that there might be not the least delay. The Prime Minister last week made a reference to a fact that payment for demurrage of wagons had been experimentally suspended. What he meant by that was, no doubt, demurrage as between railway companies. It would not do to suspend the payment of demurrage by ordinary traders, otherwise we should rapidly find wagons would be used for warehouse purposes, and the shortage which we have at the present time would be accentuated. To that extent we have adopted the principle of pooling.
    I do not know that there is any need for me to say anything about meat at the present time, except that whatever charge may be made against the importers with regard to the price of meat, the great rise in the price of meat cannot be fairly laid to their door. The percentages as to the increases quoted by the Prime Minister last Thursday were correct. There again though, they are, like all percentages, subject to great variation according as the price is between one shop and another, or one district and another, or as between one cut and another or the various qualities of cuts. The rise in the price of frozen, refrigerated, or chilled meat, has been to some extent explained by the necessity under which we were as to the need for the vessels employed in the trade, and used generally for the carriage of meat, now having to be taken for the purpose of conveying troops, or for other Admiralty purposes. I believe

    1183
    at one time we had no less than thirty-three frozen space vessels so engaged. They had all to come home from Australia at the same time. That created one of those dislocations that come about by Government interference in industrial affairs which of necessity lead to shortage of supplies and to some extent higher prices. Of these thirty-three vessels, sixteen are now in London ready to go back to Australia and will soon be sailing. Five of the vessels have been taken up by the Commonwealth Government and have been released for ordinary trade. We have added to our number by taking over five German vessels which were in Australasia, and have requisitioned them to bring cattle from Australia.
    In these ways we hope to add to the amount of tonnage available, and certainly to prevent any great increase in the carriage and cost of frozen meat in this country. Before the War the rate paid for the carriage of meat from Australia to London was five-eighths of a penny per 1b. for mutton, nine-sixteenths of a penny per 1b. for beef. At the present this has been raised by the addition of a 25 per cent. surtax. We have examined the charges which were made by the great lines for this purpose, and we have come to the conclusion that, taking into account the entire dislocation of their traffic, the increased cost to which they are put, and the delays which, unfortunately, have occurred, and were bound to occur, these charges were not excessive. We found it not so easy to make arrangements for the River Plate trade, but we settled down to a uniform charge of three-fourths of a penny per lb., which is a rise from three-eighths to three-fourths of a penny per lb. I understand that one line at least is still going on carrying meat at exactly the same rate which it charged last summer. The great increase in the price of meat is due to causes described by the Prime Minister, and cannot be put down to the greatly increased cost of carriage. The hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Labour party stated that the cost of carriage being what it was, and the profits of those en-
    1184
    gaged in it being as high as he thought they were, the time had arrived when we should embark on State control of ships.
    I should not hesitate for a moment to embark on the State control of ships if I thought it would lead to our national advantage. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that circumstances might arise when we might have to resort to the most drastic courses. I also agree with him that to embark on these new methods at the present time would only make things ten times worse. I will tell the House why. No analogy can be drawn between the railway companies and ships. In the first place, the railways are entirely within our Islands. They are not subject to foreign competition. They are at the present moment controlled by a very small body of men, and one of the successes of the War—if one can speak of success in such a connection—has been the skill with which the general managers sitting in one room, round one table, have co-ordinated their services. That has been due to the fact, not that the Government undertook the management of the railways, but that it brought together those who controlled the railways and allowed them to go on managing them. The next characteristic of Government control over the railways has been that, although we have control over the railways, we are not managing them. We are not interfering with their rates; we are not coming between them and merchants of various kinds, wholesale or retail. We are not stepping in to decide how they shall send down their trucks to one colliery or another, or north, south, east or west. We are leaving that entirely to the management, which knows far more about these things than any of us in this House. The contrast between the control of our railways and the control of our ships may be found mainly in this: Whereas the railways are not subject to foreign competition, the ships are; whereas the railways are concerned purely with traffic within this country, shipping is international. The supplies of this country come in both foreign and British ships, and British ships

    1185
    are engaged in both British and foreign trade. Any attempt to control, in the sense of managing, of forcibly diverting into one trade or another, the mercantile marine of this country must of necessity mean that the Government would have to undertake to decide, and possibly show favour, whether you are to put all your ships, or the majority of your ships, into the South Atlantic or the North Atlantic, or whether you are to send them through the Canal. At the present moment, what attracts vessels through the Canal to the South or the North, is the height of freights. Now it is supposed that these freights are entirely the wicked machination of the shipowners.
    I am stating a truism when I say the rates that merchants are paying at the present time are merely the measure of the needs of those merchants. If we had Government control of the whole mercantile marine of the world, and arbitrarily decided that it was all to go to South America, or a large proportion, and that there was to be less for the East, we should be favouring the merchants of South America and penalising those of the East. The only way to decide which needs the tonnage most is to find out who will pay the highest freight for the tonnage. Once you depart from that principle you may find you may have far too many ships in some parts, and far too few in others. That means a wastage of tonnage. It will mean that the supplies you ought to draw from some parts will not be coming here, and the surplusage of your ships will be wasted. The general traffic of the world will be reduced by every mistake you make by sending ships in the wrong direction, and no Government and no Committee is capable of deciding the matter. And then, when you have chosen your route, you have to decide what goods you are going to carry. Are you going to carry wheat to the exclusion of hides, iron ore to the exclusion of copper, cotton to the exclusion of wool, or are you going to carry all of them? The real trouble is that there is a shortage of tonnage, and you cannot have all; you have to leave out some.
    1186
    The only way to decide which are most needed on this side is to be found in the amount the merchants will pay to bring them over to this side. The only way to decide which shall be first, second, or third, is to know which will pay the highest or next highest, to get their goods carried. Again, assuming you divert the whole of your tonnage into the carriage of food, which merchants are you going to take? I have the pleasure of knowing three or four of the merchants who are engaged in the River Plate trade. They are exceptionally able, business men—not all Englishmen. Are you going to say that you will allow all the tonnage to go to the Englishmen and cut out foreign merchants? If you do it means that a very large amount of tonnage controlled by foreign merchants will not come here. Are you going to say you will only distribute your tonnage pro rata among merchants? You may find yourselves in the position of giving favours to merchants with whom you may be acquainted, or who may state their case in most glowing colours, and leave out those supplies which would be just as precious to this country. Then you must select individual cargoes.
    There is only one way by which, by commandeering the whole of the mercantile marine, you can hold the balance fairly as between all routes and all merchants and all consumers, and that is that you must become not only shipowners but merchants. Indeed, you must become not only an individual merchant: you must become a super-merchant, the only merchant—the only merchant in wheat, the only merchant in hides, the only merchant in wool, the only merchant in oil. I know the hon. Gentleman who spoke last thinks that is next door to the millenium. We may argue about that on some other occasion; but I implore him not to try to bring about the millenium in the middle of a great war. I prefer tackling these questions on practical lines. One of the real difficulties under which we are at the present time is not that there are not enough ships to go round, but that we cannot turn the ships round fast enough. Ports have been choked, and some are still

    1187
    rather badly choked. I have got assistance from the port authorities very much the same way as the Government have obtained it from the railway companies. Committees from the port authorities are now working out some of the practical problems surrounding the question. Let me mention four or five of the difficulties they have to solve. First of all, they have to decide how they can prevent the revenue from dues being over-considered, rather than taking into account the quick handling of cargoes. That is a matter that can only be solved by those who know the traffic, and how they can induce traders to take stuff away from their quays and warehouses quickly.
    The hon. Member for the Toxteth Division (Mr. Houston) referred last week to the question of sugar. It is true that a great deal of Government sugar did come together at one time. The hon. Member was quite correct in saying that no less than fourteen berths were occupied in Liverpool by sugar cargoes. We have endeavoured to reduce that, and now the total number is five, although it is true that one or two others are what is called foul berths. Those are problems which ease the traffic, which accelerate the speed with which commodities can be turned round and brought into the country. Then they are considering how our Customs regulations can be made easier. They are considering how the docks and warehouses for war stores, and for the redistribution of war stores, can best be arranged. They are looking into the question of the better co-operation between railways, ports, and shipping. These may not be heroic measures, but they lie at the root of the problem. If you can turn vessels round more quickly it will increase the amount of tonnage handled, and sooner will come the day when freights will be lower, and only by those means. We have succeeded already in reducing the congestion. Whereas in January there were about forty-six vessels waiting for berths in Liverpool, there are to-day only twenty-seven. In London the number has been reduced from forty-three to twenty-two, and although many wool
    1188
    ships will be arriving soon, we do not think we shall be unprepared for handling them.
    I make only one comment on the solution of these problems, and that is that in all these matters we have not looked into them as doctrinaires. We have dealt with them, if I may use the well-known term, as business men. I know the Leader of the Opposition might withhold that term from some of my colleagues. I hope he will pay me the compliment of not withholding it from me. I am indebted for whatever training I had before coming to the House of Commons to a purely business experience, and I do not underestimate in any degree the advantage one can obtain from receiving the advice and assistance which have been freely given, and disinterestedly given, by large numbers of business men. Ever since the beginning of the War the Board of Trade, at all events, have been using the advice, knowledge and wisdom of business men on almost every topic we have touched—cotton, wool, steel, spelter, other metals, chemicals. We have in every case, when we have come to technical problems, called in men of business to give guidance. We have abided by their decision in so far as a Government can, although it is necessary, sometimes to hold the balance evenly between one set of business men and another.
    6.0 P.M.
    On the much debated topic of sugar, my right hon. Friend and his Commission have had the advantage of the best expert advisers in this Island, who have sat day by day with him, and I can say on his behalf that without their advice it would have been impossible for him to deal with that problem. In the matter of retail groceries, we have been in daily consultation with large retail grocers. As regards the import of wheat, millers have been in constant consultation with us. Throughout the whole of this time we have been approaching these problems purely with the idea of easing the burden on the consumer. Coming to coal, we did not attempt to deal with the problem of pit-props without the assistance of a committee. We put pit-props into the hands of the Mining Association and the pit-prop importers, and then we gave them the advantage of

    1189
    one of the best persons in our Department to act as chairman to maintain the balance evenly. To make up for the shortage of pit-props we have obtained them from Canada, Newfoundland, Spain and Portugal. We have filled up to a large extent the lacunas created by the closing of the Baltic. We could not have done that without the assistance of business men and a special committee. The interned ships are under the management of ship managers and the railways have an executive committee composed of general managers. Even on dyes we have taken good care that the specialist and the specialist alone should be allowed to tender advice, and guide us along the best lines in the solution of the problem. I think that this is enough evidence of the fact that we have not neglected the business wisdom to be found in this country, and which has been given most freely in every quarter.
    There is only one other subject to which I will refer. High prices would be of less importance if the remuneration of those who have fixed incomes were raised accordingly. It does not much matter to a man who earns £1 a week now, when he only earned 18s. before, if the cost of living went up 2s. If it goes up to a higher level than the measure of the increased wage, that man is suffering a hardship. It may be difficult to put down the cost of these commodities, and in some directions I say that to have low prices would be a national danger. I refer particularly in this connection to wheat. That can, however, be compensated for by higher remuneration. It has been asked, have the Government done their best? I think they have. In the dockyard and the Government works we have raised wages. The recent rise in wages on the English railways will be borne in part by the Exchequer. Wages have been raised in the armament companies; it may be they have not been raised enough, but they have gone upwards. There is one case where wages have not risen with great rapidity, and I say it with regret, and that is in the agricultural districts. Farmers are very good fellows, but they are slow
    1190
    movers, and I am afraid they do not realise that the shortage of labour is likely to hit them harder than other business men. I think if they raise the rate of wages to get a sufficient supply of labour on their farms they will be serving not only their own but the national interest.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Anyone who has listened to this afternoon's Debate will agree that it has been remarkable for three speeches which have been delivered. There is the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero), the speech of the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Anderson)—both being maiden speeches—and the very able speech which has just been delivered by the President of the Board of Trade. For my part, I might be well content to leave the case where the Leader of the Opposition left it, and where my hon. Friend who spoke to-day, and the representatives of the Government, have left it. I think it will be evident to anyone who follows the Debate that there is in no part of the House any disposition, at an exceptional and an extraordinary time like this time, to be bound by any old rules merely because they are old rules. It will be evident that there is a readiness to examine new methods, and to adopt them if those methods prove to be effective. There always will be, when great troubles arise, a temptation in some quarters to have recourse to heroic measures, merely because they are heroic, but it does not follow that they necessarily prove efficient. Such measures are very attractive in the abstract, but the more we study the ways of trade, and the more we study the governing factors of the present problem, the less it appears to me that the heroic measures suggested are likely to effect the object which is common to all parties in this House, and to all people in the country outside.
    The hon. Member for Attercliffe, and other hon. Gentlemen both inside and outside the House, appear to have thought that they could find an analogy for the Government action which they desire in regard to food-stuffs in the action taken by the Government in the realm of finance.

    1191
    It is really because that argument was urged again to-day that I intervened for a moment in this Debate. What could be more natural than the course actually taken by the Government in their intervention in City affairs. The course recommended by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway has been that the Government should commandeer supplies of food-stuffs, and should themselves retail them out at maximum prices. The Government should pursue no such course in dealing with a financial crisis such as this. They intervene not to commandeer existing resources, but to make them liquid, realisable and practicable. They do not seek to supersede any existing business or financial activity. The whole object of their intervention was to restore to existing institutions and houses an activity and a capacity for business which they had momentarily lost, and there is no such analogy to be drawn between the action taken by the Government, and that recommended by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, as they appear to suppose. So far from the Government fixing a maximum price in their dealings with the City, the only prices they have fixed there have been minimum prices. It is not quite certain that although the Government did their best under very difficult circumstances, and obtained, no doubt, the best advice they could before they acted, yet did not make a mistake in that case. There is, however, no guarantee whatever that the Government would not make a much greater mistake if they attempted to fix maximum prices for all commodities. It would be much more satisfactory to all of us who feel the hardship that presses upon many in the country to find some simple remedy which would sweep away the whole problem at once, and make everything smooth and easy.
    We may note, and I think it is well to note, as the right hon. Gentleman did who preceded me, that the remedy which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are proposing is not a war remedy for them, but a revolution in society which they have advocated in times of peace, quite irrespective of war. They invite us to put
    1192
    aside preconceived notions in the midst of this war-like crisis. I hope we are trying to do so, but I invite them to do the same, and look at the facts as they are without regard to their pre-war notions of what an ideal state of society would be, and to ask themselves, as the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend have asked, whether we could indeed hope at this stage of the proceedings to secure a greater command of the commodities we need for the nation through Government action than by the efforts of everyone who has been accustomed through life to deal with business of this kind, and who knows that the higher the price, the greater temptation there is to pursue business with activity, energy, and enterprise. I am quite certain, if hon. Gentlemen will leave the future constitution of society until times of peace we shall be ready to discuss it. If they can look at this problem as a war problem only, as we have to look on all problems at the present time, they will see that to introduce such a revolution as they propose in the midst of this great struggle would not secure but indeed would impede the realisation of the object which they and we wish to attain. I look, therefore, not to heroic measures, but to the more modest measures that the President of the Board of Trade has given us some account of to-day. I hope the Government will continue to press forward along the lines they are now following. I think there was needless delay in some departments, notably in dealing with the interned ships, and I am not certain even now that the Government are doing all that they can in that respect.
    When my right hon. Friend spoke the other day he urged the appointment of a Committee of shipowners, or ship managers, to deal with these ships, and to run them to the best advantage of the country. The President of the Board of Trade interrupted him to say that the Government had already constituted such a Committee, and added that that Committee had full power to act. I do not gather that that is exactly what has happened. I gather that certain ships interned have been released and that those particular ships have been put under the

    1193
    control of two firms of shipowners at Newcastle who are now managing them under general instructions from the Government. I do not find fault with that, and I have no doubt the Government have made a good choice. I have no knowledge of the shipping world, and I have no doubt their agents will do well by the ships entrusted to them; but there is a great deal more shipping interned, and cannot the Government do something with the shipping interned in other places, and is it necessary to sit with folded hands and wait until those ships eventually find their way to this country before taking any steps to see to their utilisation. I press the Government to take expert advice on this subject at once to see if they cannot use those ships—
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have now taken the whole of the interned steamers in this country, and we would have taken the whole of the interned sailing vessels as well, but for the great difficult of securing the necessary number of men to man them, the shortage of seamen being one of the most serious difficulties we are faced with. In the Colonies we have taken five vessels in Australia, and we are proceeding to take others. We have taken some in India as well.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And Egypt.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, we have taken a number in Egypt, but I cannot vouch for the exact figures. I think about one-half of the vessels which were prizes in Egypt have been released by the Prize Court in Egypt, and are either coming home, or are having their cargoes taken to a destination where they can be disposed of.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I had to guide me as to what the Government is doing, only the general statement of the right hon. Gentleman and his answer to the specific question of my right hon. Friend yesterday. That left me under the impression that no such steps had been taken in regard to the ships interned in British ports abroad that apparently have been taken. All I would add is to press the Government to expedite the decisions of
    1194
    those Prize Courts and our own as much as they can, and to put the management of these ships into business hands, because I entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman that the business is better managed by business men trained to it than it can be managed by a Government Department. The right hon. Gentleman made some very interesting observations about wheat. He dealt with the suggestion which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made to the Government in the very early days of the War, and he raised objections to my right hon. Friend's proposal which we, on this side of the House, would be the last to declare devoid of weight. After all, the matter is one where you have to balance advantage and disadvantage against each other, and the question what it is wise to do varies very much with the situation at different times. That which may have been wise at one moment may be quite unwise at another. Such action as my right hon. Friend proposed at the time he proposed it would have been wise, and we should be reaping the benefit of it now. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, whether that be so or not, that such action is not advisable at this moment, and, if taken at this moment, could only aggravate the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman, when speaking of wheat, promised that he would speak about sugar, and I am afraid he forgot that as he went on with his speech. I do not understand the policy of the Government in regard to sugar. If the Government had thought well to purchase wheat when my right hon. Friend proposed it I could understand it if, in their new zeal and pleasure in their new activity, they had extended that to sugar, but why they purchased sugar when they would not purchase wheat, and why they purchased sugar at a high price and refused to purchase wheat when they could have got it at a low price is a thing which has not yet been explained, and which I cannot myself understand.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Might I ask—
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman would ask his questions of the

    1195
    Government they would no doubt answer them, but perhaps he will allow me to pursue my argument. I say "my argument," but it is rather a series of questions which I am addressing to the Government, and I hope that we may have some reply from some other Member of the Government either on this or on another occasion, giving the explanation which the President of the Board of Trade intended to give to-day, but which was omitted from his speech. That appears to me, speaking with such knowledge as I possess at the present time, to be the single instance where action by the Government has avoidably raised the price to our home consumer, and I am not sure what the defence of the Government is. They bought the sugar, I understand, in order to provide cheap supplies and for fear of a shortage. Then, as a measure of war, they forbade the importation of sugar into this country, in order, if possible, to prevent the export of sugar from Austria and Germany. I do not know whether I am right in my understanding of such explanation as we have yet had of their action, but, if I am right, I doubt profoundly whether their policy has had the result, or could have the result, which they desired. If they draw unusual supplies from certain markets they will thereby create markets for the Austrian and German sugar which they do not allow to come in. The Austrian and German sugar will flow in to take the place of the sugar which we have withdrawn from other markets to which it would naturally have gone. I do not make these observations in any very critical spirit. They are rather in the nature of questions than criticisms at this stage, but I think we should like to have from the Government some reasonable statement and explanation of their policy throughout the whole of this question and in all its aspects.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero) spoke, and the President of the Board of Trade also spoke, of the difficulty of the farmers in regard to labour. It is quite true, I think, as the President of the Board of Trade said, that farmers are slow to move, and
    1196
    it ought to be pressed upon them at the present time that this is a difficulty they will have to face. Employment for men in this country, owing to the War, owing to the enormous recruitment, and owing to the demands which War makes for supplies, is extremely good. Labour is being sought in every great industrial community, and, unless they can offer greater advantages to labour than they have been able to do in past years, they cannot expect to draw the amount of labour which they now require to the country districts. I think, though none of us ought to overrate the profits which individuals may make from the high prices of the produce that they have to sell, because, as my hon. Friend so well pointed out, they are also purchasers, and what they purchase is costing them a great deal more, yet prices make it easier for the farmer to raise the inducements which he offers to labour and so to attract fresh labour to agriculture.
    Let me say one other thing. An hon. Friend of mine, a Member of this House, who speaks for an agricultural community, made an observation to me the other day which struck me, though it did not surprise me. He said nothing had impressed him more since the beginning of the War than the improvement in the physique of recruits who had gone from that agricultural county with which he was most familiar and the increased capacity of the men in consequence. I wish we could bring that truth home to the farmer. There will be differences between employers and employed and between Members in this House as to what is adequate or inadequate remuneration for particular trades. It is very difficult to draw any line and to say that over that line they are sufficiently paid and under that line they are underpaid, but this I do say: The very low paid labour is never economical to whatever purpose it be applied, and, though the effect of a rise in wages in poorly paid agricultural districts cannot be immediately apparent in the increased stamina and vigour of the people and therefore immediately apparent in increased capacity for work, I am firmly convinced that higher wages in the long run will

    1197
    pay, because the very low wages that prevail in some places do not enable men to preserve or maintain full physical efficiency. I cannot hope that any words of mine will have any influence with agriculturists—[An HON. MEMBER: "I think they will!"]—but a speech such as that delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University, a known and rightly respected authority among them, will carry weight. I am sure if farmers will consider not only the outgoings but the incomings, they will in present circumstances be encouraged to meet their labourers. For the rest, I only say, in conclusion, as I have already said, that though it would be much easier to advocate heroic measures, I am sure that the Government are right in attempting to work through existing channels to stimulate them to put increased facilities at their disposal, rather than to thrust themselves forward to take the place of the accustomed and ordinary ways of trade.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am sorry that the Prime Minister has had to leave the House, and I take very great exception to the President of the Board of Trade speaking at the time he has spoken. A great number of Members want to speak, and there would have been ample time for him to reply to the discussion. We have now no one to reply except an Under-Secretary. The Prime Minister, in his speech in the House last Thursday, stated, on the authority of the Board of Trade, that:—
    "Coal, as compared with last year, showed an increase of 15 per cent., and compared with the average of three years of 14 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1915, col. 760.]
    He had previously said:—
    "I am afraid that I shall have to trouble the House with some figures, but it is very important that we should have them. We have made most careful inquiries as to the real state of the case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1915, col. 759.]
    In the concluding part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman added:—
    "We shall not close our ears to any proposals that may be made. After all, we are all co-operating with a single view for a single purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 11th February, 1915, col. 776.]
    Instead of the price of coal having risen by 15 per cent. it has risen, at a minimum, by 7 per cent., and in many cases by 100 per cent. The Prime Minister was kind enough to show me the reference on his notes which caused him, on the authority
    1198
    of the Board of Trade, to make this statement to the House, which I will now read:—
    "Perhaps I may remind the House that in the case of coat the increase has been 15 per cent. as compared with February, 1914, and 14 per cent. as compared with the average of the three years. In the case of coal, undoubtedly freights have been an important contributory cause. There has been a very substantial rise in coastwise freight. When I say substantial, I might say enormous. Whereas compared with the pre-War rate—if I may use that expression—of 3s., freights had risen three weeks ago—that is, coal from the Newcastle and Tyne ports to London—to 13s. 6d. and even to 14s."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1915, col. 767.]
    The Prime Minister did not tell the House, and the President of the Board of Trade did not either, that the amount of house coal brought sea-borne to London is a very insignificant quantity. The quantity, I believe, which reaches London from Northumberland and Durham, is only about 3,000 tons per month. There are immense quantities of coal brought to London from these two counties, but it consists chiefly of gas coal and manufacturing coal. But as to house coal, London, as a centre, is supplied by the Midland and Northern counties—Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. Will it be conceived we have a business department in the Board of Trade which comes here and, through the Prime, Minister, states that the average increase in the price of coal only amounts to 15 per cent? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in the speech he has just delivered, told us that these figures were not for London alone, but, that they represented the general prices. What was the authority on which the Board of Trade put forward that statement? On what information did they base it? I am told it is based on statements collected from newspapers showing the price of kitchen coal as advertised this time last year and comparing it with the price as advertised to-day. But advertised prices are wholly fallacious; they have nothing whatever to do in reality with the actual prices being paid.
    I will tell the House what the price of coal has been and what it is to-day. It is desirable first to point out that coal is sold by the collieries on contracts which are invariably for a period of twelve months, and house coal contracts as a rule are made from 30th June—and sometimes in April—for the following twelve months. The summer price of coal paid by the merchant is a shilling a ton less than the price paid in the six winter months. What is

    1199
    the price that merchants have to pay to the collieries? The President of the Board of Trade has given the House a figure of 15 per cent. Contracts were made in Warwickshire last summer for house coal at 11s. per ton. The price to-day at the pit is 22s. per ton, while the rate for wagon hire amounts to from 6s. 3d. to 6s. 9d. per ton. In Staffordshire, contracts were made last summer at 11s. 6d. The price to-day for the same coal at the collieries is 21s., and the rate of wagon hire from 7s. to 7s. 8d. per ton. In Leicestershire coal was sold on contract last year at 9s. 6d. per ton, and the same coal is to-day being sold at 21s. per ton. The wagon rate there amounts to 6s. 7d. per ton. Derbyshire contracts last year for house coal were made at 10s., they are now 18s. 6d. In other cases they were 12s. and now they are 20s. In Nottinghamshire contracts last year were made at 10s. 6d. and the price to-day is 20s. The rate of wagon hire being from 6s. 9d. to 7s. 9d. per ton. In Yorkshire, contracts were made last summer at 13s. 6d., the price to-day is 20s., the rate of wagon hire being from 7s. 8d. to 8s. Did the President of the Board of Trade possess these facts, as it was his duty to do? And, if so, why did he not put them into the mouth of the Prime Minister instead of giving the right hon. Gentleman a general average statement that the price of coal has risen by 15 per cent?
    Where did he get the figures from? The Board of Trade does not know anything about the coal trade, owing to what is, I think, a very improper division of labour between the Home Office and the Board of Trade in respect of the mines. Neither Department has all the information it ought to have. In the Home Office they have all the information relating to the working of the mine. On the question of price the Board of Trade do obtain quinquennial returns from the collieries; but all the other business is conducted by the Home Office, and if the Government had gone to the Chief Inspector of Mines at the Home Office he would have told them a very different tale to that which the Board of Trade puts forward. That is how it comes about that we have been told here by the Prime Minister that the average coal prices have only advanced 15 per cent.; and the President of the Board of Trade a few moments ago stated that these prices were not confined to London, but showed the
    1200
    average increase throughout the country, and did not apply to one place alone. The position in Wales is wholly different. There the steam coal market has not been affected in the same manner. Although I am connected with a number of steam coal collieries in Wales, I have no knowledge of house coal prices. But it is agreed, as the President of the Board of Trade stated, that prices in Northumberland and Durham have not risen. Why is that? It is because the trade of Northumberland and Durham wholly depends on Continental markets—on Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, and Russia. These countries in normal times take, an overwhelming proportion of the output of the collieries in these two counties, but, owing to the War and to the lack of ships, Northumberland and Durham is now in the position of having a very limited market for its coal. In fact, I have been told by a Member of this House who is interested in the coal trade that he has to-day bought coal to be delivered in London from Durham at a rate, in wagons, of 10s. 5d. per ton. The price of coal charged in Durham amounts to 15s.
    This being the state of affairs and coal being a necessity of life, every single argument put forward by the hon. Member for Oxford University in the brilliant speech he made to-day—every argument that he advanced with reference to prices is based on what prevails in the coal trade. I do not say that the Government should endeavour to fix the price of wheat, seeing that two-thirds of our supplies are brought from abroad and that Manitoba wheat is only 3s. 6d. per ton dearer in this country than in the American market. But here we are faced with a position in which, owing to the refusal of the Government to take certain action, the present high prices will not only continue but they will further advance, thereby causing great hardship to the consumers I have, therefore, been forced to the conclusion that it is absolutely essential that the Government should regulate the price of coal on the market. How is it to be done? I proposed to the Prime Minister a remedy for the evil—and such I consider it—which now prevails. In the first place it is absolutely impossible for the Government or anyone-else to fix minimum prices for all coal in any one district. That is impossible because the qualities of coal vary so enormously, and you would have good coal sold for bad coal and bad coal selling at the same price as good coal.

    1201
    My remedy is a simple one, but it is one which I think meets the case. The Government could, by proclamation under the Defence of the Realm Act, provide that no colliery owner should sell coal in any quantity at a price exceeding 1s. or 2s. per ton above that which obtained in the twelve months preceding the War. Why do I say from 1s. to 2s. per ton? The output of coal has considerably decreased, owing to the large numbers of men from the collieries who have so patriotically joined the Colours. I do not think there is any class of men who have responded so generously to the call of their country as have our miners, and, if only for the reason that their wives are left behind and have to pay the increased prices which now prevail in the coal trade, I think the Government ought to take action. I have said that the price should be 1s. or 2s. above the prices of a year ago. Why should a sum of that kind be necessary? The amount of labour at present employed in the collieries has been considerably reduced, and this fact, together with the increased cost of timber and stores, has caused the cost of the coal to rise very considerably. I do not think, with the exception perhaps of the counties of Durham and Northumberland, however, that the increase is more than 1s. per ton. But where it can be shown that the cost of coal to the colliery owner has gone up by a larger amount, the Government could provide that the increased cost might be added to the selling price.
    I would deal with the coal merchants in the same manner as regards the cost of distribution. I am going to make a statement now which I know no one in the House will believe; still if any hon. Member would like to see my papers later on, I shall be happy to show them. At the present time the average price of coal that is being bought at the collieries is less than it was in February, 1914, although the price at the pit has gone up by 70 or 80 per cent. That statement seems so nonsensical and so contradictory in itself that no one will think it is true. But what is the position? At the large collieries with which I am associated, the price of coal to-day is about 2d. to 3d. per ton less than it was in January, 1914. That is due to this reason: if you have a large colliery, raising from 4,000 to 5,000 tons a day, you cannot turn it out day by day, you are bound to sell that coal to the merchant or factor or coal speculator for six or twelve months in advance. The collieries with
    1202
    which I am associated sell from 75 to 80 per cent. of their output forward.
    Seeing that we have decreased tonnage now, owing to the large number of men who have gone to the front, we are in the position that, although we may have a limited amount of coal to put on the market, yet, if we faithfully carry out our contracts, we have no coals to supply at the higher prices. I was in a position of having coal, and I gave the coal merchants the offer of it. I did not raise the prices, because I did not think it was right, but when I found that these coal merchants, although I was allowing them to take it at lower prices than those I could have got for it on the market, were selling at the market price, and that the coal consumer was getting no advantage, I said that was not good enough, and that I must have my share of the plunder. The amount of plunder I have had has been very little. Notwithstanding all this, the normal price of coal is still less to-day than it was in February, 1914. When the Coal Conciliation Board figures are taken out—the wages fixed by them are not based on the selling price of coal—I am quite certain that hon. Members will see that the statement I have made will prove to be correct. Many of my friends connected with the coal trade say that they have no coals to sell. A man comes along, and they assume he is a merchant. The merchant has got a trade or business together, and has built it up after many years of hard work. Let us assume that the merchant has not been wise and has not bought coal on contract. He comes into the market as a buyer of coal, and he has to pay the price for it which leaves him no profit whatever. He comes into the market and says, "I must have coal." The sellers in the market ask, "What will you give." One man says he will give 16s., and another £1, and they say, "All right, take it." My friends all agree that if the Government said, "You must fix a maximum, above which coal may not be sold," then you are free from the difficulty. It is impossible to go on in the position we are in to-day unless the Government do fix a maximum, for this reason: Assuming there are many in the same position as myself, who have no desire to make a profit out of the necessities of the country at a time of crisis and national danger, and we want to do all we can to assist the country, yet it is not possible under the system which prevails in this country to act otherwise than as we do.

    1203
    If a colliery owner sells coal below the market price, the consumer does not get the benefit. It goes into the pocket of the merchant, the market price at the time determining the price to the consumer. The House must bear in mind that the coal merchants to-day have very largely increased costs to bear. I am told that in normal times, and I believe the statement is quite correct, the cost of distributing a ton of coal in London, including wharfage charges and all charges except establishing charges or profit, amounts to 4s. 3d. or 4s. 6d. per ton. That does not include trolley coal, which is sent round and sold by the cwt., for which the men have an extra 3s. per ton. We are then brought up against the position where the coal merchant, owing to the dislocation of the labour market, has greatly increased wages to pay, and all his foddering expenses of horses are largely increased. The merchants assure me, and I believe what they have said is true, that the cost of distributing a ton of coal in London to-day to the consumer is not less than 6s. per ton. The price, as I have already said, of coal to-day is not the price at which the merchants bought their coal last June or April. It is the price prevailing at the collieries to-day. It is the least amount necessary to meet the requirements of the population that fixes the price for the whole country. It is this small quantity which is the factor deciding the price that prevails. That creates a situation extremely difficult for the poor.
    The Prime Minister said that all common-sense men are opposed to regulating prices, and an hon. Member sitting near me said it was a good, common-sense speech, and I immediately said that it was not founded on fact. The prices stated by the Prime Minister on the information supplied by the Board of Trade were incorrect. It is no use the Board of Trade coming down to us and giving prices out of a newspaper. The following day I telephoned, not in my own name, to all the coal merchants throughout London asking what were the prices of coal, and in almost every case the price was higher than the price quoted in the newspapers. The merchants naturally try to get a little back upon the coal-owners because of every shilling increase in the price of Derby Brights sent to London the colliery owner gets 6d. and the merchant gets 6d. It is the object of the merchant to keep prices down as low as possible. The
    1204
    Board of Trade, not knowing anything about the inner working of the organisation, was quite content to take the prices as they were.
    I should like to let the House know the prices which coal fetched in London previously to the War and the prices to-day. The price of stove coal in August, 1914, was 22s. per ton, to-day it is 32s. per ton. I hope the President of the Board of Trade is noting the way in which his 15 per cent. is going. The stove coal used by the poor in August, 1914, cost 22s. per ton, to-day it is 32s. per ton. In January, 1914, it was 22s. 6d. The price of cobbles in August, 1914, was 24s. per ton, to-day it is 32s. The price of the best kitchen coal was 25s. per ton, to-day it is 32s. Derby Brights were 26s. per ton, and are now 32s. per ton. Silkstones were 27s. per ton in August, and are now 34s. There has therefore been a continuous and upward movement, pressing hardly on all sections of the community. The Prime Minister said that he was willing to consider any new facts. As the prices I have given cannot be contradicted as being the prices prevailing at the collieries, I hope he will give his careful consideration to regulating prices in an industry where we have the complete control of the production. All the coal used in this country is produced in this country. There would be no damage done to anyone in the community by controlling prices. I grant that the difficulty of getting coal from London operates. The railway companies have done their best, but there is a grave danger to London in particular.
    For several years past I have viewed with alarm the position of London. London may be faced with foggy or hard weather for a week. I do not know whether it is possible to meet London's requirements owing to the enormous growth of the Metropolitan area, the folly of people only buying coal when the weather becomes hard and not getting in equal quantities throughout the year, and owing to there, being no cellars in modern houses, the workmen cannot buy coal except at times when they actually require it. When the position is accentuated, as it has been by military necessities, it has not been possible to bring coal to London. In times of fog and bad weather the people of London are entirely dependent on the stocks merchants have laid down at their wharves. If we had had a harder winter the position so far as the poor are concerned would have been very serious indeed. No one

    1205
    has any idea of what the position would have been if we had had a hard winter combined with the present congestion of traffic. There is another matter to which I do not refer because it is a personal matter. At the outbreak of the War I offered to supply the Government with 10,000 tons of coal a week for the use of the poor. The Socialists at once said, "You want to do that for the purposes of your own."
    Mr. CROOKS: Who said that?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It was said by Derby agents in the presence of some of my colliers. I only give that as an illustration of the fact that everybody is judged by the financial interest he is to derive from a transaction. I only wish to put before the House the whole facts. I offered to supply this coal to the Government at 10s. a ton. The lowest price I was then receiving for coal was 10s. 9d. a ton. I undertook to supply it at 10s. a ton. The Government reduced the quantity to 3,000 tons a week. They were to work this matter through the Relief Committees. All the coal the Government applied for through distress committees was at once sent forward to them, but the amount taken is quite insignificant. Although numerous committees were formed in London for the purpose of distributing the coal, very little advantage has been taken of it. The price fixed by the Local Government Board and the merchants who, I am glad to say, were glad to co-operate, at which the coal is being delivered to-day in London is 1s. 2d. per cwt. north of the Thames.
    Mr. CROOKS: I have never seen any of it.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: My hon. Friend is a member of a Distress Committee.
    Mr. CROOKS: No, indeed, I am not.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: That is just what he ought to be.
    Mr. CROOKS: I am very much obliged to the hon. Baronet for calling the attention of the House to the fact that I am not a member of a Distress Committee. Why I have been kept off is one of the things I do not understand.
    7.0. P.M.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: If my hon. Friend had been a member of one of these Distress Committees which have been set up—and he ought to have been—the people in his district would have been able to get coal at a much lower price than that at which they are getting it now. I did not
    1206
    want to refer to that matter, but it is one which I receive a great many letters about. I undertook to supply the coal in bulk, and if the Government had utilised the scheme on a larger scale, that might have had the effect of keeping the price down, which was my object in moving in the matter. In point of fact, the Distress Committees in October, November, and December hardly took any coal at all. The price of coal in December was as low as it was when the War broke out, and all this increase in the price has taken place within the last month or six weeks. I am sorry to bring a personal matter before the attention of the House, but coal is a necessity of life and the Government can regulate prices, and I do not think they will have any opposition from the collieries. I think many of the coal-owners who feel that they want to do their duty to the State, and coal merchants also, and everyone connected with the trade, will co-operate with them. When trade is running in its normal channel, entirely guided and directed by supply and demand, it is impossible but that the conditions should be as they are to-day, which means a shortage of coal, and unless some action is taken prices will rise very much higher.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I feel sympathy with the last words of the hon. Baronet. A good deal has been said about supply and demand. In a crisis like this, when the whole trade of the country is dislocated, the demand that I, for one, see most clearly is the demand of the mouths of the poor who cannot afford to buy enough to keep themselves in health, and the law of supply to meet that demand, in my view, broadly speaking, is that the Government should take such steps as will enable the demand of our poor to be met. One of the most satisfactory things to be said about this Debate is the general consensus of opinion, as expressed by the President of the Board of Trade, that we have to revise all our preconceived notions and be ready to take measures which a year ago many of us would have regarded as anathema. In this question of prices there are really two elements, one the cost of food and other necessaries of life, and the other the money with which we can afford to buy them. The discussion so far as the money needed to buy them is concerned, has necessarily turned chiefly on wages. The position of those in receipt of permanent salaries is so small as to make the cost of living a very serious

    1207
    question, and is one which also requires to be dealt with, but upon which to-night it is difficult to embark.
    I want to recall the House to the position which most of us took up a year or two years ago in relation to the industry of agriculture—the industry which this War has brought so prominently before us: perhaps the most important industry of the country. I believe the great majority of the House will agree that a year or two years ago, broadly speaking, agricultural wages were a great deal too low. We were all impressed with the fact from the year 1900 onwards the weekly budget of the agricultural labourer has been rising, and there has been no commensurate rise in his wages. As the result of that we have proposals from the Government side, from the Labour Benches, and from these Benches for dealing with the wages of the agricultural labourers. Only a year ago I presented a Bill for the constitution of machinery which would deal with the wages of agricultural labourers. At that time it was a grave and serious problem. It may be the case that in some districts there have been, since the beginning of the War, certain rises in the wages of agricultural labourers, but I know that in my own district, where I have a cottage in the country, in Northamptonshire and North Oxfordshire, and all round there, there has been practically speaking no rise of wages, and it is a district where wages, according to these returns with which we are all familiar a year or more ago, are as low as anywhere in the country—wages of 13s. Those wages had remained stagnant while the cost of living had risen 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. Since the beginning of the War the cost of living has risen, in the same district, for the same men, with the same pittance, another 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. Two shillings in my judgment is a totally inadequate rise to meet the rise in the cost of living of men so employed. I am not, of course, proposing to suggest in detail any machinery for dealing with that. It may be that, under the circumstances, wages boards could not be erected on account of the demands on the time of everyone in connection with the War, but I say with the greatest possible importunity to the Government, do something to raise the wages of agricultural labourers in the districts where they are too low.
    The scarcity of agricultural labour has been impressed upon the House by more
    1208
    than one speaker. I agree it is a fact that farmers need labour as they have never needed it before, and so far as wages are raised it will attract labour. I do not say for a moment that the profits of farmers have been immense, but I know in some cases they have been large this year, and I believe in many cases a rise of wages is possible. But something ought to be done on these lines, and the Government ought to deal with the problem of agricultural labour generally as a pressing and urgent problem, as I believe they are doing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture is, I believe, engaged in the investigation of what can be done. I say, do it quickly. One question that has been raised in connection with that matter is the employment of child labour. I willingly concede that, in a time like this, if adult labour is not attainable the older children from the schools must be allowed to work in the field, but only upon that condition, if adult labour can be found the education of the children should not be broken off.
    I put questions the other day to the President of the Board of Education, and he has undertaken to make inquiries, so far as he can, on that matter, and I urge that the Board of Agriculture should make it in co-operation with the Board of Education. Another possible suggestion which may be mentioned and left is that women should be employed more than they are to meet the shortage that there is to-day. I believe a good deal can be done on those lines. I suggest that the Board of Agriculture should at the earliest possible moment make a statement to the House on these closely connected questions, the rate of wages of agricultural labourers, the districts where they have been left without any rise, the districts where there has been some rise, a comparison of the amount of labour available in those districts, and the proposals they have to make in regard to the employment of women and children in those districts. I believe those steps are of urgent importance for the sake of the agricultural labourers themselves, who are paid too little, and for the sake of the agriculture of the country in order that the output may be increased. I hope I have satisfied the House that I have approached this question with deep sympathy for this community, who have had to pay more for the cost of living and have had no addition to their income.

    1209
    I now want to deal with another aspect of the question, one in which it may appear at first sight that I am trying to represent to the House the interests of the rich. I want to deal now with the effect upon the problem of increased prices in this country of the rates of freight which are being earned by shipowners. One observation seems to me to be of great importance in that context. We have all had circulars, we have all read statements in the newspapers, to the effect that the chief cause of the rise of prices is the increase in the freights which are being received by the shipowners. I do not for a moment want to dispute the proposition that rates of freight to-day are very high in most trades—not in all. But I wish to make what seems to me a point of extreme importance. Take the case of wheat. The greater proportion of the wheat that is being imported into the Kingdom, a higher proportion than usual, is coming from America. Freights from parts of America are very high, but there are other commodities coming from America in large quantities like wheat which, if it be true that freights are the dominating factor in the increase of prices, must also themselves have equally increased in price.
    Wheat has approximately doubled in price. Now take a typical article which we import in great quantities in this country from the United States of America—bacon. I have here a telegram from the Liverpool Provision Trade Association stating that the price of bacon to-day in Liverpool is no greater than it was last July, and that it is £5 a ton cheaper than it was a year ago, or two years ago. That one fact is, to my mind, conclusive that the rise in freights is only one cause of the rise in the price of commodities. What are the causes of the rise in freights? I do not want to weary the House with an elaborate analysis and investigation of the causes. Broadly speaking, we all know that the increase is due to the dislocation of business arising from the War. It is due also to the necessary opposition of interests between the traders of this country, who desire to carry on their trade without interruption by the War, and the demands of the Admiralty and the War Office for shipping and railway facilities—trucks, quay space, and warehouse accommodation. All these things at the start of the War, coupled with the blocking of certain trade routes, led to the congestion of shipping at these termini, and the diversion of shipping to
    1210
    other places. Those are the causes which led to it, and at the present minute what may in a word be said to be the chief cause of this high rate of freights? The chief cause is the congestion at the big ports—not a big port like Cardiff, where coal is exported, but at Liverpool and London, where the big import trade of the country goes through. That is the prominent cause.
    These are matters which can be verified by any Member of the House, and I suggest to any Member who is interested in this subject and who wants to investigate it, that he should write to the secretary of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association and ask for a copy of the report dealing with these matters. He will find in that report an analysis of the causes, and suggestions as to the remedies, which are of the highest importance. That document was prepared largely by Sir Norman Hill, a gentleman in whom most Members of the House have the greatest confidence. It is estimated by Sir Norman Hill—and I believe most shipowners will agree—that as a result of the congestion, roughly speaking, any given ship on the average takes, at this time, double the length of time on a voyage it does ordinarily. The effect of that is obvious. If you double the length of time taken on a voyage, you halve the number of ships able to carry cargoes.
    It is a platitude, but it is one that should be remembered by critics, that if people want cargoes instead of ships, what you want to do is to take such steps as will enable shipowners to turn round their ships quickly. If you do so, you will ipso facto reduce the congestion at the ports and reduce freights. The reason why freights are so high is that cargo ships are tied up. I had a telegram from Liverpool as to the state of things to-day. There are twenty-seven vessels of nearly 70,000 tons burden between them which are being delayed because they have been waiting to get into berths for nearly a week. Imagine what that means! It only takes a week to cross the Atlantic. I have stated that the chief causes of the congestion at the present time, or rather the chief causes of the continuance of the congestion, are the labour difficulties which exist at the ports. This is a matter in which I believe the Labour party opposite could co-operate very effectively with the Board of Trade. If the Labour party would use all their influence with the Dockers' Union to get the men who are there at work to work a full week,

    1211
    and, if necessary, some overtime for a few weeks, and if the Board of Trade would take steps to bring in some extra labour temporarily from the outside with the consent of the Dockers' Union, I believe very much might be done to get cargoes disposed of and ships turned round, with the result that the natural and normal flow of commerce would be re-established.
    The prime essential of the situation is to re-establish the flow of trade into and out of our ports. There are minor steps which I believe the Government will take, such as the removal of sugar to those ports. They will possibly take some steps to enforce the freeing of the quays. With a generally rising market and the prospect of prices still further improving, buyers in this country who have imported goods from abroad are not anxious to remove their goods from the quays. They prefer to keep them on the quays or in the warehouses as long as they can, in order that they may be able to realise better prices. I suggest that the Government should take some steps in this matter. Perhaps the hon. Baronet who represents the Board of Agriculture will convey my suggestion to the Board of Trade. I suggest that something should be done—it may be that legislation will be necessary—in order to impose penal rents in respect of the undue use of quay space. I can conceive, of course, that there may be cases where a trader is not himself to blame. Perhaps he cannot get carts, or the carter cannot get his carts unloaded, or it may be that the railway companies are to blame. I have ventured to make one or two practical suggestions. That is all I have to say on that subject, except this, I do make an appeal to the Labour party to use all possible influence, and bring it to bear with the greatest possible, effect, upon those responsible for the management of labour at our great ports. I believe it to be perfectly true at the present time that there are a large number of men working at our ports who, as soon as they have earned by two or three days' work, without overtime, as much as they earn on the average in normal times, are unwilling to work the rest of the week. That ought not to be at a time like this. The duty to their country upon these men is a heavy one, and I ask the Labour party to do what they can to help in that respect.
    Mr. HOLT: I think everybody will agree in regretting the rise in the prices of the
    1212
    necessaries of life Everyone will agree, also, in regretting the suffering and hardship caused thereby. I believe everyone will be glad to do everything he can to prevent this state of affairs, provided he feels that his efforts do more good than harm. I think there has been a tendency to exaggerate the rise in prices and in the cost of living. I believe I am right in saying that the actual rise in the cost of living is never quite so great as appears on the face of it, because people change their diet. When one article rises and another does not there is a tendency to consume more of the article which has not risen and less of the article which has risen in price. We ought to be able to get considerable relief by means of rice, because the supply of rice is almost entirely from the British Empire and our Ally, France. The supply to Austria has entirely stopped, so that there ought to be a considerable amount of rice available for consumption in this country. Rice is an extremely nourishing and valuable form of food.
    An hon. Member below the Gangway suggested that we ought to treat shipping precisely as we treat railways. The President of the Board of Trade gave good reasons to the contrary. I will suggest another. A railway company is a statutory monopoly carrying on operations on the basis of an Act of Parliament. You are therefore entitled to make special terms upon which you will use the property of a railway company. A shipping company is in a different position. It is working under the ordinary law, and has not any special privileges conferred upon it by Parliament. It should therefore be treated like any other merchant. In my experience of shipping during the War I have found that for the first two months we were doing little more than paying out-of-pocket expenses. During the early months of the War we were carrying cargo at the pre-War rates, which happened to be exceedingly low, and I can quite honestly say that, so far as my firm is concerned, I do not think they are making so much money as during the last trade boom. The House must not forget, while we are being told of high freights, that though they are bringing into the country certain classes of commodities, the export trade has been materially cut down, and even with the higher rates we are not getting very much higher rates on the export trade. It makes a considerable difference in the position of shipowners

    1213
    if the homeward voyage has practically to pay the whole cost of the operation instead of the cost being divided between the outward and the homeward voyage. This fact should be borne in mind by those who wish to appreciate the situation. The very high rates of freight to which allusion has been made have all taken place in trades which have been absolutely open and uncontrolled. They are among the most genuine rises which I have ever seen in my life. In no sense of the word have they been engineered. Everybody knows that many trades are regulated by conferences, rings or agreements. Those trades have got comparatively little benefit. The trades in which the great advances have been obtained are those run by tramp steamers who are here to-day and gone to-morrow; who take what they can get when things are good, and very often get nothing at all when things are bad. This is certainly a most genuine advance. Those people who are running regular lines cannot take the same advantages as people who have no special responsibility, because it is necessary for them to preserve the goodwill of the people with whom they are doing business.
    I do not think that it can be contended that a rise in freights necessarily involves a rise in prices. My hon. and learned Friend, speaking from the other side, gave one instance—that of bacon. I can give even a more striking instance—that of raw cotton. Before the War the price of raw cotton was 8d. per lb. Since then freight has risen to a figure which excites my cupidity, for I am getting none of it. It has risen to about two and a half times what was previously paid during the boom, but the price of raw cotton has fallen to 5d.; so that the high freight has not in any sense prevented the fall in price of this very important raw material. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment rather claimed our sympathy for the condition of the mill hands in Lancashire. He alleges that it has arisen out of the War. I think that he is mistaken on that point. From what I knew of the cotton trade, and I have a great deal to do with the export of cotton to China, the market in China was overstocked in July, before there was any idea of the War. I believe that all of us anticipated that there would be a very considerable falling off in the export of cotton goods, not because of the War, but because of ordinary market conditions. The distress which has undoubtedly taken place in the cotton
    1214
    trade is not one bit worse than it would have been if there had been no war at all. We have been suffering mainly from an ordinary case of over supplying the demand. Another observation which I would like to make to the House is this: It is quite clear that the reduction of the freights cannot possibly increase the total amount of goods available for consumption. The total supply could not in any circumstances be increased. So far, therefore, as the price is raised by competition among individuals in this country to get possession for themselves of available supplies, no reduction of freight, as far as I can see, would be in the least likely to alter the price so long as the amount available for consumption was less than the demand. By the by, the cargoes which are now coming in from the River Plate have not paid the high freights that have been referred to. A friend of mine, who, like the hon. Member opposite, is engaged in the River Plate trade, tells me that ships now discharging, far from having obtained freights of 75s., have obtained freights more like from 25s. to 29s. Therefore it is not the freights on the wheat that is coming into this country that are responsible for this rise.
    Reference was made to the freights on meat. It was pointed out that they had not made any great advance. I should not in the least apologise for having advanced the freights on meat to the present figure or even to a higher figure if I had it in my power to do so. I have taken somewhat of an interest in this question of meat. My experience was, before the War, that the freight was so low that business, in the Australian trade, was not attractive. I certainly would not put refrigerating accommodation into a steamer unless I saw reasonable prospect of getting a better rate of freight than was being paid before the War. I do not think that the game would be worth the candle. I do not think that people ought to expect that they are going to get a substantial reduction in the cost of carriage of meat. In my opinion the cause of the high freights is a very simple one. We have not got enough ships available. A great many things have been suggested. I am very glad to know that the interned captured ships are going to be put into the market as rapidly as can be done; even here there is a consideration which it is as well to bear in mind. I think that there will be very great difficulty in

    1215
    obtaining enough competent officers and engineers to man any considerable addition to the mercantile marine, because the Navy, with the ships which they have taken, naturally have taken a great number of men, and I doubt if we can be so very certain of finding a sufficient number of competent men in the certificated ranks to manipulate a very large number of additional ships. I hope that I am wrong in that, but I would point it out as a warning to those who are very sanguine that they are going to get great additional accommodation. A great deal of the delay in the use of these captured interned ships, and in the removal of goods on our quays, has, I think, been caused by the somewhat long time which it has taken to get adjudication of some of the cases in the Admiralty Court. I know that at one time the position was very bad. I do not know whether it is now so or not. There is one suggestion which I think has the advantage of being both effective and cheap. If it is found on inquiry that there is a state of delay in the Admiralty Court, I would urge that there should be added to the Admiralty Court some person in a position analogous to that of the Commissioner of Assize, who relieves the judge when necessary, and that in some way the business should be split up, because the sooner we can get these adjudications made, and get the detained goods removed and put into circulation, and get the ships put into use at home, the better. If it is the case, and I believe it is, that the proceedings in the Admiralty Court in reference to prizes are very much behind, I think that the suggestion would be very effective.
    Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: It is not that there is any deficiency in the adjudication by the judges, but that there are certain matters entirely outside the Court. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would talk to the Procurator-General, it would be very useful.
    Mr. HOLT: My hon. and learned Friend agrees with me that if the proceedings in the Prize Court are not going as fast as they should, obviously the Government should hurry up proceedings of that character. Something has been also said in this Debate about the use of transports by the Admiralty. Obviously it was necessary that the Admiralty should take a certain number of the mercantile marine to assist the Fleet during the War and to
    1216
    convey troops, and it was also quite obvious that if they went to the other extreme and if they took the whole lot for these purposes, they would at once accomplish the very disaster which it is the whole business of the Navy to avoid. We can only tell whether the true mean has been attained by careful investigation of individual facts and by knowing exactly what has happened. I for one am not prepared to be dogmatic on the subject, for I generally find by experience that persons whom you entrust with a particular duty have got a much better answer to criticism than the critics suppose from what they have heard. So I think it quite possible that the Admiralty may not be so much to blame as people suppose, but certainly it is a matter on which in the public interests a very close eye should be kept. In this connection may I point out a danger which I think may be threatening the country in the matter of shipping at a somewhat more distant date? Undoubtedly the requirements of the Admiralty, which it has been necessary to comply with, have almost brought to a stoppage the building of merchant vessels for private firms, a development which may raise a very difficult position, for the supply of tonnage in the future is not likely to be anything like as large as it has been in the past. I would like to suggest, if there is going to be any attempt to look into what the Admiralty have done with regard to the use of merchant shipping, that there should also be some sort of inquiry in regard to what the Admiralty have done in reference to the use of shipyards, so as to ascertain that they are not doing more than is necessary in the interests of national defence and that the shipyards are being used by the Admiralty as economically as possible.
    The next thing with which I have got to deal is the proposal that the nation should take over all the mercantile shipping. As far as I understand the financial side, this would be highly beneficial to myself and would enable me to take a long holiday, a thing which has considerable recommendations; but as to whether it would be a good tiling for the nation or not, I am exceedingly doubtful. I have my own opinion naturally, being a shipowner, as to whether a general body of Government servants and good political talkers would be able to manage a large fleet of merchant ships better than persons who spend most of their lives at it. Of

    1217
    course that is entirely a matter of opinion. The suggestion has been made that it would be a good thing to prohibit British ships from taking part in the trade of any foreign countries, at all events until the whole of the important requirements of the people of this country had been satisfied. That seems to me a proposal which is only superficially attractive. I do not think that the people who made it can have followed it out to a logical conclusion. Suppose you told the inhabitants of the United States that they must not use British ships even if they were ready to pay the market price, what answer would you have to a proposal by them that they should proceed to use the whole of the interned German ships? I do not think that there would be any possible answer to the neutral who said, "I will buy the whole of the German shipping in my ports, if you yourself refuse to let me use British shipping for a fair price."
    This view must be taken into account in looking to the future. After all a large part of the British mercantile marine in times of peace is employed in trading between countries which are now neutral. Obviously, if for your own purposes suddenly you deny to these people the use of the shipping which they have been accustomed to obtain, when peace comes round they will take every care that they are not dependent on the British mercantile marine. You may have improved your position during a few months of the War, but you will certainly strike a serious blow at the position of national trade during the years of peace which everybody hopes will shortly ensue. I think that the proposal to prevent neutrals now obtaining the use of British shipping, when they are prepared to pay the market price, is a proposal which would be most damaging to our commercial position when the War is over, and is therefore one that should be approached with very considerable hesitation and doubt.
    Hon. Gentlemen have talked as if the proposition were to take over the whole mercantile marine of the country, and direct it into more desirable channels; but I am not quite certain that there are many who are really able to say where those desirable channels are. I do not profess to know, and I do not think any people really know which particular commodities are most necessary to this country at the present moment. In the last few weeks meat, ore, timber, and other commodities have been required, some of the articles
    1218
    obviously for the purposes of the War, but others, again, at first sight, not so obviously required for war. In one case which came before me, the article called tanning extract was required for the manufacture of leather, and there must be thousands of articles which, though not actually used for war-like purposes, it is necessary to possess because they might be used in the production of machinery for making instruments of war. We really do not know which are the most necessary, and the simplest and most certain test is that preference should be given to that article which is going to pay for the accommodation required. I do not say that a person should be allowed the accommodation because he was prepared to pay the most; that might not prove desirable; but, on the whole, I think in the majority of cases, the person who is prepared to pay the most in respect of certain articles is the person who is going to put them from the public point of view, to the best use.
    Then there is the question of congestion at the docks and warehouses. The Prime Minister spoke most sanguinely on the subject, and I think others around were sanguine, but I do not myself see any real relief of congestion, however much I should like to see it. I may tell the House that if there is a fortnight's additional delay of discharge in London, my firm, so far as it is concerned, will be driven to reduce the accommodation to our customers by 10 per cent., and anyone can see for himself that, if you reduce the supply by anything like 10 per cent., you are going to put the market price up very considerably because the market price can be affected by a very small turn one way or the other. You have only to alter the demand or supply by a very trifling amount to make an enormous difference in the position of the market. You find in Liverpool that the congestion is undoubtedly due to the fact that there is a great deal less work being done at the docks. That has been going on for some time. It is not entirely due to the War. For some years past the fact has become apparent that, steadily, rather less work is being done in every yard of dock, or quay. That was the case some few years ago. That has been accentuated by the War, and has brought about this congestion. There is very great congestion in the warehouses, which undoubtedly makes a great difference, for those who have goods on the quays, do not know where to

    1219
    put them. I know from experience that when the authorities have tried to exercise their power to order the removal of cargo from the quay, and the person to whom the order was given replied, "Please do anything you like, and if you know where to take it to you are cleverer than I am." They could not do it. It would be very difficult, under pressure, to get goods removed, indeed you could not possibly do it if you cannot tell where to put them. Does not the fact of the congestion of the warehouses show that this country is not suffering from want of stock. If there is congestion in the warehouses it must mean that the country is well supplied with stock of all sorts and description.
    Let me state what I believe to be the real cause of the rise in the cost of living, and the high prices of which peole are complaining. I believe the real cause to be simply the shortage of labour in the country. Three millions of the best men of this country have, in one form or another, joined the Army or Navy. These three million people are not available for the ordinary work of the country, and we have lost that valuable labour which we have, been in the habit of employing. The world is absolutely the poorer by reason of the loss of the output of these three million men. I would draw attention to this fact, namely, that the rise in prices has been in proportion to the number of men withdrawn from labour, and that rise has at any rate synchronised with the withdrawal of those men. More men will perhaps go to the War, and if that be so the cause of the rise in prices is likely to become worse. There is also a great loss in efficiency, because the men who have gone to the War have been, on the whole, the best men. I would like to put this suggestion to hon. Gentlemen: If you take a dock labourer at so much a day, paying the average rate, and there is a loss of efficiency, you are really paying increased wages for somewhat inferior work, and from the point of view of the consumer the effect is to put up the cost of living. We have got to strike at the cause of the increased cost of living if we can. If the cause is, as I believe it is, that there is not enough work being done, then the thing is to try and get it done.
    There are several ways of doing it. I think we ought to make every effort to get hold of the refugees and set them to work, though not from the point of view of cut-
    1220
    ting trade union rates down—I would not do that for a moment. The policy adopted in this House after the War was rather to discourage the employment of Belgian and French refugees. I think that ought to be entirely reversed. I think it is the wrong policy. To my mind it is a policy economically unsound. Every effort should be made to put the whole of the refugees in this country to work on proper terms. Then they could be self-supporting, adding to the wealth of the community, and not being a drag upon it. I should like the same principle to be applied to the interned prisoners. There must be plenty of work that they could do, and I cannot see why these interned aliens—I mean persons domiciled in this country and not prisoners of war—cannot be set to work under proper safeguards, making certain that they did not get an opportunity of escaping and doing injury to the country.
    Then, finally, I think that the ordinary wage earner in this country must be made to realise that he will have to work rather longer if prices are not still to rise. He cannot expect to work five hours and get results hitherto achieved; he has got to put in six hours instead of five. If my theory is right there is no other way out of it. There is no reason why a man's total earnings should be reduced, but to get those total earnings he will have to make some sacrifice; he will have to work longer; do some portion of the work that was done by those who have gone to the front. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in making that suggestion. Some time ago—I should like to commend this to those Gentlemen who advocate an increase of wages—I was talking to a friend of mine who is manager over a large shipbuilding yard, and he told me that with every successive increase in the rate of wages paid the amount of the work had gone down. Workmen, when they get a higher rate of wages, instead of doing more, prefer to remain in the economic position in which they were, and they take rather more holiday. My friend told me that the effect of that was that a three-berth yard had been reduced to a two-berth yard—that is, that they were able to build only two ships where three had previously been built.
    The result of conduct like that sends up the cost of living. If there is to be a half-holiday every Saturday, instead of working until four o'clock, it is obvious that capital is necessarily going to waste for four or

    1221
    five hours every week. It is quite clear that under these circumstances the cost of living must inevitably go up. I believe that the working classes themselves, almost more than anybody else, have it in their own hands to remedy the state of affairs which they deplore, and it can only be done by making up their minds that they will work rather more efficiently than they have been in the habit of working, and work rather longer hours in order to try to replace what has been lost by reason of three millions of men having been taken out of their employment, and having gone to the War. That is what has been done in the case of the commercial clerks, who have gone to serve their country just as well as any other class in the community. I am not making any comparison, for I believe every class has done its fair share; but I would point out that the commercial clerks are working extra hours very cheerfully in order to make up for the work which used to be done by those who have gone to the War. I apologise for having taken up so much time and I am very much obliged to hon. Members for having listened to me. I dare say that something of what I have said will not find satisfaction in every quarter, but I have stated honestly and frankly what I believe to be the best thing to do, because I think that at this moment it is the duty of every man to do so.
    8.0 P.M.
    Mr. ROWNTREE: The hon. Member is always frank with the House, and does not mind saying things which he knows will be unpopular; but I confess to the feeling that if there were many speeches such as the one he has made, it might be very serious for us at the present time. I think it is very difficult to overestimate the restless condition of mind of many of the workmen at the present time. I am convinced that unless the Government and unless this House is able to find some way of mitigating the effects of this very great increase in the cost of living, the results may be very serious. I think it is far better that we should recognise the fact that once the industrial truce is broken in the midst of War, and if we begin to have strikes it will be a most serious thing for the morale of this country, and we must, therefore, if we can, find some way out of getting over this difficulty. I agree that I cannot see at the present time how it can be met by the Government commandeering the wheat supply,
    1222
    or commandeering our merchant shipping. I think the arguments that have been advanced against that at the moment are unanswerable. But I want to be perfectly fair towards the Members of the Labour party and to say that they did advise the Government in October that it might be a wise thing to deal with the question of wheat then, and I gather they put forward that proposal with much greater confidence then than the proposal they make to-day. It is because I feel the difficulty of accepting either of those proposals that I desire to make two or three definite suggestions to the Government with regard to the question of wages. I think the question of coal is entirely different from the question of wheat, and I do hope that my right hon. Friend will go much further into this question of coal and see whether it cannot be met in the way that has been suggested this afternoon, or with some modification of that method. We shall have another opportunity of discussing the question of sugar, but I have grave doubts, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), whether the action of the Government with regard to sugar has been wise. At any rate, I think it is very important that we should realise what the results of that policy means in the homes to-day.
    The average consumption of sugar by every person is 1½ lbs. per week, which in a family of five means 7½ lbs. per week. The cost of that 7½ lbs. before the War was 1s. 9d., and now it is 3s. 1d., or an increase of about 1s. 4d. per week per family of five. If you will work that out you will find that it is equivalent to an Income Tax of 1s. in the £ for a man who earns a wage of 25s. per week. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether, as the conditions are different now that Germany and Austria have prohibited the export of sugar, he will not inquire very carefully indeed into the question again and consider whether some change in policy with regard to sugar is not now called for. We must realise what this increase means to the very poor. Our Labour Members are very moderate in this House, even my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Anderson), whom we welcome here because of his devotion to the interests of the poor, but there are difficult and ugly symptoms outside if you probe underneath the surface. As hon. Members opposite have stated to-day, there are real reasons why men should feel

    1223
    aggrieved at the present time. We want to realise when we speak about food that if you take the case of a man getting 20s. or 25s. that 55 per cent. at least of the weekly expenditure of the family is spent on food. What does that mean? If you take the case of a man earning 25s. per week, before the War he spent 13s. 9d. on food and now that food costs him 2s. 9d. more, or he has to go with 20 per cent. less food. It is just the same with the man with a wage of 20s. He spent 11s. on food before the War, and now that 11s. will only purchase about 8s. 10d. worth of food. When you think about these facts, and when you remember that there are 2½ million people at the present time who are getting a wage of less than 25s., then you begin to realise the tremendous problem that we have before us. It was a problem that took hold of a great military general like the late Earl Roberts. Not long before his death, looking at the matter from the military standpoint, he wrote:—
    "The conditions amid which millions of our people are living appear to me to make it natural that they should not care a straw under what rule they may be called upon to dwell. Recently unimpeachable evidence makes it clear that to tens of thousands of Englishmen engaged in daily toil the call to sacrifice themselves for their country would seem an insult to their reason, as the conditions amid which they live make their lives already an unending sacrifice."
    That was true at the time Lord Roberts wrote it, but when the same people who were then getting insufficient food in order to keep themselves and their families in a state of physical efficiency now have to pay at least 20 per cent. more for the food that they buy, then I am perfectly certain that this problem wants looking into from a military standpoint as well as from the humanitarian standpoint and from the national standpoint. When I say national, I mean rather especially from the standpoint of the general health and stamina of the people. Was there ever a time in the history of our country when it was more important that we should do everything that we can to help to rear healthy boys and girls? We all deplore the terrible losses which have taken place, but we have to make up those losses in the country, and it would be a very shortsighted policy if either the Government or this House allowed a large number of boys and girls to grow up in this country without getting sufficient food for their support. How can this problem be met? It has been met in some ways by the Government already. They are going to deal, I
    1224
    hope, with the question of coal, and I believe that what is needed also is to try and put into some more concrete form the appeals that have been made from the other side with regard to this question of wages. That is a thing that can be done quickly. We have not got wage boards established in all trades yet, and we cannot wait for the establishment of wage boards in all trades.
    But there are, it seems to me, several ways in which the Government might at the present time very largely stimulate this thought of increased wages. The first thing is to do the thing themselves, and to recognise, as they have done partially, that they are the largest employers of labour in this country, and in all low-paid branches of labour there should at once be some special bonus given to the married men and to the women with dependants, which would do something to cover the increase in the cost of living. I know it will cost money, but I do not believe that it will be money grudged by the people of this country. Then you might do just the same with regard to the large contracts which you are handing out at the present time. If you are getting contracts filled at a low rate, and if you are getting articles and garments made by people who are getting a low wage, you have it in your hands to say that the wages for married men and for women with dependants should be increased by a special bonus, or in some other way, at once in those trades. You have it also in your power to give the same thought to municipalities. If a letter were sent out by the Local Government Board encouraging them at once to do something to raise the wages of low-paid labour, it would be done. I have seen lately one or two suggestions in rural areas for the increase of the wages of some of the low-paid labourers refused by a majority of the council. I am convinced that the Government must take this matter up earnestly, and must do what they can as quickly as possible, by encouragement and by example, to increase, the amount paid to low-paid labour.
    It being a Quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    LOCAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I beg to move,
    "That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding Fifteen Members, to be called the Local Legislation Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general Law:
    That Standing Orders 124, 150, and 173A apply to all such Bills:
    That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
    That Four be the quorum:
    That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government regulations) are such as, having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee:
    That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committees, each of which shall have the full powers of and be subject to the instructions which apply to the undivided Committee, and that Four be the quorum of each of the two Committees."
    Mr. BOOTH: I think that this is a convenient Motion upon which to ask for a lead from the Chairman of Ways and Means with regard to private Bill legislation in this Session. On Thursday last there was a list of twenty-four Bills, most of them important, called immediately after prayers, and I took the responsibility of arresting the progress of a considerable proportion of those Bills. My object was not in any way to waste the time of the House, but to have this discussion and to obtain the explanation which I hope we shall now receive. When the Prime Minister took the time of private Members he supported his Motion on the ground that in a War Session the House could not be expected to turn its attention to matters with which it dealt in the ordinary way. He did not take away the time of private Members on the ground that the matters with which those Members dealt were unimportant—indeed, he agreed that in normal times they were very important—but he took the time away on the ground that this was not a convenient time to have those controversies. But the private Member now sees a long catalogue of important Bills about which there may be a great deal of controversy. The Prime Minister's words in this regard were very striking. He said:—
    "In regard to a large number of these private "Bills. … many of them are designed for objects of public utility, and I think it would be a very great pity if the wheels of private Bill legislation were altogether stopped in consequence of the War, while, at, the same time, going as far as my hon. and learned friend to say, that if the particular private Bills raised questions of a public character, and of a contentious nature, the Government will naturally feel disposed to present further progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1915, col. 74.
    The Government are in possession of the whole time of the House, and I think we are entitled to ask that some indication should be given to the House before it passes a Bill on the Second Reading as to how far that phrase of the Prime Minister is intended to carry. I put a question to my right hon. Friend to-day, and his answer was eminently satisfactory to me. I cannot quote it, but it will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. He indicated that it was difficult to judge always in regard to these Private Bills whether they are contentious merely upon domestic matters, or whether they are controversial because they raise public questions, and he stated that, in his judgment, the best way was to test that on Second Reading. That is exactly what I want. That is why I did not allow the Bills to go through sub silentin. I thought that we should

    1227
    endeavour to ascertain that on Second Reading, and that the House was entitled, in this extraordinary difficulty, to rely in a large measure upon the guidance of our respected Chairman of Ways and Means.
    In most years these Bills go through Second Reading generally without a word. It is very seldom indeed that there is any discussion here; but when they are fought in Committee by paid counsel, the various people concerned awake to the fact that legislation is on. Questions arise, and when the Bills come back to this House, there is frequently a Debate and a severe fight on the Report stage and Third Reading. I submit that this year it is within the power of any organised minority to kill any one of these Bills; at any rate, that is a danger against which I wish to guard. As I read the Prime Minister's speech, if an organised body in the House opposed on public grounds a Bill on the Report stage or Third Reading, the Government would not allow that Bill to go any further. I think, therefore, that an appeal should be made to the House that any opposition of that kind should be brought forward on Second Reading, before the expense of the Committee stage had been incurred, and before the time of hon. Members in a Session of great strain had been taken up by attendance at the Committee. I am not in a position to suggest to the Chairman of Ways and Means how he should find out whether such opposition exists. One idea that struck me was that all the main Bills should be put down to be dealt with at 8.15, not with a view to inducing Members to withdraw their opposition, nor in the hope of getting Bills through in the absence of their opponents, but in order that the House might see what the matter of controversy, if any, amounts to.
    I will mention four fights which took place last Session upon Bills which had been in Committee. There were the Celluloid Bills—I am not sure whether they all went to Committee. The point of controversy was that of public interference with private enterprise. It was argued that if a city had advanced rules with regard to these industries, the people concerned might go to country places where the local authorities were not so alive. Then there was the Manchester Corporation Bill, opposition to which was raised by people interested in open spaces and commons preservation. On the Swindon Improvement Bill a controversy was raised on the
    1228
    ground that it was a national duty to preserve waterways, and that that Bill was abandoning it. On the Great Eastern Railway Bill the Members of the Labour Party raised a point which was not exactly within the four corners of the Bill, but which they thought they were entitled to raise—and undoubtedly they were by the forms of the House—as to the treatment of its servants by that railway company. The House so far approved of their raising the question that it supported them in the Division, and the Bill was thrown out, which I think is the best proof that they were not bringing up a point without substance. I submit to the House that in this Session in particular, when it is in the power of any strong resolute body to have a Bill defeated by a controversy which is undesirable, it is the more incumbent upon us to see that nothing goes up to Committee except Bills in regard to which there is a common understanding that they shall have fair play and the decision of the Committee shall be restricted. I do not want to press my point further. I am rather making these remarks in order that the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, I hope, sees the extraordinary nature of the position this year, as distinguished from any other, may give a lead to the House. I can assure him, although I have taken a very keen interest in these Bills so far, and have slopped their progress. I am very much prepared, with the rest of the Members, to put confidence in the advice that he may choose to give.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Before the Chairman of Ways and Means replies to the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontefract, I should like, in a word or two, to warn him against conceding the principle which the hon. Member for Pontefract has demanded. If he does so, I am afraid that many of these Bills will fall through this year. I understand that the hon. Member for Pontefract is asking that we shall have a general Debate on a private Bill, or Bills, that any Member may take exception to during the Session.
    Mr. BOOTH: No, I was not asking that, because that is one of the Rules of the House.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I know, but it is not very often taken advantage of. If, however, the principle is accepted that a Bill that anyone takes exception to on some minor point is to be treated as suggested, naturally there is a chance of that

    1229
    Bill being opposed successfully. I should like to take exception to what the hon. Member behind me said with regard to the Bill Committees upstairs. I have for several years sat on these Committees, and for the last two years I have been on the Local Legislation Committee. I can assure the hon. Member that the Members of that Committee are not influenced by the speeches of counsel to the extent that he suggests. I believe that the Members of the Committee really sift the evidence to the best of their ability, and give judgment according to the facts presented to them. Some hon. Members may think that all these proceedings before Committee are a waste of money, but we have to get some evidence on these Bills. I should like to see some of these Bills go through this year for certain reasons. To my knowledge some of them are very important—very important indeed. I do not see my hon. Friend who is one of the representatives of the county of Durham, but in one case there is a Water Bill before the House in which the local authorities are really demanding that the company should go in for a great water scheme, because last year there was a water famine, and not only a famine affecting the health of the people but leading to the stoppage of works. That in itself is a very important matter to the local authorities. There is another argument which I am quite sure the Prime Minister could never have had in his mind when he made his original statement, that that statement should apply to private. Bills as we, understand them. I know that the hon. Member for Pontefract put a question to the Prime Minister following that statement. But look at it. If the hon. Member for Pontefract had been a member of a town council and had been engaged, like some of us have been, in the preparation of these Bills—
    Mr. BOOTH: Twenty years ago.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Some of these Bills take practically two years to prepare before they come here. Members of the House should understand that.
    Mr. WATT: It would be better if it were three years.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I do not think the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow would apply that to a Water Bill coming from the Glasgow Corporation. If he did I am certain they would punish him in Glasgow. The fact is that the practice
    1230
    in this House is for hon. Members to challenge Bills not affecting their own particular subject. That is what really comes about. Corporations, and local authorities especially, spend large sums of money in the preparation of plans, etc., before they come here. In addition they spend large sums on Parliamentary agents, a thing which cannot be helped because it is the law. Let me put this point to the hon. Member for Pontefract—it is very often an important one. Take a Railway Bill. There are Railway Bills coming before the House which will affect a very large number of districts, or large parts of the county, or of the country, with a huge capital expenditure. The hon. Member for Edinburgh interrupts, but this is really a most serious matter. If a matter affected Edinburgh, I venture to say the hon. Member would take a part in it. Members work and canvass for their particular Bill to get through, and to do so are prepared to destroy some other Bill.
    I think that is very unfair. The other point I wish to make is this, that after the War is over I believe we shall have trade depression, more or less. I think it is as well now that both local authorities and railway companies should obtain powers this year so as to prepare for increased expenditure when we have the trade depression. That is a factor that I hope the House will take into consideration and give these Bills a hearing, for really, in my opinion, every one of them ought to go upstairs. They ought there to be sifted fully as to whether or not they should become law. I hope, very strongly indeed, that this very unwise thing will not proceed. Personally, I have never taken any part in it myself, although I have worked upon local authorities as long as any man in this House, and very much longer than a large number—for thirty-three years. I think it is a very great mistake for Members to challenge Bills down here before they go upstairs to be considered by Committee. These Committees are appointed for that purpose, and I can assure the hon. Member for Pontefract that when these Committees sit to consider these Bills they bring an unbiassed opinion to bear upon them and judge the Bills according to their value and prospects.
    Mr. WARDLE: There may be a good deal of truth in what the hon. Member who has just sat down has said, but there is also something to be said from the point

    1231
    of view of the hon. Member who has brought forward this Motion. Certainly I cannot subscribe to the doctrine of the last hon. Member, that all Bills of this character should be allowed to go upstairs and to have their Second Reading without the possibility of challenge in this House. In such a case undoubtedly many wrongs would remain unrighted. I quite agree that in the main, and in the majority of cases, the practice should be allowed. Where there is nothing in Bills that is not of a vitally contentious nature, then, of course, they should be allowed to go upstairs; in some of those cases, where it is a matter between one locality and another, the matter can probably be best thrashed out in Committee. But the Second Reading of this kind of Bill is the only opportunity that this House has to consider whether the powers granted to corporations and railway companies in the past have been carried out in a proper manner. The hon. Member for Pontefract referred to a Great Eastern Railway Bill which last year was thrown out. We have it before us to-night. I hope there will be no objection to that Bill going through. So far as I am concerned, having had something to do last year with what took place, I sincerely hope we shall allow this Bill to go through. It is a very important Bill. I am sorry the Noble Lord who represents the Great Eastern Railway Company is not present in his place, for he has met the railway men during the present crisis handsomely. Even in regard to the dispute which we had last year over the Bill he has now, I am glad to say, agreed to reinstate the person who was then in dispute. Under these circumstances, therefore, I hope there will be no objection raised to this important Bill going to Committee.
    Mr. WATT: I have only one observation to make, and it is this: I cannot see why the House should allow the Bills of corporations and municipalities to come into this House and pass through without comment in a Session such as this. Private Members of this House are not permitted this Session to bring in any measures in which they are specially interested. They have been precluded, by the exceptional measures taken, from bringing in any pet schemes in which they or their constituents are interested. That is a very drastic measure, and in the face of it, I think, corporations and municipalities should be put in precisely the same category as hon.
    1232
    Members themselves and their constituents. I cannot see why a special privilege should be given to municipalities and corporations to bring in their measures. As a rule in normal Sessions, as the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) has just said, this House is willing to give private Bills a Second Reading and to send them upstairs, there being an opportunity of granting or refusing the Bill on Third Reading. An opportunity is given to this House under those circumstances of discussing the merits of Bills, and I venture to think that measures, if they are promoted this Session, should at least come before the House and be freely and fully discussed. As to an observation of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. J. Samuel) that all of us are intimidated by our corporations—
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: I did nut say that.
    Mr. WATT: And that we dare not oppose the measures of our own corporations, I may say that that may be the rule at Stockton-on-Tees, but it is not the rule of the city which I have the honour to represent. It is a matter of history that a Member of this House studiously and persistently blocked a measure brought in by his own corporation of Glasgow. I hope the hon. Member will not apply his own experience to others.
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I agree with the hon. Members who have spoken, that we must regard this as an exceptional Session, and I think that that fact has been borne in mind already by the promoters of private Bills. That is shown by the fact that the number of private Bills brought forward this Session is less than one-half the number usual in a normal Session, and I think hon. Members may take it that that in itself is a proof that, generally speaking, promoters have not brought forward Bills this year except in cases where the matter was urgent and required to be dealt with. I would point out to hon. Members that, amongst the reduced number of private Bills, there are a considerable number which are directly consequential on what this House itself did last year. For instances, there are some Bills promoted by local authorities for the acquisition of gas undertakings. The reason for those Bills is that last Session gas companies came forward with proposals which were at the time opposed by the local authorities, and this House only passed those Bills on condition that the local authorities should

    1233
    be given an opportunity of purchase in the ensuing Session of Parliament, and, therefore, it would be most wrong, in my view, that we should repudiate the obligation we ourselves have imposed.
    I could point out a number of Bills—Gas Mills, Water Bills, and Municipal Bills—which are in that position, in that proposals contained in them arise out of what this House imposed in the last or preceding Session, and therefore it is a matter of our own honour that we should contrive, even in an exceptional Session, that Bills of that character should go forward. In fact, if they do not, some of these local authorities will lose by the lapse of the Session rights which we ourselves undertook they should have. It is not proposed, as I understand it, in any way to take away from the House the right to discuss a Bill, if it so desires, on Second Reading, provided it is in conformity with the rules of the House. At the same time, I think I may make this appeal to the House, that in a Session of this character both the discussion on Second Reading and the work of the Committee upstairs should be as expeditious and business-like as is possible. For my part, I should not in the least wish to restrain any proper discussion on Second Reading, but I certainly would rather deprecate any which is not in the public interest and I necessary. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) referred to an answer given in the House to-day by the Prime Minister to a question that he put.
    I understand that the Prime Minister asked me, as Chairman of Ways and Means, to undertake the duty of pointing out to the House any Bills, or provisions of Bills, which, in my opinion, come under the definition of being of a public character and of a contentious nature. If the House so desires it, I am willing to undertake that duty, provided the Bills proceed as far as Second Reading. I think Bills of that character are of extremely small number, but I am quite willing, if the House desires it, to undertake that duty. My view quite coincides with that expressed in the House to-day, that the ordinary and necessary municipal work should proceed and that those Bills which are for the benefit of the districts concerned, and the country generally, should not lose by the fact of the particular character of the Session this year. But in cases where I find proposals of magnitude, which would come under the definition of the Prime Minister, I will
    1234
    undertake either to ask the promoters before Second Reading, or, if it should come on for Second Reading, to point them out to the House and take action accordingly.
    Mr. WATT: I think that we should have some assurance that the Committee which is so appointed will not all be taken from one type of individual in this House, and will not consist mostly of Members who sit behind the Government Bench.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, "That the Committee of Selection do nominate a Committee, not exceeding fifteen Members, to be called the Local Legislation Committee, to whom shall be committed all Private Bills promoted by municipal and other local authorities by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government Regulations in conflict with, deviation from, or excess of the provisions of the general Law:
    That Standing Orders 124, 150, and 173 a apply to all such Bills:
    That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
    That four be the quorum:
    That if the Committee shall report to the Committee of Selection that any Clauses of any Bill referred to them (other than Clauses containing Police, Sanitary, or other Local Government Regulations) are such as, having regard to the terms of reference, it is not in their opinion necessary or advisable for them to deal with, the Committee of Selection shall thereupon refer the Bill to a Select Committee, who shall consider those Clauses, and so much of the Preamble of the Bill as relates thereto, and shall determine the expenditure (if any) to be authorised in respect of the parts of the Bill referred to them. That the Committee shall deal with the remaining Clauses of such Bill, and so much of the Preamble as relates thereto, and shall determine the period and mode of repayment of any money authorised by the Select Committee to be borrowed and shall report the whole Bill to the House, stating in their Report what parts of the Bill have been considered by each Committee:
    That the Committee have power, if they so determine, to sit as two Committees, and in that event to apportion the Bills referred to the Committee between the two Committes, each of which shall have

    1235
    the full powers of and be subject to the instructions which apply to the undivided Committee, and that four be the quorum of each of the two Committees."

    SOUTHEND WATER BILL.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Mr. BOOTH: I notice that in Clause 21 of this Bill power is taken to raise additional capital not exceeding £250,000. I should like to ask, if this Bill is passed, whether it will require Treasury sanction? We have already passed measures in this House to the effect that no issue of capital will be allowed to any company except such as the Treasury sanction, and they have set up a Committee which is dealing with these applications from day to day. I wish to know whether this company will require Treasury sanction or whether the passing of this Bill will be sufficient. Many companies established by Act of Parliament prior to the legislation which set up Treasury control will have to come under the Treasury, and I would like to know whether this company will be in a different position, and whether it can proceed at any time without having to go before the Treasury at all. In that case we might find a number of companies applying for capital when it is not in the interests of the State.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: If this is a capital expenditure of £250,000 for waterworks purposes, the expenditure will not be incurred at least for two or three years, or any portion of it, and even when incurred it will be spread over eight or ten years during the progress of the works, and therefore the whole of this capital will not be raised at once.
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Pontefract for raising this question. The Treasury have already informed me that they are closely watching private Bills this Session, and that they will draw my attention to any matters in which in the public interest they ought to intervene. I think that will satisfy my hon. Friend.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will they draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the matter before the Committee sits or afterwards?
    1236
    I think they ought to undertake to draw attention to the matter as soon as the Bill goes to the Second Reading.
    The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: If it is a matter of the whole Bill, they will draw attention to it before the Second Reading; but if it is only a matter of some Clauses, then they will draw attention to it before the Bill proceeds to Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

    GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
    Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  NECESSARIES OF LIFE (PRICES).

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment to Question [11 th February].
    "That this House regrets the rise in the price of the Necessaries of Life, and calls upon the Government to use every endeavour to prevent a continuance of this unfortunate consequence of war, which is causing much hardship, especially to the poor."—[Mr. Ferens.]
    Which Amendment was to leave out from the word "Government" to the end of the Question, in order to add, instead thereof, the words "to prevent a continuance of this unjustifiable increase by employing the shipping and railway facilities necessary to put the required supplies on the market, by fixing maximum prices, and by acquiring control of commodities that are or may be subject to artificial costs."
    Mr. ROWNTREE (resuming): I desire to suggest that one way of overcoming the difficulty in which we find ourselves to-day, is that there should be great efforts made to raise wages in the ranks of low-paid labour. I desire to point out that if the Government intend to take any effective steps, they must be first of all willing to put into practice this policy for themselves. They have already shown their willingness to do that by what they have encouraged the railway companies to do with regard to their men. I should like to

    1237
    say in that connection, that I am very glad indeed that the railway men have agreed that the largest amount should go to what is known at the "bottom dog." That is a principle which I believe we want to look at during the present crisis, especially in connection with this question of the rise in food prices. We want to keep in mind constantly that the hardship is greatest where the wage is the lowest. If the Government are able to do that throughout their ranks, then municipalities would do the same, and I feel perfectly certain that an appeal from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to the great industries of the country would be found to have a good effect and would operate quickly. Some firms have already granted a bonus of this kind, and I am sure if this were put as a patriotic duty at the present time, it would be responded to.
    I am convinced that this matter must be attended to quickly, or else we may have industrial strife, which at the present time is the last thing we want. I am certain also that if the same kind of appeal was made to the farmers, they, too, would respond. Before the War a large group of hon. Members opposite agreed to the principle of a Wages Board for agricultural labourers, and I think most of us on the Ministerial side of the House have also come to the conclusion that this was absolutely necessary. To carry out what some hon. Members have suggested would need legislation, and it would take a long time to get into operation. These rises in wages are wanted quickly, and if such an appeal as I have alluded to was made to the farmers, from the standpoint of patriotism, I think they would respond. We want to remember in this connection that such a policy as I have recommended would mean sacrifices, and might mean lower dividends, although of that I am doubtful, because I believe there is nothing more true than what was said by an hon. Member a short time ago, that low-paid labour is dear labour, and if men are not getting sufficient to support themselves in a state of physical efficiency that is the reason why you get poor and dull labour. I am inclined to think that if you could translate this new spirit that is abroad in the country into action, and if employers of labour and farmers, recognising the fact of this increase, would meet their people before even they asked for it, it might do as much as anything to perpetuate that truer union which we want in the community to-day.
    1238
    Even if that did need a sacrifice, it would be nothing compared to the sacrifices which two or three million men who have gone to the front are prepared to make. We have raised a great Army for France on the voluntary principle. We have raised it largely by the efforts of the Government and of Members of this House. We have asked of them the largest sacrifices you can ask of any set of men. Is it not possible, on the same voluntary principle, to get this question of wages adjusted in a manner satisfactory to the whole community?
    The Members of the two Houses of Parliament, I fancy, are responsible for more than half the land of the kingdom, and I am perfectly certain, if they took the same interest and evinced the same zeal in trying to get wages raised for those who remain at home as they have done in getting large armies together, that it would have immediate results. I notice that an hon. Member suggested that we should give up our £400. There is no doubt a good deal in that suggestion, but I expect that he and many others have given far more than their £400 away. It would be far more effective, I believe, if we ourselves realised that we have a duty in this matter, and, if we ask the Government to lead, that we are bound to try and follow and use our influence wherever we can to get these wages raised. I am perfectly certain, even if the sacrifice be considerable, that the reward would be great. We want, of course, to preserve national solidarity at the present time. We want, if we can, in these days, to enlarge the frontiers of life. We want to make more real our common citizenship. It is a fairly easy thing to talk about on the platform, but it is a far more difficult thing to carry out in practice. We want to realise to-day the tremendous hardships under which great masses of the people are labouring at the present time during this great crisis, and we want to go out boldly to meet the problem, and to make real and practical and effective the spirit of solidarity which has swept over the country.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. PETO: I want to bring the House back, if I can, to the practical issue that is presented to Parliament at the present moment on this question of labour and wages. I do not differ for a moment with what the hon. Member has said with regard to the importance of raising agricultural wages, and I certainly agree with

    1239
    every word which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) said on the subject earlier in the Debate, but as a practical measure at the moment it would not materially affect the question of agricultural produce whether wages were raised by 1s., 2s., 3s., or even 4s. per week. The practical problem which we have to face is that, as a matter of fact, in many districts the men are not there. Of course, recruiting has not been on the same scale in every agricultural district, but at any rate in those with which I am best acquainted recruiting has been on an extraordinarily high scale. During the three months at the end of last year, I had the opportunity of travelling through France up to the frontier of Belgium, and, being a keen agriculturist myself, I naturally spent long hours of tedious journeys watching agricultural processes as they were being carried out during and after harvest. I saw throughout the country, without exception, old men, mere boys, and women doing the work men would have done if they had not been called to the Colours and were not almost to a man fighting out common battle. I was very much impressed by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his short statement on the financial arrangements between the Allies when he told the House that it was absolutely necessary in an alliance for each of the Allies to bring their whole resources to bear upon the common object and I think it is not fair that we in this country should be talking about such a question as the rise in agricultural wages, and looking at that as a solution of the problem at the moment, when we know that our Allies are meeting that question, as they are bound to meet it because of the enormous proportion of their men serving at the front, by getting every available source of labour to produce the food absolutely necessary to carry on the War. I would, therefore, ask hon. Members whom I can see are in opposition to the proposal that we should do all we can to recruit labour, both from the young and from women, at the present moment to realise that it is not any question of trying to pinch a bit off wages or anything of that kind that induces the farmers to feel that they must ask the education authorities to help them, and to realise that we have got to bring to our assist-
    1240
    ance every possible means we have of cultivating the land. I wish to say a word or two with regard to what seemed to me an omission in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. He dealt exceedingly ably with the present problem of food prices, but he did not deal with that part of the very eloquent and able speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Prothero), in which he pointed out quite clearly that whatever food prices might be to-day, there are certain inevitable causes operating which are bound to make the scarcity far more felt throughout Europe, and not only in this country during the later months of the War, however many they may be, and for a good many months after peace is declared.
    I should have liked to hear more, and I hope we may do so, from the hon. Baronet who represents the Board of Agriculture, with regard to what is going to be done to induce a larger production of spring-sown wheat, not in this present season which is almost passed, and which, owing to the exceptionally wet weather is a problem that, to a large extent, probably, cannot possibly be met—but what is going to be done to increase the production of foodstuffs, not only this year but next autumn, and in the following spring, seeing that the season of 1916 is likely to be a time when, according to many of the best judges of these agricultural problems, there will be the greatest scarcity and when there will be the most concentrated demands on the restricted area of wheat production. I am sure the Government will have to take a long view on this question. They will have to look not only at the question of what encouragement can be given and what interference is possible with regard to the immediate problem which naturally affects all parties in the House, but they must look forward to the fact that they have to make provision for a time of scarcity which, probably, compared with the present, will be very much more intense.
    Then, I would like the hon. Baronet to consider this. A great deal has been said on the question of wheat production and practically the whole Debate has been confined to that problem, but any increase of area for spring-sown wheat at the present time must be taken from the arable area of the country, and must mean a corresponding diminution in barley and oats and other spring-sown crops which may be sown if the farmer cannot get his wheat

    1241
    in. The period of spring sowing for barley and oats is longer than that for wheat, and most fanners hold that wheat is of no use if it is put into the ground after the 10th March, whereas they have nearly another month for sowing both barley and oats. At the present time, dealing with the question of prices, what is causing trouble and is going to cause trouble with regard to meat production is that we are shut off from our ordinary supply of cheap barley, which comes from Russia. Barley-meal is already at almost prohibitive prices, and if we are going merely to take so much arable land from the cultivation of barley and put it into wheat, what we shall get in bread we shall lose in meat. I am sure that aspect of the problem has not escaped the hon. Baronet's notice, but I mention it particularly, because it has escaped mention in the Debate so far. I want to know that the hon. Gentleman is taking serious note of the fact that, not only are feeding-stuffs in the form of cake dear enough, and likely to be dearer, but we are shut off in respect of feeding barley more than anything else from our normal ordinary sources of supply. Therefore, in dealing with the wheat problem for the larger period of time to which I want him to devote attention, he must look at the question, not from the point of view of what can be done in turning arable cultivation in this country from the production of one cereal to another, but in bringing into cultivation a larger area of practically unproductive grass land. I do not suggest that that can be done in ten minutes, or in the present spring sowing season, but it can be done before next autumn, and it will have to be done if the people of this country are to be fed in the time of scarcity which will be accentuated in 1916.
    I would like to say one word with regard to coal. The President of the Board of Trade dismissed the question of sea-borne coal for London with practically a wave of the hand. He said that almost all of it was used for gas production, and for the production of electrical power. That is true, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to have entirely overlooked the fact that gas production is very closely connected with the consumption of coal among the very poorest people in London, because gas cooking is becoming more and more general, and the saving in coal, as well as the saving of putting smoke into the atmosphere, are things which in every way ought to be encouraged. Gas cooking is probably one of the cheapest forms of cooking that is now used. The rise in
    1242
    freights for gas coal to London alone, I am told, means a rise in the price of gas of 8d. per thousand feet. It does not matter whether you have it in meal or in malt. If the coal becomes dearer, the poor person will be far worse off, and I do not think it is for the President of the Board of Trade to say that the shipowners of this country are not responsible for the scarcity and dearness of coal in London, because sea-borne coal happens to be used for the production of gas and electric power.
    It does not seem right in a subject like coal to say that because certain classes are used for one purpose and not for another the general price is absolutely unaffected by anything which affects one quality or the other. I wish the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) had told us in the interesting speech he made, who he really thought was getting the enormous difference in price between what the coal owners are receiving on their contracts made in June last and what the consumer in London is paying. The conclusion is pretty obvious, but the hon. Baronet did not tell us that the whole of this enormous additional cost, represented by at least 10s. per ton on most qualities of coal, must be going into the hands of coal merchants and distributors in the trade. I also very much wish that the hon. Baronet had told us, when he informed us what the contract prices last June were, and what the coal owners who are lucky enough to have a little surplus coal beyond their contracts to sell, are now getting for it; what he thought would be the contract prices on the 30th June next if the Government do nothing to regulate the supply of coal and the distribution of it.
    There is no doubt there must be a certain shortage of labour for coal production. I have been asked, as have other hon. Members, to go down and address recruiting meetings in essentially coal areas. I have regarded the position with a little misgiving, for I do not know to what extent it is in the general interest of the country to urge more of our colliers to leave their employment and enlist in the Army. If the hon. Baronet replies perhaps he will give us a little idea of what is in the general interest, both with regard to coal production and food production. If he does that, he will be serving the House very well, because it is a little difficult for hon. Members to be asked to go down and make impassioned appeals to

    1243
    the wage-earning classes of this country to go and enlist when, at the same time, we are debating for two days in this House a problem which is absolutely connected, and not only connected with, but dependent upon the supply of labour for the production of food and the production of coal.
    I know something has been said about the employment of Belgian refugees who happen to be coal winners in their own country. There may be something to be done in that direction, but it would be very natural for people in this country engaged in the industry to say, "If anybody is to dig coal why should not we, and it anybody is to fight for their country, why should not the Belgians." Of course the Belgians have done magnificently so far, but I want to know whether there is any real reason why we should urge more of our working classes connected with these essentials of life to join the Colours, and whether it is still more important that we should get more recruits than that we should find some means of increasing the effectiveness of the labour we have. I beg hon. Members who are looking at this I question from the agricultural labourers' point of view of the raising of his wages by 2s. or 3s. a week to bear in mind that we must do in this country what our Allies are doing and utilise the services of every available man, woman, and child. Men who are over military age and women must help in every possible way. I believe that even the children from the schools, if old enough, can assist in the agricultural work which has to be done. I hope hon. Members will look at things from that broad point of view, and will realise that what is best for the education of our children in times of peace may not necessarily be best in war's emergencies.
    Mr. BLACK: Representing an agricultural constituency, I should like to say how profoundly grateful I am for the tone and substance of the speeches which have been delivered to-day, particularly with regard to the position of the agricultural labourer. The hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero), who is an old electoral opponent of mine, will, perhaps, permit me to say how greatly I value the contribution he made to the Debate and his suggestion and powerful appeal to the farmers and landowners of this country to make an immediate advance in wages of at least 2s. a week, and, supported as it was a little later by the right hon. Gentleman
    1244
    the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), I hope it will produce effective, widespread results. At this moment the House cannot do better than to give sympathetic attention to the question of the agricultural labourer. Last week the railway men of the country had a substantial advance made in their wages, and the principle adopted in that advance was that the lowest paid men should receive the largest percentage of the increase. I sympathise with that practice, because it is the poorest paid man who, at this moment, is the most heavily penalised. When it is applied to the agricultural labourer, whose wages for the most part are invariably lower than those of the lowest paid men employed on the railways, the argument applies with still greater force.
    Will the House consider the position of the agricultural labourer whose wages amount to 15s. a week, with a wife and family to keep and food prices ruling at the rate they now do? His position is pitiable in the extreme. One previous speaker referred to the fact that wages had been appreciably raised. They may have been raised—indeed, they have been raised a shilling a week in many parts of my own Constituency—but I am sorry to say that does not apply all over the country. While wages have remained practically stationary, everybody here knows that everything the labourer has to buy now costs him more. Meat as an article of food in the labourer's cottage is becoming less and less possible, and bread, of which he must actually eat more at this moment because he cannot afford other things, is now costing nearly double. The House will agree with me when I remind them that no body of men in the country have joined the Colours in larger proportions than have agricultural labourers. In village after village in my own Division every available man has already gone, and in the case of the wives and families of those men, with the War Office allowances now ruling, the families are actually better off with the breadwinner away than they would be if he were at home. What about the men who have remained—men whose work is equally necessary for the national welfare? They are considerably worse off now than they have ever been.
    Labour in the agricultural districts, as the last speaker pointed out, is undoubtedly scarce, and, at the same time,

    1245
    is grossly underpaid. The hon. Member (Mr. Peto) supported the suggestion that boy and woman labour should be employed and that young boys should be taken from school in order to supply the deficiency. I notice in the newspapers to-day that the Farmers' Union of Nottinghamshire passed a resolution asking the Board of Education to liberate boys of eleven years of age and upwards from the schools in order to supply the deficiency. I do not venture to say that the object of trying to secure boy labour in the villages is to keep down wages. I do not think that is the object; but I am perfectly certain that that will be the effect of it, and I hope the Board of Education and education authorities throughout the country will think very seriously and very long before they allow this practice to be largely adopted. Among agricultural labourers trade unions are almost unknown. The labourer is isolated; he is helpless and he is almost inarticulate. He silently suffers year in and year out from an insufficiency of the bare necessities of life.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) this afternoon reminded the House that among the men from our villages who had joined the Colours he had noticed, and others more directly associated with agriculture have noticed, that when the men who have joined the Colours have had the advantage of a few months' training, coupled with good food, their appearance, physique and efficiency has been improved remarkably. I therefore venture to add my humble appeal to farmers and landowners generally in the country to give sympathetic consideration to the appeal which has been made by the President of the Board of Trade and the other speakers to whom I have referred. This is a time for prompt and generous action. Sixpence to 1s. a week advance will not meet the case to-day, and while I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford University that an advance of 2s. is a good deal better than nothing, yet I agree with the President of the Board of Trade that something more than that is required to meet the necessities of the case, and that an advance of from 3s. to 5s. is immediately necessary. Apply the principle, adopted in the case of the railway men, of the lowest paid men getting the largest advance to agricultural labourers, and I am perfectly certain the money will not be lost. The men who
    1246
    receive the money will be better workers and more satisfied and contented workers, and their employers will be among the first to gain the advantage.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I had not intended during the War to participate in the deliberations of this House, because I feel that I am better employed elsewhere; but as chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture I felt bound to attend this Debate to utter some protest against the unfair suggestion which has been so admirably refuted by the hon. Member (Mr. Prothero), that British farmers were holding up wheat and thereby taking advantage of the necessities of the nation. I have never during the time I have been a Member of the House listened to a more interesting and instructive speech than that delivered by the hon. Member, and I think Members in all parts of the House must agree, and I am glad to note that the President of the Board of Trade has certainly shown that he agrees, that the case sought to be made as against British farmers in this regard could not be established. Various commodities have been mentioned in the course of this Debate, and except in the case of coal and shipping freights the rise in the price of commodities has been almost, if not entirely, in direct ratio with the extent of our dependence on their supply from abroad.
    The case to-day has been chiefly made as regards wheat, flour and sugar. The establishment of maximum prices by the Government and Government control can only be effective in the case of those commodities which are produced mainly, if not wholly, in this country or in respect of which there is a national monopoly. I will put on one side coal, shipping freights and railway rates. I am not sure that I should not be prepared to include amongst agricultural produce meat and milk, because we have to congratulate ourselves on the fact that they are produced mainly, if not wholly, within our own national borders. In regard to all these articles it is possible for the Government to exercise some control and to regulate prices, and as regards coal, I may say straightaway that I should like to support the appeal made by our chief authority upon the coal trade, at any rate the chief authority amongst coal-owners in this House, that the Government should seriously consider whether the time has not arrived to fix maximum prices so far as our coal is concerned. It seems to me that it is not the

    1247
    British producer who is at present exploiting the needs of the nation. If there is a fault to be laid at the door of any individual, I fancy it is far more likely to be found amongst certain classes of middlemen, distributors and speculators.
    As regards coal, in my own district, the Forest of Dean, the average price to-day at the pit's mouth is something like 9s. 4d. a ton, but I find on inquiry that the price charged for the same coal in London and elsewhere is at least three times that amount. I am talking now of good house coal. It seems to me that there never has been a greater disparity between the price of coal at the pit's mouth and that charged to consumers in London and other large towns, and surely it is a matter that the Government ought to investigate before the increased price of coal becomes a positive national scandal. As regards shipping, I fail to be convinced by the argument used by the President of the Board of Trade. Shipping has always been to some extent a monopoly, but the Government have made it an even greater monopoly during this War than it was before. I do not complain. I think the action they have taken is a very proper action to take, but once having constituted it a monopoly or increased its character as a monopoly, surely it is the duty of the Government to limit and control its undue demands.
    The right hon. Gentleman's argument, as far as I could gather, in this respect was that any interference on the part of the Government would tend to create an unfair preference as between different merchants. Surely the British consumer must be taken into account before we come to consider such trifling matters as some slight preference as between various merchants, and to my mind, that is not a final or wholly convincing argument with freights going up at the very rapid rate at which they are rising to-day. As regards wheat and flour, it is common knowledge that about five-sixths during last year, and in normal years about four-fifths are obtained from overseas, fortunately for us in recent years, to a larger extent than formerly, from British Possessions. But there remains the fact that the bulk of the wheat and flour which are consumed in this country are obtained from abroad, and, therefore, nothing that the Government can do in fixing a maximum price for wheat or flour
    1248
    is likely, materially, to affect the prices that the public have to pay for the bread that they consume in this country.
    As a matter of fact, the bulk of the wheat that is coming to our shores to-day is coming from the American continent, and, rather unfortunately, there is an enormous amount of speculation in wheat in America at present, a tendency which is likely, to my mind, to be increased when the, to us, more serious months of April, May, and June come to be reached. In the meantime, we are informed, I hope not accurately, that the United States Government is contemplating restricting the exportation of wheat, owing to the high price of that commodity in their own country. There is also the possibility—I will not put it any higher—in consequence of the vain-glorious boast or threat of the German Government of some at least of our ships carrying grain being interfered with on the high seas, and so deterring or frightening shipowners from sending the normal amount of grain across the Atlantic. In any case the position, to my mind, is not a very satisfactory one and cannot be cured by the Government taking control of our Home supply of wheat and flour.
    The Government appionted last August an Agricultural Consultative War Committee, of which they did me the honour to make me a member, and I do not think I am abusing any confidence when I say we unanimously reported that we feared that the greatest shortage in the matter of cereal grain, and particularly wheat and flour, was likely to occur in the late spring and the early summer of this year. What have the Government told us we have to rely upon during those months? The Australian crop, we are told, was a failure. The continued supply of wheat from America is, to say the least, somewhat doubtful. The Argentine crop, which fortunately is a good one, is likely to be deflected to a very large extent to those countries of Central Europe which for the first time in their experience will become very largely dependent upon an oversea supply. A large amount of Argentine wheat which in past years came to our shores will undoubtedly be deflected owing to the temptation of excessively high prices in other countries than our own. That applies not merely to the Argentine, but to every neutral producer of wheat.

    1249
    The redeeming feature of the situation, we are told, is the unusually bountiful supply which may be expected from India. That supply is estimated, as I understand, at something like 5,000,000 quarters, but I may remind the House that the Prime Minister, in referring to this matter, referred to it as a somewhat delicate matter. I most entirely agree. I think it is extremely probable that a very large proportion of the whole Indian supply will be absorbed in India itself, and will not reach this country at all. In any case, there are the six months before our own 1915 harvest is carried. There are the months of May and June, and possibly part of July, when this country may have to face, unless some action is taken by the Government, a more serious shortage than it is facing at the present time. What is the Government doing to put us as a nation in a better position than we are in at the present time, and are likely to be in during the spring and summer months? The President of the Board of Trade told us that the first necessity in this country is to have supplies coming in. Well, I would venture to suggest to him that the first necessity in war time is to produce our own supply. Surely next to the sailor and the soldier the home producer has the most patriotic task to perform of any man in this country. The farmer's position to-day is neither a very easy nor a very remunerative one. In spite of all that may be said or suggested from the Benches below the Gangway on the other side, farmers as a whole are not having a very prosperous or a very comfortable time at present. The President of the Board of Trade told us that the farmer's natural inclination is to grow wheat—that is to say, to sow spring wheat during the next month or six weeks.
    The farmer is not a capitalist nowadays. Unlike thirty or forty years ago, capitalists do not go in for farming. It is not sufficiently productive. The farmer is a sufficiently cautious business man, and he is not prepared to risk very much of his small capital on expensive new departures in the agricultural industry. The growing of a great amount of grain is a considerable matter, and the Government might do something before he enters upon what may turn out to be a bad speculation. It was urged upon the Government by the Consultative Committee last autumn, and it was urged also by most of the leading agriculturists in the country, that what they might have done was to have given
    1250
    some financial inducement to the farmers in the truest interest of the country to sow more wheat, and the manner in which it was suggested that that might be effected was to guarantee them a minimum price for their wheat of 40s. per quarter. It was not asking very much. It was simply to secure them against unforeseen loss. Well, we make the same request to the Government to-day, but we do not ask them to guarantee the farmer or to give the farmer anything like the high price obtainable for grain, but we do ask that if the British farmer is to assist in the most patriotic way in protecting the interests of the Nation, he shall be guaranteed against loss in the matter of putting in spring wheat by a guaranteed minimum price of 40s. per quarter. What the Government are inclined to say—and I think the right hon. Gentleman already said it to the House—is that farmers know that with the price as high as it is there is no great risk of its being seriously depressed, while there is a possibility of getting a good deal more. That is not a consideration that will actuate farmers in putting in wheat at the present time. They have no excess capital to spare on a speculative enterprise of this kind. All they ask is a minimum price of 40s. a quarter should be guaranteed to them if they do the nation's work by sowing a large additional amount of wheat. I do not think that any hon. Member would say that that is an unreasonable demand, and I, for my part, although I am not authorised to say this, think that some guarantee might be given in regard to other cereals which are of no less importance to the country. After all, spring wheat is a somewheat uncertain crop. It is generally not a very heavy crop. It is liable to mildew and other troubles. On the other hand, barley will be in great demand, particularly if exports from Russia are not forthcoming in the next twelve months. The same applies to oats, which, after all, is a very valuable human food, of which we do not make sufficient use in this country. It is largely required at present for horses at the front.
    Sir WILLIAM BYLES: If the Government is not to lose a farthing by the guarantee of 40s. per quarter, how would the farmer profit by getting the guarantee?
    Mr. C. BATHURST: The whole mistake which the hon. Member makes is to imagine that the farmer desires to profit out of the public necessity. What the farmer wants is to be assured that if he

    1251
    enters into an entirely new enterprise involving additional capital he shall not lose by the transaction, and it is not asking very much of the nation and the Government to assure that to him. Another suggestion made to the Government was that they should do all in their power to prevent the export of milling offals. Whatever may be happening as regards wheat growers—and I wish we had a great many more of them—after all livestock is the sheet anchor of the British farmer to-day. As a result 62 per cent. of the whole of the meat which we consume is grown at home, and, as the Prime Minister told the House the other day, the increase in the cost of home-grown meat during the past twelve months has amounted to only 6 per cent. as compared with 66 per cent. increase in the case of wheat—a fact which, by the way, is the very strongest argument in favour of growing the food of the people as much as possible at home, because you can ensure that there is no inflated price, and if there is an inflated price it is in the power of the Government to control it. Stock owners at any rate are making a very narrow profit out of their industry to-day. The smaller stock owner is making no profit at all. There is no more unfortunate feature in British agriculture at the present time than the fact that the poorer stock owners, the small owners particularly, and the small pig owners, are running their immature stock on the market and selling it for what it will fetch because they simply cannot afford the food—it may be the feeding cake or the milling offal—necessary to feed that stock.
    When the right hon. Gentleman referred just now to the case of bacon, I hope he will admit this, but I am sure that it is the fact. One important cause for the non-increase in the price of bacon as compared with food-stuffs is undoubtedly the fact that a very large number of immature pigs has been placed on the British market, with the result that there has been a surplus in the market, and the price has been depressed. I should feel far happier if I could say that the price of bacon had been maintained or substantially increased, because I am quite sure, unless something unforeseen happens within the next two or three months, that bacon, which, after all, is in more demand among our poorer industrial population than any other class of meat, stands a great chance of being beyond the power of our poorer industrial population to purchase. At any
    1252
    rate, I am quite sure that the present price of bacon is no guide to what the price is likely to be in the next few months, bearing in mind the increasing shortage of pigs in this country, particularly amongst small owners. More wheat does not mean less meat. As Denmark, Belgium, and other enterprising countries have found, more wheat means more meat, more potatoes, more barley, more oats, more human food generally, produced throughout the agricultural areas of the country. It is quite a fallacy to suppose that you want grass in order to raise meat. The very worst land upon which you can raise meat in any large quantity is that which is under so-called grass. I say so-called grass because I have always held that the greatest disgrace to this country, and the most obvious illustration of the neglect of our great national industry, is the enormous area of what looks like grass, but is not grass at all, but valueless, unnutritious weeds. This is not the time or the occasion to talk about the ploughing up of the grass in order to produce to a greater extent the food of the people. That ought to have been provided for in peace time. No one will contend that there is a large amount of second-rate pasture in this country under so-called grass which ought to be ploughed up, and if you afforded to agriculture the encouragement given by other enlightened countries it would be ploughed up to provide human food at the present time.
    Quite apart from that, if a financial guarantee were given by the Government with a view to farmers growing more spring wheat in order to provide against possible unfortunate eventualities during war, we should double the quantity of spring-grown cereal crops and provide quite another 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 quarters of wheat and other cereals that might come in useful for human food before this year is out. I would remind the House, as a matter of interest as regards wheat and other grain and flour, that we provide today at home £10,000,000 worth out of £58,000,000 worth—that is to say, roughly about one-sixth of the whole, whereas the meat produced at home amounts to £78,000,000 worth out of £129,000,000, or just over 60 per cent. That is largely due to the enlightened policy of successive Governments in keeping disease out of the country. As regards poultry and eggs, we provide £15,000,000 worth out of £25,000,000, or just over 60 per cent. of the whole, and of dairy produce we provide £42,000,000 worth out of £75,000,000 worth, or 55 per cent.

    1253
    As to the sufficiency of meat, after all it is very satisfactory to feel that we have so much meat in this country to fall back upon if we do not put immature stock on our markets, but we must depend upon our capacity to feed our farm animals. Again I ask the Board of Agriculture not to allow these milling offals to drift away to Denmark and other countries, but to have them kept at home to provide further food for our farm stock, and thereby more food for our people. I would wish that the Government would do something to impress upon the public generally the importance of food values. There is an enormous waste going on to-day owing to the fact that we do not make the best possible use of the most nutritious food that we have. I was in an Army camp at Eastbourne last Saturday. Curiously enough, it was a camp run entirely by doctors—the Royal Army Medical Corps camp. I found in every kitchen all the potatoes being peeled, the cooks being blissfully unconscious of the fact that by far the most nutritious part of the potato was to be found immediately under the skin which was being removed, and it was no doubt given eventually to the pigs or allowed to rot.
    The same sort of thing is happening, as we all know, in the case of the bread that we eat. As a result of the modern milling process, we remove from the wheat far and away the most nutritious portion of the grain, in the way of middlings and the germ, and then hand it over to the pigs as the best of pig food. Wheat would go at least 50 per cent. further if we could only induce the people of this country to realise what is the most nutritious portion of the grain and to see that our mills do not take it out before the flour is transferred to bakers to be converted into bread. Exactly the same applies to rice. I wish to goodness that we had some figures as regards rice. So far as I know, not a word has been said about it in the House. It is most important that we should know what rice is coming from India and other countries, and, if it does come, I hope that the Local Government Board, which has made a report upon this very subject, will impress upon the public the enormous importance of not, at any rate, using the polished rice, which may look very attractive, but has half the flavour and most of the nourishment taken away from it, whereas, if they eat the unpolished rice, which has that valuable nitrogenous skin left upon it, they should obtain far better value for the money which they pay
    1254
    for it, and far better nourishment. At any rate I should like to say in conclusion that if this War teaches us nothing else, it will teach us the appalling risks that are involved in so carelessly neglecting our agricultural industry in this country, and taking no steps in time of peace to provide for the possibilities of war. I hope that we shall get through this War without our population suffering in the matter of a serious shortage of food, but if we do, in my humble opinion it will be little short of a miracle. I believe that our greatest danger to-day is not a lack of ships, is not a lack of soldiers, is not a lack of ammunition, but is a lack of that reserve supply of food which only our home agriculture can provide.
    Sir HARRY VERNEY: I hope I may claim to have been a good listener to the two days' Debate on behalf of the Department which I have the honour to represent in this House. I listened to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto), and also to the hon. and learned Member for Wilton, who never addresses us without adding to our knowledge of agricultural matters. I also listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Prothero), who made three suggestions, and I ventured to interrupt him to tell him that all three were already under our consideration. He asked that we should issue as soon as possible a leaflet as to spring wheat, and suggested that it might be to the advantage of the public to issue it before the summer. I may inform him that the leaflet was published this morning, and will be found in the "Journal of the Board of Agriculture," of which I will send the hon. Member a copy, and other hon. Members can buy a copy for 4d. I do not propose to go over the whole range of the Debate, partly because I am very sensible of what it would mean to the Members on the Back Benches if they found their time taken up by a Member of the Front Bench. I want to say one word with regard to coal. As has already been hinted by the President of the Board of Trade, the Government are to hold immediately an inquiry into the causes of the rise of the cost of coal sold by retail for domestic purposes, and any useful suggestion which may result from that inquiry, if practicable to carry it out, will be carried out.
    Mr. NEVILLE: May I ask whether any representative of the gas companies will be on that Committee?
    Sir H. VERNEY: That matter will be considered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. NEVILLE: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate the importance of the matter, as the gas companies are interested in the question of the price and supply of coal.
    10.0 P.M.
    Sir H. VERNEY: I admit that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham asked about sugar, and my right hon. Friend requests me to state that the subject of sugar is one of which the Home Secretary will be in charge, and, if the House desires it, the right hon. Gentleman will state the facts as to sugar, and submit his action to the discussion and judgment of the House. But he ventures to suggest, as my right hon. Friend mentioned to-day, that it would be more in the public interest if that Debate could be postponed until next month. I now come to my Department of the Board of Agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition complained that the Departments did not make sufficient use of expert advice and of the advice of business men. I hope that charge will not be brought against the Board of Agriculture, which has conferred with the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) and with expert and skilled farmers in regard to agricultural matters. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that under-secretaries were generally put on committees, but the under-secretary whom I know best has quite failed to get himself put on any committee. If anybody is to be attacked in connection with wheat it is not the farmer, who depends upon his stock, upon his being a milk producer, and upon growing vegetables, potatoes and other produce. In regard to prices, take potatoes—with or without their skins—and it will be found that the price is now less than it was in July. Again, take the milk producer. I think, that there is no doubt, that up to the 1st February there was no rise in the price of milk in London since the beginning of the War.
    In the case of milk and potatoes the farmers have control of the market in this country, and we have the fact that potatoes are lower in price, and that milk has not been raised in price. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Yes, it has."] If I am wrong with regard to milk, I would point out that I have only given the figure up to the 1st February in London; in other towns, since
    1256
    the 1st February, there has been a slight rise. Now take the question of mutton. There has been a great rise in the price of mutton. Taking the average price in the month of July and average price in the month of January, Australian mutton was raised by 30 per cent., and English mutton by 2 per cent. Where we have controlled the whole market it will be seen that the price is only raised by 2 per cent. I only put that in order to show that the farmer is not as black as he is painted, and it has been stated many times this afternoon in regard to the question of wheat that the English farmer cannot be said in any sense to control the price of wheat in this country, for the price of wheat in this country is affected by the wheat imported from abroad. The hon. Member for Oxford University referred to the case of a farmer growing wheat. Up to the middle of November the price of wheat never reached 40s., and one-third of the total supply of English wheat was sold, and, therefore, one-third of the supply of English wheat was sold at a price below that which is suggested by the hon. Member, and which I think everyone will agree is not an extravagant price, considering the many obligations farmers have.
    There are many large farmers who have made large prices over the sale of their wheat, but still it is to be remembered that one-third of the total supply was sold at under 40s., in many cases by the small farmers, while the large farmers who grow wheat were making higher prices. I think the House will come to the conclusion that the farmer is not to blame for the price of wheat. It has been the business of the Board of Agriculture to investigate all cases brought to our notice. We have investigated comparatively few cases where farmers have been supposed to have been holding wheat, and I may say in hardly any case has there been found to be any truth in the suggestion that he was holding it to any large extent. There was one case in which a farmer was holding up wheat for a price which has certainly never been reached, and there were isolated cases where it was held chiefly owing to the weather, or owing to inability to get a threshing-machine, or to things of that sort.
    On the whole, the figures collected by the Board of Agriculture show that more wheat rather than less has been put on the market as compared with the average for

    1257
    this time of year. The last thing I should wish to do, or I think any Member of this House would wish to do, would be to persuade farmers to put all their wheat on the market at once, and so leave us entirely dependent on what we import for the following month's supply. If the farmer may be absolved from the charge of withholding wheat, we come to what I venture to regard as the gravaman of the charge against him—namely, the question of wages. It is extremely difficult to generalise about the question of wages, because individuals can get up and say that the facts as stated are not so in their particular district. I think, however, there can be no doubt that there is a small general rise in wages of agricultural labourers since the War. There was one case brought to our notice of a farmer paying 5s. a week more, and a good many cases of farmers paying 2s. per week more, and an immense number in which they are paying 1s. per week more. I think it was the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mr. Leslie Scott) who asked that we should collect information on this subject. We are collecting all the information we can as to the present position of the agricultural labourers' wages. The hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson), whom I may be allowed to congratulate on one of the most interesting speeches of this interesting Debate, asked why it was that Labour Exchanges were not being consulted with regard to the finding of labour. Here, again, the Board have ventured to forestall the criticism, and as I stated in answer to a question recently, committees are being formed in conjunction with the Labour Exchange and with the Chamber of Agriculture, of which the hon. Member for Wilton is President, and with branches of the Farmers' Union with a view to ascertaining definitely whether there is a shortage of agricultural labour and how it can be met.
    The hon. Member for the Exchange Division suggested the employment of women, and other hon. Members suggested the employment of children. As far as the Board of Agriculture controls these matters, their fixed policy is that the employment of children shall come last, and that all other forms of labour, adult labour, shall be resorted to before we come to that last and, as I think, worst experiment of the employment of child labour. What really solves the difficulty of the question of labour is the question of
    1258
    wages. It comes back to the question of how much the farmer is able and willing to pay to get his labour. It certainly applies in the case of the labour of women. If the conditions and the wages are decent, then I believe that the women will help, as all other patriotic people would help, at this time to assist in cultivating the land. It is our business, as it is our conviction, to prove to the world what has been said before, namely, that there is nothing so expensive as low-paid labour. Low-paid labour is dear labour. I think hon. Members will sympathise with me a good deal when I say that it is not easy to see exactly what the Department can do. We have every means of finding out what are the farmers' circumstances, and what they can and cannot afford to pay. Perhaps I may say this, that stimulated by the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University, and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, the Board of Agriculture will bring the force of their influence to bear to raise the status and wages of the agricultural labourer.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: The speech of the President of the Board of Trade was received to-day with evident approval, and almost with enthusiasm, in almost all quarters of the House. I take it, therefore, that the House is satisfied with the statement of the Government in this matter. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon left the position precisely where it stood when the Prime Minister sat down last week. The Prime Minister last week made a very long statement, but one which I think might conveniently be summarised under three heads. First, he said that the state of things, however bad it might be, is not so bad as it was expected to be in the sober judgment and well-informed knowledge of people six months ago. The second point was that, bad as things might be, there was the time in the history of this country when things were quite as bad, and the third point of the Prime Minister's speech was that if the people of this country, the poor people of this country who are suffering from the present high prices of the necessaries of life, would only continue to starve until June, it was possible that some relief might be afforded to them then. I desire to deal with each of these three points. The Prime Minister says that things are not so bad as they were expected to be at this time after the War broke out. In making that statement the Prime Minister condemned the want of foreknowledge

    1259
    and lack of action on the part of himself and his Government. If things were expected to be worse than they are to-day, why did not the Government take some drastic action six months ago in order to make impossible such a condition of things as has in a measure come to pass?
    It is quite true that they did take some action. About a month or six weeks after war broke out they appointed a Cabinet Committee, which I should have thought was the last body that ought to take such a matter into consideration. This Cabinet Committee sat for five months, and surely there never was such an instance in history of a mountain, after groaning and moaning, bringing forth such a miserable mouse as we had in the Prime Minister's statement last week! I said just now that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade adds nothing to the statement that was made by the Prime Minister last week. I wish the Members of the Government and of the Cabinet had had the opportunity which I and my colleagues had last week of facing great audiences of working classes in different parts of the country. I am quite sure it would have been a revelation to them. They would then have discovered that the cheers with which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was received this afternoon do not express the opinion of the working classes of the country in regard to the attitude of the Government on this question. A reference to the Prime Minister's speech was received with howls of execration and indignation. The general opinion was that there had never been a more glaring instance of starving people asking for bread and being offered a stone.
    The speech of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon offered no evidence whatever that the Government propose to take any action to try and reduce the price of food-stuffs. One might have been excused from gathering from one-half of the speech that things were better now than they were twelve months ago. He read out a long list of articles, all necessaries of life—cocoa, coffee, potatoes, lard, bacon—which were either no dearer in price or cheaper than twelve months ago Then, to the surprise of every Member of the House, I think, except the hon. Member for Stockton, who supplied the information, he gave a list of retail prices which he said are ruling at the present time in the borough of Stockton, or some town in the North of
    1260
    England. The right hon. Gentleman represents a great industrial centre in my part of the country. I wish he would go to Dewsbury, collect a meeting of the women of the Co-operative Guild, women who know something about the cost of housekeeping, and read out that list of prices as the prices ruling to-day. If he will do that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will get the time of his life.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to distort what I said. I never said that they were the prices ruling in this country or in any one town. I gave them as an instance showing how fallacious it was to take percentages, and as an indication of the prices that were being paid over an individual counter.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I have not the least intention to distort anything the right hon. Gentleman said. But there are Members present who heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and I do not think that I have in any misrepresented or misconstrued what he said. I say he gave those figures as the prices at which those articles could be obtained a day or two ago in some town in the North of England.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Hear, hear.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: That is what I say.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: And so they are.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Does the hon. Gentleman belie the figures which I have given to the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I have no means of knowing anything as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the figures. But I will tell the hon. Member what I will do: I will produce a list of prices from towns in the North of England showing figures very considerably higher than those submitted this afternoon. I was about to deal with the third point of the Prime Miniser, that the ruling prices are of only a temporary character, and that by June there is likely to be a lowering of prices. I think the hon. Member for the Wilton Division (Mr. Bathurst) answered that very effectively in the extremely valuable speech which he contributed to the Debate. He is a member of some Agricultural Consultative Committee which the Government appointed some time ago, and he informed the House that that Committee has told the Government that, instead of the price of food being likely to be

    1261
    lower in June the probability is that it may be considerably higher. Every authority who has spoken this afternoon has agreed that instead of looking forward with hopefulness to a lowering of prices, the certainty is that prices will go still higher, unless the Government is prepared to take some drastic action. My hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. W. C. Anderson), in the extremely interesting speech with which he charmed the House this afternoon, drew attention to the Prime Minister's references to the state of things at the time of the Franco-Prussian war. My hon. Friend said that these remarks had only an academic interest. The Prime Minister himself appeared to attach a great deal of importance to them. Indeed, he said they were important, and, therefore, seeing the Prime Minister does attach importance to these figures, I want to make some reference to them, and not merely for the purpose of pointing out that the Prime Minister's figures were totally inaccurate, that his facts were wholly wrong, that he never mentioned matters of paramount importance, but I mention them because they have an important bearing in relation to certain proposals which have been put forward in this Debate for dealing with the prices that are now ruling. The Prime Minister, dealing with the prices ruling at the period of the Franco-Prussian war, said:—
    "We certainly ought to take these into account: the cost of commodities was as dear for those years as they have become from recent advances."
    The Prime Minister is older than I am, but I, unfortunately, can just remember the period of the Franco-Prussian War. I have a vivid recollection of that period as one of wonderful prosperity for the working classes. If you take a workman to-day, say a workman in the West Riding trade, or the cotton trade, or the coal-mining industry, who can remember those times, he and his fellows will tell you that those were most prosperous times that the work people of this country ever remember. Put prices rose during that period. Prices of certain commodities certainly did rise, but the average prices during the period the Prime Minister took, that is between 1870 and 1875, were lower than for any five years of the previous twenty years. In this five years period they were 5.5 per cent. lower than they were in the previous five years.
    There was a very substantial increase in coal. At one period of this five years it
    1262
    rose by 112 per cent. over the prices ruling at the beginning of the war. But food prices during that period rose very little. The highest point they reached during those years was 8.6 above the prices ruling at the beginning of the war. If we include coal, with food prices, the rise during those five years, from the beginning of the war to the end of that period, was 11 per cent. only. The Prime Minister was not content with confining himself to the period of the Franco-Prussian War. He said that high prices continued to rule until 1885. The Prime Minister was totally wrong. Really, I should recommend the Prime Minister, were he present, to get a new "devil," because it is evident that the person who made this investigation for the Prime Minister is not to be relied upon in such matters. In 1885 prices were only 7 per cent. above the prices ruling in 1900. Now I come to the bearing of all this upon the present condition of things. In 1900 prices were 9.5 per cent. above the figure for 1885. In 1913, a year before the War, prices were 16½ per cent. above the figure of 1900. The Prime Minister himself admitted that recent prices, or rather the recent increases of prices, have added about 25 per cent. to the cost of commodities. Now, adding that 25 per cent. to the 16½ per cent. increase which had accrued before the outbreak of war, we get this astounding result: that the cost of living to-day is 41½ per cent. higher than it was in 1900. What makes the recent increase of prices such a hardship on the working people is that this increase has come upon a condition of things which had already reached an unbearable point. The condition of the working people before the War broke out, so far as wages and the purchasing power of wages was concerned, was worse than it was thirteen years before.
    Now what does this 41½ per cent. mean? It means that the real value of a wage of £1 a week in 1900 has been reduced to 14s. 1½d. a week. I mention all this, I repeat, to show its connection with a matter which has occupied a good deal of attention in the Debate to-day, and that is the matter of wages. I have pointed out already that during the period of the Franco-Prussian War there was an increase in the price of living, though a comparatively small increase, amounting only, if we include coal, to 11.6. What were wages? In no period of the industrial, or the modern industrial, history of this country have wages risen as rapidly as they did during that period. Between 1870

    1263
    and 1875 wages rose by no less than 26.3 per cent. What is the position to-day? The cost of living is 41.5 higher than it was in 1900, and wages have risen, according to the latest Board of Trade returns, by 5 per cent. That is the position of the working classes to-day. It is upon that that we base this demand that something should be done in order to mitigate such a condition of things. It has been assumed in the course of this Debate that there is very general employment in the country, and that if wages have not risen the working people are earning fairly well because of the regularity of employment. I represent a constituency to which that does not apply. I have had figures submitted to me in regard to the state of employment and the earnings of the cotton operatives in the town of Blackburn, and for three months, ending the middle of last month, the average percentage of unemployment was 32. That is to say, during those three months one-third of the cotton operatives who had normally been employed were out of employment and receiving no wages whatever; and then, in regard to those who were employed, owing to short time and inadequate work, the earnings of those workmen were only 75 per cent. of their normal earnings.
    Hon. Members can imagine what that means. I know of a number of men who since last October have never earned 15s. a week, and some of them only brought 7s. home. An hon. Gentleman who sits on the Back Benches excited the pity of the House a little while back by talking about the wages of the agricultural labourers being only 15s. a week. We all deplore that, but it should be remembered that the cost of living in a country district is less than in a large town like the constituency I represent. I agree that the agricultural labourer with 15s. a week is entitled to our sympathy, but the men in our large industrial centres earning less are equally entitled to our sympathy. I think the President of the Board of Trade offered us very cold comfort this afternoon. I agree with the hon. Member for Wilton (Mr. C. Bathurst) that this question divides itself into two categories—causes beyond our control and causes within our control. I was delighted to hear a good old Tory like the hon. Member—who is associated with the Tory party, but a Gentleman I always have great difficulty in looking upon as a Tory
    1264
    —say that those commodities which are produced within the confines of our own shores might have their prices regulated by Government action, and I invite the President of the Board of Trade to get what consolation he can out of that. If we had been discussing this question of the State regulation of prices not governed by monopolies in normal times, I should not have supported the Motion for a maximum price, because I believe that, under normal conditions, it would not be practical. If we had been debating a paper currency twelve months ago I do not believe there would have been half a dozen hon. Members who would have supported it, and the difficulties of establishing such a system would have been regarded as insuperable. Nevertheless it has been done under exceptional conditions, and what was done in regard to that matter in order to save the financial credit of the country in those exceptional circumstances without prejudicing the condition of things under normal States, might equally be done in regard to the price of the necessaries of life.
    I listened, as every hon. Member who was present listened, with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford University, and I congratulate the House of Commons upon the acquisition of a Gentleman who can speak with such authority on all these questions, and say what he has to say in such a charming manner. There were, it appeared to me, a few inconsistencies and contradictions in his speech, but I have no time now to refer to them. I think he minimised the effect which the supply of home-grown wheat has in regulating the prices of the Home market. It is a well-known fact that a slight increase in the amount or value of a commodity brought into the Home market often has a very considerable effect upon prices. I do not say that the Government can regulate the price of wheat in Chicago or New York, but the Empire is one, and I believe that this War has brought the Empire together much more closer than it has ever been brought together before. In looking at this question and the possibility of controlling the price of wheat, we ought to regard the Empire as a whole. We do get a considerable amount of wheat from the United States of America, but Canada is rapidly taking the premier place in the supply of wheat for the United Kingdom. Why should we not regard Canada and the United Kingdom as one wheat area under

    1265
    existing conditions? We cannot regulate the price of wheat in the United States, but our Government, with the assistance of the Canadian Government, certainly should regulate the price of wheat grown in Canada and the United Kingdom. If the price of Canadian wheat and if Canadian patriotism means anything at all, then the Canadian wheat grower ought to be quite satisfied if he gets a fair remuneration for his work so long as the War lasts. That could be done, and I am quite sure that the fixing of a price for such a large percentage of the world's wheat crop would have an appreciable effect upon prices.
    The President of the Board of Trade, this afternoon gave us no hope to expect that the Government intend to do anything in regard to the question of freights. The increase in freights is to a fairly considerable extent responsible for the increase in the prices of commodities which come to us from overseas. More than one speaker this afternoon has expressed the hope that when the Argentine crop comes there may be some break in prices, but I am afraid that there is not much substantial reason for that hope. Hon. Members are no doubt aware that within the last few months freight rates from the Argentine have risen from 10s. 6d. to 77s. 6d. per ton. I have not been able to verify the figures, but I am told by men in the trade that a 10s. increase per ton in freight rates means an increase of ½d. on the 4lb. loaf. There has been an increase of 67s. per ton upon goods brought from the Argentine. Therefore that represents an increase of 3½d. in the price of the 4lb. loaf. Yet the President of the Board of Trade tells us that the Government can do nothing in this matter. We were told a few days ago that the Government have chartered something like 1,500 vessels for transport purposes.
    There are, I believe, about 10,000 ships in the British mercantile marine, and, if the Government commandeered 1,500 in order to supply the needs of our Army, they could quite as easily commandeer what is needed of the rest in order to bring the food of the civil population at a reasonable cost. With regard to coal, I said that the only crumb of comfort offered to us this afternoon was the promise of another Committee, another Committee which no doubt will sit for another five months and then present its report to the House of Commons; but so far as I understood the right hon. Gentle-
    1266
    man, they propose to deal only with retail prices. He appeared to think that the middleman was the only culprit in this matter. I believe that the middleman is to a considerable extent responsible for this. Of course he is selling coal which he is getting at contract prices made before the War. But what is going to happen when these contracts are over? Then the advantage will be with the mine-owners. I could give the House quite a number of instances where a dealer who has not been able to get coal under contract at prices made before the War, has had already to submit to most extortionate increases from the coal-owners. A case which appears to be well authenticated was given in the London papers only last week of Yorkshire coal which had risen at the pit head from 13s. 6d. to 21s. Do the Government seriously tell us that they cannot do anything in this matter? We are told that it is a matter of supply and demand. I went to the Post Office the other day to buy a penny stamp, and I found that penny stamps were still a penny. If the demand for stamps doubled they would still sell at a penny each. Then with regard to railway rates: they have not risen. Why not? Because there we have overcome the operation of the laws of supply and demand. The same thing could be done with regard to coal. It might mean that the Government would have to give the mine-owners some such guarantee against loss as I understand they gave to the railway companies, but the public would be great gainers thereby.
    When dealing this afternoon with the question of freight rates the President of the Board of Trade said that freight rates were governed by the desires of those who wanted to ship goods, and if there was a demand for leather and not for wheat the rates would be charged accordingly. I have heard of people who asked for bread being given a stone, and now when we are asking for wheat the right hon. Gentleman offers us leather. In regard to wages, there seems to be unanimity in this House that wages ought to go up. But how are hon. Members going to secure that? The hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) faced this question, and gave it up in despair. He has no hope that an institution which is already in existence for regulating wages in ill-paid industries will be able to deal with this matter. I am referring to the Trades Boards. The hon. Member seemed to be under the impression that it would take

    1267
    a long time to get these Trades Boards into working order to deal with this matter. I do not agree with him that it would require much legislation. Surely in view of the importance and urgency of the matter, if legislation were required, the House would be unanimous in passing it. I think Trades Boards might to some extent be utilised for this purpose. The hon. Member for York seemed to think the only thing that we could rely upon was the generosity of the employers. In 1871–75 the generosity of the employers did raise wages by 26·3 per cent. Why has it not been done now? The employers are far better able to raise wages to-day than they were forty years ago. Profits were never higher than they are now. They were never higher than they have been during the last three years. As a matter of fact in the five years—1870–75—the increase in the assessments to Income Tax rose by about £41,000,000. In the last five years they have risen by £130,000,000, and employers now can very well afford to raise wages. The profits they are making to-day are sufficiently large to enable them to do it and yet leave them a reasonable return on their capital.
    Are they going to do it? If they will not do it of their own free will they will have to be compelled to do it. There is a spirit growing amongst the working men of this country which does not bode well. I am quite sure, from what I know of working people, that if they were convinced that the present cost of living was due to unavoidable causes, hard as it is to bear, they would be willing to add to the many sacrifices they have already made in this great crisis. But they do not believe that. What they do believe, and with good reason, is this—that a gang of unscrupulous exploiters are taking advantage of the present situation, and of the needs of the nation, in order to fill their own pockets. As that idea grows, it bodes no good. I warn the Government, therefore, that if they refuse to give attention to this matter and to take some practical steps to deal with it they are raising within their gates an enemy more serious than the enemy our soldiers are fighting in the field. There are no difficulties in the way greater than those that the Government overcame seven months ago in the interests of the financiers and stock-jobbers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] There may be difficulties in the way of fixing maximum prices. If one
    1268
    had said twelve months ago that it was a practicable and possible thing to fix minimum prices on the Stock Exchange, if anybody in this House had raised that proposal, he would have been looked upon as well qualified to be inside a lunatic asylum. Yet it has been done and is being done, and the only thing that is needed is that the Government shall have the will to do these things.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) in the many statements which he has made. I would only like to enter some protest against his misrepresentation of the Prime Minister's speech when he said the Prime Minister told the people of this country that if they could only starve till June, all would be well.
    Mr. SNOWDENmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir A. MOND: The Prime Minister did not use those words, neither did his speech amount to those words. It was extremely wrong for an hon. Member with the great eloquence and great position of the hon. Member for Blackburn to make any such statement. I would further point out one slip he made which is commonly present in his calculations. He said the cost of commodities and food had gone up by 41 per cent.; he then deducted it from the cost of living, and then deducted that from the wages. That is an obvious fallacy. The cost of living is not the cost of food. The cost of food represents only 60 per cent. of the cost of living. Serious and unfortunate as the matter has been, it is better to bring these things to reasonable proportions instead of making them worse by exaggerating them. The cost of living has not gone up by 40 per cent. Rent has not gone up and, in fact, a large number of commodities have gone down. On the other hand, I also think a word of protest ought to be uttered against the hon. Member's misrepresentation of what the Government did to save the financial credit of this country at a time of grave crisis. As one, who was somewhat closely connected with the industries of the country, and not with financiers and stock-jobbers, in regard to the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can only say that if the Government had not taken that action there would not have been a single

    1269
    factory in this country working at this time; no food would have come into this country, and all exchange would have stopped. Such misrepresentations of fact are so dangerous at a time of great national crisis that I cannot imagine a single responsible man making such a statement. Is this the kind of fare upon which working men are supposed to be fed by their responsible advisers? Speeches of this kind are the sort of speeches that will be read with delight by people who are battling with difficulties far greater than those with which we are faced.
    I do not think the Government, have by any means exhausted all that might be or could be done on this question. Things may have to be done on a very much wider scope than they have yet been done, but I have not yet heard from representatives of the Labour party one practical proposal. They seem to hanker after the idea that we can fix the maximum prices of commodities we do not control, even if we have to bring in Canada. If the price of food goes up so high that people cannot afford to buy it, I can only think of one practical way in which to let the people have it cheap, and that is for the Government to buy dear and sell it at a loss. That is a practical possibility at any rate, though I would not advocate it, and it would effect its purpose. On the other hand, I think on the question of coal a good deal can be done, and ought to be done, and I believe some of the coal difficulty is due to the question of railway freights and the detention of railway wagons. I will ask the President of the Board of Trade if he could look into the question, which was brought to my notice, of a very large number of railway wagons which are held up by the military and naval authorities, and I am informed very often unnecessarily held up for many months, thereby producing a shortage of trucks and a shortage of coals.
    I want to ask, too, if the Government is appointing a Committee to deal with the question of domestic coal, whether it would not include in this category the question of industrial coal? The question of industrial coal is becoming not an alarming but a serious one. I am speaking of the question of quantity. Those who are interested in industrial concerns are finding that they cannot obtain even the coal they have contracted for, and the reasons given for that are several. Firstly,
    1270
    of course, under our voluntary system, we have to take such people as want to go, and we have enlisted a very large number of colliers without much regard to whether we have left enough at home to produce the coal necessary to carry on our industries. I read in a newspaper the other day that several important steel works at Sheffield had to close down because they could not obtain coal. Then, again, we hear that the large number of absentees from the collieries is causing also a shortage of coal, and the question of the suspension of the eight hours day seems to me one which may have to be seriously considered. Then, further, you have this question of the difficulty of railway companies obtaining enough trucks. There, again, some organisation may be required in this direction. It is obvious that as we are conducting a great War we must organise in a very different way from what we have been in the habit of doing. For instance, has the Government drawn up any schedule of factories which it is considered of first importance to keep going?
    Have the railway companies any instructions to avoid a shortage of trucks, or are we going on in a way which may lead to the result of important firms having important Government contracts being closed for want of coal, while firms carrying on industries which are necessarily not of any importance for immediate war purposes are able to continue? If it has not been done already, it would be worth while to make a schedule of those industries which the Government absolutely require, and then to enter into consultation with those who are managing the railways to make it certain that those companies have the necessary coal. I say that because one company with which I happen to be connected, supplying some eighty firms which have Government contracts, was lately in the position of not being able to fulfil its contracts, as the railway companies found great difficulties in sending the necessary trucks. As this came to my notice I have no doubt similar cases occur, and it may be necessary for the Government to commandeer coal for the railway companies, and such factories as they require to be kept going. All these things are not alarming, but they are all becoming serious, and as we have had so many examples of Commissions being appointed after we have got into trouble I should very much like to see some Commission appointed to go into these questions before the trouble begins.

    1271
    That is one point which I certainly think those connected with industry will require to go into.
    There is another point which has not been dealt with in this Debate at all, except by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden), who described the pitiable state of things in constituencies where work was very bad. Undoubtedly the cotton trade is suffering very much. On the other hand, the Prince of Wales' Fund, amounting to several millions of pounds has not been subscribed to be hoarded up, but for the purpose of dealing with unemployment in the country. I think it is very unsatisfactory when this large sum has been raised, and when a great deal more could be raised, to deal with distress, that the money should be hoarded if people with low wages are seriously affected by the increase in the cost of living. Surely it is obvious that the money should be used to alleviate distress. The money was subscribed to alleviate distress, and there should be no suffering where suffering can be avoided by the use of that money. Nobody wants any poor person to suffer during this War. Everybody is perfectly prepared to make great sacrifices, and it is most discouraging to find the fund administered by a sort of Local Government Board system, under which human suffering is not recognised unless it is officially notified distress. Is the money to be locked up to be used at another time?
    Mr. NEVILLE: I wish to address myself to the question of the interned steamers. The Government have professed a desire to help people in the Metropolis who depend upon coal carried by water, and they have told us that they propose to put vessels at their disposal. Coal is the raw material of gas works, electrical works, and a large number of other works. As to the freights to be paid, the Government do not regulate the rates, but say that the freights will be the market rates. Among the people affected by the supply of coal are the poorest of the poor in all parts of London—people who take their service of gas by the penny in the slot system. If the gas companies and others have to pay the market rates for freights, they will have to pay whatever they are asked to pay.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, "That the Question by now put."
    Mr. SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. NEVILLE: I shall not be very long.
    Mr. W. THORNE: I beg to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Mr. SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. NEVILLE: If the Government want to help those who use coal—
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg to move. "That the Question be now put."
    Mr. SPEAKERwithheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Mr. HOGGE: The point which one desires to raise at this particular moment—
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to control the arrangements for the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the department of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House:
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of seventeen Members:
  Committee accordingly nominated of Mr. Agg-Gardner, Mr. Bentham, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Rupert Gwynne, Colonel Henderson, Sir Ivor Herbert, Captain Howard, Colonel Lockwood, Sir John Lonsdale, Mr. Macmaster, Sir Henry Norman, Mr. Patrick O'Brien, Mr. William Redmond, Mr. Augustine Roche, Sir Harry Samuel, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Tyson Wilson.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

  GRANTS FOR HARBOURS (COUNTY DONEGAL).
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. HUGH LAW: I desire to draw the attention of the House to the question of certain Grants sanctioned by the Treasury, by arrangement with the county council of Donegal, for marine works in that county. The facts may be stated briefly: Almost as soon as the Development Commissioners were appointed—I think in 1910—application was made at once for Grants for the improvement of certain harbours on the Donegal coast, at Buncrana, Rathmullen, and Burtonport. After a great deal of negotiation, during which some of the Commissioners themselves visited those places, the Treasury sanctioned a Grant of £33,000 on condition that the county council of Donegal would contribute a sum of £11,500. Negotiations then went on between the county council and the Board of Works with reference to the rate of interest to be paid upon that loan. Finally the matter was arranged, and in the year 1913 a definite bargain was come to between the county council, the Congested Districts Board, who were interested in the matter, the Development Commissioners, and the Treasury for the issue of this money. The matter proceeded so far that last year tenders were actually invited by the Board of Works, and were sent in to them for the completion of these works, and had it not been for the intervention of the War there is no question but that the works would at this movement have been set on foot.
  That is a simple statement of the facts. After everything had been arranged, after tenders had been invited and steps taken to raise the money—months before the War had broken out—the Treasury, in the month of December, suddenly stepped in and said that this work is not to be proceeded with. At that time the tenders were actually in the office of the Board of Works for the carrying out of the work. It had been a very difficult matter. We had moved all these public Departments and the county council; and in this council, which so largely represents inland consituencies, it was not an easy matter to bring business to the point which this had reached. What does the Treasury say? They are going back on what they had sanctioned, and they are breaking their promise. It is no new matter at all. They are going back on their plighted word. Their defence is twofold. They say their action is not pecular in our case, but that they are doing the same all round during
  1274
  the continuance of the War, and will make no exception at all, save where there is special distress arising out of the War. They make this double defence, first on the ground of the War, and secondly, that they ought to be satisfied that there is exceptional unemployment in the district due to the War. I will not stop to inquire into the advisability of the rule which the Treasury appears to have formed, nor will I ask whether they have been entirely consistent. I am informed that at least in two cases—in Waterford and Wexford—exceptions have been made, and the Treasury, "swearing it will ne'er consent," has in fact consented. It is perfectly intolerable, after an arrangement has been entered into between the Treasury and the Board of Works, the Development Commissioners and the county council, that it should be thrown aside without any reason or explanation whatsoever. I am not asking for any new Grant or loan; I am only asking that the Treasury should carry out their existing obligations. I do not admit that the Treasury has the right to place upon us any new conditions. We ask for nothing new, and they have no right to make a condition which they did not impose at the beginning, and say that we must prove exceptional distress due to the War.
  I do not come here to ask for relief work; I come here to ask the Treasury to carry out their own promises and obligations. I do not know what degree of distress the Treasury require to be proved. I do not say that the people are starving or dying of hunger, but I can state that there is very serious unemployment directly arising out of the War. The districts concerned in this matter are not districts where the farmer grows wheat. I do not suppose that in the surrounding districts of Burtonport, Buncrana, and Rathmullen there is a single wheat field. Therefore, those people do not profit by the high prices, but quite the contrary. In the Buncrana district the average valuation of holdings is not more than £3 15s., and in Burtonport the value is certainly below 20s. It is, therefore, perfectly obvious to anyone who knows anything about small holdings that those holdings could not produce enough to support the occupiers and their families. Those people are doubly hit by the high prices as they have to pay most heavily for all that they consume, and they get absolutely nothing back in the way of

  1275
  increased prices. On the other hand, one of their two great sources of revenue has entirely dried up. Those two sources are first, the migratory labour to Scotland, and here let me tell the House that a great number of those men have enlisted in Scotland. In addition to the work of migratory labourers in Scotland, they depend practically entirely on the herring fishery, in which everybody is engaged. The men man the boats, and the girls are employed in curing the fish at local ports and also in Scotland.
  According to the last reports of the Congested Districts Board, the value of the herring landed on the Donegal coast was £46,000. That was in a year which, according to the Congested Districts Board, was not by any means up to the average. That sum may not seem large when we are accustomed to talking in millions nowadays, but let the House note that the total valuation of the whole of the land and buildings of the Glenties Union, in which Burtonport is situated, is only £22,000, or less than half the value of the herring landed in the year to which I refer on the Donegal coast. Therefore it is obvious that although this may appear a very small and trivial matter to some, to the people of the districts affected it is of enormous importance. This year, owing to the interference in this fishing, both in Ireland and elsewhere, that source of revenue has almost completely dried up, and hitherto the boats have been nearly all laid up. I believe now, as I wish to be quite frank with the House, more of them are fishing, but even so, any fishing that is going on at Burtonport and Buncrana creates much less than the normal amount of employment, because I am informed there are very few curers, and the fish has to be sent away fresh, with the result that the people who formerly obtained employment, such as the girls who worked as curers, are no longer able to obtain anything whatever from that source of revenue.
  I do not want to put the case too high, but if you take these two things together—on the one hand, the fact that these people are paying at least 20 per cent. more for all the necessaries of life, and on the other, that one of their two great sources of revenue has dried up altogether—while I am not raising the
  1276
  cry of famine or pretending that at the present moment the people are starving, I do say that there is very grave reason indeed to apprehend serious distress a little later on. I am told that already a great number of people are using up the seed potatoes which they ought to keep for their ground. Even on that score it would be very much better to carry out these works, which have been carefully planned and surveyed, approved by three Government Departments, and sanctioned by the Treasury itself, than to have at the last minute to carry out ill-considered, ill thought-out, and hastily-conceived relief works. But it is not on that that I base my claim. I do not recognise the right of the Treasury to impose these conditions at all. The money was promised, the tenders were out, and but for a perfectly accidental delay, with which the county council had nothing whatever to do, the work would have been begun before the War, and then it could not have been stopped. The county council has carried out its share of the bargain, and I have every right to ask that the Treasury should carry out its part. It was a very real pleasure to many of us to see the Secretary to the Treasury promoted to his present high and influential position; I hope that one of his first acts in his new office will be to perform a simple act of justice, and not treat a solemn obligation entered into by his own Department as a mere "scrap of paper."
  Mr. KELLY: I desire to join in the appeal made by my hon. Friend to the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman may have been advised by the Irish Local Government Board or the constabulary officers that no distress exists in these districts. But how are the people to live when the fishing is taken from them? My hon. Friend has given the figures of the average valuation in one of the unions concerned. In two other unions in the district the average valuation is 5s. per acre; those are populous unions, and the farms are very small. In the course of this Debate I could not help thinking that the high prices of the necessaries of life prevailing in this country are rendered even higher in the remote parts of Ireland by the additional freight that is placed upon them. It is within the knowledge of the Secretary to the Treasury that people of districts like these are consumers and not producers, and therefore, equally with the people of the great industrial districts of this

  1277
  country, they suffer very severely from any rise in prices such as is prevailing now. One word more: that is to voice the sense of the injustice that the county council and the people of Donegal feel at the withholding of the Grant which was not only applied for but was sanctioned. There is a keen sense of injustice owing to the fact that at the moment the War broke out we had received notice that the work was to start. The contract was proceeded with. An offer was made to the county council which was accepted by the county council.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): Undoubtedly this scheme has been before the people of Donegal for a long time, and undoubtedly it has taken a great deal of time to come to an agreement, because, of course, on many grounds the interests of the inland people are not quite the same as the interests of the people on the coast. After very long consideration, and in the face of considerable difficulties, the scheme had been sanctioned by the Development Committees and the other authorities concerned, and the work would undoubtedly, under ordinary circumstances, have been begun with moneys provided out of the Estimates for the current year. It is a fact, as hon. Members have stated, that it is in consequence of the general decision affecting the United Kingdom as a whole that these works have not been commenced as they otherwise would have been. But it has been decided, on account of the War, and on that account only, that no schemes shall be started, except in cases of urgent unemployment. I do not use the word "distress." I purposely refrain from so doing. I do not think anybody desires that affairs should be allowed to get into that state before action is taken, and then improvised action. But we have said this—and these words represent exactly the policy which we have been obliged to adopt universally—that new schemes shall not be proceeded with unless there is really urgent unemployment.
  Mr. H. LAW: This is not a new scheme.
  Mr. ACLAND: It had not been started.
  Mr. KELLY: It had been arranged.
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, a large scheme had been arranged, but had not been started—and need not be unless there was urgent unemployment. It is the policy that it has
  1278
  been necessary to adopt for two reasons: First of all, to conserve the capital of the country; and secondly, to render available labour in the places where it is most needed. I know that these Grants were not very large. I know the work would have been most useful. I should very much have liked to be able to allow the work to be begun in spite of the general principle applied to the United Kingdom. I know something of the people. They are very delightful. The place is one in which to spend a delightful holiday. I have spent some of the most glorious holidays I have ever had both on the North and West coasts of Donegal, and I know, after a night's Debate, my peace of mind in any of these places will not be worth much if I go there again. But these places have all got to stand together. It would be impossible for me with the best will in the world to make an exception in the case of Donegal without having hydra-headed monsters springing up all over the country, England, Wales, and Scotland. This is not a question, of course, of the abandonment of a scheme. That was alleged in some of the earlier letters that were received on this subject. It is a postponement undoubtedly, but it is not an abandonment. There is no question of the money being absorbed, particularly by other districts getting money which has been taken away from this district.
  Mr. H. LAW: Is the money definitely allotted?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, absolutely. There is no chance whatever, unless the world comes to an end, of the money being taken for any other purpose, or taken away. It is undoubtedly earmarked, and there is no question of abandonment but only of postponement.
  Mr. H. LAW: And no question of the terms being made worse?
  Mr. ACLAND: Of course, if the work were proceeded with now the terms would be about as bad as you could imagine, and if the scheme were taken now the burden on the ratepayers of Donegal would be much heavier than waiting until the time when it is much easier to borrow money. You would hardly imagine a worse time for a county council to borrow money than in the middle of a great crisis.
  Mr. H. LAW: I understood a rate had been fixed.
  Mr. ACLAND: But until you have borrowed your money you do not know how much you will get for every £100 of issue. The money had not been raised by the county council, and there could hardly be a worse time for money to be raised. But the main point is, is there or is there not at the present time exceptional unemployment owing to the War? I am advised by the department closely in touch with the matter that there is no unemployment of that kind at the present time. Assuming, and we are advised to the contrary, that the Treasury objection to this scheme falls to the ground, I do not think the hon. Member could succeed in justifying it on the ground of special unemployment at either of these two places. At Buncrana there are normally considerable profits from the Scottish fishermen and fisher girls who go to work there. That has undoubtedly been stopped altogether. What is going on instead? Between August and November every available carter and labourer was engaged by the military authorities at
  1280
  wages which were entirely unprecedented in that district, and I suppose that there never has been so much money coming into the district as in those months. Secondly, though fewer troops are through now, £800 a month is being spent by the War Office in wages to carters, labourers and the staff. Thirdly, local contracts are resulting in the payment of £2,000 a month and bringing in profit every day. Fourthly, there is a great deal of Army shirt-making going on in that district. Fifthly, even if the work was begun it could not really be carried out because it would interfere with Admiralty necessities which may continue for some time. As to Rathmullen, which is not usually a fishing port at all, farming is a good deal better, and those farmers have been having a first-class time.
  It being Half after Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd February.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.