Commons Sitting of 28 July 1915

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
London County Council (Celluloid, etc.) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday, 15th September.
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Derbyshire, etc.) Bill [Lords],
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords],
Head the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (TEACHERS' SALARIES).
Return [Presented 27th July] to be printed. [No. 322.]

GAS UNDERTAKINGS.
Return ordered "relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom, other than those be longing to local authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of December, 1914 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 311, of Session 1914–15)."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
Return ordered "relating to all authorised Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom belonging to local authorities, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1915 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 312, of Session 1914–15)."—[Mr. Pretyman.]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
Address for Return "showing the number of Experiments on Living Animals during the year 1914, under licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vic, cap. 77, distinguishing the nature of the Experiments (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 370, of Session 1914)."—[Mr. Brace.]
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report No. 850 (Gibraltar, Annual Report for 1914) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (TRADE).
Copy presented of Tables relating to the Trade of British India with the British Empire and Foreign Countries, 1909–10 to 1913–14 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOY LABOUR IN THE POST OFFICE.
Copy presented of Fifth Annual Report of Standing Committee on Boy Labour in the Post Office [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Council of the county palatine of Chester (urban district of Ellesmere Port and Whitby);
Council of the county borough of Sunderland (county borough of Sunderland)
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
Copy presented of Return of Amount payable on 5th January, 1915, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 323.]
COUNTY OFFICERS AND COURTS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877.
Account presented of Receipts and Payments under the Act during the year ended 31st March, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 324.]

SHIPPING CASUALTIES (LOSS OF THE STEAMSHIP "LUSITANIA").
Copy presented of Report of a Formal Investigation into the circumstances attending the foundering, on 7th May, 1915, of the British steamship "Lusitania,"

2249
of Liverpool, after being torpedoed off the Old Head of Kinsale, Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHIPPING CASUALTIES (LOSS OF THE STEAMSHIP "FALABA").
Copy presented of Report of a Formal Investigation into the circumstances attending the foundering, on 28th March, of the" British steamship "Falaba," of Liverpool, in or near lattitude 50° 30' N., longitude 6° 36' W., whereby loss of life ensued [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 5450 and 5451 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS, 1877 and 1907.
Copy presented of Order numbered D.I.P. 175, dated 19th July, 1915, declaring an area described in the Schedule thereto to be infected with American Gooseberry Mildew an infected area for the purposes of the American Gooseberry Mildew (Infected Areas) Order of 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
OUTPUT OF COAL IN UNITED KINGDOM.
Return ordered "showing the estimated quantities of Coal raised in the United Kingdom in each of the quarters ended the 31st day of March, and the 30th day of June, 1915, compared with particulars for the corresponding periods of 1911."—[Mr. Runciman.]

TREASURY CONTROL OF ADMIRALTY AND WAR DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURE
Copies ordered "of Treasury Minutes, dated the 8th day of December, 1914, and the 29th day of March, 1915, relative to War Department Expenditure, and of Treasury Minute, dated the 29th day of January, 1915, relative to Admiralty and War Department Contracts for Munitions of War."—[Mr. Montagu.]
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,—That they have agreed to,—
Special Acts (Extension of Time) Bill,
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill,
Naval Discipline (No. 2) Bill,
Police Magistrates (Superannuation) Bill,
Price of Coal (Limitation) Bill, without Amendment.
Election and Registration Bill,
Cotton Associations (Emergency Action) Bill, with Amendments.
Elections and Registration Bill,
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    OVERSEA DOMINIONS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the importance of the Debate on the Colonial Office Vote, on the 21st July, especially as affecting the future relations of the Dominions with this country, a full report of that Debate has been telegraphed to the Dominions; if so, whether all the divergent views have been fairly presented; and whether he will communicate to the House of Commons any message telegraphed to the Dominions in regard to the Debate?
    The SECRETARY Of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): No, Sir. I do not think the heavy expenditure involved in cabling the report is necessary, as the OFFICIAL REPORTS go out by mail.

    DENTAL SURGEONS.
    Sir HENRY NORMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the names, rank, and pay of the consultants in dentistry to the Forces abroad; how many dental surgeons are employed upon dentistry alone for the Forces at Home and abroad; and the numbers of each rank?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): There are no consultants in dentistry to the Forces

    2251
    abroad. There are forty-eight qualified dental surgeons serving abroad, and forty-eight at Home in the rank of lieutenant. There are also ninety-three honorary consulting dental surgeons at Home. These numbers do not include the dental surgeons employed by local military authorities at Home, nor those doing duty with Colonial troops.
    Sir H. NORMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if it is the intention to add to the somewhat meagre number of dentists with the Forces abroad1?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have heard no complaint that there is any requirement to that effect.
    Mr. MARSHALL: Is it not a fact that a considerable number of soldiers have been invalided home through dental troubles?
    Mr. TENNANT: That may very possibly be, but it does not follow from that that there is an insufficiency of dental surgeons at the front.

    GROWING CROPS (DAMAGE BY TROOPS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether on 14th July there was a field day from Wensley Camp; whether the troops went through meadows and even oats and wheat; and, if so, whether he will see that during such military mano⅓uvres growing food-stuffs will be respected?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have not had any report of the circumstances of this case, but adequate, and indeed minute, instructions have been issued for the protection of crops and seeds. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of these instructions.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am giving him an actual case in which the troops did cross a field of growing oats and wheat?
    Mr. TENNANT: Of course inquiry will be made. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to furnish me with particulars
    Mr. WATT: Is compensation paid by the War Office in cases such as this?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, always.

    PROHIBITED AREAS (NATURALISED BRITISH SUBJECTS).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities, in dealing with British naturalised subjects within prohibited areas, allow such subjects to meet any charges alleged against them or whether the military authorities act arbitrarily?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer my hon. Friend to Regulation 14 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, which states clearly the powers which it has been necessary to confer on the military authorities in this matter for the purpose of safeguarding the national interests in the existing serious circumstances arising from the War.
    Mr. HOGGE: What I really want to know is whether a British naturalised subject, in this case of over ten years' standing, is intended to be dealt with arbitrarily by the military authorities without any opportunity of presenting his case?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, the answer is in the affirmative—he is.

    MUNITIONS.

      J. J. SAVILLE AND COMPANY, LIMITED (SHEFFIELD).
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his Department is at present getting delivery of tool steel or other such article for making munitions of war from Messrs. J. J. Saville and Company, Limited, of Sheffield; if so, whether he is aware that the managing director of that firm is a naturalised German with pronounced German sympathies, and that the staff of the company embraces several Germans who have never been naturalised; whether his Department purchases this steel from this firm because there are no British firms making such, or whether it is because of a preference for this maker; and whether he will take any action in future?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): An order for tool steel has been placed with this firm by the Superintendent of the Waltham and Enfield Factories, who states that it is better than any other sort of steel for making cutters for turning barrels.

      2253
      Nothing is known as to the alleged German connections, but if there are Germans on the staff of the company they could not be better employed than in meeting our requirements in this respect.

      LIQUOR TRAFFIC (SCOTLAND).
      Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Minister of Munitions what areas in Scotland the General Board of Control (Liquor Traffic) propose to delimit under the powers conferred upon them and the restrictions which it is intended to impose within those areas?
      The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): The Order in Council scheduling certain Scottish areas was laid before His Majesty at the Council meeting to-day. It is anticipated that the Regulations affecting these areas will be issued next week.
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: Are any English areas scheduled yet?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, several.

      SHELL CONTRACTS.
      Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Minister of Munitions if information has recently come to his knowledge that would point to Messrs. Mann and Company, of Leeds, as being capable of making a large number of shells for the Government and a fit and proper firm to undertake a contract, if placed?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Negotiations with this firm are at present in progress for the supply of shells.
      Sir R. COOPER: Are the statements made in the question correct?
      No answer was returned.
      Sir R. COOPER: I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

      MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (MR. SCHLICH).
      Sir R. COOPERasked the Minister of Munitions if a Mr. Schlich, who was till recently private secretary to the Under-Secretary for War, holds any position at the Munitions Department and, if so, what position?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Mr. Schlich is a higher division clerk in the War Office and is at present lent to the Department of Munitions Supply, where he is acting as head clerk of a sub-section dealing with minor correspondence.

      MUNITIONS TRIBUNALS (IMPRISONMENT).
      Mr. CLYNESasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that power to imprisonment for offences under the Act is being claimed for the Munitions Tribunals established under the Act; whether such power is expressly conferred by the Act; and, if so, will he refer to the part of the Act which empowers the imposition of any penalty other than a fine to be paid, if needful, by deductions from wages?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Offences under the Munitions of War Act are of two classes. The minor offences, such as breach of rules in a controlled establishment or breach of undertaking by a munitions volunteer, are tried before a local Munitions Tribunal, and are punishable only by a fine not exceeding £3 without power of imprisonment in default of payment. The more serious offences—which include strikes and lock-outs, breaches of an award, as well as false statements and employers' offences generally—can be tried only by a general Munitions Tribunal. Fines imposed for offences of the latter classes are recoverable by the ordinary process, involving imprisonment in default of payment. This is the clear intention and effect of Sections 15 (3) and 15 (4) of the Munitions of War Act which exclude imprisonment in default of payment only in the case of minor offences.

      PRODUCTION IN IRELAND.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in view of the necessity of accelerating the manufacture of munitions of war, he will consider the advisability of utilising fully the labour and handicraft available in Ireland, even to the extent of establishing workshops in districts where there has been little manufacture or none up to the present, but where labour may be readily obtained?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The whole question of the production of munitions of war in Ireland is receiving the fullest consideration and investigation at present on the spot, and it is hoped shortly to make a pronouncement.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (STORE-HOUSEMEN).
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when a reply will be given to the petitions

    2255
    presented by storehousemen, first and second grade; and can he inform the House whether the matters of fourteen days' annual leave with full pay and Colonial allowance, both of which were under consideration as far back as March last, have yet been setted?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): In February last the pay of storehouse-men (first grade), was raised as from the 1st October, 1914, from a scale of 33s. to 39s. a week to one of 34s. to 40s. a week; and that of storehousemen (second grade) from a scale of 26s. to 32s. to one of 28s. to 33s. a week. A further petition has since been received, and is under consideration, but I cannot give any undertaking in regard to it. It is not contemplated to alter the existing Regulations in regard to leave and Colonial allowance.

    ADMIRALTY (MR. W. V. HARRELL).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether Mr. W. V. Harrell, formerly a police officer in Dublin, is now in the Navy or in the service of the Admiralty; and, if so, in what position, with what salary, and where and when he underwent the necessary training for that position?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second, the gentleman in question receives the pay of his rank and such allowances as he may be entitled to.

    NAVAL OFFICERS' PAY (INCOME TAX)
    Major HUNTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether 2s. 6d. in the £ is charged on officers' pay in the Navy, even from boys earning £8 a month; and that, although the tax is returned if applied for, the amount claimed has to be paid if the officer is killed before applying for it?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No Income Tax is charged on the pay of an officer when the Paymaster is satisfied that his total income from all sources does not exceed £160. Nor is the 2s. 6d. rate charged in any case where the Paymaster is satisfied that the total income does not exceed
    2256
    £2,500. In the event of any overcharges being made by local Paymasters, these are refunded on the examination of the accounts at the Admiralty, irrespective of whether the officer applies for repayment or not. The estate of a deceased officer is credited at the Admiralty with any amounts erroneously stopped from pay by local Paymasters.

    COTTON.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that cotton is now essential to the manufacture of cartridges for rifles and of ammunition for guns, and that it is not against international law to make it absolute contraband, he can now say why the Government refuse to make cotton absolute contraband, in the interests of our Allies as well as of our own soldiers and sailors?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I beg to refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the full statement on this subject made by me on Monday.
    Major HUNT: Is it a fact that the amount of cotton already imported this year into Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Holland collectively is more than their normal importation was in the average years before the War; and is it not a fact that a great deal of this cotton gets to Germany?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I cannot carry the figures in my head, but no doubt there has been a very considerable importation of cotton into the neutral countries named during the whole of this year. I hope it has been very much diminished during the last few months.
    Major HUNT: Does the Noble Lord know whether it is a fact that there has been more cotton already imported by those countries?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I have said there has been.
    Mr. WATT: Can the Noble Lord say whether the excess of cotton imported into Sweden is used in Sweden or not?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: I should not like to say whether that is so or not.

    BERLIN GENERAL ACT, 1885.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the General Act of the Conference at Berlin, signed on 26th February, 1885, bound this country, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, and Russia, with other Powers, in the event of all or any of them being involved in war, to place a large area of Central Africa under the rule of neutrality during the War; if so, whether this treaty was duly considered by the Government during the early days of August, 1914; and whether this provision of that treaty has been forgotten or ignored by all or any of its signatories?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Berlin Act provides machinery by which belligerent Powers possessing territories in the Free Trade zone in Africa may, with the consent of the other belligerents, neutralise such possessions for the period of the War. It does not, however, impose any binding obligation on any Power to take this course. The question of neutralising the territories of the present belligerents in the Free Trade zone was carefully considered during the early days of last August, but the events which occurred in Africa during the first ten days of the War rendered such a course impossible.

    RUSSIA (DUTY ON AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY).
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of Russia will continue the same rate of import duty on agricultural machinery, namely, 75 kopecs per hundredweight, as formerly; and if he can state the result of any negotiations with the Russian Government upon the subject?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: By the new temporary customs tariff introduced by the Russian Goernment on 25th March certain increases in customs duties were sanctioned, including an increase in certain cases in the duty on agricultural machinery. These changes were understood to be of a temporary nature due to existing circumstances, and though it has not been thought that the present is a suitable time for the initiation of negotiations on the subject, the matter has not been lost sight of.

    GERMANY AND UNITED STATES.
    Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will circulate as a Parliamentary Paper the various Notes which have passed between Germany and the United States with reference to the German blockade?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The Notes in question have not been communicated officially to His Majesty's Government, who are dependent for their knowledge of them upon the versions published in the Press, which are available to everybody, and the Press have given them so much publicity that it seems unnecessary for the Government to reprint them from the Press at the public expense.

    OPERATIONS IN CAMEROONS.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the anxiety amongst the relatives of officers and men who are engaged in military operations in the Cameroons at the lack of news; and if he will say when dispatches from the Officer Commanding will be published?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no additional information available for publication beyond what has already been issued. I am unable to state when dispatches for publication may be received from the Officer Commanding.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: When were the last dispatches published? It is a very long time.
    Mr. TENNANT: I have in my mind not so many weeks ago the taking of two places, the names of which will be in the hon. Gentleman's mind though they have escaped mine.

    DESTRUCTION OF MONUMENTS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the military order, under the Defence of the Realm Act, has yet been issued for the destruction of the monuments of 1798 throughout Ireland, as promoting disaffection and being prejudicial to recruiting; if not, whether the order will be issued and executed during the recess; and (2) if he is in a position to say when the military authorities intend, under the Defence of the Realm Act, to remove the treaty stone

    2259
    at Limerick, as promoting disaffection and being prejudicial to recruiting; and what they intend to do with the stone?
    Mr. TENNANT: I may say generally that the good sense and good feeling of the great majority of the people of Ireland make it unnecessary to issue any orders with reference to monuments connected with sad incidents of long ago.
    Mr. GINNELL: In view of the fact that the military authorities assume control over monuments and this may mean serious consequences, will the right hon. Gentleman give the date at which they draw the line between what is permissible and what is not, and on which side of that date, for instance, will monuments erected to the memory of those shot by the police during the land agitation stand?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is a comprehensive question involving a larger one of historical instances. I am not aware that the military authorities take special care of monuments in general. The hon. Gentleman asked me some time ago why a particular monument was not allowed to be erected and I said it was because it was feared that the inscription on the monument was likely to injure recruiting.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the inscription on the monument erected to the memory of those shot by the police during the land agitation be destroyed?
    Mr. TENNANT: I must ask for notice.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Have they placed a veto on a statue to the hon. Member for North-West Meath?

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities administering the Defence of the Realm Act are anywhere, except in Ireland, ordering out of their native country men against whom no charge has been made and imprisoning such as refuse to go; whether they are anywhere, except in Ireland, serving such men with copies of the Aliens Restriction Act and rules thereunder; whether this treatment of Irishmen as aliens in their own country has been found to help recruiting there; and can he state any purpose that it is calculated to serve except provocation?
    Mr. TENNANT: In reply to the first part of the question, I have already on several occasions stated that the Defence of the Realm Regulations are being administered by the military authorities with absolute impartiality throughout the United Kingdom. There is no foundation for the suggestion that Irishmen have been treated as aliens or subjected to the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Order. In the four cases which the hon. Member has in mind the competent military authority directed that the persons named in the Orders and prohibited from residing in Ireland should report their proposed new place of residence to him for approval. It was at the same time intimated to them that certain areas, including those defined as prohibited areas by Order in Council under the Aliens Restriction Act, would not be approved, and in order to assist them in their selection copies of the Order in Council containing a list of the prohibited areas were handed to them. This limitation of the areas in which they might in future reside was, however, imposed on them entirely in pursuance of powers vested in the competent authority by Article 14 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
    Mr. GINNELL: I beg to give notice that on the Motion for the Adjournment I will call attention to this matter.

    INFANTRY SERVICE BATTALIONS (SUPERNUMERARY OFFICERS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, according to the Army List, the number of officers on the strength of Infantry service battalions is usually given at more than double the strength laid down in the manual showing the constitution of Infantry battalions; and will he say whether the supernumerary officers who are not immediately required for active service will be given the first opportunity of rejoining their own battalions when drafts are called for to meet casualties in these battalions in preference to officers in the Special Reserve battalions?
    Mr. TENNANT: The facts mentioned are naturally within the knowledge of the Army Council, who are also alive to the consideration mentioned by the hon. Member in the last part of the question. I cannot give any pledge that supernumerary officers will go as reinforce-

    2261
    ments only to the units by which they have been trained, as it is impossible to starve units which have lost many officers in order to maintain intact the principle to which the hon. Member has drawn attention.

    COOKING UTENSILS.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that some regiments in this country are so badly provided with cooking utensils that they are compelled to use their dixies for making tea in the afternoon in which beef has been stewed for their one o'clock meal; whether he is aware that in some cases no appliances are provided by which men can have anything but stew every day; and what he proposes to do to remedy this?
    Mr. TENNANT: Troops under canvas are entitled to receive camp kettles, Soyer's stores, and Aldershot ovens upon an approved scale, but owing to the very large number of troops under canvas it has not been possible in all cases to supply the full requirements of the two latter items, and General Officers Commanding have therefore been authorised in such cases to manufacture or purchase suitable substitutes locally.
    Major HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that some regiments only have dixies for stewing food in and making tea; and could not something be done to remedy that?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes. I quite appreciate the desirability of the point put to me by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I think steps have been taken to obviate the difficulty in the future.

    HARVESTING (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in some Yeomanry regiments, having a certain amount of arms, men are allowed leave to help in the harvest, and in others they are not allowed leave at all for this purpose; and could he say what is the reason of this difference and what is the Government's intention?
    Mr. TENNANT: I stated clearly on the 19th July, in reply to a question put by the hon. and gallant Member, what troops are eligible to receive furloughs for harvest
    2262
    purposes. The application of the rule would, of course, have to take account of the circumstances of different units, but I have no information as to any deviations from the policy laid down arising from any other causes.

    FOOTBALL MATCHES.
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Scottish Football League Committee has decided to adhere to the arrangements previously made with regard to professional football matches; and whether the Government will issue instructions so as to ensure that the restrictions operating in England shall also operate in Scotland?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid this is not a matter upon which the Government can issue definite instructions. I was not aware that the Scottish Football League Committee had reached the decision mentioned, but, if the hon. Gentleman will send us any information he has on the subject, I will consider whether any appeal to the league should or can be made.

    RIFLES (ALLEGED WASTE).
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has made any inquiries as to the waste of rifles at the front; whether undamaged rifles are collected from the trenches; and whether the authorities have any means of sending them back to this country?
    Mr. TENNANT: Proper attention has been given to all these points, and the answer in each case is in the affirmative.
    Major HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an officer coming straight back from the front stated in a lecture that he himself had collected sixty rifles, and asked the authorities to send them back, and the authorities said they had no way of doing so; and is he aware, therefore, that there is great waste of rifles which could be prevented?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not quite follow what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by no way of sending them back. If the officer in question collected sixty rifles they would be most useful. It may have been some time ago. This matter has been under consideration since the beginning of the War, but active steps were not taken till more recently.
    Sir G. SCOTT ROBERTSON: Have all the new regiments received service rifles?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    DARDANELLES (HEALTH OF TROOPS).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can make any statement as to the health of our troops in the Dardanelles?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is a certain amount of enteric and dysentery.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to send further accommodation out to the Dardanelles?
    Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps I might read a part of a letter which the Director-General of the Army Service Corps has received from the General Officer Com-manding-in-Charge:—
    "I wish you to see what has been done. There were difficulties which were enormous. There was some reorganisation. It is all now remedied or in process of being remedied. I act on the principle of asking you for everything I want, and here I have spared no expense to improvise. With regard to nurses and doctors, you have always responded and we have never been really in want."
    I think that will give the hon. Gentleman an indication of what has been done. I will let him see the rest of the letter. It is rather long.

    SANATORIUM TREATMENT (SERGEANT HOLLOWAY).
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Sergeant Holloway, lately turned out of the 2nd City of London Yeomanry as suffering from incipient pulmonary consumption after having served for years in the British Army, including the South African War, has been refused any help from the War Office; and whether the Government propose to take steps to secure sanatorium treatment for this man?
    Mr. TENNANT: The War Office have no particulars of this case, and the hon. and gallant Member should advise Sergeant Holloway to apply by letter for sanatorium treatment, when his case will be at once considered.
    Major HUNT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sergeant Holloway has already applied and the War Office have refused to do anything for him?
    Mr. TENNANT: No; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me have the particulars, I will have them looked into.

    ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY (TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT).
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether there has been delay in supplying Royal Horse Artillery batteries, Territorial Force, with telephone equipment; whether this necessary equipment is in stock and on sale in London; whether it has in some cases been bought direct by battery officers; and whether in such cases such expenditure will be approved and reimbursed, so as to hasten the supply of this equipment, as in many cases the lives of such officers will be dependent on telephone communication.
    Mr. FORSTER: Telephone equipment has not yet been authorised for issue to the Territorial Force Horse Artillery at home, as all such available equipment is required for Field Artillery, Infantry, and Signal units. As far as I know there is no equipment suitable for service in stock or on sale in London. Local purchase of this equipment is prohibited, and no cases of such purchase by officers of the units referred to are known to the War Office.

    INDIAN ARMY (PROMOTION).
    Mr. FELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he proposes to take any steps to remedy the grievance of the officers of the Indian Army, who receive no promotion except by time service notwithstanding the losses they are sustaining in the field and the fact that they are necessarily doing the duty of a grade superior to that for which they are paid?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The British and Indian Army systems of pay and promotion differ greatly. In the British Army promotion depends upon the occurrence of vacancies in the cadres. In the Indian Army officers receive promotion according to length of service, irrespective of the occurrence of such vacancies. It follows that in times of peace promotion is, on the

    2265
    whole, more rapid in the Indian Army, whilst in a great War like the present the advantage in this respect is with the British Army. But the emoluments of officers in the Indian Army do not depend only on their rank as regulated by the time scale, but also on their regimental or staff appointments. Temporary promotion in such appointments, both officiating and substantive, is given as vacancies occur, and, when given, carries an increase of emoluments. Temporary rank has also been given in certain cases of temporarily increased responsibility, and the question of extending this practice is under consideration.

    MOTOR TRANSACTIONS (COMMISSIONS).
    Sir H. CRAIKasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to a case tried last week before Mr. Justice Horridge, in which an undischarged bankrupt, named Lionel Squire, was plaintiff, and Messrs. J. Keele, London agents for the Sunbeam Motor Company, were defendants, regarding commissions paid on transactions with the War Office, in which the learned judge stated that £40,000 of commission had been paid in a single transaction; whether this undischarged bankrupt is now or has been employed either as an intermediary or as a paid servant by the War Office; if so, upon whose recommendation he was so employed; whether any of the parties to the transaction continue to have any dealings whatever with the Department; and whether the Department intends to take criminal proceedings against those concerned in this matter?
    Mr. FORSTER: Mr. Squire was employed as a civilian engineer in connection with the assessment of the value of impressed motor vehicles from the 5th to the 31st August last, and on clerical work in connection with the closing of this depot, at a reduced rate of pay, from the 1st September to the 15th November, 1914. He was engaged verbally by the then Secretary of the Mechanical Transport Committee who is now serving at the front. When taken into employment on the day following the outbreak of War it did not transpire that he was an undischarged bankrupt. The War Office originally dealt with the London agents of the Sunbeam Company at the company's request, but for some time past has dealt with the company direct. As regards the last part of
    2266
    the question, the matter is being considered by my legal advisers.
    Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether Lionel Squire, at the same time that he was in the employment of the War Office, was receiving a commission which, in the words of the judge, amounted to £40,000 in all from the persons for whom he was intermediary, and whether it is the habit of the War Office to inquire into the character sufficiently strictly to ascertain whether a man is an undischarged bankrupt or not?
    Mr. FORSTER: The first question that my hon. Friend puts to me is a question of fact, of which he is quite aware as the result of the recent trial. In regard to the second question, of course, we make all the inquiries we can, but I would ask my hon. Friend to remember the circumstances under which this man was taken into employment.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say what steps the War Office are taking, or are going to take, to prevent this gross stealing of public money, as in this case has been done?
    Mr. FORSTER: The mere fact that attention has been drawn to the matter is sufficient to put us all on our guard in the future.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Mr. WARDLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any reconsideration has been given to the case of wives of soldiers who have been brought home from India and are resident in London, but are not receiving the special London allowance; and whether, in view of the fact that the case of these women is entirely different to that of those who resided in the United Kingdom and subsequently removed from the provinces to London, he will grant the special London allowance?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question has been reconsidered, but I regret I can see no reason to alter the decision previously given.

    MILITARY OPERATIONS IN INDIA.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for India if he is able to communicate any information to the House as to military operations in India since War broke out?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Apart from punitive measures in the Kachin tracts of Upper Burma in January, in which a small force of military police and Gurkhas were engaged, it has been found necessary to take action on three occasions since the outbreak of War. In January the fort at Spina Khaisora was attacked by a force of Khostwals, which was repelled and driven back into tribal territory. In this affair Captain Jotham, of the North Waziristan Militia, lost his life in an act of signal gallantry, which has been recognised by the award of the Victoria Cross, as announced in Monday's papers.
    In March a considerable force of Zadrans and others from Khost made an incursion into British territory. They were attacked near Miramshah by the Bannu Movable Column and the Military Police, and driven back with very heavy losses. Our losses were slight.
    In April a Mohmand lashkar, estimated to number about 4,000 men, invaded British territory near Shabkadr, where they were attacked by the Khyber Movable Column. The enemy retired across the border and dispersed. Our casualties were about seventy.

    GOLD RESERVE (DEPLETION).
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had complaints from any of the other London banks that the Bank of England parts more readily than they do with gold over the counter, making no effort to induce the public to accept notes in payments; whether he is aware that this leads the public to prefer the Bank of England and to the depletion of gold reserve; and whether he will make any effort to prevent this unequal action?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I am unable to trace any complaint such as is referred to in the first part of the question. The Bank of England is always prepared to make payments in currency notes or in its own notes when the payee so desires. But as both Bank of England notes and currency notes are payable in gold at the Bank of England, any attempt by the Bank to force their circulation would be not only most undesirable, but would tend in practice to defeat its own object.

    CONVERSION OF CONSOLS AND ANNUITIES.
    Mr. DENNISSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of authorising an alternative scheme for the conversion of Consols and Government Annuities on the lines proposed by Sir Felix Schuster, provided persons desirous of converting invest an equivalent amount in the present War Loan; and whether he will, if necessary, reopen the War Loan subscription list for that purpose and to that extent?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have given careful consideration to the suggestions made by Sir Felix Schuster, but I could not recommend their adoption by Parliament.

    SUGAR PURCHASES.
    Mr. BIGLANDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the I monopoly of the purchase of sugar until the termination of the War; if so, will the present Home Secretary take over his work in this connection; and will the responsible Minister give an undertaking that all commissions paid to brokers or merchants shall be confined to firms of British origin and associations?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am unable to make any statement in reply to the first part of the question. No change is contemplated in the membership of the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply, whose practice it is to pay no commissions on the purchase of sugar. The Commission, as is customary, buy at a net price from the Colonial or foreign sellers.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I am perfectly aware that that is the custom. I would like to know if the German firms already employed in this business will be discontinued?
    Mr. McKENNA: There is no German firm employed in this business.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Mr. J. J. Runge, of the firm of Tolme and Runge, was appointed expert adviser on sugar to the Royal Commission on Food Supply in August, 1914; and whether, in view of the important information of which such expert adviser necessarily becomes possessed

    2269
    and of the fact that Mr. Runge is a member of a German firm at Hamburg, he will take steps to appoint a man of British origin in lieu of Mr. Runge?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Mr. Runge is not a member of any firm at Hamburg or any German firm. He is a natural-born British subject whose father was born in Cuba, and has the well-deserved confidence of the Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply.
    Mr. PETO: Is it not a fact that this firm was employed to make very large purchases of cane sugar as well as beet sugar, although they have no special connection with the cane-sugar market, while English firms have?
    Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Member had listened to my reply to the question he would have heard that the father was born in Cuba, and lived there all his life. Like all other British firms, they have considerable experience of beet sugar.
    Mr. BUTCHERfurther asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the firm of Tolme and Runge has been allowed to do business in purchasing sugar on commission for the Government and other principals since August, 1914, while Mr. Runge has been acting as expert adviser on sugar to the Royal Commission; and whether he will take steps to terminate this state of things and to employ only firms of British origin and associations to purchase sugar on their behalf?
    Mr. McKENNA: Messrs. Tolme and Runge have bought no sugar on commission for the Government. As already explained, the Royal Commission buy sugar at a net price from the Colonial or foreign seller. Mr. J. J. Runge has retired during his employment by the Royal Commission from all participation in the business of Messrs. Tolme and Runge.

    WAR BONUS (OFFICE OF WORKS STAFF).
    Mr. COWANasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the concession of war bonuses or allowances towards the increased cost of living now made to postal employés, he will consider the desirability of making similar allowances to employés in his Department, including the forty-six attendants on the staff of this House and the labourers in
    2270
    the lighting and ventilating department who are receiving wages amounting to not more than £2 per week?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER Of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The question of a war bonus is one which affects the whole public service, and as such is being considered by the Treasury.

    ALIEN ENEMIES IN CHINA.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether special licences are being issued authorising the delivery to alien enemies in China of all goods in the hands of shippers in the United Kingdom before 26th July and authorising the renewal of drafts?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Prety-man): No special licences have been granted, but the shipment of goods to enemy firms in China has been permitted up to the 26th July, provided they were shipped on contracts made before the date of the recent Proclamation. There are certain matters, however, outstanding, with regard to the policy to be pursued in regard to this question, and I am not yet in a position to make a final and definite statement on the subject.

    RESTRICTIONS (CANADIAN CATTLE).
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the increased prices of food, he will now, in the general interest of the people of this country, take steps to remove the restrictions on the importation of Canadian cattle?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The restrictions to which the hon. Member apparently refers apply to cattle other than those intended for slaughter at the port of landing, and the President of the Board is not, as at present advised, prepared to introduce the legislation that would be necessary to remove the restrictions in question. With regard to the importation for slaughter at the port of landing, of fat cattle from Canada, upon which there is no embargo, the President is now carefully considering what arrangements can be made for the

    2271
    re-creation of foreign animal wharves for the reception of such cattle, this form of trade having practically ceased of late years.
    Mr. MACMASTER: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any evidence at this time of disease existing among Canadian cattle?
    Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir; but the House ought not to forget that Canada has a long coterminous frontier with the United States, and there is a certain amount of disease in the United States.
    Mr. MACMASTER: May we take that answer as meaning that, as regards Canada, these restrictions are nothing more or less than disguised protection of one industry of this country in conflict with the general interests of the consumer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

    DUBLIN AND SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that as from the 1st July the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway Company has materially increased its passenger fares, which fares were already greater than those in operation prior to 1913; whether he is aware that the same railway company proposes as from the 2nd August to increase by 10 per cent, the rates for merchandise traffic carried by goods and passenger trains, this following an increase of 4 per cent in 1913, and that these increases are alleged to be due to the enhanced cost of coal and other commodities, consequent upon the War; whether he is aware that the war bonus granted to all grades of operative and clerical employés is only Is. per week to those whose remuneration, including Sunday pay, does not exceed 20s. per week; and will he, under the circumstances, represent to the company that such proportion of the increased revenue as may be necessary shall be devoted to raising the wages and salaries of the employés to a figure commensurate with their requirements, having regard to the increase in the cost of living?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I have no doubt that if the revenue of the company is increased
    2272
    the position of the employés will be borne in mind by the directors.
    Mr. GOLDSTONEalso asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it has been brought to his notice that the receipts of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company have been diminished by loss of traffic since the outbreak of the War whilst other Irish companies have had increased profits directly resulting from the carriage of troops and munitions; whether he has taken into consideration that the time is opportune for placing all Irish companies under the unified control of a public authority, as recommended by the Majority Report of the Vice-regal Commission on Irish Railways, so as to obtain co-ordination both of profits and service conditions; and whether, in view of the commitments imposed upon the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company by its having to provide protection for the line from coast erosion in the counties of Dublin and Wicklow, the Government have considered the question of making any Grant-in-Aid?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I hardly think that the present is a suitable time for legislating with a view to the unification of Irish railways, and I fear that the Government could not undertake to assist the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company financially.

    GOLF BALLS (EXPORTATION).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state why a licence to export ten dozen golf balls to Sweden by an Edinburgh firm has not been attended to for over a period of a month; and whether he can say how long on an average it takes to determine whether a licence can be given1?
    Mr. ACLAND: If my hon. Friend will supply me with details of the particular case to which he refers, I will make inquiry. In the great majority of cases a licence is issued or refused within a week from the elate upon which the application is received by the War Trade Department.

    IMPRISONMENT FOR WINDOW BREAKING (JESSIE KLOSE).
    Mr. GOLDSTONEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Jessie Klose, the English wife

    2273
    of a German subject, who was recently committed for twenty-one days in the second division for breaking a window at the Albany Street police station; whether he is aware that the woman committed the act simply to draw attention to her case; and whether, in view of the fact that this woman is English in all but name and has lost her means of support, anything can be done to alleviate her sufferings and have the position of women similarly placed given more sympathetic consideration?
    A similar question was asked yesterday. Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to add to what he said then?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir J. Simon): I am making inquiry into this case and am considering how it should be dealt with, but however hard an individual case may be, it cannot justify window breaking as a means of calling attention to it.

    AMERICAN COTTON (RESHIPMENT TO NEUTRAL PORTS).
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister whether there is any official information showing that American cotton seized by Great Britain is re-shipped to and re-sold in neutral ports?
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: The answer lo the question is in the negative.

    OPIUM TRADE (CHINA).
    Mr. HOLTasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the smuggling of opium from England into China is being carried on on a very large scale; and whether he will take such powers to control the opium trade in this country as will make it impossible that this country should be used as a base for such smuggling operations?
    Sir J. SIMON: The exportation of opium otherwise than under licence is prohibited to all destinations by Royal Proclamation, and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are making every effort to prevent breaches of the Proclamation. I should welcome increased powers to deal with this evil, but steps which were in progress to bring into force the International Convention for the suppression of the abuse of opium and similar drugs have necessarily been suspended by the outbreak of war.

    PRESS TELEGRAMS (UNREMUNERATIVE RATES).
    Mr. WATTasked the Postmaster-General whether the loss of £120,000 annually to his Department on the exceptionally low prices charged for Press telegrams still goes on; has this loss increased or decreased since the War; and has he considered the advisability of saving this sum in these war times?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Nothing has occurred to alter the unremunerative character of the Press telegraph business arising from the low rates which were fixed by Statute in 1868. An estimate made in 1912 indicated a loss of rather more than £200,000 a year, and as the number of Press telegrams has increased since the War by about 10 per cent, the loss also has probably increased.
    Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing in a Bill to alter this?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Yes. The subject is receiving the attention of the Government.

    SCOTTISH OFFICE (EMPLOYES OF MILITARY AGE).
    Mr. CLOUGHasked how many males of military age are employed in the Scottish Office; and whether their services will be requisitioned for the compilation of the National Register or declined on account of their age?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): In reply to the first part of the question, the number is sixteen. The answers to the second part of the question are in the negative.

    NATIONAL REGISTRATION (ENUMERATORS).
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether he is aware that when local authorities advertise for voluntary enumerators under the National Registration Act they state that males of military age are ineligible; whether the Local Government Board has issued instructions, that males of military age are not to be so employed; and, if so, will he state the grounds on which these instructions have been given; (2) if he will state how many

    2275
    of the 20,000 members of the London Teachers' Association who have offered their services to the Government in the compilation of the National Register are males of military age; whether their offer of assistance will be declined upon this ground; and (3) if he will state how many clergymen, professional men, and special constables have offered their gratuitous services to the Government for the distribution and collection of forms in compiling the National Register; and whether the services of those of military age will be declined, and upon what grounds?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am not in a position to state the number of persons of various classes who have offered their services in connection with the National Registration Act, nor how many of them are males of military age. The Local Government Board, in their circular of the 17th instant, suggested that the selection of males of military age should be avoided. There are of course, many cases of persons who, on account of physical unfitness or for other sufficient reason, are ineligible for military service, and there is obviously no objection to the employment of such persons.
    Mr. CLOUGH: Is the House to understand that males of military age are not possessed of sufficient intelligence to be of service to the State in compiling the National Register?
    Mr. LONG: No, Sir.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked how many males between the ages of nineteen and forty are employed by the Local Government Board; and whether their services will be requisitioned for the compilation of the National Register?
    Mr. LONG: The number is 337. Of these, 120 are on military service. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. CLOUGHasked how many males of military age are employed in the Irish Office; and whether their services will be requisitioned for the compilation of the National Register or declined on account of their age?
    Mr. BIRRELL: Included in the present staff of the Chief Secretary's office in
    2276
    Dublin and in London are twelve clerks and four messengers or porters of military age, all of whom are fully employed in the discharge of the duties of the office. It is, accordingly, not anticipated that their services will be utilised in connection with the compilation of the National Register, except in so far as is involved by the correspondence with regard to the compilation which is conducted by that office.

    SPECIAL WAR COMMITTEES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can prepare and issue a small handy pamphlet giving the names of all Special War Committees, with the names of the members of the Committees, the address of the secretary, and a brief summary of the purpose of each Committee, for the use of Members?
    Mr. ACLAND: A list of War Committees with the names and addresses of the secretaries was issued in April last (Cd. 7855). In view of the time that would be involved in its compilation, I regret that I am unable to grant the further Return asked for by my hon. Friend.

    PURCHASE OF LOCAL NEWSPAPERS, IRELAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether Detective Leary, of Union Quay, Cork, is supplied with sufficient money to buy the back numbers of local newspapers which he requires for his political purposes; and whether it is with the sanction of his superiors he gets employés in the offices of those papers to steal the back numbers for him?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Constable Leary is not supplied with money for the purchase of back numbers of local newspapers, and the imputation contained in the second part of the question is without foundation.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any authority for that answer?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I have much better authority for my answer than the hon. Member has for his statement.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that considerable disappointment and discouragement has been caused to the Volunteer Training Corps in South London through the official refusal to permit the holding during the ensuing week of a three-days' camp in private grounds at Orpington, Kent, the arrangement for which had been fully completed; whether he is aware that the men had arranged to march there and back, thereby relieving the railway companies of any extra pressure; and whether further consideration can be given to the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of the circumstances of the particular case mentioned, but the military authorities have reluctantly considered it necessary to refuse permission to all applicants to hold camps in certain areas, amongst which the county of Kent is included.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can state in what direction it is intended to utilise the services of the Volunteer Training Corps in the near future?
    Mr. TENNANT: This matter is one which raises many important considerations, and I am not yet in a position to say when the occasion for their employment will arrive. But my hon. Friend may rest assured that the potentialities of these Volunteers are constantly present to the mind of my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Can my right hon. Friend give a definite answer one way or the other, whether the War Office intends to utilise the services of this corps, and give them practical aid?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is raising the same question again.

    COAL STOCKS.
    Mr. KEATINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether a form is issued to colliery owners to ascertain the amount of their stocks; and, if so, whether he will add a question to ascertain the amount of coal that has been sold for delivery until the end of 1915 and until the end of June, 1916?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: For some months past colliery owners have made to the Board of Trade a return of the stocks of coal held by them and of their output, and I am glad to take the opportunity of acknowledging the ready co-operation, with few exceptions, of the colliery owners in this respect. I am unwilling to place a further burden upon them which may prove to be unnecessary, but I shall have to consider how far a general return of the amounts of coal sold forward may be required in connection with the Bill which was given a Third Reading in this House yesterday.

    RECRUITING.
    Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that indirect coercion is still being used to compel both married and single men to enlist in the Army, he can now say whether the Government have decided to compel all eligible young men in Great Britain not wanted for other Government work to do their fair share of duty for the defence of our existence as a free nation; and, if not, for what reason the present system is to be continued?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave on 5th July to my hon. Friend the Member for the Tottenham Division.
    Major HUNT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, when he stated that we should fight to the last man and the last shilling, the Government is not taking the necessary steps to provide that all available men are trained to fight? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in France are very dissatisfied with our present—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question can be raised in Debate.

    MILITARY OPERATIONS IN FRANCE.

      DAILY OFFICIAL STATEMENT.
      Mr. FELLasked the Prime Minister if he can make arrangements that a statement shall be officially made each day during the recess of the military operations of the British Army in France of a character similar to that which is published twice a day by the French Government, seeing that the French communiqué rarely makes any reference to the British and Belgian Forces at the present time?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh on 21st July.
      Mr. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two months ago the French communiqué always began with an account of the doings of the Belgian and English troops, and that this has been left out for more than six weeks?
      The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government are not responsible for that.
      Mr. FELL: Was it done in consequence of the Commander-in-Chief giving a biweekly statement?

    VOTE OF CREDIT (MINISTERS' SALARIES).
    Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister if the salary of any Minister of the Crown is taken from the Vote to carry on the War; and, if so, whether he can see his way to bring in a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. My hon. Friend has, I think, overlooked the fact that the salaries of the Ministers in the Admiralty, War Office, and Munitions Department must necessarily be paid out of the Vote of Credit.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no information was given that this salary was in this Vote of Credit, and does he not see that, comparing it with salaries well known and recognised, the House has been misled? May I ask my right hon. Friend to explain why the House has not been frankly informed of what the position was?
    Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend's memory is at fault. When the Army and Navy Estimates were introduced this year only token Votes were taken, and a statement was made by the Prime Minister that the whole of the Estimates out of the token Votes, both for the Army and Navy, would be paid out of the Vote of Credit, and those Estimates included the salaries of Ministers.
    Mr. BOOTH: Is my right hon. Friend referring to the real object of this question, namely, as to the salary of the Joint-Patronage Secretary?
    Mr. McKENNA: I thought I answered that question previously with regard to the salary of the Joint-Patronage Secretary. It has been paid so far out of the Treasury Vote, and it will only come upon the Vote of Credit if it should prove that there is not a surplus on the Treasury Vote.
    Mr. BOOTH: Why was not a frank statement made about this question, and why has information had to be obtained in this way by question and answer some time after the date?
    Mr. McKENNA: A frank statement was made when the question was asked, on the announcement of the formation of the Government, about the office of the Noble Lord. The moment my hon. Friend asked the question a reply was given to him.
    Mr. BOOTH: The official announcement in the Press did not state there was any salary, and though we have been continually asking questions, we have not been able to obtain any information.
    Mr. McKENNA: Full information was given in this House the moment the question was asked.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: First we had to find it out.

    MILITARY AND NAVAL CASUALTIES.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister the latest totals of casualties both in Flanders and the Dardanelles?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I circulated these figures on Monday in answer to a question addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire. An error has been found in the sub-division of the figures, though the total is correct. I shall issue a revised table with the Votes. [See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether the right hon. Gentleman can make any statement as to the progress of our arms in the Dardanelles?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the present time suitable for such a statement. Full reports of recent operations, originating both from the Officer Commanding and from correspondents, have appeared in the Press.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: If it is entirely consistent with the public interest, would it be possible during the Recess to make such a statement as might be thought fit?

    ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company ordered seven tank steamers before the end of the last financial year 1914–15, and that these steamers will cost over a million sterling and take two years to build; and, in view of the pledge given by the then First Lord of the Admiralty, on 7th July, 1914, that the £2,200,000 authorised by Parliament would be exclusively employed in developing the oil-field in Persia, whether he can state the circumstances under which this expenditure has been authorised on steamers without Parliament being informed, seeing that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company has no other funds?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement made by the late First Lord of the Admiralty on 15th June, 1914, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Brentford In that reply the general heads of expenditure intended to be covered by the Government participation in the share capital of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company were explained. The portion of the contemplated expenditure by the company on tank vessels, which will be defrayed out of Government shares, has reference to the special type of vessels designed mainly for the transport of oil to suitable deep-water loading berths. The balance of the expenditure on tank vessels will be financed by the company otherwise than from the Government capital. The company is, of course, entitled to own and employ tank vessels to whatever extent may be commercially necessary and profitable. I am informed that the aggregate expenditure on both descriptions of tank vessels will fall far short of the figure named in the question, the contract having been placed on far more favourable terms than the hon. and gallant Member has evidently assumed.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that whatever way the company raise money by mortgage or otherwise the interest, loss and depreciation will have to fall on the Admiralty contribution? Was not an absolute pledge given that the
    2282
    expenditure would be confined to developing the oil-field in Persia, and for such tank steamers as were required the Admiralty would own or charter them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Member is confusing two things. The pledge referred to was that given in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton, who desired an assurance that the money voted by Parliament should be spent solely on the Persian oil field and not in any other part of the world. The company were free to buy and own tank steamers.
    Commander BELLAIRS: As this matter involves quotation from the Parliamentary Debates, I beg to give notice that I will endeavour to call attention to it on the Adjournment.

    PRISON OFFICERS (PAY).
    Mr. C. DUNCANasked whether the petition of the prison officers for an increase of pay on account of the high food prices has been referred to the Economy Commitee; and, in the event of that Committee deciding to hear witnesses on this question, will the prison staffs be permitted to meet and select their own representative?
    Mr. McKENNA: As stated in the reply given on the 19th instant by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to a question by the hon. Member for South-West Ham, the Committee referred to will be consulted on the general question of a temporary increase of pay for Civil servants with small salaries. The procedure of the Committee will be for itself to determine.

    WELSH CHURCH ACT.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice: Whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Lord Crewe in the House of Lords last night that after the War the main subject of the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales would have to be reconsidered; and whether this is an authoritative declaration of the policy of the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that my Noble Friend made no such statement as is suggested in the question. His statement was directed to the question of time.

  CENSORED TELEGRAMS.
  Mr. FELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, Whether any arrangements can be made to reimburse senders of any part of the money paid for the transmission of telegrams which have been censored?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It has been found possible to arrange for the reimbursement of any unexpended balance of the charges remaining in the hands of the Post Office and of the Cable Companies which have been paid for telegrams stopped by the Censors while in course of transmission, subject to certain conditions with respect to which a public announcement will be made.

  Telephone Service, Shepherdswell, Dover.
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Post master-General if he is aware that the inefficiency of the telephone service at Shepherdswell, near Dover, is complained of by the subscribers; and whether he will take steps to render it more efficient?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The complaints of the local service at Shepherdswell appear to have been confined to one person, whose communications have received attention.

  Child Welfare (Scotland).
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland what financial provision is to be made in connection with the institution of child-welfare centres in Scotland; and when a Grant will be made available for that purpose?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have been in communication with the Treasury on this subject, and have received assurances that Parliament will be invited to make a Grant not exceeding one-half of approved expenditure. As soon as the necessary conditions have been adjusted, local authorities will be informed. The Grant, which will be placed on next year's Estimates, will extend to approved expenditure incurred during the current year.

  Bilingual Instruction (Scotland).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that £17,650 is spent in
  2284
  Ireland on schools where bilingual instruction is given, that £3,000 of this amount is for teachers in such schools, that in Scotland the Government only contribute £10 a school where Gaelic forms part of the curriculum; and whether he is prepared to encourage the study of Gaelic in Scotland with larger Grants?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The circumstances of Scotland and Ireland are so different in the matter of instruction in Gaelic that no inference can be made from the amount spent in one country as to the amount which should be spent in the other. The Scottish Grants for the teaching of Gaelic (which are not confined to the £10 Grant mentioned) are Grants to managers in respect of the extra expense they may be put to in providing such instruction, and there is no reason to suppose that they do not represent an adequate proportion of such additional expense.
  Mr. HOGGE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Grants should be increased?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No; I do not see any reason why they should be increased.

  Housing and Town Planning Act (Frant).
  Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the formal complaint signed by seven inhabitant householders of the rural district of Ticehurst, under Section 10 of the Housing and Town Planning Act, 1909, alleging that the rural district council have failed in the parish of Frant to exercise their powers under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and that the case is one in which such powers ought to have been exercised; whether it is the intention of the Board to hold an inquiry into such complaint for the purpose of ascertaining whether the shortage of suitable housing accommodation is an acute one and suitable to be dealt with at once, or whether the Board has procured satisfactory undertakings from the district council that at a more suitable time it will proceed to take steps to remedy the shortage; and, if so, what is the nature of such undertakings?
  Mr. LONG: My attention has been drawn to the complaint. The rural district council have had the question of the housing conditions in Frant

  2285
  under consideration, but, owing to the War, they have been unwilling to take any steps that would involve them in capital expenditure at the present time. It is essential in dealing with the question of providing additional houses in Frant to deal also with the question of water supply, as to which there is some difficulty, and before holding a local inquiry on the complaint as to housing I wish to have proposals before me for securing an adequate water supply.

  Waterford Prison.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the number of hours spent on duty in His Majesty's prison at Waterford during the three months ending 22nd July, 1915, by the governor of that prison and by the warders, respectively; their respective salaries; by whom the hours of attendance are recorded and reported; and, there being inadequate criminal use for that prison, whether it is for anticipated political cases it is being continued as a prison?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I am informed that during almost the whole of the period referred to in the hon. Member's question the governor has been absent from duty owing to serious infectious illness which at one time endangered his life. As regards the warders, I have no reason to suppose that the normal periods of duty, which amount to nine hours per day for five days of the week, with shorter hours varying with the circumstances of each prison on the other two, have been exceeded. The salary of the governor on the 1st January last was £300 per annum, subject to a deduction under the Superannuation Act, 1887, while the warders were at that date in receipt of salaries varing from £55 to £90. The hours of attendance are recorded by the gate warder. The prison is maintained for the needs of criminal justice.

  Local Taxation (North of Scotland).
  Major HUNTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that relief has been definitely promised as to local taxation to the poorer districts of the North of Scotland, especially to the outer islands, where local taxation is from 12s. to over 20s. in the £, he can say whether any steps are to be taken for their relief, in view of the fact that the rent of the shootings, which mostly provide for these local taxes, has been almost entirely done away with by the War?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware of the definite promise to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and while I am fully conscious of the financial difficulties that any material reduction in annual rental in these districts might produce, the available information does not enable me to judge how far his description of the present position is well founded.
  Major HUNT: Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that the present Minister of Munitions made a definite promise about four years ago that this matter would be dealt with?
  Mr. HOGGE: Would it not be better to let the land for small holders instead of renting it for shooting?

  Government Whips.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the Prime Minister how many Government Whips have been appointed in the House of Commons, and what is the total emolument enjoyed; and whether any of the Whips have been specially designated to organise rival parties in the country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Eight Whips have been appointed, seven being the usual number. Their total emoluments amount to £8,400. The Whips belong to the three parties composing the Coalition Government, and in addition to their work in the House they attend to the affairs of the parties in the country. They also give considerable time to directing the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, the Parliamentary War Savings Committee, and the Munitions Meetings Campaign.
  Mr. BOOTH: Does my right hon. Friend think it advisable, when thrift is being urged throughout the country, to have these three sets of Whips paid out of public funds to organise parties against each other in the country, and does he think that meets with general approval?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The main part of their time is devoted to the service of the country.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Is there any necessity at all for these eight Whips, seeing that the House of Commons will do exactly what the Prime Minister wants it to do?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend takes an unduly sanguine view. I fear his, for the moment, is a counsel of perfection.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Autumn Recess, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.

    AUTUMN RECESS.
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): Before I make the Motion standing in my name, which, I think, requires very few words to commend it to the House —and which, notwithstanding some notices of Amendment that appear on the Paper, will, I trust, receive general acceptance after I have explained the reasons for it—it may be convenient if, in the first instance, I remind the House as to how we stand in regard to the time we have sat and the time in which we have been in a state of suspended animation as a House since the commencement of the present Session. I go back to the autumn of last year, the early autumn, at the time of the Declaration of War, and the House will remember that that Session prorogued on the 18th September, and a new Session, that in which we are now sitting, began on the 11th November. The House sat from the 11th to the 27th November, when there was an Adjournment of nine weeks to the 2nd February. The House adjourned again on the 16th March for four weeks till the 14th April, and sat from the 14th April to the 19th May, when it adjourned for the Whitsuntide Recess. We resumed our sittings, after an interval of two weeks, on the 3rd June. It follows from that enumeration that during the nine months, or rather more than nine months, which the present Session has already lasted we have had fifteen weeks in all of what I suppose I must call vacation—not, I think, a very excessive proportion. But; if I go back to what is more relevant to my immediate purpose—to what has been done since the House resumed after Whitsuntide on the 3rd June, when, as the House will remember, the Government had been reconstituted upon an enlarged basis, and had
    2302
    started afresh both in legislative and administrative action—I may point out that since that date there has been a very substantial legislative output. We have passed the War Loan Bill, a measure absolutely unprecedented in the history of this or of any other country; and, as is now well known, the passing of that Bill into an Act of Parliament has aroused the most gratifying response of all classes of the people of this country, and has done perhaps as much as anything to convince the world, particularly our Allies, that so far as we in this country are concerned we are determined to devote the whole of our resources to the successful prosecution of the War.
    We have also during the same comparatively short space of time passed into law the Munitions Act, which constitutes a new Ministry with an adequate staff, and with regard to which in a later stage of the Debate my right hon. Friend who presides over it will make an eagerly expected and, I hope, satisfactory statement to the House. We have further passed a measure to which I myself, and I believe all my colleagues, attach considerable importance, the measure for establishing a National Register which will enable us, when, as I hope will be the case before very long, the register is in fact complete, to review, to survey, to appraise, and to mobilise to the best purpose all the re1 sources and personnel, both of men and women, the country possesses. I had hoped we should have been able to add, in addition to those three measures, one to which we attach no less importance, the Bill in regard to naval and military pensions and matters cognate and ancillary thereto, and which received the assent of this House a very short time ago. I will say a word about that in a moment. Let me add, in addition to those four very considerable measures—all of them inspired and, I think I may say, necessitated by the exigencies of the War—the House has given consideration and assent to a very large number of extremely useful, though less ambitious Emergency Bills.
    In regard to the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill, it is fresh in the memory of all those whom I am addressing that in the early part of this Session—I am not sure even it was not in the last Session, but certainly last autumn—my right, hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Bonar Law), who now sits rear me, and who was then Leader of the Opposition, suggested the desirability of an inquiry by a Com-

    2303
    mittee of this House into the whole of the various very complicated aspects of naval and military pensions and separation allowances, and all provisions for disability in its various forms, and he asked, at the same time that, if such a Committee were appointed, and produced a considered and unanimous Report, the Government would pledge themselves to give effect to it by legislation. I very willingly gave that pledge.
    The Committee was constituted. It was a Committee of unusual authority. It was presided over by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had associated with him his successor in that office. There were also two Gentlemen who then sat on the bench opposite, my right hon. Friend the present Colonial Secretary and the present Secretary of State for India, and they were associated with the hon. Member for Blackfriars, who represented the Labour party. I do not suppose we have ever had in this House a more representative or more authoritative Committee, and the Bill which was subsequently introduced, and which with some modifications in the course of its progress passed through this House, was a Bill the intention of which was to give effect to the unanimous recommendations of that Committee. I very much regret that that Bill cannot for the moment be added to those which I have already enumerated, and which to-morrow, so far as they have not already done so, will receive the Royal Assent. It went to another place. It is not seemly, even if it were in order, for us to say anything with reference to what passes in a sphere to which we are strangers, and of which we know nothing except by common report. But it would appear that a Motion was there carried, in spite of the protests of the Leader of that House and of Lord Lansdowne, to postpone further consideration of the measure until after the Adjournment in that other place. As I said, it is not my business, and it would indeed be impertinent for me or anyone to criticise what was done elsewhere. I only point out that if the Bill had been read a second time and Amendments made in Committee, I am sure they would have been considered by this House in a sympathetic and respectful spirit.
    Owing to the course which events have taken that has become impossible, and the Bill cannot now pass into law under our normal Parliamentary conditions until
    2304
    after the Adjournment. I regret it. My colleagues regret it. But, at the same time, I would point out what is only fair, that notwithstanding the postponement of the final enactment of this Bill—which I trust may take place by general consent at no very distant date—the status quo in regard to pensions and separation allowances continues, and they are, as I think everybody agrees, on a far more generous scale than anything previously known in our history. Although I should have been glad if we had got this matter disposed of once and for all before the Adjournment, still, fairly reviewing all the conditions, I cannot bring myself to think that serious injury will result from the delay of a few weeks.
    Mr. HOGGE: The separation allowances.
    The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend refers, I take it, to the supplementary allowances.
    Mr. HOGGE: No, I refer to the separation allowances.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I share to the full the hon. Gentleman's regret that the Bill was not passed into law. That regret would be much more acute if I thought that those gallant men who are fighting for us in the field, or those they have left behind, would be substantially deprived of the benefits which Parliament intended to confer on them. But I do not think that will be the effect. It is most desirable that machinery should be set up. In large measure, as far as I can judge, the differences have been rather as to the composition of that machinery than as to the merits of the Bill itself, but I trust we shall be enabled, with general consent, to establish machinery, at no undue distance of time, which will be adequate for the purpose and which will give general satisfaction. That being the case, I must point out to the House—and here I come to closer quarters with the Motion I am about to make—that, so far as the Government is concerned, and none but Government business can, under our present conditions, be initiated, they have, for the moment, no further legislation to propose to the House of Commons. There are large and difficult questions, for instance, and in particular questions connected with taxation, in respect of which we shall feel it our duty, after due time for deliberation and consideration, to make proposals; and we shall be none the worse in putting

    2305
    those proposals before the House in an intelligible and a satisfactory shape for having had a little more time in the stress under which we all labour at present. But having taken as complete a survey as we can of the necessities of the time, we have the fact that for the time being we have no further legislation to which we invite the assent of Parliament, and under these conditions it would seem that the time has come when the House of Commons might very well for a few weeks suspend its activities.
    4.0 P.M.
    The House, I agree, has other functions besides that of legislation. We have in this country two recognised, I might perhaps say accredited, organs of criticism of the Executive of the day. One is the Press. The Press—a very delicate topic. In regard to the Press, I will, for the moment at any rate, content myself by saying this—that I think since the outbreak of the War, under peculiarly trying conditions, under the supervision of a novel and unfamiliar restraint—the censorship—the Press of the United Kingdom, with one or two melancholy exceptions, has discharged its duty with a patriotism, a self-restraint, and a public spirit worthy of the best traditions of that great Institution. The Press we have always with us. The other organ of criticism, to which I for one, as an old Parliamentarian-—now, I am sorry to say, one of the oldest in this House—attach more importance, and for which I feel greater deference, is the House of Commons. It would be not only impertinent, but self-complacent in one who holds, as I have the honour to do at this moment, and have now for many years past, the position of Leader in the House, to enlarge upon the admirable and patriotic manner in which the House always has discharged, and I am sure will continue to discharge, that most necessary duty. [Laughter.] I do not know why that observation should attract any hilarity; I thought I was enunciating a platitude.
    An HON. MEMBER: With notorious exceptions?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am going to make no exceptions. But when the House is sitting, from a legislative point of view in vacuo, as would be the case if we prolonged our sittings under the conditions which I have just described, the function of criticism, most necessary and
    2306
    most useful, would only be discharged by the familiar process of interrogation and answer.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: No answers!
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will, in a moment, come to a little closer quarters with the hon. Member. During the course of these weeks, since we resumed our sittings after Whitsuntide, the number of questions which have been addressed to Ministers—I think we have sat normally four days a week—have been, I will not say unprecedented in number, but I do not suppose they have ever been exceeded in the same space of time. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] A large number of them, I most readily admit, have been relevant and important. A certain proportion, at any rate from the view of those who sit on this bench, and perhaps from the point of view of the majority of the House, have been of a trivial, and sometimes even of a petty, character. Now and again, though I am sure always with the best intentions, questions have been put which could not have been answered without mischievous results to the interests of the country and the successful prosecution of the War. I think it may be interesting to the House to take, by way of illustration, the total number of questions since the commencement of this Session in November last, up to and including Monday last, 26th July, which have been addressed to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War and myself, mainly, if not exclusively, in regard to matters relating to the War. My right hon. Friend has in that time given oral answers to 1,522 questions, and I have given oral answers to 468 questions. My right hon. Friend has given written answers to 249 questions, and I have given written answers to fifty-one questions. As the House knows, that is a very inadequate presentation of what has actually taken place, because I suppose for every oral question which has been put and for every oral answer which has been given—I do not want to exaggerate—there has been on an average one, two, and sometimes three supplementary questions, inspired by the curiosity of the moment.
    I am not complaining. My right hon. Friend, I am sure the House will agree, has performed his duty of answering these questions in a manner which has excited universal admiration, and which has been a model to succeeding Ministers, from the point of view of information, good temper,

    2307
    and good humour. He his no ground of complaint. Neither have I. I am such a hardened offender in the way of answering questions now—I have been at it about ten years, and have been subjected to an almost daily fusillade—that whether the questions number 400 or 4,000 really makes very little difference to me. That is all very well for us. But I want to approach the matter quite seriously. I want the House to approach it seriously. What really does matter is the strain that you are putting upon the great Departments of State, and in particular upon those Departments like the War Office and the Admiralty, which are specially responsible for the enormous responsibilities involved in the daily conduct of the War. I do not hesitate to say that the duty of careful investigation of the suggestions and allegations made, of discovering, often by a number of very complicated and difficult inquiries, the real facts of the case, and then of drafting satisfactory answers for the use of the Minister, imposes upon the permanent officials of these Departments an amount of labour, and encroaches to such an enormous degree on their time, that in the interests of the public service it is absolutely essential that they should have some rest. It is not a question of holiday making. These men have had no holiday since the beginning of the War. They are not likely to have any holiday. They have given their time, their labour, their intelligence, their devotion without measure and without stint. I think the House of Commons ought to have some regard to those patriotic servants. It ought to do what it can to alleviate their almost intolerable burden, and to set free these men for the discharge of duties most necessary and indeed most essential, to the prosecution of the War. What about the House of Commons?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: What about it?
    The PRIME MINISTER: There is no point in that observation. What about the House of Commons itself?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It is moribund!
    The PRIME MINISTER: I had a question addressed to me the other day by one of my hon. Friends on, I think, the subject of the payment of Members. I am not sure it was not the Member who has just described the House as moribund. In the course of that question that hon. Member suggested—I dare say with truth—
    2308
    that there were not more than 150 Members in regular attendance here during these sittings. What does that mean? 150 out of 670! Does it mean that the remainder are away holiday making?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I never said that.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not suggesting that the hon. Member did. Does it mean they are holiday making? Does it mean they are indifferent to the discharge of their duties? A large number are at the front actually fighting. I suppose even a larger number are here, in various ranks and classes, in the fighting services, preparing soldiers and sailors to go to the front. A number more are engaged in the not less important duty of organising in their various localities, the different services: industrial, philanthropic, and healing, which are equally necessary, if we are to do our duty to the soldiers and sailors who are fighting for us. Of those who remain of the 150 here in attendance —I do not know whether this number is accurate or not, but take it at 150—is it to be suggested that if this Motion is carried, and the sittings of this House are adjourned for six or seven weeks, that they are all going holiday making, and in the pursuit of pleasure? Nothing of the kind. On the contrary, if I may say so with all respect to the House of Commons, many of them are going to do duty more urgent, more needed, in the interests of the country than sitting upon these benches, or walking about these corridors, listening to speeches or making speeches. I repudiate altogether as a calumny on the House of Commons the suggestion that because we are not sitting here, after our legislative tasks have concluded, that we are not serving our country just as well, or even better, in other ways. I hope, therefore, in view of these considerations, which I do not think anybody in any quarter of the House will be found to dispute, or to depreciate, we may carry the Motion I am about to propose without serious difference of opinion, and I trust even without Amendment in any way.
    It has been suggested, I see, that I ought to take advantage of this opportunity, before we adjourn, to make something in the nature of a general statement as to the present position and future conduct of the War. I doubt very much, anxious as I am and all my colleagues are to give every kind of information at our disposal which is consistent with the

    2309
    public service to the House, whether it would be expedient in me to respond, certainly at any length or in detail, to that demand. I said on the last occasion, when I had the privilege of addressing the House upon the general situation, that in our opinion this War had become, and was likely to continue, at any rate for some time to come, to be a contest of endurance. We should be ungrateful and insensitive indeed if we did not recognise at this moment in particular the gallant —the indescribably gallants—efforts which are being made by our Russian Allies to stem the tide of invasion and to maintain the inviolable integrity of their positions. I do not think in the whole of military history there has been a more magnificent example set before us of disciplined, patient endurance, and of both individual and collective initiative, than by the Russian Army during the last eleven months.
    In our new Allies, Italy, we recognise with the utmost satisfaction and gratification that with carefully prepared movements they are steadily gaining ground and making their way towards an objective which, we believe, will be within a very short time within their reach. We ourselves are fighting side by side in France with our French comrades—for such they have been now for the best part of a year—and I do not believe from the beginning of the War up to the present moment there has ever been a time when two Armies were inspired by a more complete unreserved spirit of fraternity and comradeship, or when they were more confident that victory—I do not predict times or seasons; we should be foolish if we did —but victory will be ultimately theirs. With regard to the operations which, in conjunction with them, we are undertaking further East in the Gallipoli Peninsula, I ask an hon. Gentleman opposite I see there not to press me to make any specific statement to-day. I will only repeat what I said to the House on the last occasion when I addressed it on the subject, that our confidence is undiminished in the result.
    The only other thing I want to say to the House is this. It is just a year next week since the declaration of War. Has anyone in the history of the world ever seen a more complete—might I not almost say a more miraculous—transformation in the country, not in its spirit, not in its soul and heart, but in the outward manifestation of its life than has taken place here
    2310
    during those twelve months? I need say nothing about our Fleet—Britain ha always been the greatest of Naval Powers —except what we all acknowledge that, strong as it was at the beginning of the War, it is far stronger now, and to its quiet, unobserved but ubiquitous, and all-powerful activities is due that the seas are clear, or substantially clear, for this submarine menace, after all, serious as it appeared to be for the moment, is not going to inflict fatal or substantial injury upon British trade. The seas are clear. We have our supplies of food and raw materials, on which we as a country depend, flowing in upon us in the same abundance, the same freedom—you might without much exaggeration say, judging by the rates of insurance or any other test, with the same immunity from serious hazard of risk, as even in times of peace. The Navy, so far, has been denied the grim and glorious delights of pitched battle. They have the consciousness—and we ought to let them know that we realise the debt of gratitude we owe to them— that it is through their unrelaxing vigilance, through the supreme skill with which they have been handled, that this country today can laugh at the scare of invasion, to an extent unknown by any of the belligerent Powers, immune from the actual ravages and dangers of war. But, as I have said, we have always been a great Naval Power.
    Look at the position of the Army. Even in this House I see hon. Members clad in military garb—a sight unknown, I suppose, for a hundred years. There is not a family represented here—and in that respect it is typical of the whole country that has not given its hostages in the shape of sons or brothers to the Army, and I am glad to be able to say that the process of recruiting the Army, which has now gone on for twelve months with undiminished activity, from the ranks of the people, is in a highly satisfactory condition. The latest returns are among the best we have had for a long time past. Then, what of our industries? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, with the aid of his skilled advisers, has already organised the production of all those things which are necessary for the active conduct of the War—at least, he has arranged for their organisation on a basis never dreamt of in our history which, I am satisfied, will prove thoroughly adequate to our requirements. Do not let us suppose—I venture to offer that word of caution to the House

    2311
    and country—that our national duty is discharged either by sending an adequate influx of recruits into the Army or into the various industries which are engaged in the fabrication of munitions. In this War the duty has been cast upon us not only to maintain the freedom of the seas, not only to supply large contingents of well-equipped men for the battlefield and the trenches, but also of financing—a not less important duty—to a large extent the whole conduct of the War. We cannot do that unless we organise all our industries. We cannot do that if we continue to import, increasing our indebtedness to other countries, things which under normal conditions may be regarded as among the natural comforts or the simpler luxuries of life. We cannot do that unless we maintain in our great manufacturing industries —there are men who are doing quite as much service to the country as the soldiers and makers of munitions—men who will keep up, and indeed increase, the supply of those goods which we alone in the world can produce, or which we produce better than other people, and by which in the long run we have to pay for the things we receive.
    I would like to add in that connection— and it is one point which, I think, is not perhaps quite sufficiently borne in mind— that it is highly important for us, normally a creditor country, but, under the conditions in which the War has placed us, bound to resort to an unprecedented degree to neutral countries for the supply of many of the things which we need, to keep and to increase our supply of gold. We have already given directions, so far as the Government is concerned, that all these smaller payments which are made to those in our employ, or in the employ of our contractors, are, so far as possible, not to be made in gold, but in the paper currency, adequately secured, which it was one of the first duties of my right hon. Friend when the War broke out to supply to the country. I would venture, if my words may carry their message beyond these walls to my fellow countrymen outside, to say to them—to householders, to employers, indeed to everybody—that in a small but a not unimportant way one of the best services they can render to the country at this moment is to see that all what I may call "till" money—the smaller change of our social and industrial life— is paid not in gold, but in notes and in paper. In that way I am satisfied we shall
    2312
    be able to accumulate, and will accumulate very rapidly, such a large reserve of gold as will enable us to face, without any doubt or hesitation of any sort or kind, whatever drafts may be made upon us in regard to payment for things we require outside. I say that by way of parenthesis, but I now come to the point, which I have been endeavouring to demonstrate to the House for the last few moments, by asking these two questions. Upon a review of the position to-day as compared with our position of exactly a year ago, can there be a greater calumny of our own people, both here and over the seas, than to say that they have not risen to the height of a great occasion. I have said that there is no greater calumny, but there is one greater still, and that is to suggest—it is a calumny not only on ourselves but upon our gallant Allies one and all—that they do not realise and appreciate to the full the contribution which we are making to the ultimate triumph of our common cause. It is in that spirit, I believe, that the House of Commons and the country at large is entering upon the second year of the War. Do not let us give any encouragement to the faint-hearted, still less to the backbiters who do what they can—I make no inquiry as to their motives or intentions— to dishearten our Allies and to encourage our enemies. Let us here, in this House and in the country at large, in the same spirit of unity and determination which for twelve months has inspired our combined efforts, persist and persevere to the inevitable and triumphant issue.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That to-morrow Mr. Speaker, so soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Bills which have been agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House without Question put until Tuesday, 14th September."—[The Prime Minister.]
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words "having regard to the gravity of the present crisis it is undesirable that the House should adjourn for a longer period than four weeks."
    In rising to offer some observations on the speech which the Prime Minister has just made and on the Motion which is now before the House, I am conscious that in doing so, and in what I am going to say, I am laying myself open to taunts of unworthy motive and unjustifiable

    2313
    action. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] We have had some experience of it in the past. The last time I had the honour of taking part in a war debate in this House after I sat down I was followed by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and he thought it becoming of him as an old Member of this House to suggest that the motive by which I was actuated in the views I ventured to offer were entirely based on the fact that I had not been invited to occupy a seat on the Treasury Bench. I say it was a base, unworthy, and entirely unjustifiable suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman knew it was false, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman or any Member of the Government or any Member of this House to supply any evidence that I have ever been an applicant or a candidate for any post in the Government or outside of it. If anyone can prove the contrary I will willingly resign my seat. I think, at all events, we ought to be given credit for honesty in our opinions and for expressing the views which we hold without fear or favour.
    The right hon. Gentleman has given us to-day an important statement with regard to policy. I have one word to say as to the general arrangement of business to-day. The Motion for the Adjournment is usually set aside for the raising by private Members of matters which have not hitherto been raised in the course of the Session. We welcome the statement of the Prime Minister as to the War conditions, but in my humble judgment it would have perhaps been more appropriate had we had it on the Vote of Credit. We are delighted that the Minister of Munitions is going to give us a statement as to the work of his Department. I still think that those two statements should have been delivered in Government time, and that we should have had the whole day, as we have always had it before, for the raising of matters which private Members wish to raise. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has given us a short review of the War, and I think it is only right that the House and the country should have that review. It has been made in France and in other countries oftener than it has been made in this country. I was glad to hear that so far the right hon. Gentleman thought the position in Flanders and in France was perfectly satisfactory. I confess that I was a little surprised at that statement. I had supposed that this summer we were
    2314
    to have a great advance, and I am sure it would have been welcome to all the people of this country if that advance could have taken place at the moment when Russia needed our help most, as we know she helped us under other conditions. I wish I could receive from the Government an assurance that the position as it is in France to-day and may be for some time was entirely unassociated with the provision of munitions of war.
    We have had something said also with regard to the Dardanelles. It is a remarkable fact that notwithstanding the overwhelming casualties we are having in the Dardanelles at the present moment, this House has never been officially in formed by any communication made to it with regard to that great undertaking. There is one thing I would like the Prime Minister to tell us, and I am sure the people outside the House would like the information, why was it that we gave the enemy such long notice by our naval attack before we made the landing. It seems to me that that is a question which ought to be answered. I was talking to a distinguished man who has been with the Turks right throughout the campaign and who returned yesterday. He is a distinguished American correspondent, and he gave me a statement which leaves no doubt in my mind that had our policy been in unison, and had we acted on land and sea at the same time the position to day would be very different. I therefore say that I would like to have fuller information on these two points. I know the Prime Minister thinks, or I presume he thinks, from what he said to-day, that we ought to sit in silence—
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Hear, hear.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Sit in silence in this Parliament just the same as we sat in silence for nine months before the Coalition Government was formed. I will tell the Prime Minister frankly why this is impossible. I say we cannot keep silent —I have said this outside, and I will say it in his presence—as we did for nine months, because we have not the confidence we had nine months ago. With regard to some of us the foundations for our anxiety are well founded. Some of us cannot understand, with all the Secret Service at the command of the Government, with their Military Attaches and Ambassadors, with their special visit of Cabinet Ministers to Berlin, why they were not better prepared than they were for

    2315
    the attack of Germany. We think, in the first place, that they ought to have known Germany's intention. We think it ought to be impossible for any Member of the Cabinet to say that it came with as much surprise to them as anybody outside, more especially after Lord Haldane said that after his last visit he had a feeling of grave disquietude. I complain that at that moment, if they could not do everything that Lord Haldane had reported as the result of his mission, they might, at any rate, have taken preliminary steps for the extension of our armament factories, so that the output might have been much greater than it was at the beginning of the War. I give that as one reason why we cannot give the Government complete and absolute confidence as to the future of the War.
    We have responsibilities as well as any Member on the Treasury Bench. We trusted them for nine months, and we know exactly what happened as the result of silence. Another reason why we are obliged to ventilate our own views now is that we cannot understand why in October you did not mobilise the industries of this country. You saw France doing it, and Members of the Cabinet had been to France and had seen the signal success of it, and here six or eight months after you only began to call all the industries of the country to help you. If this is a good thing six or eight months after, why was it not done in October? We fail to understand why these preliminary steps were not taken at that time. We know what it has cost the country in lives and in the money of the taxpayers. We know what would have been the position to-day if the equipment of our Army had been what it ought to have been at the start of the War, because the Minister of Munitions has told us. The right hon. Gentleman told us as late as June that if our Army had had a full and complete equipment the Germans would have been out of France to-day and possibly out of Flanders, and the scene of battle to-day would have been near the waters of the Rhine, and the termination of the War would have been in sight. That is the statement of a Member of a united Cabinet representing the views of every Member of the Government. Therefore it is a question of equipment, and I think we are entitled to ask if it is true that the War would have been over with proper equipment, who is responsible for the fact that
    2316
    our Army was not properly equipped? In these circumstances I think we are entitled to ask for that information and to ask if anybody has been cashiered since the commencement of the War in any office under any circumstances in connection with the failure to meet the great demands which have been made on the country.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions is, I am glad to say, going to make a statement to-day, and I presume that statement will cover the work of his Department, and I doubt not that he will be able to give us a more hopeful view of the future. I would like to ask him for information on one or two specific points. In the first place, whether there is any foundation for the rumour which has been going round the House for the last few days that Sir Percy Girouard is no longer at the Board of Munitions or connected with that Department? If it is not well founded I think it ought to be denied, and if it is well founded I ask who his successor is likely to be. I would like to ask further whether the Minister of Munitions is entirely satisfied that he has sufficient power in his new Department to carry out all the work which Parliament has entrusted him with. I would like to ask him one more question of a somewhat important character. Many months ago the Secretary of State for War announced in the House of Lords that our Army was going to be instructed to use and be provided with chlorine gas to use against the enemy. I ask him is he now prepared to say if that is still the policy of His Majesty's Government, and can he explain the extraordinary delay that has taken place in supplying our Army in the field with chlorine gas and the still more extraordinary delay in using it against the enemy? Our officers and men at the front cannot understand, after the announcement publicly that we were going to fight the enemy with a dose of his own medicine, why it is that up to this moment, I think I am right in saying, no gas has been used, although the most favourable wind has existed for weeks. I venture to suggest one of the reasons is that there was a breakdown in that as in other Departments. I suggest that six weeks after the order was given it was found necessary to telegraph and to bring to London all the important firms in the country who might be disposed to supply it. I suggest that the Gentleman who recommended his own firm to supply it found, after the six weeks were over.

    2317
    that they had not carried out their undertaking. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us a reassuring statement on that subject, and also if the policy of His Majesty' Government remains the same. It counts for a great deal to the men at the front. I suppose that I get as many letters as most Members, and I should be glad to show anyone what they think about this matter. I hope that we shall have a statement to-day which will encourage our men at the front that we are determined to fight the enemy with his own weapons.
    The right hon. Gentleman to-day in submitting his Motion practically confined himself to two reasons for its adoption by the House. The first was that Parliament had done a great deal of useful work. I was glad to hear that statement, because I take it as an indication that he does not belong to those who think that Parliament should be shut up altogether. That is the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"] The right hon. Gentleman based his Motion on practically two separate grounds. He incidentally mentioned, of course, that we had done a great deal of useful work, but it was moved, first, on behalf of those patriotic men who are working in our Government Departments, and, secondly, on behalf of Members themselves. Let me say, as regards the question of holidays generally, that I entirely associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said, that an adjournment for Members of this House does not necessarily mean a holiday; in fact, it means nothing of the kind. I take my own case. In the next four weeks I think I have only three clear days free from public work connected with the War. I venture to say that is the position of almost every Member on this side of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why only on that side of the House?"] I do not pretend to speak on behalf of anybody, but I venture to have sufficient determination to do so on that particular point for this side of the House. I know that it applies to all sides of the House; indeed, I do not envy the state of mind of a man who can contemplate taking a holiday when the country is going through such a grave crisis. Therefore, it is not a question of holidays; it is a question whether we ought to meet at frequent intervals in this House and keep a supervision over public affairs. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, suggested that the men
    2318
    who were running the War, so to speak, were the same men drafting answers for Ministers in this House. Surely that is not the case. I should say that the man who drafts answers for Ministers has nothing whatever to do with the War, except in very few cases. [HON. MEMBERS indicated dissent.] They undoubtedly are in many cases, but in a great many cases they have nothing whatever to do with the real progress of the War. To say that gentlemen in the Department ought to have five or six weeks' holiday is not a very strong ground why this House should be asked to adjourn.
    The PRIME MINISTER: They will not get any holiday.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: If they do not get any holiday, I cannot for the life of me understand the right hon. Gentleman introducing their case before the House to-day, because, if it is the case that Members of Parliament desire answers to questions and we are not to put them because the men who used to supply the answers do not care to provide them, I think that is a very weak position indeed.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot allow that to pass. I said nothing of the kind. They are amongst the most devoted men we have, and they are as much interested in the success of the War as our soldiers and sailors. I did say, and I think it was a fair appeal to make, that the House of Commons should not impose an excessive strain upon them in the discharge of their duties.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: It is hardly necessary for me to say that I do not for a moment attach any discredit to these men; far from it. I said nothing of the kind. I know their industry and the hard work that falls on all Departments, more especially, I admit, when the House is sitting, but if this House decides that it is necessary to sit, I do not think that consideration for those officials, it being War time, would be sufficient to make us adjourn. I adhere to the old-fashioned notion that the House of Commons ought to control the Executive of the day and that the Executive ought not to control the House of Commons. The very reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman for the House not sitting, in my judgment, are reasons why it should sit. He gave us as one of the reasons the hundreds of questions which Members had asked. What does that mean? It means that Members are

    2319
    directly interested in the progress of the War. Every householder in this country is interested. Members do not put their questions for amusement, but for the information of their constituencies, and I maintain that the number of questions asked is proof that there is a real interest in this House in the progress of the War. I deplore, personally, the attacks that have been made on this House outside and the campaign that has been carried on in order that we may close our doors. The leader of the campaign outside is a former Member of this House, Mr. Bottomley, and he is supported in the House by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They argue that the House ought to be closed to the end of the War. That is a most indefensible, proposition. I would point out that the gentleman who makes it is himself at the same time keen to get back to the House in order to restore it to its ancient prestige and its former glory. I do not imagine that there is any large body of opinion outside this House, great as the campaign has been, who would say that this House ought not to meet at all during the War. We have a censored Press, nothing can appear without the approval of an official of the Government, and, if we have not the House of Commons sitting, how are we to represent the view's that are held outside? Is there to be no opportunity for grievances to be presented? That way leads to anarchy, and I am surprised at the "Standard" and the people who advocate such a policy. This House, in my opinion, has a duty to perform, and there are great subjects which it ought to bring up for discussion
    The right hon. Gentleman suggested that because we had finished the Government programme and we had done all they wanted us to do, there was, therefore, no reason for us to remain. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman some of the things which I think we could consider with advantage. I think we might employ one day in considering the rise in the price of living in this country. We have talked a great deal about it, but nothing has been done. We have dealt with coal later than we ought to have done, and it is doubtful whether the Bill will serve the purpose for which it is intended. Should we be wasting a day if we came back a day sooner in order to do something to relieve the workers of this country by considering the rise in the price of living? The dis-
    2320
    content which arises from that rise is the cause partly of strikes and may be the cause of strikes in the future. That is the root cause of the discontent. We could usefully devote a day to stopping the exploiters who are gambling with the food of the country. One day would not be wasted.
    We might devote another day to the question of public economy. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed a Committee to deal with that matter, but it is especially prevened from dealing with some matters in respect of which waste is going on. I do not know whether the Prime Minister read a case with regard to the supply of motor cars to the War Office, in which there was an item of £40,000 commission. That is one case which has come into Court! I wonder what other cases there are which have not come into Court! I can supply the Government with a good many when the proper time comes, and when the proper Committee is appointed to hear the evidence. I venture to say that if we are going to prevent waste we have got to begin in high quarters. We have got to see that proper prices obtain with regard to the things the Government require. With regard to pensions, despite what the Prime Minister said, it means that these broken men, these disabled men, will have to wait three months longer because the House is not sitting. We cannot consider this question for seven weeks, and we shall then have to begin again. The machinery has to be set up. I venture to say it will mean, between the Adjournment and the passing of this Bill, three months' delay. I think we might show a little indication of our sympathy with these men by meeting a little earlier on that account. We might also usefully employ another day in discussing whether we are going the right way to get the right men for our Army. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a very reassuring statement to-day. So far as I can gather from that statement, he is perfectly satisfied with the position, and therefore that makes that demand a little less urgent.
    I would suggest that the House might devote its time with some advantage to trying to bring pressure upon the Government to stop the continuance of the practice of sending cotton to our enemies. It is now admitted by the Prime Minister, after twelve months, that cotton is still going to our enemies. It is stated by high military authorities in this and other lands

    2321
    that if we had stopped cotton going to Germany the War would have been over to-day. Therefore, I maintain that this House will not have performed its complete duty until it demands of the Government that there shall be no ca' canny, but that they shall immediately declare it contraband. We owe it to the men at the front and to the country that this question shall not be allowed to drift any longer, but that it shall be dealt with emphatically by the Government. We are justified in asking the Government not to ask us to adjourn for seven weeks. Some important matters may arise in the interval which will demand the meeting of Parliament. It is not enough to say that Members can be called together by Proclamation. It is the duty of this House to decide how often it desires to sit in a time of grave national peril. The right hon. Gentleman did not allude to that point to-day, but two of his colleagues have called attention to the position, and the Minister of Munitions has said that he is sick and tired of calling attention to it. I say that the House ought to meet at shorter intervals. If it only met for one day, it ought to meet in case there are vital matters to bring forward. I say that we are putting forward a reasonable demand, and I say the Government ought to leave it to the House and not put on the official Whips. In any case, I think we are putting forward a demand which they ought to grant. I think the country expects the House not to make an adjournment for seven weeks, and considers that four weeks is sufficient.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I think the Prime Minister when he virtually asked the House of Commons to muzzle itself to-day on the question of the War, must have inwardly felt some amusement, because we on this side of the House are perfectly well aware that the Coalition Government sit there to-day by reason of the fact that if the Prime Minister had not decided to deal with maladministration he would have had to meet a hostile Resolution in this House from the other side. The Prime Minister seems to think that it is fair to call us who have got one interest and one interest only, namely, to see this War carried to a successful conclusion, backbiters for the criticisms which we have honestly made.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That expression was not directed to Members of this House.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am glad to hear the Prime Minister say that that expression was not directed to Members of this House. But Members who did criticise his Cabinet and himself are, after all, held up in the Press as unpatriotic and as having no desire or interest except to hamper and defeat the Government. What I want to ask the Prime Minister to consider is this. He went down to Newcastle and made the definite statement that the operation of our Allies and ourselves had not been impeded for want of munitions. The right hon. Gentleman now knows that that statement is incorrect. I ask him, what has he done to remove from office those officers who have been responsible for this state of affairs? The whole offensive movement in France has broken down simply and only for the reason that you declined to order munitions. Last October, November, December, January, and February, you, through the War Office or Ordnance Department, turned down orders for millions of shells which were offered you; you refused to get machine guns that were offered; you said they were not required. You have sent to France citizens of this country, who have so patriotically joined the Colours, ill-equipped with munitions, ill-equipped with machine guns. After all, no one knows better than the Prime Minister himself that this is primarily a war of machine guns. When the Russian Government to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly and properly paid such a high tribute, cleared out from their War Office every incompetent person who had failed in his duty, is it not reasonable for us to ask why we, when our Department failed so lamentably, should still leave, at the commencement of the War— because this may be but the commencement of the War—inefficient people administering the affairs of the nation!
    If it is not the proper function of the House of Commons to call attention to the failures of His Majesty's Government in that respect, I know of no other function of the House at such a time. It was only at the time when Members opposite saw that the Government were drifting —that they had adopted the policy of "Wait and See" from the start—that they came forward and forced a Coalition Government into existence. It is idle to deny that fact. Therefore, what we ask is, when you have a Coalition Government set up, that we should have efficiency in the

    2323
    public service. Has the conduct of the War Office been such as to give any confidence to the country that what has happened in the past will not be continued? I am going to give the House a few cases. I am sorry to have co deal with personal cases, but I feel it my duty. When the Prime Minister seems to regard that all is well with the administration of all the Departments of State, we should try to appreciate what the real issue is which the Government is still failing to recognise or appreciate. The stupidity of the War Office is only equalled by their incomprehensible folly.
    Let me give the House an illustration. I will deal first with the case of Major Reichwald, a gentleman who has now changed his name to Blaker. This person is the son of Krupp's agent in London. Mr. Auguste Reichwald has been for many years the representative and confidential adviser of Krupp's in this country. Mr. Reichwald has four sons; three of them are still in the business with him. The eldest son, Frederick Wilhelm Reichwald, joined the Artillery. He was educated by his father, who was an extremely able man, and he passed through Woolwich in the ordinary course. This officer was sent to India, and four months before the War, for some extraordinary cause which no one seems to understand, he was taken out of his own service and made Assistant Military Secretary to the Commander-in-Chief in India. In that position he had all the confidential information of the Commander-in-Chief's office. He had all the information relating to the movement of troops to France and East Africa. When the War broke out he was immediately promoted to Chief of the Intelligence Department of the Indian Corps, and was sent to France. Many wounded Indian officers who have returned to this country have complained very strongly about these proceedings. They have said that here was an officer who had all the confidential reports before him, who examined all the spies and prisoners, who knew also when any attack was going to be made, or when any offensive or defensive movement was contemplated. I do not wish to suggest that Major Reichwald, as he now is, was not or has not been loyal to his oath. What I do say is that when this officer was appointed to this position numerous complaints were received at the War Office. Numerous representations were made by Members of this House to the
    2324
    highest authorities at the War Office, but not the smallest step was taken by the Government. The Under-Secretary of State for War, in reply to a supplementary question, stated that no suspicion whatever attached to this officer. His words were, "I am informed that no suspicion whatever attaches to this officer." The right hon. Gentleman knows that, so far from no suspicion attaching to this officer, representations have been made to the War Office constantly by officers at the front and by a Member of this House, and it is due to a Member of the Coalition Government that this officer has now been permanently called back from France.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I meant no just suspicion.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The word "just" makes all the difference. I agree with my right hon. Friend it is not for us to question whether Major Reichwald, a son o£ Krupp's agent, is or is not an honest person. That is not the argument I am now addressing to the House. My argument is that here is a person whose salary, other than the pay he receives from the State, depends on money received from the agent of Krupp's. Is there any other nation in the world except ours—take France or Germany or Russia—who would take the son of the agent of a foreign Government and make him their Chief Intelligence Officer? It is one of those incredibly stupid things of which the War Office has been quilty right from the commencement of the War. When my right hon. Friend says that no suspicion attaches to Major Reichwald, none of us say that Major Reichwald has not been loyal to his oath. But you ought not to-place that gentleman in such a position. The mere fact that the Government have decided within the last few days to recall that gentleman proves that the action of the Government has been unwise to a degree.
    Take, now, the question of machine guns and the armament firms. During the whole of this War we have been persistently let down by the armament firms in this country. They took large orders for munitions. Their object has been solely to keep out other manufacturers from the business of munitions, so that they could retain the monopoly in their own hands. We have the finest machinery for making-textile machinery of probably any country

    2325
    in the world. The total weight of a machine gun is only from 30 to 40 lbs. We have also in this country some extraordinarily fine and accurate machinery, such as the Rolls-Royce, the Daimler, and other like works; but yet up to the present time not a single step has been taken by the Government to order or manufacture machine guns in this country, and that at a time when the wastage of machine guns at the front has been larger than the actual number ordered and delivered. That is a very serious thing. The War Office—that is, the Ordnance Department —have taken no steps whatever to utilise the machinery available in this country for the manufacture of machine guns, merely because the armament firms desired that no one should enter into this new line of business, so that after the War they should be able to maintain their own monopoly.
    The right hon. Gentleman the then Member for Ilkestone told us in 1911 that we had the finest equipped Army in the world; there were no machine guns or rifles or any other munitions of war that were not far superior in our Army to those in any other Army in the world. Everybody knows that our rifle at the present time costs from 95s. to a 100s. to make, whereas the cost of the rifle adopted by every other civilised nation—that is a type of the Mauser rifle—costs about 35s. to 40s. The rifle we have adopted is nothing like so efficient as the Mauser rifle, although our rifle is a good rifle. At the same time, the Mauser rifle can be made in very much larger quantities, and there is a very great difference in the pressure. The consequence is that the Germans can use about double the charge of powder with a very large increase in muzzle velocity. Why did we keep to this particular rifle? It is the armament firms' action. The Birmingham Small Arms factory, the chief makers of rifles, did not want any other pattern of rifle. We in this important manufacturing country have never taken an order for rifles for a first, second, or third or fourth class Power. Why not? Why are we so deplorably deficient as we are to-day with reference to rifles? Because the armament firms desire to keep the monopoly of rifles, out of which they have made enormous profits. Even the French have a modification of the Mauser pattern. Every other nation in the world has adopted this rifle, because it is cheaper,
    2326
    but the British Government or the Ordnance Department would not have a rifle which, if we adopted it, we should be able to turn out in much larger quantities.
    I see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is present; so also is the Under-Secretary for War. I have a case here which was brought to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for War —the case of a timber company. This is a company which is practically entirely composed of Germans, and is carrying on its business under the management of a Mr. Friedmann. Mr. Friedmann is permitted by the War Office to go to Brighton even now at week-ends. Although he is a registered alien he is allowed to spend his week-ends there. It is a perfect scandal that this gentleman, although a registered alien, should continue to go by permit to different parts of this country, and that the police authorities should have instructions to allow him to visit a certain house in Brighton where he spends his week-ends. The whole spirit of this Debate initiated by the Prime Minister shows that the House does not appreciate the fact that we are at war. Take, for instance, the case of Sir Edgar Speyer, who, as everyone knows, is the proprietor of the Queen's Hall. I suppose it is because he is of German origin that we in this country are to be treated during the next few weeks by Sir Henry Wood to a series of concerts entirely composed of German music. I have the whole of the programmes here, from which it will be seen that some of the concerts are to be devoted entirely to Wagner's music. What would France or Russia do under conditions of this kind? The people are not recognising the seriousness of the position. I cannot understand how people can go to listen to German music, when every people in the world, except ourselves, would not tolerate during a time of war that they should be entertained by German music. But as the Queen's Hall belongs to him, I suppose we in this country are to be instilled with German virtues.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL: Is there no Beethoven in the programme?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: No, the whole of the programme at some of these concerts contains no music except German.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Beethoven was a German.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The Government must, in dealing with the question of Germans, remember this. All this talk about grouse shooting is rubbish and nonsense. You might just as well say that the hon. Member for North Salford (Sir W. Byles) is about to go grouse shooting in Scotland as to say the House of Commons desires to take a holiday for that purpose. The hon. Member for North Salford has told us that he would not kill any living animal. I am not associating myself with any observations which are made by the "Times" or the "Daily Mail" to the effect that the House is adjourning because Members want to take a holiday. That is not the reason why I want the House of Commons to be sitting. The reason why I want the House to be sitting is that when we have those Gentlemen on the Front Bench we do get some information out of them. The Prime Minister to-day complained about the number of supplementary questions. What is the reason for those supplementary questions? I have done my best, during my time in the House, to frame questions which necessitate the Minister answering them. The fact is that the people who draw the answers honestly and openly boast outside that they have been responsible for years for drawing answers, and that they have evaded these questions, as we know they have evaded them. It is no use the Home Secretary saying "No." I know the gentleman who was responsible for drawing many of the answers given in this House. He used to draw them and hand them to the Minister, and he discussed with me on many occasions how he used to evade questions I had put down on the Notice Paper. If we have to ask supplementary questions it is for the reason that Ministers are not frank and will not answer the questions. When the Prime Minister said to-day that one of the reasons why the House should adjourn was that it would give these gentlemen a rest, I think he meant that the gentlemen who had acquired special knowledge in evading questions would not be available at the office to place the evasive answer in the hands of the Minister. I do not think the House of Commons ought to adjourn. I do not think the conduct of Ministers in carrying on this War in any way gives them the right to say to the House of Commons that we should shut up this place for the next
    2328
    seven weeks. What little good we can do, we ought to do. The House of Commons blindly follows the Prime Minister in everything he does—as they are doing at the present time. The House blindly follows whatever the Prime Minister has said, despite the fact that the part the War Office has played in its Ordnance Department is responsible for the deplorable position in which we find ourselves at the present time.
    Sir H. CRAIK: I am very glad indeed to have an opportunity of explaining my position to the House. I have put down an Amendment, which I certainly do not intend to move, even if I could do so. In speaking to the present Amendment, I am not going to make it an occasion for putting blame on Ministers or reopening the very difficult military questions which are involved in the two speeches to which we have just listened. I put down an Amendment, but that Amendment means exactly what it says and no more. It is not put down in a spirit of blame of the Government. I am sure the Home Secretary will acquit me of any desire to be disloyal to the pledge which I have given, along with so many other Members of the House, to support the Government in arriving at an ultimate decision of the War. It is not inconsistent with that loyalty that I should urge some reasons why, in my opinion, the proposal of the Government to adjourn for so long as seven weeks is open to objection, and why a shorter period would, in all the circumstances, be better chosen. I do not blame the attitude of the Government. I can quite understand it, but they must remember that there are different attitudes, natural and inherent, in the position they hold, as compared with that held by many Members in the rest of the House. They are naturally occupied with and concentrated upon their work. They are naturally impatient of inquiry, whereas, on the other hand, we feel the throbbing anxiety of our constituents. Speaking for myself, I have never had more, or more urgent, correspondence than I have just now from a large and educated constituency like my own, and I never had more evidence that they were watching with keen anxiety the movements of public work. They are eager to work and they are seeking guidance for their own efforts, and the Government must recognise that, representing our constituents as we do, we are not adopting this attitude in any spirit of hostility to

    2329
    them. We have no desire to raise dangerous questions, but simply to perform what we consider to be our duty to our constituents.
    In the first place, I would set aside one or two of the arguments which have been used. The Prime Minister seemed to think that there was a suspicion on the part of some of us that there was an anxiety for holiday, or for amusement. I not only do not think that the question of making holiday cannot enter for a moment into a matter so important as this, but I am perfectly convinced that there is not a single man in this House who would for himself, or anyone else, allow that consideration to come into the balance. I set that aside altogether. I wish to refer to allegations brought against some of us. I have heard it brought by gentlemen who represent the Press in the purlieus of this House against myself personally, that I am operating from complacency to a certain Noble Lord, who seems to be, in their idea, the inspirer of all this. Inasmuch as I never saw the Noble Lord in question, and never had any communication with him, either orally or by letter, that I consider all I have heard of him with the very reverse of approval, and that I am tolerably confident that he has not the least knowledge of my existence, I think I may safely set aside that suggestion. I have been maligned oftentimes in my life for being rather intractable and difficult and wanting in complacency, but if I am not so complacent as to form my own opinions and publish them and to put them down on the Paper of the House, I think I am entitled to be free from that malignment any further.
    We are anxious that Parliament should take its proper place. Let me take this point: Does it follow that because we think Parliament may perform an important function now, that we therefore condone the abuse of the opportunities of Parliament, or that we have the slightest sympathy with Questions or Motions that may fetter the hands, or even disturb the plans, or expose any dangerous points in the conduct of our Army. I shall not be suspected of sympathy with any such devices as those. I have always placed a very strict limit upon my own questions. Although in recent weeks I have now and then put two or three questions, I am quite certain that for the whole of the ten years I have sat in this House, that a question a month or a question in two months is the utmost average of the questions I have ever placed on the Paper over the whole
    2330
    period. With regard to military questions, I have placed a self-denying ordinance upon them so far as I am concerned. But if there are abuses, cannot Parliament rise to the occasion, and can it not supply its own discipline, and is it not entitled to-look to the Leader of the House to exercise that discipline in its name? If there are those who abuse their privileges and opportunities as Members of Parliament, I say that the responsibility for not checking that rests with the Leaders of the House, along with the House itself. The country expects the great inquest of the nation to arrive at the position of getting its own house in order under the guidance of its leaders. Of course, we have always heard jokes about all our difficulties being got over if we would only lock the door of the House of Commons. I think that has always been a stupid joke and by this time I should have thought it was stale. I am quite ready to admit that an emergency might occur in which it might be necessary to suspend Parliamentary government and to govern under an emergency Act. We are all obliged to admit that, but we do not think the time has arrived and we are not anxious for it. It is all very well to talk in an airy and irresponsible way about a dictatorship, but that is not what ought to come into serious responsible talk in this House.
    There are two objections to a dictatorship in this House. In the first place, if a dictator appeared in this country I greatly question whether this country would accept him, and if the country were ready to accept him I question still more gravely whether there is anyone prepared to take the position. Oliver Cromwell's do not spring up in every generation. But, because we do not think it necessary to suspend Parliament, do not let us have the worst alternative of all—a Parliament not acting with full knowledge and full power and in full concert with the Government and in possession of the full confidence of the nation. We cannot have Parliamentary government that is suitable for fair weather only and must be suspended in stormy weather. We cannot have a Parliament commanding the respect and the confidence of the nation if it has to be suspended at a crisis like this for a long period. It may be argued that there is no-great difference between a period of three, four, five, six, or seven weeks. We should all agree that three months is too long, and we should all agree that a week or a fortnight would be too short, but there is

    2331
    something between, and I think seven weeks, at a juncture like this, is too long. One thing only we can say in regard to the events of the next seven weeks, and that is we cannot prophecy except that during these next seven weeks events of the most vital importance in the greatest crisis through which not only this nation, but the world has ever passed must happen. Is it the case that it is necessary altogether to get rid of the great inquest of the nation for so long at a period which is certain to be pregnant with such events and with issues of such enormous importance? It is said that Parliament can suddenly be summoned if the occasion should arise. I am quite aware of that, but I am perfectly certain that suddenly to summons Parliament on an emergency, and because the nation was in some particular peril, would be the very way to raise panic over the whole country.
    We are asked what are we to do if we stay here. The Prime Minister tells us that he has carried through all the legislation which is now necessary. He is a very confident prophet if he says that. We know that during the last two or three weeks we have been frequently asked, after a day or two days' notice, to consider new Emergency Bills introduced to correct errors which were discovered in Emergency Bills not three or four weeks' old. I challenge either of the Cabinet Ministers on the Front Bench to deny that assertion. If that has been the case in the past, is it not only too likely to be the case in the future? May we not have issues of the greatest importance for which, at very short notice, you may be called upon to propose and we to sanction legislation absolutely necessary in some emergency? Is it not important that we, as representing our constitutents, should be more or less in constant touch with Ministers? There is nothing I hesitate more about than troubling a Minister. I do not think I have had to trouble the Under-Secretary for War, much against my will, more than half a dozen times during the last week, and I am sure he will acquit me of wishing to give more trouble than I can help. I acknowledge his courtesy and the eagerness with which he has met me, but I am sure he will admit that I always try to make my questions as little troublesome as possible. Often a word, or simple contact with a Minister for a few moments, will solve a difficulty which has arisen amongst a
    2332
    large circle of our constituents, and has caused growing and continuous friction. Are there not in the best regulated Governments abuses requiring investigation? We do not accuse Ministers when we bring these to their notice. They cannot cover the whole circumstances of all that is going on by their own single knowledge. It cannot be useless now and then to have their attention called to things on which we receive correspondence, which are all the better for being looked into, and which Ministers are not indisposed to look into when they are brought to their notice. I admit that this is a question in the long run for the Government to decide. If, after hearing our views, they insist upon adopting the course of a long adjournment, the wisdom of which I am certain is disputed by many from sincere conviction and from no desire to embarrass them or to impede their action, I, speaking for myself, must, in obedience to that general loyalty that I owe them, submit to their ruling. To break with that would be a breach of that pledge which I have made. But in urging considerations in favour of the other course, I would beg them to believe that I and many others — because sympathy from many quarters has been expressed, both orally and in writing—speak from sincere conviction and in defence of what we think the course that is wisest and most expedient in the interest of the Ministry, in the interest of this House, and in the interest of the constituencies.
    The responsibility rests with them, but let them remember that it is a very heavy responsibility. Would it not be better for them to keep in close touch with Parliament almost, if not altogether, continuously, and through Parliament to keep in close touch with the constituencies? I fully recognise the burden placed upon Ministers, and I have no desire to increase it. I should like the days in the weeks during which we meet to be largely curtailed, but the fact of meeting for one or two days would place upon individual Cabinet Ministers no very serious increase of their burden. I should prefer that, instead of an adjournment for seven weeks, we should adjourn for three weeks and meet for at least three or four days in, say, every three weeks continuously. I do not think Ministers would find that that would seriously add to their burden. I should like also to place a very severe restriction upon, and to prune unnecessary or too numerous questions. I should like

    2333
    still more that discipline, such as I have referred to, should be exercised upon any tendency to abuse opportunities. I do not say whether there is such a tendency, or such an abuse of opportunities or not. It is not for me to judge any Member of the House at all, but surely the House of Commons can rise to the height of its great position. Surely it can acquire confidence in the Government if it can set its own House in order, if it can find in its Leaders those who are disposed to exercise discipline, and if it can form, as it was designed to form, and as it ought to form, that link between the constituencies and Ministers which is the only possible means by which a Ministry can acquire the full confidence of the country, and by which it can bring to the State the full resources and full energies which the country has placed at its service.
    Mr. HODGE: I have been in very much sympathy with the Amendment, but on re-consideration of the position I find that I must recant. My reasons for that are that in the speech that the Prime Minister made he referred to a certain section of the Press which had been malignant and unpatriotic in its criticism. In consultation with my friends with whom I am more closely associated, everyone agreed with the contention that neither the Government or this House should be bludgeoned into doing anything that this particular section of the Press has been howling for. As a consequence of that we will not support the Amendment. One cannot have any confidence in the writings or the criticisms of that syndicate, because in the early days of the War they made the demand that Lord Kitchener should be sent to the War Office, and later on, when he did not fall in with their particular ideas, sought to assassinate him. I think that, as a consequence of that, one cannot permit oneself, even though one agreed with the merits of the Amendment, to be made tools of by an organisation of that character. I have much sympathy with many of the points of criticism raised by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment respecting the acts of the Government. At the same time, I think we have to realise that we have been up against a crisis such as no one in this country ever anticipated. No one had any conception of its magnitude, and it is easy when the machine breaks down for those who are criticising to come to us and say, "We told you so." I have no doubt that even if the present Government were giving
    2334
    place to a new Government that in the course of two or three months they would be in the position of saying once again, "We told you so." It is easy to criticise, but it is difficult to construct. I think that, in spite of any failures the Government may have made, we have got to ask ourselves the question, "Had anyone else been in their place would they possibly have done better?" Where real mismanagement has taken place I think the Government are entitled to be criticised, and I think we are entitled to demand, as the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment mentioned, that those officials who have been guilty of gross carelessness or mismanagement ought to be dealt with severely.
    In connection with food prices I am convinced, and my colleagues have long been convinced, that the Government did not do what they might have done. So far as the Coal Bill which passed this House the other day is concerned, I am doubtful if it will fulfil the estimate of it which was given by the President of the Board of Trade. In that connection I can say, coming as I do into close contact with the workers all over the country, not only as a result of my trade union work, but in connection with recruiting meetings, meetings in connection with munitions, and in other services which I have been endeavouring to render, one cannot but appreciate the fact that the discontent that has been apparent amongst the workers all over the country has been due very much, firstly, to the exorbitant prices of food and the other necessities of life, and, secondly, to the doubts of the workers as to whether, by putting extra energy into their work, they are not putting extra profits into the pockets of their employers. We have constantly urged upon the Government that if they remove these two causes of discontent they will get as disinterested, as loyal, and is efficient service from the workers in this country as they get from the men at the front. It is these doubts in the minds of the workers that really have caused all the trouble and the irritation. To my mind that irritation still exists in a great number of works where munitions are being partly made. One part of the works may be doing Government work, and the other part civil work, and the men have no assurance that, so far as the civil work is concerned, there is going to be any limitation of profit. It is not to be wondered at that workmen who feel that

    2335
    they are called upon to take out of themselves every ounce of energy for the benefit of the employer should be discontented under these circumstances. If the Government could make up their minds that all excess profits due to the War should be taxed to their full extent, then, so far as the workers are concerned, very much more efficient and willing service would be rendered in this great crisis.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The general question is not under discussion. The only point now at issue is whether we shall adjourn for four weeks or for seven weeks. When that has been disposed of the general question will be opened.
    Mr. HODGE: I was under the impression that on the Adjournment Motion we were permitted to roam over all the ground.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is quite true, but we are not on the Adjournment Motion; we are on the Amendment.
    Mr. HODGE: I shall depart from that line of argument, in deference to your decision, until probably a later stage of the Debate, and content myself with saying now that for the reasons I have already given I regret that neither my Friends nor myself can support the Amendment which has been moved.
    Mr. HEWINS: I want to make a few remarks to explain why I think the decision of the Prime Minister and the Government is unwise. Of course, I recognise that they take the whole responsibility for that decision. So far as I am concerned, there can be no question of taking up a hostile attitude to the Government, but I do not think that I shall be doing my duty either to my own convictions or to those whom I represent unless I put it very firmly on record that I do dissent from the Government's decision in regard to this long adjournment. Many of the reasons which the Prime Minister gave in support of a seven weeks adjournment are reasons which, to my mind, make it extremely clear that the adjournment should be curtailed. I put on one side the references which the Prime Minister made to the writings and the influence of a particular section of the Press. After all, this is the British House of Commons, and I would like to know what Mr. Gladstone or Sir Robert Peel, or Pitt, or Chatham would have thought of a Government which suggested that they should
    2336
    enter into competition of this kind because a particular section of the Press take particular views. While on that subject I may say that I am not in any way connected with any newspaper, nor do I ever write for any newspaper, nor have I any connection of any kind with any newspaper. Therefore I can speak with a perfectly impartial mind. I think there is a great deal to be said about Lord Northcliffe's efforts, and the things that appear in his newspapers. I should say, also, that the persistent decrying of the House of Commons which has appeared in other newspapers is exceedingly offensive, and that it is entirely unjustified by the facts. There can be no greater disservice to the British Empire, and, I might say, to the representative institutions everywhere, than to decry the British House of Commons. Certainly nothing has occurred since this Session began which in any way diminishes the dignity or importance of this House.
    In the House of Commons, after all, you must allow for a certain number of foolish and ridiculous questions. What I cannot understand is this—I am not speaking now of the present Coalition Government— we have had a Government in power which systematically neglected preparations for this great War. We had them embarking upon a wrong policy. We had them practically misleading the House of Commons. And I want to know why, if we are going to enter into reproaches, the Ministers who were responsible for that state of things do not stand in a white sheet and express their regret. Surely, a few ridiculous questions in the House of Commons are of very small importance compared with that great neglect of policy and with the neglect of preparations for a war like this. I cannot for one moment think that anything that any newspapers say can be a reason which should affect the Government in such an important decision. After all, it is a very important decision to adjourn the House for seven weeks. The Prime Minister spoke about the strain put upon public Departments in answering questions. Well, we live, or we thought we lived, under a Parliamentary system, and under that Parliamentary system, if you are to carry it on at all, questions must be addressed to Ministers, and it is part of the day's work for those questions to be answered by the responsible Ministers, and for all the material to be prepared. The utility or the importance of a question does not rest

    2337
    merely in the putting of the question upon the Paper and the answer given to it by Ministers. Everybody knows that a question put down upon the Paper has a very important effect in the Departments in speeding up work and increasing efficiency. I could, during the last ten years, single out a number of questions which have been put in this House where the effect has been direct and important, not in mere idle criticism, but in actually improving the efficiency of different Departments. I can mention a case. I had the honour of putting a question to the Prime Minister the other day, making a suggestion about the proper correlation of statistical data for the purpose of carrying out the policy of the War Trade Department. The Prime Minister agreed to the suggestion and said he would carry it out. I could give a great many instances from both sides of the House in the last week or two of questions put down and answered which have had the effect of increasing the efficiency of the country for the purposes of the War. I do not think, therefore, that that particular reason given by the Prime Minister is a good one why we should have a long adjournment.
    6.0 P.M.
    I come to another subject which I think is extremely important. The Prime Minister said that it was right to adjourn the House for seven weeks because we have come to the end of the legislative programme of the Government, and they have no more Bills to bring in. We have a Coalition Government, which includes the best brains of both parties. We are in the middle of the greatest struggle we have ever had. We have been told over and over again that the country is to be organised, and the Empire is to be organised, for the purposes of the War. We know that neither the country nor the Empire is so organised. We know that the measures that are required for organisation require Bills and Acts of Parliament, and if the Government at this critical stage of the War come to us now and say, "We have no legislative programme; there is nothing we want to introduce; there is no suggestion we can make which can be ratified by the House of Commons," it means simply that the Coalition Government has no policy. It means that they have no suggestion to make with regard to the great problems of organisation. I can give a definite and concrete case. Take the case of spelter. Everybody knows how important spelter 1s. It is one of the absolute necessities in
    2338
    connection with munitions of war. We know that there is great scarcity. We have had for many months past questions addressed to the Government asking them to take action in the matter of the Australian zinc concentrates. We also know that the particular action required cannot be taken unless a Bill is passed through this House. If, therefore, the Government say now, "We have no Bills to introduce during the next seven weeks on this question," that means that they are not going to deal with the spelter question. If they are not going to do this, the chances are that the scarcity is going to become more pronounced. There are many other concrete cases to which I do not think it desirable to give great publicity. Great publicity has been given to the case of spelter, and we know that that case requires legislation, and if the Government are not going to introduce legislation it means that they are not going to take action at all, or else that they are not going to take action in time, because seven weeks is a very long delay in a matter like that, and the whole question is urgent.
    Another case. There was a Reuter message in the papers the other day reporting a speech of the Prime Minister of the Australian Commonwealth. In that speech the Prime Minister of the Commonwealth said that he was practically dependent for certain information on matters affecting the Australian Commonwealth on questions put down by private Members in this House. I do not want to labour the point, but I feel very strongly that, in view of the critical situation in which we find ourselves, the course proposed should not be adopted. We have just passed through a most dangerous experience in the coal strike. We do not know what may be before us in future. I do not attach very much importance to Debates carried on here. I do not care whether there are Debates or not unless there is going to be legislation; but we know by practical experience in the case of cotton and other things, as to which representations have been made to Ministers, that it is of the highest importance at the present stage of our affairs that we, and through us our constituents and the country, should be kept in the closest contact with Ministers who are responsible for the conduct of affairs. I do not think that it can be said that on this, side of the House we have, at any rate, interrupted their work to any extent. We certainly

    2339
    do not make many speeches, and we put down very few questions. We have confined ourselves, as far as I know—and I think that I know what is done—to continue to study, investigate, and try to get a grip of the questions connected with the War, and we have been constantly placing information at the disposal of the Government and doing everything we can to help the Government. I do not think that there has been any opposition of any kind on this side of the House.
    We feel that in doing that the gentlemen with whom we are associated are doing useful work in the interests of the Empire, and I do not think it should be terminated. On those grounds the weakness of the Prime Minister's argument, and the other grounds which I have mentioned and the absolute necessity of certain legislation, and of immediate legislation, if the Coalition Government are going to carry out their object, I think that the decision of the Government should have been different. I know that, the Prime Minister having taken a definite line, that is impossible now, but we on this side of the House were not consulted in any way, and no attempt was made, so far as I know, to sound our views, and I do feel that it would have been better if a complete decision had been postponed until the views which we represent had been ascertained. Of course there is no question of holidays. Nobody is thinking of holidays. The whole spirit of the House is against holidays. All of us have friends and relations fighting at the front, but there is a feeling in every quarter of the House that the Government, on the whole, do not make the best use which they might of the House. After all, we have a great amount of expert knowledge represented by the Members of this House. Many of us feel that it would be of real assistance to the Government and the country if the organised ability which is represented in the House of Commons could be made available. I am not going to contend with the Government over this matter. I am quite content to place my case on record and to register my protest. I think that the policy of the Government is unwise. I think that it may be disastrous. I would have desired with all my heart that the Prime Minister should have reconsidered the determination to which he has come, and I am perfectly certain that the Government will live to regret their decision.
    Mr. MACMASTER: This is not a matter of Government policy or of large policy at all. It is, if I may use the words used by Lord Hatherley, on a celebrated occasion, as matter of "indoor management" of the House of Commons itself, and in a matter of indoor management every Member of this House is interested and is entitled to express his views. We are all interested in the good opinion which the country may or may not have of this House. Certainly, from what I have heard outside, a long adjournment is injurious to the reputation of this House. It creates the impression, which has been expressed in the Press and otherwise, that there is really no utility in the House of Commons whatever, and that if we consent to adjourn for a period of seven weeks we are simply writing down a record of our own uselessness. It seems to me that the period of adjournment and the reasons given for it are erroneous. We have a Coalition Government which I believe combines the best intellect of this House. I certainly would be the first to defer to them. When that Government was formed I took the liberty of stating on public platforms that it was the duty of all political parties in this House to give wholehearted support to the Government with regard to its general policy, and I say so still. But when it comes to a matter that affects the arrangements of the House itself, and the reputation in which the House is held in the country, we are bound to consider solemnly as to whether we are not doing an act of injury to the House, and its reputation in the eyes of the people, by having so long an adjournment.
    One of the reasons given by the Prime Minister was that the Government had finished its business. We are not sent here as the representatives of the people merely to deal with the business of the Government. One of our primary duties would be to criticise the business of the Government, or to suggest other business, and it is certainly not beyond the range of possibility that other business might be brought either by ourselves, or by the Press, or by those outside to the notice of Parliament, so that Parliament should deal with it. And though at the moment the Government may have terminated all the business they feel it incumbent upon them to do at this time, it may be that in the course of three or four weeks, in the great emergency in which we are, new matters requiring legislation will come up, and it is-most fitting that this House should be in

    2341
    Session at such period in order that it may deal with these questions. There is some force in the point made in opposition to this view that the House could be summoned rapidly together if required, but, if the House adjourns for seven weeks, and is summoned to reassemble in three or four weeks as an emergency matter, it may create a panic, or undue importance may be given to the subject, or people may get the view that something has gone entirely wrong with regard to our military forces. Would it not be a much more reasonable thing that the House should adjourn for four weeks, and should then reassemble, and that, if nothing important transpired in the meantime requiring fresh legislation, there should then be an extra period of three or four weeks?
    To take the whole adjournment at one gulp seems to me to be a mistake, I will not say of policy, but in the internal arrangements of this House. We have just created a new Department, the Munitions Department, which for the moment is the most important Department working under the Crown. It is entrusted with what is most necessary at this time, the production of the instruments and munitions of war that are necessary to bring success to our forces in the field. That Department is hardly organised. We do not yet know who are its constituent members. We have asked a number of times who are the great business men of large experience who, we were promised, should be associated with the duties of this Department. Even to-day we have heard the statement that one of those suggested in connection with that Department is not acting in connection with it. I do not know whether that is so or not, but at all events, with reference to this new Department, surely we should not take an adjournment of seven weeks, and thus deprive ourselves of the right to observe and even to criticise the manner in which that Department does its work. Though I defer in my judgment to the Government, I do think that it is a mistake to take so long an adjournment. My views are the views of those who think that an adjournment of four weeks is reasonably sufficient, and that if necessary there could be a further adjournment later on.
    Mr. HOGGE: The Prime Minister, in his statement to the House, drew attention to the number of questions that were put to himself and to his right hon. Friend and relative the Secretary of State for War. The Prime Minister seems to
    2342
    think, because he had been asked 400 odd questions, that that was an illustration of the fact that Members were taking undue advantage of the privilege extended to them of asking him questions. But I would remind the Prime Minister of a certain week, not so very long ago, in the history of this House, when he himself was asked and answered no fewer than 500 questions, when my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, who has just come in, was on the other side of the Table, engaged with his other Friends in association with what was known as the famous Curragh rebellion in Ireland. On that occasion 500 questions were put to the Prime Minister in one single week, and were answered by him, and I remember the Prime Minister being extremely delighted that he had never been caught out once in the course of those 500 questions. So the suggestion put forward that, because he had been asked 400 questions, hon. Members are taking an unfair advantage of their position to ask questions, is one which will not hold water at all. In this Debate as to whether we disperse for four or seven weeks a number of Members who have spoken have not taken advantage of the opportunities which have been open to them during the past few days. We have had the Second Heading and the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, one being taken at half-past twelve in the morning, and the Third Reading was put down as the first Order one day last week in order that Members might have an opportunity of ventilating any subject; but, if hon. Members do not embrace those opportunities, it is obvious that Ministers will think that Members do not want to take advantage of them when offered.
    A leader of the Labour party said he had been going to support the Amendment, but, although he believed that it was all right on its merits, he was not going to support it because it was advocated by people outside who directed certain newspapers, and he was not going to give those people the satisfaction of voting for them in the Lobby. A more ludicrous argument to use in this House I never heard. I remember that the "Daily Citizen" used to bludgeon Members of the House and threaten what they would do if they did not go into certain lobbies on certain questions, and now, because some newspapers advocate this Amendment, the hon. Member will not give them the satisfaction of voting for

    2343
    it in the Lobby. The Colonial Secretary is present, and I would beg to call his attention to the question of the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill. The Prime Minister in the course of his speech made statements with regard to pensions and separation allowances, and I attempted to interrupt. The Prime Minister did not give way. I want to point out to him and to the Colonial Secretary, who probably knows more about the matter, as he was a member of the Select Committee which dealt with the subject, that there is urgent reason why this Pensions Bill should be settled before the House adjourns at this moment. The reason is that a certain kind of allowance which ought to be paid is not being paid at the present moment. The Colonial Secretary will remember that on the Select Committee he and his colleagues determined that no separation allowances should be paid except to prewar dependants. As a result of that a large number of dependants, mothers, sisters, and male relatives, have not had paid to them the allowance that might have been paid if they had claimed it on the pre-war basis.
    The new body created by this Bill, which is the child of the Colonial Secretary, sets up a statutory body to which application can be made for these pensions, and the House of Lords, with which the Colonial Secretary is familiar, and over which he used to have a great deal of power, has hung up the Bill for seven weeks. I say quite frankly and quite clearly that I do not think it fair of the Coalition Cabinet not to have maintained in the House of Lords a majority of Coalition Peers to pass legislation sent up from this House. It is the duty of the Government to prevent, in the House of Lords, these "backwoodsmen," as they are called, from turning down a piece of Cabinet legislation sent up from this House. I want to make this suggestion to the Colonial Secretary. If we are going to adjourn for seven weeks, will he meet us in this way: As he knows, every widow and child, and every disabled soldier and sailor, is entitled to the pension laid down by this Committee, and which will be paid. This Committee exists to deal with inequalities in regard to pensions, to deal with the training, with the care, and employment of disabled soldiers and sailors, and for dealing with these separation allowances which are not upon the pre-war basis. Can my right hon. Friend
    2344
    get the Cabinet to consent to this suggestion, that, if you are going to adjourn for seven weeks, dependants who are entitled, or who believe they are entitled, but for the pre-war basis, to an allowance, may make applications now through the Local Government Board? The President of the Local Government Board was in charge of this Bill, which came from his Department. It was taken through the House of Lords by the President of the Local Government Board, and the money is there.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: There is not a penny in the Bill.
    Mr. HOGGE: My hon. Friend will recollect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to give public funds for the use of that Committee. [An HON. MEMBER: "The money is not forthcoming!"] The money is not forthcoming, but that pledge exists. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a question of four weeks!"] My argument is that we should not adjourn for seven weeks until we make sure that those who are entitled to these pensions get them. I am suggesting to the Colonial Secretary that he might, through the Local Government Board, take the names and applications of those dependants who are entitled to the separation allowance. I think that is a fair thing to ask. Take the case where a man joined the Forces on the day War was declared; he went into the Army and has fought in many of the actions which have taken place. When he went his people were in comfortable circumstances, and he made no application for allowance, thereby saving the nation money; but some of his relatives have since died, and others have become dependants upon him, and now, forsooth, you will not give him that separation allowance, nor is it to be dealt with for seven weeks. I suggest that the Colonial Secretary, who has great sympathy with these people, and who, I think, realises the case I am putting, fairly and moderately I claim, might agree to some arrangement being made in the interval by which these people can receive their allowance. I agree that the other class, on another scale of charges, which is a generous one, can wait; but these people for whom I speak should not be allowed to wait, and I think they are entitled to the sympathetic treatment of the Government.
    Mr. BOOTH: I approach this question with a considerable amount of care. I

    2345
    have resisted the blandishments of powerful newspapers, and I have declined to give any view whatever among journalists with regard to this vexed question whether the adjournment should be for a short or a long period. I rise to explain to the House why I feel bound, much as I regret it, to vote for this Amendment. I do not think that Parliament should break up, so to speak, for the Recess with this vexed question of the Pensions Bill still upon us. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the delay of naval and military pensions for seven weeks only affects one particular class. I supported the Government against an Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division who, rather than do a slight injustice, withdrew his very substantial proposal. What was the Amendment? It was that there should be provision in the Bill for finding employment for disabled soldiers and sailors at a later period. I wish to point out the importance of that work now, particularly in relation to cripples who require artificial limbs, which are supplied to wounded soldiers, and in regard to which it should be seen that they are properly fitted and suitable for the employment upon which the men are to enter. It seems to me, as a member of the Committee which deals with Belgian soldiers, that we should have an opportunity of dealing equally with British soldiers.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going a very long way from the question whether we are to adjourn for four or six weeks. That is the only point before the House.
    Mr. BOOTH: Yes, and it is the only point in my mind. The seven weeks' delay in dealing with this urgent case, in regard to which the Pensions Bill applies, is one which demands consideration. I will vote against the Coalition Government because I feel exceedingly strongly about this matter. Speaking as a civilian, in my opinion even the humblest soldier who has risked his life, or lost a limb, should meet with our prompt consideration, and I do not think that the House should adjourn until this question is settled. I am troubled about it much more than I can express at this moment. I would like if we could to take the question now, but it is quite clear that we cannot prolong the present sitting. Why should we adjourn for seven weeks? The fact of this Bill having been thrown out, the provisions of which would have enabled us to deal
    2346
    with crippled soldiers, and the fact of this delay which has been caused in another place, alters our attitude—at any rate, it alters mine. I submit that a case has not been made out for adjourning for seven weeks, and I was rather impressed by the statesmanlike speech of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) who delivered the most careful and weighty utterances that I have heard in this House for years. The hon. Gentleman thinks a fortnight or three weeks better than the longer period. I do not support this Amendment simply because I want to ask more questions and raise more Debates, and some of the questions which have been put, I have thought, were not in the public interests, but they were put forward sincerely. Very rarely indeed have I asked questions, and therefore I am not in the category of having put down questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War. It is not from that point of view I look at the matter, but if the House were continually sitting, and adjourning for short periods, and such, I believe, is the lesson of history, then the power and prestige of this House will be preserved. On the other hand, if we begin to go in for long Adjournments, I am perfectly certain it will lead to great upheaval and great confusion of our Parliamentary position.
    We are now in a sort of Long Parliament. We are about to go beyond the confines of the Parliament Act, and we may sit for years. This Adjournment may be taken as a precedent. I want to ask, supposing something very serious did occur, and the House is on a long Adjournment, how is it to be met? Suppose the House did not happen to meet when the great telegram which came from Colonel Repington was published in the "Times," I do, not say it would have been better or worse, but the history of this House and of the Government would have been very different. Who knows what information may come in the next seven weeks. I do not. As to this being decided upon the mere question of whether we are supporting some newspaper or not I never heard such trash. The hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), who leads the Labour party, says that he has changed his views, and that up to the speech of the Prime Minister he had been determined to vote in favour of this Amendment, but that now he is going to vote the other way, as he would not be a cat's paw of Lord Northcliffe. All I can say is

    2347
    that I will record my vote on behalf of the Labour party, who apparently are in favour of this Amendment, and think the arguments are on its side. If they have any reluctance to give a vote, I will give one by proxy for them. Ought we to bring such reasons as that before the House. What do I care for the "Daily Mail" or the "Times" or any other newspaper while I have all the responsibility of a Member of Parliament! It really is amazing that the Front Bench, as well as the Back Benches, seem to be possessed of a bogey in the person of Lord Northcliffe. Why should not he write what he likes, and with the strict censorship, if the Government do not choose to deal with him and his articles, why should they whine and complain?
    Then take our Liberal newspapers, and they are practically giving orders to us not to vote for this Amendment on the ground that it has been foisted on the Radicals below the Gangway by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), or the editor of the "Daily Mail"—they are not quite sure which. And the great Liberal organs, not content with advertising their rival in business day after day in their columns, and trying to get in customers and purchasers, actually tell us we are not to vote for their Amendment. I submit that the less we hear of Press dictation the better. I am reminded of an important question which I once put down to the Prime Minister, and then I saw in some of those newspapers a suggestion about some Member of the Ministry. I cannot go into that now. Why should we take notice of tittle-tattle of that description? What is the meaning of it all? I suppose my speech to-day, along with that of my right hon. Friend, will earn for me the title of being a hack of Lord Northcliffe, and I suppose every man who votes for this Amendment will be listed in the Conservative and Liberal papers as being a tool of the Harmsworth press. Is it not time to grow out of this kind of thing. When we hear from the Leader of the Labour party that explanation I think it is time to protest. What does it matter what the papers say? Their influence was never lower than it is now. I regret to say so, but it is the fact. If instead of voting on a simple matter like this we talk about descriptive articles and leading articles instead of deciding whether we will ad-
    2348
    journ for four weeks or for seven weeks, then I can conceive no course better calculated to discredit this House.
    I give my vote on a simple issue. I do not think we have any right whatever in common justice to our wounded soldiers to dissolve or break up our proceedings while that Pensions Bill hangs where it does. I may be wrong, and I am not going to say that those who differ from me do not hold views as good as mine, but I am only explaining my vote, and this matter is so burning to my soul that I could not look one of these wounded soldiers who is waiting for an allowance in the face if I voluntarily adjourned this House while that question remains unsettled. I should like to make this appeal: If we are to adjourn and go away for six weeks, can we have any assurance that progress will be made with that Bill in another place. Surely, if we do adjourn, we do not want to come back and find that Bill just where it is now. Can we have any assurance that some progress will be made with the Bill, so that when we come back we may be able to save time? The seven weeks when they are gone cannot be recalled. Is the Government not to make any effort in the meantime. I appeal to this united Government. One thought that they might have a little trouble in this House, but we did not think that they would have had any trouble in the other House. There are eight Whips in this House, and I want to ask what about the whipping in another place. I have seen Members here to-day I have not seen for weeks. They have come back from far and near. As one trained to have a very keen eye for strangers, perhaps I have got into the habit of looking at their faces, and I say that there are hon. Members here to-day who have not been here for weeks, in order to vote upon this Amendment. That shows good whipping, and, of course, we have a right to expect it out of eight Whips, but what about the position in another place. Why was there no proper whipping there?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's exuberance of language carries him rather outside the limits of the question. The domestic arrangements in another place are not relevant to the question whether we should rise for four weeks or for seven.
    Mr. BOOTH: I bow to your ruling. Under the circumstances, on account of

    2349
    what did take place there, but which cannot be discussed here, my vote shall be given for the Amendment.
    Mr. POLLOCK: I should like to associate myself with the observations that have been made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen University (Sir H. Craik). So far as we have the opportunity of judging, I should say, for my own part and for a good number of other Members, that a seven weeks adjournment was unnecessarily long, and four weeks was abundantly sufficient. At the same time I must recognise that the real materials on which to form an opinion must be in the hands of the Government. I should, however, like to register a protest in this House against the very erroneous impression that appears to prevail outside, namely, that the only work that this House does is done in the Chamber by the speeches of hon. Members. I should say that one of the reasons why a short adjournment was necessary was because the meeting of Parliament from time to time, if only for one or two days per week, gives opportunities for conference among Members, not necessarily in the Chamber, and for the exchange of information, and for learning the true position of certain important matters, which undoubtedly are valuable to Members and their constituents and constitute one of the most important of the duties which it is possible for a Member of Parliament to fulfil. The general idea outside, and from what appears in the newspapers, seems to be that Parliament should only meet when there are legislative proposals to be brought before it. I think a truer view? of the Houses of Parliament is this, that by offering an opportunity for explanation and for conference and by information being given by Ministers to the House, they have the opportunity of fulfilling what is their most important function, namely, to see that the important interests which are entrusted to their hands are safeguarded, and so that they are able to give from time to time assurances to the people at large that that is so.
    It is sometimes said by hon. Members that too many questions are asked and too many speeches are made, and on that ground that longer adjournments are better. Observations of that sort are made outside and freely made in the newspapers, and perhaps by the most noisy section of the Press, but I do not believe that really represents the true feeling of those who are thoughtful members of our
    2350
    country at large. I believe that there is still respect for the House of Commons and that the people still desire it to meet in order that it may fulfil its functions. For us to say that it would be wise to close the House in order that speeches might not be made would be to lose sight of the real interests of those who take a true and proper interest in polities and in their country. After all, many of us during the present Session have remained comparatively silent. That does not mean that we have not done good work. Many of us have associated with each other in order that we might be sure not to raise any point at all which would be an embarrassment to the Government or endanger the position of the country at large. That work is prevented by our not sitting, and I should have thought a shorter adjournment, if necessary to be increased by Proclamation from time to time, would be the better course. I should, therefore, prefer to see an adjournment for four weeks and no more, but to be increased if the Government were satisfied that the position was one of complete security from time to time, but that is not to be so. I end by saying that it is impossible for the Back Bencher to hold a decided opinion. We must support the Government in the decision they have come to, but at the same time on behalf of those who do try to do something in the opportunities which are given by the House of Commons, even if silently, I should like to enter a protest as to the length of the adjournment, because I believe in the true interests and in the true desire of the nation a short adjournment, increased from time to time, should have been the course adopted.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I had no intention of taking part in this Debate and should not have done so, had it not been for the frequent references which have been made to the Naval and Military War Pensions Bill and its relation to the subject we are now discussing. I have, like the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), who spoke so strongly on the matter, taken the keenest interest in that Bill from the beginning. As the House may perhaps remember, it was at my suggestion that the Committee was appointed. A great deal of work, time, and care were given by the Committee to trying to bring out a scheme which would satisfy the House and the country, and do what I think we all

    2351
    regarded as the clear duty of the House and the country, to treat the men who are fighting our battles in as generous a way as possible. That being the case, and in view also of the fact that, owing to the circumstances of the time, the Ministers on the Committee had naturally more to do than I had, I had a great deal personally to do with the framing of the Report of that Committee. Therefore, if there is anyone who ought to have a feeling of injury that his offspring had not been well treated, I think I ought to have that feeling. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh spoke of the power which he said I once had in another place. I was not conscious of it then. If I did have it, I suppose I have lost it by contamination with my right hon. Friends who now sit on this bench. But while, in my opinion, it is regrettable, and very regrettable, that this question has not been settled, I do think there has been a good deal of exaggeration in what has been said and suggested as to the effect of the delay which is to take place.
    I should also like clearly to point out to the House that no one who is keenly interested in this question can suggest for a moment that the effect of that delay is purely bad. People in another place, as here, take the keenest interest in this subject, both generally and locally, and it is not unnatural, if they take a different view from myself, that they should like to have an opportunity of thoroughly discussing it from their point of view. I do not think it is unnatural at all. I regret the delay, but I think that probably, if a full opportunity is given for discussion, in view of the fact that the members of that Committee came unanimously to one decision after weighing all the arguments in the other direction, the same result might be arrived at by others who approach the question with equally open minds. The point made that the poor soldiers and sailors are going to be deprived of their pensions as a result of the action of the House of Lords is really perfectly unfair. I am bound to say that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh put the case perfectly plainly and without any exaggeration. In the first place, the pensions, on the scale settled by the Committee, are being paid and will continue to be paid during the interval which is to take place. The only people affected by the delay are those who will get something over and above the rate agreed upon to
    2352
    be paid them by the State. That is all. As regards separation allowances, precisely the same kind of arrangement will go on as has gone on hitherto. Not only will the flat rates be given, but already arrangements are in operation whereby supplements are made to those rates, and they will continue.
    I quite admit that cases will arise, such as those referred to by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, which I should desire to see met according to the scheme of the Bill and of the Pensions Committee. But, after all, they will not be absolutely penniless. In any district where there is a Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, if any relation of a soldier who becomes penniless goes to that association, the position will be considered, and I believe out of their funds something will be given to meet a case of that kind. Therefore, it is not so urgent as all that. I would also point out that the fact that it may need a great deal of consideration is shown by this: We gave our Report, I think, on the 15th April; that is a long time ago. Things; will go on in the interval precisely in the same way as they have gone on from 15th April until now. If that were all, I should still say that it might have been the duty of the Government—and we discussed it—to keep the House sitting until this measure was carried through. That was the alternative. But the suggestion that the difference between four weeks and six or seven weeks is going to make any serious difference in this respect is absurd. That is not the way to deal with the difficulty. The way to deal with it would have been to keep on sitting until the question was settled. I will tell the House why I, for one, came to the conclusion that that was not a wise plan.
    This opposition is directed against views which I have held and strongly advocated; therefore I do not like it. But the opposition is based on real grounds. People think that proper recognition is not being made of those who have done the work up till now. They may be right or wrong; I think they are wrong; but whether they are right or wrong, this is the fact: the object of our scheme was to get a large amount of private benevolence, for the reason that if you are dealing only with State money you are bound to have a hard and fast system which will not be elastic enough to meet special cases which arise. If we want to get the largest amount of support possible for the scheme, surely it is worth while to try and get rid of the-

    2353
    friction which would be created by forcing the Bill through rapidly against the wish of those who have strong views on it. I say this deliberately. When the Government had to choose between keeping the House sitting until they had forced the Bill through, and allowing an interval to take place in the hope, which I believe will be realised, that an agreement might be come to, and the measure passed without friction, and they chose the latter alternative, in my opinion that will be to the advantage and not to the disadvantage of those who are depending upon pensions of that kind.
    I do not know whether it is worth while touching on the wider subject, but since I have risen perhaps I may say a word or two about it. I know quite well, and I am sure my hon. Friends opposite realise it, that a man who a few months ago was in Opposition and now is a Member of the Government is under suspicion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He has been a poacher and he has turned gamekeeper. So long as I am a Member of the Government, I am bound to defend the Government as much as I can, so that the suspicion is perfectly reasonable. I listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy. His criticisms were mainly directed to matters which took place before I was associated with the Government. Therefore it might be quite easy for me to listen to his speech and say nothing about it, but rather enjoy it. But I do not quite take that view. For myself, I find no fault whatever with any criticism which has taken place in this House since the Coalition was formed. It is less than I expected by a great deal. I think this is the first time I have said anything on the subject since the Coalition was formed. A Coalition Government, while it may have fewer enemies, has no friends whatever. It has no friends in this sense, and it is the sense which tells in Parliamentary warfare—it has no friends in the sense that they will stick to it, even when they think the Government is wrong. I expected a great deal more criticism in the House than we have had, and we have reason to be thankful.
    But while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy was speaking, I had recollections of a period of nine months, when I occupied the seat now so worthily filled by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin). Possibly the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy has
    2354
    forgotten it, but it is the fact that at one time in my life I used to enjoy making attacks; and if I had thought it the right course to take nothing would have given me more pleasure than to make precisely the same kind of speech as that which was made by the right hon. Gentleman. I might not have made it with the same vehemence, but I should have enjoyed making it. I did not do it—and this is my justification now for speaking at all— not because I did not believe then, as I believe now, that criticism is good for any Government, but for this reason, that it is difficult to draw the line between criticism which is helpful and criticism-which develops into party fighting. I think that is a consideration which ought to, and will weigh with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy and others. The criticism which is going to do-good is the criticism which will not dwell' on defects of the past. We are engaged in a kind of struggle which does not permit us to have a handicap of any kind. If the impression is created that any single section of the House of Commons believes that this country is not properly represented by the Government, that the Government is not properly carrying on its work, then, in my opinion, the greatest possible harm is done by creating a feeling of unrest in this country and a feeling of uncertainty on the part of our Allies. I am sure of that. Therefore, all that I would say to the House is this: Criticise by all means, but whenever you criticise remember that this is the Government, and, until you are prepared to substitute another, do not make any kind of criticism which will so discredit it that it wilt weaken it in carrying on the War.
    7.0 P.M.
    As to the general question, whether we should adjourn for four weeks or for six or seven, is that really a matter on which the House ought to get excited one way or another? I do not think so. I can quite see the force of the view that the House-of Commons ought never to cease sitting, but ought to meet once or twice a week all the time. But what about the difference between four and six weeks? Surely it is the Government who ought to judge, and surely the House of Commons, if it has any faith in them, ought to accept their decision. For instance, it is said that something might happen to necessitate our being called together. Might not that happen in four weeks just as well as in six? There is really nothing in that. In my opinion, an adjournment of this

    2355
    length is not unreasonable. It is not unreasonable from the point of view of the permanent officials of the Government Departments. It is all very well to say that the people who answer questions are not the people who are carrying on the War. I have not had the misfortune—I hope that nothing that I have said will alter that—to be subjected to many questions, but I know that any question which is put may involve going from Department to Department to get the information required. I do not say that such questions are not useful; but I do say most clearly that if the House realises the fact that in the War Office, for instance, they are working all hours and all days, it will agree that it is surely not unreasonable that they should have a little respite from that kind of work, and be allowed to make up arrears of other kinds, and give more time to the consideration of more vital problems. I am not going to make any claim on behalf of Ministers, but I do say this: nobody who has ever been a Member of any Government, I believe, doubts that things could be a great deal better done than they are being done. Nobody doubts that! I remember, many years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) was Prime Minister, his saying to mo as I left the House with him, "The worst of this kind of life is that I never have any time to think." That is literally true. At a time like this, especially, Ministers are driven all the time. Take into account the fact that any Minister who is here, in this House, must have a respect for the House of Commons—we all get it by being here!—and it makes us determined, so far as we can, that whatever else we scamp we will not scamp the work which comes under the review of the House of Commons. If you realise that, surely from the very point of view of the House of Commons getting the best out of the Ministers who have been chosen, it is good for them also to have a little freedom from the House of Commons work in order to give more time to think about the things which have to come later. That is really my view.
    I have this further justification—for what it is worth. It is not a view I have adopted since I became a Member of the Government. The House will remember that, I think, last February—I do not know the exact time, but at the beginning of the year—a Motion was made to separate for a long adjournment. My hon. Friend
    2356
    opposite was very hostile to it then. He interviewed me, and tried to get me to oppose it on behalf of the party. I did not take his view. I thought then, as I think now, that a reasonable adjournment does not take away from the dignity of the House of Commons, and that it does really help those who are engaged in the conduct of this great War. They have more time to devote to other things. I have spoken at greater length than I intended, but at all events I am sure we are all agreed about this: that the arguments for or against are quite clear in all our minds. The House knows there are other subjects which have to be considered, and in particular we all wish to hear the statement from the new Department which has been created, and which, in my belief, has more to do with the successful conduct of the War than anything else. I am sure the House of Commons wishes to hear the Minister of Munitions, and I hope, therefore, that not much further time will be taken up on this discussion.
    Mr. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to think he is under some suspicion because he is a Member of the Coalition Government. I think, myself, he is mistaken, but however that may be, everyone, I am sure, agrees that the speech that he has just made contained views that are strongly shared by hon. Gentlemen in every quarter of the House. I only want to say one or two words in reply to an observation which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford. I think it is only fair that I should say them. He blamed the Prime Minister because the right hon. Gentleman in one portion of his speech, said the Government had no more measures before them, and that, consequently, they had no policy. My right hon. Friend could not accurately have heard what fell from the Prime Minister. What did he say? First of all, he recounted the number of important measures that have been passed. Then he proceeded to say that the House had no more measures before it for the moment. That is only natural, but that is very different to saying that we have a Government in office which has no policy whatever. I appeal to the House to come to a decision now.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question again proposed; Debate resumed.

    MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (PROGRESS OF WORK).
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): Inasmuch as I gave a promise to some hon. Members that I would make a statement before separating, I feel bound to say something about two or three questions which have been raised during the last few weeks in this House. The time really is not ripe for making anything in the nature of a full statement. I am not referring merely to the past, but to schemes for the future. It is impossible to give the House anything like an adequate idea of what has been, or what is being, or what is about to be accomplished. Naturally there is some most important work which we are undertaking and which at the present time it would be highly imprudent to say anything about in its details. Therefore, any announcement which I make must, by limits of prudence, be restricted very considerably. In regard to the organisation of an office, it is a very old question as to whether it is not better to build absolutely a new house than to engage in very large extensions of the old one. That is one of the difficulties which we have experienced. We have had to take over a part of the organisation, and a portion of that part, and I am not sure whether it would not have been almost easier to have set up a completely new organisation. That was impossible, so we had to get experienced men who had been engaged in the work, and who knew a good deal about the details of work which had been accomplished.
    I give the House some indication as to the very considerable character of the work which had to be undertaken when I say that we have had more than double the size of the staff which was occupied with the work we are now undertaking. In the course of a few weeks we have been engaged in a task, the task with which I, together with some of my colleagues, have been entrusted. We have practically had to create a new staff. That is a very difficult undertaking if you have to do it immediately, because obviously everything depends upon the staff—upon the men you select. Under ordinary conditions, you would take a very long time to choose your instruments. You cannot do that when you are engaged in emergency work. Fortunately, we have had placed at our disposal the services of very considerable men in the business world—men of wide experience,
    2358
    men—some of them—who are in charge of very considerable undertakings. They have placed their services voluntarily at the disposal of the Ministry of Munitions, and are rendering excellent services, each in his own department. I think I can say that there are at least ninety men of first-class business experience who have placed their services voluntarily at the disposal of the Ministry of Munitions, the vast majority of them without any remuneration at all. Some of them were managers of very great concerns, and the firms with which they are connected are in most, if not in all, cases paying them salaries which the State could not afford to pay. These men are exceedingly helpful. In fact, without their help, it would have been quite impossible to have improvised a great Department on the scale on which this Department necessarily had to be organised.
    The work which has been done has been of a twofold character. It has consisted in speeding-up existing contracts, and also in opening up fresh sources of supply. Most of the questions which have been addressed to me in the House are concerned with the first part. Therefore, I shall devote myself to answering some of the questions which have been addressed to me from time to time during the last few weeks. The first class consisted in speeding-up contracts in the existing armament firms. Opening up new sources of supply simply meant the provision of war material some months hence, because if you set up new machinery and new works, even with the greatest expedition in the world, you cannot hope to get any substantial output out of those works for some weeks or even some months. Therefore, the immediate supply of material depended upon our taking steps to facilitate, expedite, and speed up the work of those who had undertaken contracts and who had got machinery for the purpose. They were all—I think I can almost say all—deplorably behind contract time. More work had been allocated to them than they were capable of digesting under the conditions. It was due to two reasons: first of all, the shortage of machinery, and, in the next place, the shortage of labour. With regard to the second, there has been a clamour everywhere for more labour. I will give the House an indication of the extent to which we have suffered for this reason. There were some machines in the armament works lying idle because there was no labour to work them.

    2359
    In addition to that, about three-quarters or four-fifths of the machines were not working full time at their full capacity.
    We had a census of all the machinery in the Kingdom, and we found that only one-fifth of the machinery employed on Government work was used for night-shifts, so that if we had been able to raise two or three shifts for the purpose of working these machines it would have increased enormously the output in existing armament firms with machinery and organisation ready. That was the first task to which we devoted ourselves at the Munition Ministry. I am very glad to say we have been able to assist those firms considerably, either through the direct agency of the Ministry of Munitions or through the most helpful co-operation of the Labour Exchanges. We have succeeded during the past month in adding to the labour available in the works connected with armaments in the country 40,000 men and women, nearly half of them skilled men, and we are still pouring in fresh labour supplies for the purpose, not merely of filling up the machinery which has been lying idle, but, in addition to that, enabling them to increase the number of night shifts. This has had a great effect in expediting the performance of the obligations of these firms, and although the yawning chasm between promise and performance has not been altogether bridged, I should say that the number of arches has been considerably increased, and we hope at no distant date to bring the two, at any rate, within crossing distance.
    No doubt the House would like to know something about the munition volunteers who have been organised. As far as numbers are concerned, they have been a great success. We have enrolled nearly 100,000, the great bulk of them skilled men in the engineering and shipbuilding trades. The difficulty has been that they are not all available for Government work. Nearly all of them are engaged on work of some degree of importance; sometimes indirectly, and without the workman's knowledge, engaged on Government work. For instance, we have men who are engaged in making screws and bolts, which are used in shipbuilding, and with other firms on Government material of war. A good many of them have enlisted. Perhaps the firms themselves at the moment were not conscious that they were supplying material for the Govern-
    2360
    ment, but, as a matter of fact, we have ascertained that it is all material used in munition and shipbuilding work, and we have had to strike off the men engaged in work of that kind from the list of those available for supplying the armament firms. Another illustration is that of men who are engaged on work which is not munition work in the ordinary sense of the term, but which is essentially work for the life of the nation. For instance, there are men engaged in making machinery for turning out Army biscuits. We could not possibly take them on, because they are turning out biscuits used in the Army. Therefore, we cannot hope to utilise the services of even a majority of the 100,000. We should do very well if we could use one-fifth of the men who have been enrolled. Any attempt to remove them wholesale would create a dislocation, and perhaps industrial disaster. Sometimes they could not be moved at all from the work on which they were engaged. Sometimes a portion of them could be moved. For instance, you might have 100 men engaged on particular works; we might be able to take twenty, thirty, or forty away from those works, but to take the whole of them would be to do irreparable harm-to the industrial system of the country.
    We, therefore, had to divide the munition volunteers—that was the first process—into three classes: first of all, those who are engaged indirectly on munition work; secondly, those who are engaged on important work where the whole of them could not be spared, but some portion could be taken away; and, thirdly, those who are engaged directly on Government work who could not be moved at all. The steps we took to ascertain which of these men were available were these: We communicated first of all with the employers of those volunteers to find out whether they had any objection to these men being taken away, and, if they had, the grounds of their objection. We have received, up to the present, protests from employers in four-fifths of the cases—that is, we have received protests in respect of something like 80,000 volunteers. We have collected a body of business men representing experience in various trades in order to investigate these protests, and we have also set up an extensive system for local investigation of these cases. The adjudicators are now sitting at Armament Buildings, or rather in Munition Offices, engaged in considering the employers' protests, and they decide whether the men

    2361
    are available for immediate transfer, whether they should be put in a second line for transfer only in cases of emergency, or whether they are men already engaged in highly important Government work and ought not to be withdrawn. That is the process going on. Thousands of them have already been placed under the conditions of their enlistment. The work will now proceed at an accelerated pace, and we hope in the course of the next few days to place several more thousands at the disposal of the firms who are working on Government contracts. With regard to the rest, and I think the bulk of them, we propose to organise a reserve for another project on a very considerable scale, which we are about to launch, and reference to which I shall make later on in the course of my observations.
    The second point is the question of the release of men from the Colours. At first we had great difficulty in tracing them. It was no use appealing to the men themselves in the ranks, because they did not want to leave, and I think it is a very creditable story. The men who wanted to leave were not engineers at all. Engineers themselves hardly ever stepped forward and said, "We are engineers, and we would like to give up fighting." They were all anxious to go to the front, and therefore we had to take another way of finding out who they were and where they were. We communicated with the shipbuilding and engineering firms themselves, and we asked them to send us a return of the men who had enlisted from their shops, and also we asked them to give us, so far as they had information in their possession, the units which they had joined. We had returns showing that scores of thousands of highly-skilled men had enlisted. We have been able to arrange a basis with the War Office for the return of some of these men. Unfortunately, it excludes men who are already abroad, and there are a good many there. It also excludes those who are in the Armies on the point of leaving, and therefore we are confined to perhaps one-third or one-fourth of the skilled men who have joined the Colours. However, within the last month thousands have been released from the Colours, and now, as the result of fresh arrangements which I have just made with the Secretary of State for War, many more thousands will become available in the course of the next few weeks, and he tells me if that is not enough I had better discuss it with him later on. That is as far as I can
    2362
    go at present. At any rate, we have obtained the services of many thousands of these men who, I think, would be more useful in the engineering yards at this moment, in order to provide equipment for the Army, than in the trenches.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Can you give me any idea as to how many thousands?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think on the whole I had better not be pressed about that, and I say that after consultation with Lord Kitchener. I would rather not give exact figures. That is the form in which he prefers I should now give it to the House of Commons, and there are many reasons why he prefers it. I come to the other branch of our late difficulties, and that is the relaxation of trade union regulations and practices. We arrived at an agreement with the engineering societies of this country that there should be a complete relaxation of trade union rules and practices in respect of the establishments which are controlled. I regret that up to the present I cannot make a very satisfactory report, and I should like to appeal to the trade union leaders to bring pressure to bear—such pressure as they can legitimately bring to bear—upon the men in their societies to work the arrangement made with the Government in a more liberal and in a more favourable and satisfactory sense. I am told—and I can only take this upon the reports that have come to me—that the men could easily turn out 25 per cent, at least more shot and shell and guns and material of war if they could shake themselves during the War from the domination of practices which have controlled their actions in peace times. This is really a very serious matter. It is really very essential, and it is equivalent to adding not merely scores of thousands, but very nearly hundreds of thousands of men to these yards to get the men to suspend these practices. That is all we ask. I should like to tell my hon. Friends associated with them that they would be rendering a very great service to the State if they were able to persuade the men to suspend these rules and practices during the period of the War, because nothing that can be done by the Government in the way of organising fresh supplies can make any impression for some time. What can make an immediate impression is that the men should fling the whole of their strength and energy, without any regard for any of these practices, into turning out munitions

    2363
    of war. I cannot without giving figures, which I ought not to give, make my hon. Friends realise how vitally important it is to the interests of this country and to the protection of the men in the trenches— the comrades of these men, the sons of these men, the relatives of these men—that they should, during the next few months, at any rate, do their very best and give all that is in them to increase the output in these yards.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: May I ask if there is any great improvement in places where meetings have been held?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have made inquiries during the last few days, and I am told that in some cases the position is worse. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] That is so deplorable that I do not like to speak of it.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will the right hon. Gentleman specify a little more particularly the nature of those rules and practices—[HON. MEMBERS: "There are no rules"]—which at the present moment are restricting the production of munitions? It would be helpful to those Members who, in the next few days, will be in the country.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The trade union representatives know perfectly well to what I am referring. It is a sort of unwritten rule and it is not a written rule at all. It is a practice whereby production is limited almost by the amount which an average man could produce. No man is to go beyond a certain limit of output, in fact, it is regarded as an act of disloyalty by his comrades to do so. That is a very well-known fact, and no unionist denies it. During a period of peace there are reasons for it as well as against it. It is done to conserve the energies of the men, and undoubtedly the employers have been responsible, because in the past the moment men began to put forth the whole of their strength the employers immediately reduced the piece rates. Of course, it was a crass piece of folly, and it takes a long time to get an experience of that kind out of the minds of the men. I hope they will make not merely a promise, but a solemn undertaking put in an Act of Parliament which not merely the Government, but the whole of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, undertook that, at the end of the War, the fact of their abandoning those practices now will not prevent them from restoring the
    2364
    practices at the end of the War. It is so vital that this should be done during the War that even an undertaking of that kind must be honoured. It is an unpleasant topic to dwell upon, but it is so important that I must really refer to it.
    There is another practice to which I must call attention, and it is that where there is a shortage of skilled men upon a particular job and there are other men who are quite competent to assist—although we have given a solemn undertaking that in these cases, where it is absolutely urgent and necessary, that the trade unions will allow either unskilled men or skilled men of another kind to come there to assist—they have refused to allow them. I have got a case in my-possession now where there is a strike at this very moment because plumbers were brought in to assist coppersmiths. There were not enough coppersmiths to go round, and the work could not be done because there were too few. The plumbers-could assist. Notice was given to the union that they were to be brought in, and the coppersmiths came out, and up to this moment they are still out.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Give them two years' hard labour.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is deplorable, and I do hope that the influence of my hon. Friends will be exerted with all the trade union leaders to persuade the men that in these cases it is really quite impossible to stand by the rigid rules of the trade union in a great emergency like this. I know that is the view of my hon. Friends. The only other point as to labour is badges. This is a most troublesome question, as all those who have had anything to do with it know. The fact of the matter is that badges have been given quite indiscriminately, and there are-hundreds of thousands of workmen in this country who are wearing badges who ought never to have had them. The result is that the War Office found that recruiting was unfairly hampered, and I think for the moment they went to the other extreme and gave too few badges. At any rate, for the moment I think we have-been able to establish a basis upon which we can give badges only to those who should have them. We propose that badges should be given only were the Ministry of Munitions are satisfied that the men are engaged in war work, and in the-second place, that the men are of a class which, through the possession of special

    2365
    skill, are irreplaceable by other labour. The mere fact of a man being engaged on munitions work is not enough to justify him claiming a badge, if it is possible that that man can be replaced by another man not fit for enlistment who can do his work just as well. Therefore, we have to satisfy ourselves as to those two conditions before a badge is given, and we are taking very elaborate measures in order to satisfy ourselves on that ground. The employer has, first of all, to make the application for his men. He has to give the reasons why these men ought to get badges. Those reasons will be very carefully examined, and upon the basis of the reports we get the badges will be given. I think it is worth repeating that we have given an undertaking that the rates of wages will not be reduced when the output per piece is increased. That is all I propose to say on labour questions at the present moment.
    I now come to some of the steps we are taking for organising fresh sources of supply. The first step is to extend existing factors. It is rather difficult to give any details as to the steps we are taking in this direction. A good deal has been said about the shortage of rifles and machine guns, and all I should like to say about that is that I think I can assure the House that the steps "we have taken, and are taking, to increase the supply of these essentials will, I believe, "when they are known, satisfy every reasonable critic. Unfortunately, any extension of machinery in this direction takes a very long time to fructify, as all those who have been engaged in' the turning out of rifles and machine guns know very well. But a beginning has to be made, and, unless I am mistaken in the signs of the time, the action we have taken will ensure results of a character that will impress themselves in the course of the War long before that War is likely to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. We have also taken steps to increase very considerably bombs and hand-grenades for trench warfare, and I think the enemy know well the progress we have already made in this direction.
    I now approach the all-important question of shells. The steps we have taken are of a threefold character. We have divided the country into great co-operative areas in order to use the whole of the available machinery in those areas for the purpose of turning out munitions of war. We have set up management
    2366
    boards of business men in those areas whose business it is to organise the whole of the available machinery for increasing the output of shells and other material. We place at the disposal of those boards of management skilled engineers in order to assist them, and in order to enable them to use all the machinery available in the district for the manufacture of shells and the necessary shell components. These areas have by no means been exhausted by the orders we have given. We have reserved a good deal of the available shell power for a special programme we are about to develop, and if hon. Members know in their districts that there is a good deal of lathe and machine-tool power which has not been used yet to the fullest extent, if they will only wait for a short time they will knew the-reason why we have not utilised those-workshops for the moment. It is because we need them for another purpose, which is, in our judgment, for the time being more important. But we have already by the organisation of these co-operative areas, by the setting up of these boards of management, increased enormously the prospect of receiving within the next few weeks complete shells for the supply of the Army.
    In addition to the arranging of co-operative areas, we have also set up sixteen national factories in different parts of the country. These will be national in their control and national in their management. We are filling these factories with the requisite machinery and we are providing the necessary labour. Some of the machinery is obtained by direct orders from-machine tool manufacturers and some by requisition from existing firms, and I must say that we find the manufacturers quite ready to help us to the utmost of their power in these cases. The labour is secured in the various ways which I have already indicated. When these sixteen national factories which we place under the control of local boards of management—you cannot manage a business in a district from a central office in London, and we have set up local boards of management—are in full working there will be an enormous increase in the output of shells for the supply of our Forces.
    The advantage which a national shell factory has over mere co-operation between different firms consists in economy in working. We are convinced that we can turn out the shells at a much lower price than that at which we are obtaining

    2367
    them. There will be better control, there will be better facilities for inspection, and we think that we shall have less trouble with labour, and that is an undoubted advantage. We think that labour perhaps will be readier to dispense with these rather restrictive practices when they are working in a national factory where no one can possibly suggest there is any profit made by anybody except by the nation. But both the systems are absolutely necessary in order to enable us to get the full benefit of all the resources of the country. We shall have national shell factories working side by side with private firms who are turning out shells, so that we shall have the full advantage of both these schemes of output. We found that some of the shortage, if not a good deal of it, was due to the fact that although you turned out shell bodies in very considerable numbers you were short of some particular component which was essential before you could complete the shell. It might be a fuse, it might be a primer, it might be a gauge. There was always some one thing of which you had a deficiency. It might be the cartridge case. We, therefore, had to set up two or three national factories in order to increase the supply of some of these special components, so that there should be no delay in turning out a complete shell owing to the fact that some one particular element or component was wanted at the right moment.
    The next step we have taken is with regard to machine tools. The organisation of these new sources of supply brought us face to face with the fact that there was an alarming shortage in the machinery available for these purposes. We had a census taken of all the machinery in the Kingdom. We had about 40,000 replies from the engineering firms of the country. It revealed a considerable number of lathes and tools not used now for Government work, but which can be used for the purpose. It also showed us that the number of machine tools available in this country for the work which is essential for us to undertake was quite inadequate, more ^especially for the shell of the heavier calibre, and that is very important. We have, therefore, taken the step of placing all the great machine tool makers of the country under direct Government control. We summoned them together, and without a protest on their part they all, without exception, undertook practically to become Government factories during the War.
    2368
    There was not a word of protest, although it meant limiting their profits and restricting them in various directions. There was not a word of protest from a single machine-tool maker who was present at that trade gathering. This will enable them to concentrate their energies during the next few months for the purpose of increasing, and increasing very considerably, the machinery available for the output of war munitions. We have formed a strong committee of machine tool makers, who are now sitting at Armament Buildings constantly for the purpose of directing the operations of the whole of the machine tool manufacturers of the Kingdom.
    The result of all this will be not merely to increase very considerably the output of shells, but it will increase considerably the power at the disposal of the nation at short notice to turn out even more than we have ordered, if the emergency demands. What causes the delay now is the fact that even if you have a sudden emergency, and you find that you have got to increase, perhaps to double, the output of a particular kind of shell, or of gun—and, after all, these things may change from month to month, for with new experience at the front it is discovered that you have to concentrate upon some more particular nature of shell or some particular gun—you are now faced by the fact that you have not got the necessary machine tools in this country which you can turn on for the purpose. The first step you have to take is to manufacture those lathes, and there is considerable delay in consequence. Therefore, we propose that we shall have an enormous increase in the machinery available for this purpose. Another advantage is that when we have got this machinery ready we shall not be as dependent as we have hitherto been upon orders from abroad. We can turn out much more of this war material in our own country, and the advantage of that must be obvious to everyone in the House. First of all, when you order a very considerable quantity of war material abroad, there is always a difficulty which arises with regard to the exchanges and the gold supply. There is the difficulty that you have not got the same control over the manufacture of material abroad as you have got here. There is the risk of transporting it across the seas, and there is a very considerable difference in the price you have got to pay, and that is important. It is very much better that we

    2369
    should utilise our own labour and our own machinery at home in order to turn out as much as possible of this war material, and that is a problem to which, amongst others, I am directing my attention.
    I come to another point of considerable importance, and I was rather perplexed to know the extent to which it would be prudent for me to dwell on it, but I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and he is of opinion that it would be well that it should be known what are the preparations we are making. There is a balance of advantage and disadvantage in talking about it in public, but he has come to the conclusion that on the whole the balance is in favour of indicating what we are doing. A few weeks ago I had the privilege of attending an important conference at Boulogne with the French Minister of Munitions. There were very distinguished Artillery officers from the French Army and in the British Expeditionary Force who attended that conference, and they compared notes as to the lessons of the campaign in the matter of war material. As the result of that and subsequent conferences it has been decided to embark on a new and a great programme which will very considerably tax the engineering resources of this country for some months, and in order to meet this new, this very great, I might say this gigantic demand it will be necessary for us to set up immediately ten large national establishments in addition to the sixteen to which I have already referred. They will be establishments which will belong to the Government, and they will be controlled by the Government. The experience of existing armament firms will be used in order to manage and equip them and to provide them with the necessary staff. For that purpose they will probably be erected somewhere in the neighbourhood of the great existing establishments.
    To provide these new establishments with labour the new munition volunteer army will be drawn upon. We shall also have to draw upon the men who have been brought back from the Army, and we hope to utilise to a much larger extent than has hitherto been the case the assistance of women in these establishments. In this respect we shall follow the example of France and of Germany. There is a limit to the amount of male labour which is available, especially if the War is prolonged, and I am convinced from the experience which some of the armament
    2370
    firms have had in this country that there is a good deal of work, especially work of the finer kind, which can be done just as well, and even better, by women than by men. It will be necessary, therefore, in these new arsenals to draw to a much larger extent upon that reserve than we have hitherto done in the other armament firms. This programme has already been agreed upon, and steps will be immediately taken to put it into practical operation. We have ordered the necessary machinery, we are taking steps to erect the necessary buildings, and I hope the equipment will be ready in the course of the next few weeks—certainly the next few months—which will enable us to equip our Armies in such a way that even the best Armies in Europe will not be able to claim superiority in the slightest respect as far as war material and equipment are concerned.
    8.0 P.M.
    With regard to explosives, steps have been taken to see that the supply of explosives keeps pace with the enormously increased demands which have been made and which will still be made in the future. I do not think that it would be desirable to enter into details under this head. I simply want to assure the House and the country that this essential side of our demands has not been overlooked, because an increase in shells, and especially an increase in shells of the larger natures involves an enormous increase in the quantity of high explosives and propellers. I should like to say a word also with regard to what we are doing about inventions. It is essential to the successful conduct of the War that the fullest use should be made of the best brains of inventors and scientific men. Perhaps hitherto there has been a want of co-ordination amongst the various arrangements dealing with the testing of projects of inventors. So far as naval inventions are concerned, the First Lord of the Admiralty has already set up a Naval Inventions Board, under the distinguished presidency of Lord Fisher, to deal with inventions relating to maritime warfare. I had just completed arrangements to constitute an Inventions Branch of the Ministry of Munitions, and I hope it will do for inventions for land warfare what Lord Fisher's Board is doing for naval warfare. The War Office is handing over the whole question of Army inventions to the Minister of Munitions, and careful arrangements have been made to secure that the new branch shall keep in

    2371
    close touch both with Lord Fisher's Board, to avoid overlapping, and also with. War Office experts, as the Army authorities must, of course, have an ultimate voice in deciding whether a particular invention is of practical service to the conditions of actual warfare in the present campaign. I have appointed Mr. W. Moir, a distinguished engineer, who has already given valuable assistance to my Department on a voluntary basis, to take charge of the new branch, and he will have not only an expert staff to deal with any project that may reach him, but also a panel of scientific consultants to assist on technical and scientific points.
    I think, to save disappointment, I should say that it ought to be clearly understood that only a very small minority of inventions are of practical value, especially under the stringent conditions of modern warfare. A very large number of these projects are, on the face of them, shall I say—a little remote. Many others in which the inventor sincerely believes, as they have emanated from his own brain, have already been under consideration for a long time; all that is good in them has been adopted, and the bad has been finally ejected. Many projects fail from technical defects; many others, although technically perfect, are unsuitable for the practical conditions of war. The new branch will have justified its existence if one project in a hundred, or even one in a thousand, turns out to be of practical utility in the present emergency. We have got a good many which we have already experimented upon, and a good many others we are experimenting upon very hopefully.
    I should like to say one word about the control of drink in the munition and other areas. I believe the new Board is doing excellent work in that respect. They have worked very hard. They have visited all these areas, and they have proceeded on the principle of carrying with them, as far as they can, the consent of all sections of the community. Up to the present they have succeeded, I think completely, in ensuring something like unanimous co-operation in these various areas. Their schemes have not been merely of a restrictive character. They have beyond that taken steps to supply the men in the yards with reasonable refreshment, and I am looking forward to the success of the experiments that they are making. I am perfectly certain it will conduce very largely to increasing the output of these areas. I am
    2372
    also taking steps to organise some form of medical supervision over the men in the yards, so that men who are failing in discharging their duty for physical reasons shall have prompt attention, and so also that advice can be given as to the best method of sustaining the strength of the men in the yards. Up to the present we have not done nearly as much work of that kind as the Germans have done and as the French, and I am sure a good deal is to be done in increasing the yield of these yards if a more sustained and more scientific effort is made to sustain the physical strength of the men, and to see that the conditions which interfere with that strength and which exhausts it are, as far as possible, removed.
    I can only just summarise very briefly what we are doing. It wrould be very undesirable for me to give details of the steps we are taking—where we are placing our factories, what orders we are giving, and how the shells are coming in. All I can say is there is an improvement from week to week in the output, and I feel confident that when we have completed the developments we are now engaged upon we shall in the course of a few weeks be able to supply a quantity of shells which will not merely enable us to support our men but enable them to cleave their way through to victory. All the men who are engaged in this task are working hard. They are working very hard, and I can assure all those whom it may concern that they have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in the sorry and squalid intrigues which seem to fill the minds of evil-disposed persons. They are engaged upon their work, and all we ask is that both plotters and plot-mongers—and I am not sure which is the more mischievous in a time of emergency—shall just keep their hands and their tongues off the Ministry of Munitions. We are only occupied on one task. We have concentrated upon it the whole of our mind and the whole of our strength—yes, and many of us up to the point of breaking down under the strain. I have had to warn several of the staff off the premises because I was convinced, unless I did so, these men would be incapable of returning for weeks and months. I could see the strain in their faces, and I do beg and appeal we shall be allowed to go on with our work without interference of any kind.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am sure we have all listened with much interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend, and with

    2373
    regard to his closing observations I am sure that his responsibility is more gigantic and more solemn than that falling on any man in the country. He is therefore entitled to the most unquestioning and loyal support of everybody in the country, and I am sure the appeal which he has made for support for himself and his Department will not be made in vain. Of course, I am unacquainted with the facts my right hon. Friend has given with regard to labour conditions. But a good many of the men employed in this country are men of my own race, and here in my place as an Irishman I appeal to everyone of my blood and my race to follow up by good, patriotic, hard, unsparing work in the munitions factories the gallant deeds which our countrymen are doing in the field. As far as my small influence is concerned with the Irishmen of Great Britain, among whom I have passed my life, I place it at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to make this further general observation. The scheme which my right hon. Friend has put before the House is of a large and daring character. Indeed some of his projects are, I may say, gigantic. But the whole of the proposals constitute an indication of the determination of this country to go on with this War till we have beaten down the enemy which threatens our security and the liberties of our people. Every preparation he makes, however costly or ambitious it may seem to be, will I am sure be welcomed by everyone in the country as an indication of the inflexible spirit which exists everywhere in this country to carry out the War to a glorious end.
    There is one other observation I should like to make before I deal with the particular point I have to raise. My right hon. Friend is aware that I have ventured to bring before his attention the enormous assistance which might be gained by his Department by drawing upon the resources of our great men of business in our great Dominions. I am glad to know my friend Sir Thomas O'Shaughnessy, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, has already been called into counsel, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised in calling upon many other men in Canada and Australia, of the same type, who, by their experience as pioneers in the work of civilisation, would bring to his Department many qualities which perhaps are not present to those accustomed to working under the
    2374
    conditions which obtain in this country. These are good observations, and I apologise to the House for making them, but they were inspired in my mind by the speech of my right hon. Friend.
    The point on which I wish to address him particularly is this: We are most eager in Ireland to get our share of munition work, both on patriotic and commercial grounds. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) has directed his mind to this question for a long time, and it is quite six weeks since my hon. and learned Friend was able to draw up a list of our resources. I believe our resources in Ireland are much larger than have been imagined or suspected, even by my right hon. Friend, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will direct his attention immediately to this question, and bring all the industrial and labour resources of Ireland into this patriotic work. I understand that for fuse making and in regard to many other parts of the munitions supply, Ireland has very large resources which she will very gladly place at the service of my right hon. Friend. I would appeal to him in this instance to act on the same principles as he is in other parts of the country, that is to say, to rely more or less upon local assistance and on local direction.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEindicated assent.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am very glad to see that my right hon. Friend proposes to do that. It would be well to have a central office in Dublin, and it would be desirable to send over at once—
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In case I am not here to reply to my hon. Friend—I have other work, I am sorry to say, to which I must attend at once—perhaps he will permit me to say that I have sent a very capable officer over to Ireland, one of the ablest men we have in the Munitions Department. I have observed from a copy of a paper with which the hon. Gentleman was good enough to supply me, that he was at Limerick either yesterday or the day before. He is inspecting the whole of the engineering resources of the south, west, and south-east of Ireland—we have had already full returns from Belfast—so that when he returns we shall know exactly what Ireland is capable of doing. It may not necessarily be turning out shells. So far as I can see from the reports I have had up to the present, there are parts of Ireland which would be very useful in

    2375
    turning out, say, fuses or some other component parts of a shell, although they could not turn out the whole. However, that depends upon the full reports I shall get from this very capable officer. I have had some consultation with the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), who was good enough to give me the name of a gentleman who has knowledge of Ireland and who came over the other day to see me.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I take it from my right hon. Friend that anything that Ireland can do in the shape of munitions will be welcomed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Oh, yes, we propose to utilise the resources of Ireland very fully for this purpose. It is just possible that Ireland may be able to do in some districts very useful and very valuable work at a later stage.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The only other point I would urge on my right hon. Friend is that when he is ordering machinery from other parts of the world, if that machinery would enable factories to be started in Ireland, we should get our fair share. I desire to thank my right hon. Friend for the way he has met my suggestions.
    Mr. HODGE: The statement with which the right hon. Gentleman has favoured the House is one of extreme gravity, more particularly as respects his reference to trade union customs and their failure, as he asserts, to act up to the agreement which the various unions connected with shipbuilding and engineering federations entered into. I must confess that it was with a feeling of very great astonishment that I listened to the statement he made, more particularly when lie said that the output of munitions, if these rules were laid aside, would be 25 per cent, greater than it is. I have been pretty well round the whole of the districts where shipbuilding is carried on and where munitions are being made, and in asking questions of the various managers of many of these great establishments, more particularly with respect to that aspect of the question, they have assured me that the men were doing very excellent work, and that only in a very few instances had they any trouble with regard to the relaxation of rules, provided, as one manager said to me, the men were assured that they were in a controlled establishment. That is one
    2376
    of the things it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman to make known. Where an establishment is a controlled establishment there should be no dubiety about it so far as the worker's knowledge of the fact is concerned. I and my colleagues are quite conscious of the fact that in some districts and in some instances there has been great difficulty. That we deplore. With respect to the dispute that occurred—I believe it was on the Clyde—with regard to the coppersmiths refusing to permit plumbers to do work which they were accustomed to do, I am sure I echo the sentiments of the whole of my colleagues in saying that the action of coppersmiths was a disgraceful episode, particularly in view of the great national emergency that called upon them to give way so far as that was concerned.
    I may say that in some instances where troubles have arisen between workmen and the employer, the workmen have not been altogether to blame. The attitude that I have assumed, when I have had anything to do with disputes of that character, has not been to be the apologist of the men. The attitude which I and many of my colleagues have assumed has been: "Get back to work at once. Until you do so, I am not going to discuss with the management any grievance, real or alleged." One episode of that character came before me less than a fortnight ago. It happened to be in regard to members of my own society, and that was the attitude we at once took up. Fortunately, the men were working on three turn shifts for the twenty-four hours. Only one of the turns refused to go on with their work after they had spent six hours and twenty minutes upon it. The other two turns rallied up and, with a few volunteers, they kept the work going without any serious detriment to the output. Notwithstanding the pride I have in my fellow craftsmen, and the way they have risen to the occasion, I felt a bit ashamed of the attitude they had taken up. When the matter was investigated it was discovered that it was because of the lack of tact displayed by a departmental foreman that the whole trouble had arisen. His action did not excuse the men leaving their work. Two blacks do not make a white, and no matter how bad the action of the employer or the manager might be towards him, I ask, is a workman going to endanger my son or brother at the front? That is the kind of attitude I would desire my fellow trade unionists, and my fellow non-unionist

    2377
    workmen to act up to, so far as this great emergency is concerned.
    Another thing I have discovered is that you cannot drive men but you can lead them. On the Sunday after the episode to which I have referred we held a special meeting. The better the day the better the deed. I knew they would be all sober on a Sunday, and it gave me a very much better opportunity of appealing not only to their reason but to their hearts. The bulk of them happened to be Welshmen, so that I could appeal to their emotions, and I did so, with the result that they unanimously decided that for the future, even although the Heavens fell, they would go on working. I have had a letter from the management since stating that there has not been more or better work turned out since they started shell making than has been the case since that Sunday meeting. I am rather sorry that the Ministry of Munitions has not made more use of some of us who sit on these benches in seeking to drive home to the workmen the great responsibility that rests upon them. One of the pictures that I placed before them was the battle of Neuve Chapelle, where, because of the lack of high explosive shell in one corner of the battlefield, the barbed wire entanglement stood intact, and when our men got that length they could get no further and were mown down by the German machine guns. I pictured to them that if a man could make three shells where he was only making two, or even only making nineteen where he could make twenty, the twentieth shell might have been the means of knocking that barbed wire entanglement down, and probably saving the life of his own son or his own brother or his own comrade at the front, because every one of us, if we had not sons or brothers, at any rate had relatives doing their bit, and we ought to realise that if we were not doing our very best, and if casualties due to a cause such as that took place, there was blood guiltiness upon our souls.
    The question is, have the Ministry of Munitions done all that is humanly possible to get the various leaders in the trade union movement to realise their duty in getting inside the factories for the purpose of talking with the men, and pointing out to them the evil consequences of failing to live up to the promises that they have made. Has the right hon. Gentleman made full use, for instance, of the Advisory Committee? That Committee is composed of the leading officials of most
    2378
    of the unions connected with the shipbuilding and engineering trades. How is it that they have not been utilised for driving home to their own individual members their duties in that direction? I am not conscious that they have been utilised to the extent that they might have been, and I, at any rate, would be willing at the call of that advisory committee to go anywhere at any time for the purpose of endeavouring to place before them the gravity of the situation and the seriousness and the responsibility that rests upon an individual man if he does not do his very best. At any rate, so far as the men I represent are concerned, that is the duty that I have felt it incumbent to take upon myself, and I am glad to say with very great success indeed. With respect to the shortage of labour, I do not know that as much has been done as might have been done so far as the mobilisation of labour is concerned. With respect to the relaxation of these trade unions. I do not want to be querulous, and I do not want to quibble, but really the Government ought to have proceeded on the lines that they are doing now months before they did. It takes a long time to get out of the beaten grooves, and it will probably take a month or two yet before the men in the engineering trades get out of their old grooves, their old unwritten customs; and it is always to be remembered that at the back of their heads in some instances is still the dread that their exertions now will penalise them after the War. They have still the thought in their minds, once the War is over, how will the Government compel employers to restore the old rules, written or unwritten. That does not worry me in the slightest. I am prepared to depend upon the honour of Parliament and upon the honour of the employers to reinstate those conditions, and if they fail to do so there is the last line of defence—that which has succeeded in building up those privileges. If any of those privileges are never restored, if by their abrogation we could maintain the liberty that our fathers have handed down to us, and carry this War through to a triumphant termination, I should not consider it any loss as against the maintenance of the civil and religious liberties that we enjoy.
    The right hon. Gentleman made reference to the fact that so far as the Government was concerned they had appointed an Inventions Committee. I am

    2379
    afraid they do not do all things well even in the Munitions Department, because about four weeks ago I introduced to the right hon. Gentleman an engineer who claims to have an airship which is better than a Zeppelin.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGEmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. HODGE: No; but the right hon. Gentleman said he would introduce him within a few days to aeronautic experts who would examine his invention. There has never been another word about it, so that evidently there is as much red-tape about the Ministry of Munitions as there is in some of the other Departments. But the right hon. Gentleman need not be alarmed. Knowing to some extent what Government Departments are, the man is starting to-morrow morning with a firm which is going to try his invention. I hope it will be successful. That is only an evidence of the difficulties of any man with anything in the shape of an invention getting over the doorstep of a Government Department. May I also point out that I think the right hon. Gentleman must take some blame. In a speech that he made in the early part of the year I took the opportunity of pointing out to him that he was talking about the great captains of industry and he was neglecting the captains of labour. In South Wales at that particular moment of time only 60 per cent. of the tin-plate workers were working and if they were transferred to the forges at Barrow, to Armstrong and Whitworths at Newcastle, or to Sheffield, would they get the sustenance allowance that Government employés were receiving? It took the right hon. Gentleman four months to carry through the allowance so far as sustenance was concerned, but that did not deter me from doing everything that was possible to mobilise these men. I did so very successfully. Something like one thousand men were scattered between Woolwich, Sheffield, Barrow, and Newcastle, all engaged in the production of shells, and doing it very satisfactorily indeed. With respect to the work of the men and their doing their duties and there being no trouble, the experience that I have stated applies to Woolwich. Last Friday I had an opportunity of meeting about a dozen employers, who declared that they were having no trouble either from drink or any other cause, and most
    2380
    of them are employed in making munitions. I found the same thing at West Hartlepool and at Middlesbrough. At Armstrong and Whitworths, Newcastle-on-Tyne, in going through their works recently, I spoke to several departmental foremen, and they all declared that they had had no trouble. I am afraid the greatest amount of trouble happens to be on the Clyde. That makes me, to some extent, ashamed of my fellow countrymen, and I would not mind in the slightest degree, if invited by the trade unionists who control in that direction, paying a visit to the Clyde for the purpose of seeking to impress upon the men the great responsibility that rests upon them so far as their work is concerned, and the value of that work in the preservation not only of limb, but of life in the trenches.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I am sure the House will welcome with the utmost cordiality the patriotic sentiments which the hon. Member (Mr. Hodge) has uttered. I do believe that he faithfully represents the feelings and the desires of the great majority of workers in this country who are concerned in engineering production. There was one remark, however, which the hon. Member made to which I cannot adhere, and that was that the Minister of Munitions shows a disposition towards red-tape. To me it seems that the outstanding feature, so far as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions is concerned, is the absence of red-tape. The evidence is that he is starting his Department on thorough business lines, just as might be expected from a set of business men rather than from a set of Government officials. I believe that if that Department had been started earlier, on the lines it is now being started upon, the position to-day would be very different. I rose chiefly for the purpose of making one statement which I ventured to make from an experience of over forty years in the engineering trade. Like the hon. Member (Mr. Hodge), I am associated with a trade union. Like him, I have myself worked in the workshops on piece-work rates. I am sorry that the Minister of Munitions is not for the moment in his place, but, if I may have the attention of his representative, I want to impress upon him that what I am now about to state is from my personal experience. When a worker is placed upon piece-work rates the tendency is for him to get more and more skill and facility in performing the

    2381
    particular duties which are allocated to him. It is the custom in the workshops for piece-work to be sectionalised. One man does one thing over and over again, and the article is then passed on to the next man, who does his work upon it over and over again. The result is that every one of these men, by practice and by the facility which comes by practice, are able after a period of time to perform the job very much more quickly and with equal skill. What follows? The man's piecework takings at the end of the week gradually rise over a period of months, and the suggestion is then made that the rate must be lowered. They are lowered. The process goes on again, and I have known instances where, for no less than seven stages, piece-work prices have been lowered by this natural process in the course of a single year. That is what the workmen, over whom this terrible accusation rests, feel. It is known by them, as it is known by every practical engineer, that this process of reducing piece-work will go on, and naturally go on, especially in new manufactories; and until there is a guarantee that during the period of the War piece-work rates will not be reduced, except under Government supervision, and in such a way as will be a safeguard against reduction following additional exertions, you will not remove the root cause of this trouble. As the hon. Member {Mr. Hodge) stated in the course of his telling speech, the men ask, "What will happen when the War is over? Will the conditions that have been established by much sacrifice and much bargaining with the employers, be restored?" I say to the Government with perfect conviction that until you can convince the men that they will not suffer by throwing to the winds trade union restrictions and precautions with regard to piecework, you will not get at the root cause of the difficulty.
    Such statements as I have ventured to make, coming from the Benches opposite, might have perhaps the suggestion of being interested, but coming from myself, who no longer works at the bench, and whose interests personally are rather on the side of the employer than otherwise, I venture to put them before the House as entirely disinterested, but with the full conviction that they are thoroughly well founded. It is only after the casual reminder from someone behind him that the right hon. Gentleman, in making his speech, stated that the Government had
    2382
    given a promise that there would be no undue reduction of piece rates. The matter cannot be dealt with by a casual reminder. The one thing needful in regard to this particular point is that the protection and the guarantee of the Government shall, to-night, I hope, by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman or his Under-Secretary, be made so clear, and shall go forth with such perfect understanding by the men that there can be no feeling of any uneasiness as to the future. If this Debate results in a definite statement by the Government, that the position is so regarded by them, and that this be made public, it will do more good from the practical point of view in increasing the product of munitions than almost any other incident that could take place in the course of the Debate. I believe that the House has welcomed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as full of hope and full of promise, and as showing that thorough steps have been taken to remove what has been the greatest scandal, and one of the most cruel dangers that surround the circumstances of this War. If the performance of a close, hearty, thorough, systematic organisation is in any way equal to the promise, then the country will rejoice in the end that the Ministry of Munitions has been established.
    Sir CROYDON MARKS: I think that the country generally and this House in particular will have reason to be greatly relieved at the statement that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman tonight, because criticism has been directed very frequently against the production of munitions as though the Department itself had been in existence for very many months and had had charge of the production of munitions, of which the troops are now in need or which they should be using, instead of the fact being, as is well known, that it is a new Department which is just about to begin its work, and to begin its work unfettered by the traditions of any of the old methods that have hampered the production of munitions, as controlled by those who have been controlling it in the past. There are very many methods connected with the production of articles that have to be used every day by our troops that might very easily and very readily be improved upon. So long have these methods and these manners of producing been considered to be the only methods, that any person who has made the suggestion to vary them has found himself against a

    2383
    deep-rooted prejudice and has had no attention given to that which he has proposed, because he has been considered to be an outsider without the special experience which the inner men think that they alone possess.
    I am able to say from an examination, which it has been my good fortune to make, of some of the systems already introduced by the Munitions Department, that there is no such red tape fettering and no such hindrance as I have undoubtedly known and experienced in connection with some other departments. The men who are concerned there have gone there with one object, and that one object has been to improve the output, without any reliance upon the past experience of others, but by getting any new help, new experience, and new associations, without of necessity tying themselves to deal with those who have been concerned in the output before. Thus it has been that at the present time all over the Kingdom— and the country had better know it— there is an activity that has never been seen in this country before in reference to the production of those things which our troops have so long needed, and which ought to have been supplied to them months ago, and the only suggestion by our workers now is, why was not this Department instituted months ago instead of being instituted at a very recent date? But it is idle to talk about the fact that the Department has only just been instituted, and at the same time to blame it, as some people are inclined to blame it, for not having already given evidence as to the serious work that it has done.
    I want, if I may, to remove, perhaps, some little suspicion from the minds of my Friends connected with the Labour party, to say that my experience has been that the leaders of the engineering sections, representing the men in a very great district in this country, with whom I have come in contact, have assured me that they have visited the works and they have obtained from the men the heartiest cooperation, because they have felt that this Parliament has committed itself to the principle that this War is not to be used as a weapon to reduce trade unionism or to alter the system or habits with which the workmen in any particular trade have always been associated, and with which they have always worked. I happen to know engineering works where they are about to replace some highly skilled men
    2384
    by semi-skilled men, because it happens to be repetition work which the semiskilled men can do equally well with the highly skilled men, who are about to go to another establishment where their higher skill will be very much more useful than the repetition work on which they have been engaged. These men are being transferred with the knowledge that they are not reducing themselves by being transferred. They are not losing their position, and they are not going to be given away by the fact that they are allowing other people for the time being to come and do this repetition work which only skilled people have done before. I think it only right that the record of this experience, which I have myself gathered, should be recognised here, and that it should not be understood that the exceptional experience, which has been condemned by the leaders of the trade union, of certain men in the coppersmith trade, represents the attitude of the engineers. It represents only a section of men who were misguided, and who, I imagine, have long since, or will very soon, become ashamed of that which they have done as having lowered the whole system of trade unionism by the selfish manner in which they have acted.
    I wanted if I could to get in the statement that the men only need to be told emphatically that this House will not permit the rate of pay that has been given to men for certain occupations to be reduced for the like occupations after the War is over, by reason of the skill, energy, and greater speed they have displayed during the time the War has been waged. Men engaged upon this work have to remember that they must look to the average man as well as to the man with the highest skill. You have in any trade to take care that all should live, because one important point you have to consider is that if men were required to work up to the level of those of greater speed and higher skill, it would ultimately prove detrimental, and might lead to a breakdown. During the War they may permit themselves to work at this high speed, and they will do so provided they feel that they are not going to be afterwards penalised by being expected to work at the same high speed. If they have that assurance then the output will be increased. I have come in contact with men whom I have assured that Parliament has solemnly and seriously declared in both Houses that the men who gave of their best during the War would not hereafter find that their pay would be reduced

    2385
    when the War is over; they will not be penalised because of the spurt they have made during the country's need. I visited last week very many engineering establishments, and the directors, managers, and leaders of the place, when I asked what was being done by the men, assured me, without a single exception in a very large district, that the men were working as hard as men could work, and there was no holding back. I was also told by a trade union leader in the district that if I were to speak to the men I would do no more good than he had already done, because the men had agreed that they would waive their trade union rules and let anyone come in; they felt that it was their time and their opportunity for doing, as they termed it, their "real bit" as well as the men in the trenches were doing theirs.
    9.0 P.M.
    That being so, I feel quite sure that the reiteration by the House, to-night, that those who work hard are going not only to assist in the War, but to help in bringing it to an earlier conclusion, without running the risk that they will suffer afterwards by a reduction of their rates owing to those increased efforts. If this is driven home to-night some of those regrettable instances, such as the strike of one trade because other men were brought in, will not occur again. After all, men engaged in a trade have given years of their lives to become proficient in it, and they have a right to be protected in connection with the industry by which they live. Therefore, if there should be an attempt, as many imagine, to break down their industry and to make of non-effect all their apprenticeship or all their training, they are apt to think that their occupation in future is at stake and that there is only one way in which to protest, and that is by refusing to work. But they are not refusing to work; they say that to "do so would be putting the country in peril. This putting the country in peril is recognised by the men, and I therefore ask that Parliament should reiterate again to-night that the men will not be put in peril, if they do their best, by waiving trade union conditions, every man working to increase his output, speeding up his tools, even if his fellows cannot work up to him. I have known of an instance— I will not say where—of a man who was told he was working too fast in the production of munitions. Lest it may be thought it was a private firm, I will mention the place—it was at Woolwich
    2386
    Arsenal last Sunday week. If men are told that they are working too fast it is because their fellow-workers fear that ultimately that too-fast working is going to pull down the whole of the piece-work rates. You can understand their purpose, therefore, in objecting, but if they feel that the too-fast workman, or the quick and rapid workman with greater strength, is not going to drop everybody down, then there will be no further trouble. I saw last week a man producing munitions at a higher speed than those working alongside him, but there was no trouble and no objection; the men knew that they had to produce these things and produce them at their best speed. Turning from that subject, the reassurance of the men as to their future rates after the War, may I say something in justification, perhaps, of some of the delay which has been alleged against the Ministry of Munitions in dealing with so-called inventions? There is not one invention in a hundred that are brought by people inexperienced in connection with war, that is worth the paper it is written on. That is shown by the number of patents which a person takes out and which fall through.
    The War Office and the Ministry of Munitions are flooded with applications from men with tinplate models of guns to put an end to the War, and of shells which would only kill those who tried to use them. They must not be surprised to find that experience shows that they are all useless, but I suggest that there should be as little delay as possible in forwarding the reason for their rejection, that that which they have proposed had long since been done. They rush in and propose things in connection with munitions that they never would propose in connection with any other industry and imagine only too frequently that everybody has been asleep, and that no one could ever have dreamt before of the invention they brought forward; whereas while one out of a hundred inventions may have something in it, the others have only impracticability associated with them. The Department now being formed, and the Committee set up to deal with these inventions, will deal with them in no hide-bound way, nor under old official methods. They will be dealt with by men who will seek to get that which is good and throw out that which is bad. I should like, if possible, the Minister of Munitions to send out assurances that there is no fear of the workmen's wages being reduced after the

    2387
    War is over, and if that fear is removed there will be a great increase in the output of munitions.
    Mr. ERNEST CRAIG: After the very serious statement which has been made with regard to the attitude of the men in reference to trade union regulations, I think it only right and fair that I should state what the men in the constituency I have the honour to represent are doing with regard to this question. I had the privilege of meeting the men in a large steel works and engineering works last week. Arrangements were made whereby I could meet the men in connection with some of the leading trade union men in that district at five o'clock each afternoon, and for half an hour we had the men from various shops, sometimes to the number of 1,500 and sometimes up to 2,500. I think I went round the whole of the works, and I placed before them the situation as the Minister of Munitions sees it at the present time. I urged upon them the necessity of relaxing all trade union rules and regulations, of encouraging unskilled labour to work beside that which is skilled, and to do all in their power to increase the supply of munitions by competing with each other, rather than by doing anything which would tend to restrict the output of any individual. On that being submitted to them, one of their own men got up and proposed a resolution in which they pledged themselves to do all that was humanly possible to increase the supply of munitions, and thereby to stand by their brothers in the trenches. That resolution was passed unanimously and enthusiastically at every meeting.
    I therefore think it is only right that it should be known that the engineers of Crewe, numbering something like 7,000, engaged not only upon munition work, but also upon railway repair work, pledged themselves to place themselves under the same rules and work under the same conditions as those working on munitions, in order that as large a number as possible should be drawn from railway repairs, and placed upon munition work. It is a small number in comparison with the very large numbers engaged throughout the country at the present time upon this serious and important work. But it does show, I think, the feeling of the highly intelligent engineering classes in this country towards the position which faces them at the present time. I am satisfied, as the hon Member opposite has just said,
    2388
    that when the matter is placed clearly before them, and when the men fully appreciate all that it means, and that the relaxation of those rules shall not in anywise prejudice them in the future, that all the rights, privileges and benefits which they as trade unionists hold at the present time shall be returned to them when the War is over, that then you will find a generous response throughout the country, similar to that which I found expressed in the town of Crewe itself, will be made to the appeal of the Minister of Munitions.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: I am sorry the Minister of Munitions is not in his place. I wish he could have heard the three last speeches which have been made. The speech of the hon. Member for Crewe clearly demonstrates that in the vast majority of cases the working men of this country are putting forth their best efforts. Similar experiences were given to us by the hon. Member for the Launceston Division of Cornwall (Sir G. Marks), on whose knowledge of trade union conditions I desire to congratulate him. I also wish to thank him for the statement he has made as to the manner in which the engineers of the district of which he speaks are working. I venture to suggest the fault in the speech of the Minister of Munitions. It is the repetition of a similar statement which he made in connection with drink earlier in the Session. The right hon. Gentleman hears of one case, possibly covering a few, comparatively few, men, and with that in his mind he comes down to the House and makes an assertion, based on the one instance, of a very sweeping character, and goes so far as to suggest that if there were the maximum of output in the factories the number of shells would be increased by at least 25 per cent. If he had heard the last two speeches, I am not sure that he would have been convinced, but at least he would have heard of experiences which show that the 25 per cent. figure he quotes is a gross exaggeration. My experience is similar to the experience which has now been related. I have been addressing meetings of munition workers of late. I had the honour of addressing first a meeting at the great works of Hornsbys, of Grantham. I spoke at eight meetings representing three districts. The managing directors had no serious complaint to make. The usual thing they say when you ask, as I asked particularly, how the

    2389
    men are working in this connection, is "Our men are doing very well."
    If the Minister of Munitions desires to get the best from the men, it will not be by making the sweeping statements he is apt to make, and which refer to a few, and by making it appear as if they had general and widespread reference. I wish Members could have had the experience I had last week. I went to Shelton Coal, Steel and Iron Works, and there you have men, day in day out, standing before furnaces. It is interesting to see, but one's interest is still maintained when one has passed on, which one is not sorry to do. You have men working for ten hours before furnaces, each of which has a capacity of 60 tons. One can imagine the heat which is necessary to make the steel bubble before one's eyes. Then the steel is dropped into the ingot, and passed on to rollers, an operation which is most interesting to watch. The men who have to stand before this terrific heat are keeping excellent time, and working magnificently, and I believe that record to be typical of the huge majority of the working men of this country. Hence, I deprecate the kind of statement which the Minister of Munitions is apt to make when he talks of trade unionists and trade union conditions. As a matter of fact, the point of view which my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge) has put before the House, is the point of view of the vast majority, not only of the Labour Members of Parliament, but of the great majority of trade unionists throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. They are prepared, under the guarantee of the Munitions Act, to set aside their trade union conditions, and they have been recommended to do so by their leaders. What they are a little diffident about is that they should be asked to sweat a little more to add one-fifth to the reasonable percentage of profit which is being made in certain works. When they are being asked to set aside standards which have been set up with very great difficulty, and when they are being asked to augment profits which are already high, they may then be a little diffident about putting out every ounce which is in them.
    As a matter of fact, it would appear that the shortage of the output of shells must be blamed on somebody. The blame is not accepted by the Government Departments. The right hon. Gentleman at a meeting upstairs told us of the very
    2390
    serious shortage in the matter of deliveries as compared with promises, but I blame those responsible in the early stages. They accepted promises and did not take the trouble to inspect the works to ascertain whether the promises could be in any measure fulfilled. To allow a certain firm to tender for 1,000 shells a week, and then to find, perhaps, that there were a man and two boys on the firm, was sheer absurdity. But when the shortage of delivery is ascertained, the blame has to be attached somewhere. The armament manufacturers, who are apparently responsible, refuse to take it. They endeavoured to keep others out of the ring, they accepted orders which they trusted to fulfil by sub-contracting, they could not fulfil them, and then the charge is made that the men were drinking. The new charge is that they are shirking, as the 25 per cent, extra output is not forthcoming. I venture to repudiate the charge and to say, from knowledge drawn from meetings which I have attended and from questions which I have put to the men in the management of these works, that in the main the working men engaged on munition work are working well.
    The shortage is one for which the working men at present engaged on the output of munitions are not responsible. The responsibility lies elsewhere, and there ought not to be these attempts to place it on the failure of the trade unions to set aside their trade union conditions. They are prepared to set them aside, and if the Schedule of the Munitions Act is placed more clearly before them, and the pledge of the Government made a little more clear than it has been made—and these meetings are helping to make the pledge more clear—I think we may anticipate that things will be better. An hon. Member who spoke just now indicated where one of the difficulties lies. He indicated that in his own experience where men had been stimulated to put forth greater efforts and had earned more, there had been what he called, inaccurately as I think, a natural reduction. There has been an unnatural reduction of piece-rates when men have put forward their best efforts, both in former times and in recent times. Instead of the American practice being followed, by which a man puts out his best and is paid for what he puts out, his best endeavours have been utilised, not only to depress him but to depress the standard generally. We know how difficult it has been for working men to raise their wages; how the employers have consolidated

    2391
    themselves against them; how the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has done all he could to keep wages down, and then mutters in this House that when men come out they should be given two years hard labour. That is a thing which in practice would be most unfortunate, because it is not by threats that output will be increased but only by goodwill. If we now make it absolutely clear that work on piece rates will be paid for, and that there will be no attempt made when wages rise to depress them by pointing out to a man that his weekly wage is now at such a figure that he can live on a good deal less—that is the kind of thing that trade unionists fear and have reason to fear from past experience. These things forced upon them by their experience in negotiating with employers cannot be driven out from their minds in a month or two, and Members have little right to expect it. To level a charge based on one or two isolated cases and to make a statement that output might be increased by 25 per cent, if these trade union conditions were waived is an exaggeration which I regret to hear in this House.
    Another point I would like to make is that when more output is being demanded and better time asked for, it should be remembered that the men are already putting in from sixty to seventy hours per week. Let me give an actual case of what is happening in a town which I visited recently. Complaint was made that some of the men did not come in quite at six o'clock in the morning. I asked how long they worked, and I found that, in spite of their coming a little ate they were working from sixty to seventy hours a week, and having one Sunday off in four. It is so easy in the circumstances in which we live to be very positive about slackers and losing time. I wonder how Members of this House would get along if they were putting in from sixty to seventy hours a week on work which tends to be extremely monotonous because of its very repetition, and if they were expected to work three Sundays out of every four. When men are asked to work from sixty to seventy hours a week on operations which are monotonous, to expect them to make a great show of diligence, to put as it were more ounces of labour into what they are doing, and to keep it up week after week, is asking a great deal.
    Sir F. BANBURY: These are serious times.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: These are serious times, and in these serious times the majority of men are doing it without complaint. Hence my regret that a complaint should be made which, by its generalisation, assumes a widespread character which can do no good and, in the circumstances, may do a great deal of harm. There is one thing the working man of this country will not tolerate, and that is a kind of forcing of his labour mixed up with threats and complaints of slackness. You can get better results by appealing to what is good in him. He will respond to the patriotic appeal of the needs of the country. More will be done in that direction than by the statements which are apt to be made in regard to slackers, who represent such a small minority of the working men of the country. There is a feeling amongst some of the workers that they are not getting the badges to which they are entitled. I recognise the difficulty in regard to use being made of them which the Minister of Munitions and every Member of this House would deplore. But there are men working in steel works who are keen to enlist but cannot be spared, and they feel the absence of the badge to which they are entitled. I have heard in two or three places similar complaints. These men, as the Minister of Munitions says, are engaged on work as important for the moment as work in the trenches. Let them be spared some of the looks which are apt to be directed towards them as they walk abroad, when, as a matter of fact, they are the greater patriots because they go about their daily-work on munitions instead of enlisting as their feelings prompt them to do.
    The Minister of Munitions in one part of his speech made our case. He said that in the sixteen works which he proposes to establish he is going to make shells at a much lower price. Shells are now being made in works which were built under lower conditions of labour and the less cost of material. The right hon. Gentleman is going now, at the present high prices for material and machinery, and the high labour cost, to produce shells at a lower cost than they are now being produced. What is the inference? That high prices far in excess of the maximum cost are being paid for shells to-day, and the workman knows it. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] Well, the Minister of Munitions says he expects less labour troubles. Why? Because the men will realise that when they work there they are

    2393
    not working for private profit. They are prepared to put forward their best efforts when they are assured that their labours are to be devoted solely to the interests of the country. Patriotism is widespread at the present moment in this country. It must not be assumed that there is any considerable body of workmen who are slacking; on the contrary, they are putting out their best efforts on behalf of the country.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): There are one or two points raised by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and some others who preceded him, which, perhaps, call for one or two observations. I will deal with the point last raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland—the issue of badges. When Members come to think about it, they will see that the question raises an innumerable host of complicated and difficult questions. I assure the House that, although the Ministry of Munitions have been almost daily for the last fortnight making promises that they are about to deal with the question of badges, that really we have not been wanting in efforts to try to get the matter put on a satisfactory footing. It is exceedingly difficult to draft rules which will be fair in their incidence between the different classes of labour involved. It is very difficult precisely to say what class of labour is such as to entitle the worker to a badge. It is very difficult to know where to draw the line, how the line is to be drawn, and who is to draw it. I am glad to say, however, that we have arrived at an agreement on this question with the War Office, and the rules which will govern the issue of badges have already been agreed upon. I hope that the process will now be carried on as expeditiously as possible. I should like, if hon. Members will, to, as far as possible, shield the Ministry of Munitions from what I am quite sure will be a whole host of complaints which will necessarily be made against us.
    Mr. CHANCELLORmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Dr. ADDISON: They have been made, because as a matter of fact every employer —quite naturally—and most workmen— quite naturally, too—feel that their particular job is the one job in the whole Kingdom which certainly should be recognised. We have had to regard the requirements of the War Office for recruits.
    2394
    We have had to regard the sufficiency or deficiency, as the ease may be, of that particular class of labour before we decide the question of the badge. We are really doing our very best in the matter. The Ministry of Munitions is entitled to ask the House of Commons to prevail upon employers and workmen in their constituencies to shield the Ministry to some extent from the hosts of complaints which are bound to be showered upon us. We shall, we know well enough, have to stand the racket; but at the same time this is one of the subjects in which it will be absolutely impossible to give satisfaction. We may as well recognise it when we start out. However, we shall try, with due regard to the interests of the Army for men, and with due regard to the maintenance of labour for the production of munitions, to issue these badges to those who are entitled to possess them.
    I quite agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, and with, I think, almost all the other speakers in respect to the importance which the men rightly attach to assurances in respect of their piecework rates. I am sure the hon. Member for Crewe had an experience which, so far as I can learn, is almost common to all those who have been working as he has in this way. I believe it is mainly due to the fact that the provisions of the Munitions Act, Second Schedule, are not fully understood and realised in the workshop that this difficulty has mainly arisen. In order to meet this, with the co-operation of my hon. Friend beside me and his colleagues, we have prepared a poster setting out in plain language, on the authority of the Government, what are the provisions of the Act in regard to alterations in rates of wages. We propose to post that in the different works throughout the country which are engaged in making munitions of war. I believe in this way we shall make the provisions of the Act in relation to the wage question widely known. In that way we shall remove a great deal of the misunderstanding to which hon. Members have alluded. I think, with these exceptions we have received, I am glad to find in advance the sympathetic support of the House, because the entrance to No. 6, Whitehall Gardens is sometimes a little encumbered by letters which are very angry with the officials of the Ministry of Munitions because they do not immediately take up the particular device of the writer, force it upon an unwilling War Office, and thereby end the War. Being

    2395
    one of those employed in the Ministry of Munitions, I am glad this particular work will fall upon the separate Departments, and we also congratulate ourselves that it will not be housed at 6, Whitehall Gardens.

    COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.
    Captain GUEST: I would like to ask the attention of the House for a few minutes to a subject somewhat different to that which has engaged the attention of Members, but a subject which, to my mind, is quite as important at this moment, that is as to whether or not we in this country will not have, sooner or later, to consider the possibility of adopting compulsory military service. To-night is a particularly good occasion on which to raise the subject for consideration, as to-day we have already had two statements which, to my mind, point to the necessity for us turning it over in our minds. This afternoon the Prime Minister told us that we must consider that this War may turn itself into a contest of endurance. We have also heard from the Minister of Munitions that there are difficulties which may have to be faced in other directions. However, I do not raise the subject in an attitude which is at all unfriendly, or with any idea or object of embarrassing the Government. The Government at the present time carries on its shoulders sufficient burdens without anyone going out of their way to add to their cares, unless they feel they must try to put forward something in the shape of a suggestion. I think possibly those of us who feel the necessity for this innovation may be even of some use to the Government, because we possibly know some of the difficulties they may have to face and overcome if they undertake it. Anyhow, it seems to me that it cannot do any harm to ventilate the matter and discuss it openly. So much harm seems to me to be brought about by working behind the scenes. In any case, the ventilation of the subject, if it had the result of drawing anything in the shape of a statement of intention, or anything of that kind, or even an indication of its being seriously considered, would do a great deal to counteract agitation or to allay the anxiety of anyone who might feel inclined to write or speak in favour of it during the Recess. I think also it may induce the Government, when such time may come, to know that some who before the War were opposed to any form of
    2396
    compulsion are now ready, if necessary, to back them through thick and thin.
    I do not myself put forward my change of views on any political grounds whatsoever. I regard the necessity for the close consideration of this matter by the Government purely on the ground of expediency. If I might say one word about the difficulty in which one finds oneself in being both a soldier and a Member of Parliament, it would be simply to say one appreciates the fact that one's position is difficult; but it seems to me some special use might almost have been made of people who occupy that dual position, instead of being, as it almost appears they are, regarded as a nuisance. If I give my word that I do not in any word I say represent any opinion other than my own I may claim the indulgence of the House this evening. Instead of adopting the attitude of embarrassing the Government, if such a thing were possible in so humble an effort, I would turn rather to hon. Members of the party with whom I have served, if I could but persuade them at least to keep their minds open on this subject. My object also would be to put forward the claims for the urgency of dealing with this matter. One cannot do it, I agree, without running two risks. The first would be, perhaps, in some way embarrassing the Government; the other—perhaps the more serious point of view—is whether or not it would in any way be of advantage to the enemy. I heard this afternoon some remarks about the performances of the Government during nine months of the War, and it seems to me that during that period, judging by the accounts one has read, they enjoyed the completest confidence and the most unquestioned support, and it was not until after they made some disclosures themselves of some shortcomings that the House took upon itself to ask questions. Therefore, it does not seem that any harm can be done by private Members putting suggestions forward.
    Further, as to the point of view that it could be of any advantage to the enemy to discuss such an innovation, I must register my opinion that it is not only of no advantage to the enemy, but the mere fact that we are prepared even to consider the taking of so serious a step, in order to make ourselves more fully equipped and organised to carry the War to a conclusion, would be nothing but discouraging in the highest degree. The point of view to be realised, in my humble opinion, is that it would be of incalculable

    2397
    encouragement to our Allies, and I think that they would appreciate the fact even more than we can understand the fact that we are in real earnest. Another argument in favour of urgency seems to me the development at the end of twelve months of war. There is no doubt that many of us had hoped that the positions we occupy in different parts of the world would have been somewhat different from what they are to-day. I believe, without adding anything further, that is to-day one of the gravest reasons why we should consider the urgency of this problem.
    Our problem is to win and to win quickly. We have special reasons why we took bur share in the great conflict. Perhaps I am right in saying that ours was, perhaps, more a matter of principle than it was of self-preservation. I think that the order of those two things is gradually becoming somewhat reversed. Our duty and the burden which we accepted of not sheathing the sword, as the Prime Minister said, until we had got back for Belgium even more than she had lost, will take, It seems to me, a great deal of doing. It seems to me it will require all the men, all the money, and all the organisation that we can possibly put into working order so as to bear the strain sufficiently long to bring that about successfully. It is for those reasons, perhaps as much as any other, that I recommend to the consideration of those Members with whom I worked for so many years to keep their minds open on the necessity of compulsory service. If I may say so, on land the burden—anyhow as we see it every day in the papers — in mileage has been undoubtedly borne up to now by our gallant Allies. It seems to me that an opinion worth considering and bearing in mind in this connection is the opinion of the soldier. I think if one realises that the soldier of to-day is the elector of a year ago, and will be perhaps the elector of to-morrow, we may eliminate from our consideration the influence of the professional soldiers, because, after all, they undertook to serve before the War—they do not complain; they merely do their work—but when we have an Army of the size that we possess to-day, knowing it to be composed of men who only undertook the job purely from the point of view of self-sacrifice, I think perhaps we have a right to consider what their opinions on this subject might be. The moral effect upon the troops, as I would imagine, both
    2398
    fighting and in training, would be very great, and very beneficial indeed. Anyhow, speaking from the point of view of what one hears out there, the cry is often heard, "When are those at home who have not come forward going to bear their fair share?" Whether the same opinion is held by those in training I am not in a position to say. Another consideration should be the effect of such an innovation upon our great Western Allies. If I may say so, it is a land which has produced a race of men every one of whom has proved himself to be a hero. They have surprised Europe by showing qualities of which perhaps they were not suspected, qualities of stoicism and tenacity. Her Army is splendid. A prolonged war may bring in its train in that country difficulties, political or otherwise, but I am sure that if we could give to France the encouragement which the adoption of this system would bring it would enable that country much more easily to ignore any such influences. If we took the final plunge I believe its effect in that direction would be very great indeed. I would like to ask hon. Members whether they are really satisfied, after reviewing the situation for the last twelve months, with the comparative efforts of the two countries. Take France, with a much smaller population than our own. It has produced a proportion of troops which those who know the numbers will agree is enormously in excess of our own proportion, and I imagine at an expenditure of probably half our own, and I should think, judging from the public debates, they have produced munitions many, many times in excess of those which we have been able to turn out. There you find men and women and boys have cultivated every square inch of their rich country, and one cannot help looking back over that period and wonder whether we can rest satisfied with the efforts we have made in the comparisons which I have put forward.
    If I may be allowed to deal with a very practical point it would be this. I think the system of enlistment in operation today in England is probably responsible for a great deal of our difficulties in many directions. We have the dual system. We have the Territorial Associations enlisting on one side of the street and the recruiting sergeant on the other side, and it seems to me that this system is open to the charge of being indiscriminate and extravagant. I know a case which I

    2399
    imagine is merely typical of thousands of others. A wise Territorial Association on one side of the street refused to take a man because he happened to be a skilled worker, and he was told that the best way to serve his country was to work at the bench. The man is determined to have another try, and he goes across the street to the recruiting sergeant and pleads that he is a casual labourer, and in that way he gets sent to the front, and, as the Minister of Munitions has told us, it is very difficult after he has gone to get him back again. If one looks a little more closely into this indiscriminate enlistment one is brought up against the fact that we have in the last twelve months accepted the voluntary services of a great many people who would have been far more economically employed if they had been left behind. You find all through the Army men in the position of landlords who might use their influence amongst recruits to separate the useful from the useless, and they would have been doing greater service at home. There are numbers of employers who have given up businesses in order to take their part in the War. We find numbers of foremen who have left businesses which have run into a condition of chaos. I think also you will find, if you look into the matter, that men have gone below the level of the manager and the foreman, whom I should call the workshop "ganger," who at election times control the dinner hour meeting. Those are the men whom it is difficult to replace, and if there had been an organised system instead of all this indiscrimination, we might have been saved a great many of the labour troubles which have occurred during the last twelve months. From what we have heard to-night from the Minister of Munitions it is possible that we may recover a great many of these men. I admit that I am not quite satisfied myself, and I should be greatly reassured if we could have a somewhat stronger assurance than we have had from the Minister of Munitions that this fact is admitted by the Government, and that they intend to pay close attention to it with a view to remedying it before the matter goes too far.
    I imagine that we must still have in this country hundreds of thousands of men who are still under training. It may be difficult to apply this suggestion to those abroad, but if it could be applied rigorously to all those who are in this country the evil might be overcome and a great
    2400
    deal of good might be done. We have often heard the argument of the economic mistake of taking married men so freely, but that argument is one which I think it is quite unnecessary for me to go into this evening. It has been most elaborately explained and accepted on all sides by the public generally. I must, however, put forward one more argument against the present system. The papers last night gave us the figures of the total casualties, and I imagine those men will mostly be unable to take much further part in the War. I imagine that those 330,000 men are probably the best, and those casualties are the result of holding the line, which is not very long. As time goes on, if that line is increased, and the casualties amount to anything like reasonable proportions, I think before we have been another year in this War we may have lost such a number of our best and most valuable men that the loss will be very great indeed. Surely it is not carrying the argument too far when I say that the Armies which come later, whatever their numbers are, as you get further and draw deeper from the pool, so it seems to me you will draw from a less good quality and leave a less good quality behind. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] I have heard, in answer to these suggestions which have been put forward, that it is too late to make a change, but I submit that that depends on one thing, and on one thing alone, and that is in your calculation as to the duration of the War. If one were satisfied that it were drawing to a close, I would be the very last to suggest such a great alteration, but I do not see how anybody can possibly maintain that opinion in the face of the events that have happened during the last few months.
    The only other point I would like to ask the House to consider would be the effect it would have, first of all, upon our opponents. As I have already said, I think it would be most discouraging to them. The effect that would have upon neutrals would be of a steadying character, and I think it would satisfy them that we were prepared to go to any limits to win the War. Upon our Allies I firmly maintain that it would have an effect of instantaneous encouragement to even greater efforts still. I believe it would be, perhaps, even unnecessary to put the machinery in action. The effect of the mere fact that you told the country that you thought it was sufficiently serious to even consider shortly, under certain conditions bringing

    2401
    forward such a measure would be, I think, really to make them realise the altered conditions and the more significant considerations of the War. I think that as far as we are concerned here it would enable us to establish ourselves, both as the trusted servant and the respected leader of the nation.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I do not think anyone would complain of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced the subject. We are satisfied both from his actions in the past and the services he has rendered to the Army, that he is actuated by the highest and best of motives. I think I am equally entitled to say that we have now reached a stage, in discussing this question, when those of us who may take the opposite view can also take it without being accused of in any way doing anything to hamper or hinder the good work of our gallant men. It is hardly necessary for me to say that those of us who sit on these Benches, as responsible Labour men and Labour leaders, have shown throughout the whole of this War that we are not unmindful of our duties, responsibilities, and, if I may say so, our patriotism to the country in her hour of need, and in saying that I immediately join issue with those who assume that, simply because a speech is made in the House of Commons, or even a measure passed, it settles the question. I am a responsible leader of the largest trade union in the world, and, if I may say so without egotism, I think I can claim to at least say that my men follow me, and equally that I am not afraid to tell the men when I think they are wrong. It is, however, useless giving my assent or support, as a leader, to any proposition unless I am satisfied absolutely that I can carry my men with me. That is the all-important point to consider in discussing the question.
    10.0 P.M.
    We entered this War as a voluntary nation with a voluntary Army and with all the environment and traditions of voluntaryism. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member would claim that our enemy, whether it be Germany or any other nation, whatever their system may be, has produced soldiers of more courage, valour, heroism, or sacrifice than our voluntary soldier has shown up to now. Have we, as a House of Commons, had any evidence yet submitted by any responsible Minister that any call that has ever been made upon the nation has not been responded
    2402
    to? Let us examine the facts. The very first call that was made for men was so magnificently responded to that Lord Kitchener himself, in order to check it, had to alter the height standard. It is true to say that in itself not only caused confusion, but also had the effect absolutely of retarding recruiting. Notwithstanding those difficulties, it is true to say that up to the last appeal that has ever been made on behalf of the War Office we have been assured on the highest possible authority that every response that was expected has been made. We are therefore justified in saying that until the responsible Minister comes down and himself says that the nation has failed to give him the material he requires there is no case made out whatever for the change.
    I want to approach the question from another standpoint. Have we as a nation made or are we making a fair contribution to the War waged on behalf of the Allies? It will not only be generally agreed that our Navy is doing all that was expected from it, doing it silently under great difficulties, and doing it well, but it must be admitted that the real value of the contribution of our Navy to themselves cannot be calculated even by the Allies. It is probably true to say that the contribution of our Navy is one of the largest contributions of any of the nations engaged. It is equally true to say that we have raised, on our voluntary system, the largest Army that was ever contemplated by those who advocated military service. I have never yet read any speech or heard anyone say but what the contribution of our own voluntary Army sent to the front and raised in this country has been larger than was ever anticipated. Mark you, this has been so in spite of all the sinister efforts of the conscriptionists, because we have got to face this fact, that voluntaryism has not had a fair trial. We find one of the largest organs of the Press refusing point blank to accept advertisements, and we have seen the voluntary system decried from day to day. We have seen the sacrifice of the married man ridiculed, and when we talk about the cost of the married man it is no use saying that he is too expensive unless you admit that you are paying too much for his sacrifice. I put it to you that no amount of money can pay the married or the single man for the services he is rendering us to-day Therefore, I submit that these arguments are important, and most important of all is this, in my opinion, that the financing of this great

    2403
    War is probably the greatest and best contribution that this country could make. If we are to finance the War, and if the silver bullet is to win in the end, then to be producers is all essential, and the more people you make consumers and not producers, to that extent you prevent us being the financial stability we ought to be.
    I want to examine it from another standpoint, and I am going to take the four most important industries in this country. To commence with I will take coal. What is the position with regard to that trade today? The Government appointed a Committee representative of employers of labour, of representatives of the coal owners, and of the chief inspectors of mines to examine the effect of voluntary recruiting on the coal industry. The Committee presented a Report nearly two months ago, and this is one of the paragraphs:—
    "The evidence before us is conclusive that if labour is further withdrawn from the collieries the output will be so reduced as to seriously affect, the industrial position of the country, and the time appears to the Committee to have arrived when very fall consideration should be given to the question as to whether further recruiting amongst the miners should he encouraged."
    And that is to be used as an argument for compulsory military service! I want to try and examine the question fairly as it appears to me, an ordinary working man. Here it is agreed that not only has the miners' contribution been a magnificent contribution, but one of the staple industries of the country would be seriously affected if you recruit any more men from the coal-fields.
    Next we come to the railways. Out of 605,000 railway men at the commencement of the War 86,000 odd have voluntarily enlisted, and the position had become so acute in March of this year that the railway companies had to say to the War Office, "If you take one more man from the railway service we refuse to be responsible for the carrying of your troops." They actually did say that. It is no use the hon. Baronet opposite shaking his head. I know it is so, and, moreover, it was given in evidence before us as a Select Committee. The result is that no railway man to-day can be accepted unless he has a letter from his railway employer. That means that, so far as coal and railways are concerned, you have exhausted the men there.
    With regard to munitions, need I argue that every skilled engineer, everyone who can make shot or shell, is essential at this moment? The Minister of
    2404
    Munitions has already indicated that they have had to bring men back from the front, and therefore you have got to apply compulsory military service to one industry again that has already supplied too many. Let me take the next case. Your arguments would be all right if you are going to say, "You take too many from one and not enough from the other." I am going to ask, Where are you going to get your men from? I have already given the cases of coal, railways, and munitions. Now we come to agriculture which is all-important. So serious had the position become that the Board of Agriculture had to arrange with the War Office for a supply of soldiers to help bring in the hay harvest, and they are now making arrangements for large numbers of soldiers for the corn harvest. In the opinion of the Board of Agriculture itself not another man can be recruited from that industry. I put it to this House that here you have four important industries, employing millions of men, which all go to show that so far as these industries are concerned no more men can be spared.
    Let us take the unemployed returns. Can you point to any industry that shows a surplus of labour? Is not the difficulty to-day not only in the four industries I have mentioned, but in every other industry an absolute shortage of labour? Is it not true to say that every effort is being made to get women into these particular works? Therefore I submit, examine it from that particular standpoint, where do you get? You absolutely get to the position that, so far as military service is concerned, you are getting all the men that you require, and when responsible Ministers say they want more then will be the time for you to reorganise your methods and see if you can get them in a different way. But up till now there has been no evidence to justify that. I want to go further, and apply the practical side of it. The one evil of the change, above all others, would be a break in the unity of our people. I believe it is necessary to wage this War to a successful end, and I believe also the thing important above all others, is to have all parties, all creeds, rich and poor, absolutely united to that end. I am absolutely sure that at this stage— when the people have responded so magnificently, when, if any mistakes have been made, they have not been mistakes at the bottom but mistakes at the top, when if there have been any differences they have not been differences among the workers

    2405
    but differences which have been shown at the other end—the workers of this country will want more evidence than has yet been produced before they will agree to a system of that kind.
    Remember, we are a free people. Our institutions are free, and we have fought for freedom in the past, I put this question: Who is going to choose? Try to apply the practical side of the matter. Let me assume that you have this system in operation. Apply it to the railways. Who is going to say whether this man or that one shall go? If the military authority is going to decide, then those responsible for the running of the railways will say: "You will have to take the responsibility for running the railways." On the other hand, if you are going to throw the responsibility upon the railway manager, he is going to be accused of picking and choosing and of victimising men, and you are going to have internal strife, strikes, and everything else. I therefore beg of you to realise the difficulties of the situation. You talk about compelling the workers of this country. What better illustration of the failure of that could you have than in what happened last week? You passed a Munitions Act. You put in operation the Proclamation, and in twenty-four hours the Act was an entire failure. Why? Because the men themselves resented it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I am not going into the merits. I hold very strong views on the merits, because I frankly say I would never abdicate Government responsibility, and I would never give way to any section of the people. I hold that strong view and have said so. But that does not alter the fact that your Munitions Act, with all its penalties, failed utterly and absolutely the first time it was put into operation. What is going to become of any Act in which you talk about compulsion? Therefore I say, let us continue our voluntary system; Jet us realise that the spirit which animates our gallant soldiers and sailors is the feeling that they are free men. They have entered into this War, they are making sacrifices and risking their lives, because they believe they are fighting for freedom and liberty and against militarism and all that it means. No words of mine could express my feelings of admiration for those gallant men. No words of mine could express what I felt about our women who are to-day mourning for the loss of many gallant people. But I am satisfied that if we were to attempt to depart from that system
    2406
    to-day it would be fatal to the best interests of this nation. I believe the overwhelming mass of the people of this country feel it. I believe you would be making a fatal step. I believe we will continue, under the voluntary system, to wage this War to a successful issue and not have to say we broke down the German military system to establish an English military system in this country. That is my feeling. I hope we shall go on with the Debate free from personalities and passion, but I sincerely submit to the House that the views that I have expressed in all sincerity are the views of the overwhelming mass of the working men of this country.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: This Debate takes me back to old times. In listening to the hon. Member's most eloquent speech, I have heard the echoes of all the fine old doctrines we preached for so many years before there was a war. After all, we are in a war now, and unless we see it through all these high and admirable sentiments will be washed away in unpleasantly thick fluid which I have no desire to see spilt in this country. But I ask the House to observe that in the magnificent speech to which we have just listened there was always reintroduced a very valuable safeguard. The hon. Member was opposed to compulsory service, but he always introduced this proviso—provided that the responsible Minister does not tell us we must have compulsory service. That is the whole point. He has not done it yet, but when he does it, will all these conclusive arguments about there not being a man to spare vanish into thin air because the Prime Minister has spoken? According to the hon. Member they will. If the Prime Minister says the state of affairs is so serious that compulsory service must be introduced, agriculture, and even the railways, will have to spare some of their labour in order to take its place in the fighting line. [Interruption.] The hon. Member (Sir William Byles) is older than I am. He ought to know that in the course of a lifetime we see many changes. He has seen an old colleague change his point of view, and he may even see a Prime Minister do the same. I want to follow" out these arguments used by the hon. Member (Mr. Thomas) and see what they amount to. Not a man to spare from the railways of the country! Let him go to France and see the ladies taking tickets in the trains.
    An HON. MEMBER: They do it here.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: They do occasionally, at certain places only. I think the whole House will agree that even on the railways of this country there is large additional scope for female employment if necessary. Take agriculture. Let him go to France—he cannot go to Germany— and see how agriculture is being carried on there by women and prisoners. There is some possibility for agriculture in this country on the same lines. Is it munition workers he wants? I remember listening this afternoon to the cheer that went up from the other side when it was suggested that what we want is all our factories making munitions and no buying from America. We can buy from America and let all Englishmen fight, if necessary. An hon. Member asks, "How can we buy from America?" I reply, "We can buy on English credit, which is still good enough."
    An HON. MEMBER: Where will it be if we are beaten?
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Yes. Where? We are told that we must carry on industry in this country and that it is necessary that every man must be employed on the same old lines of "business as usual," which has been the biggest curse of this War. We are told we must make silver bullets. Who is going to fire them if everyone is going to be employed in making them? In times long ago we used to be able to find paid mercenaries to fight for us, but this is not a struggle in which we can buy mercenaries to fight for us to-day. We are up against a great proposition, in which we have got to fight for ourselves. We are not doing it badly, but we are doing it because of the patriotism and self-sacrifice of a part, though a large part of the population of this country.
    What about the justice for these patriotic men of allowing them to be the only ones to make the self-sacrifice? I think we ought to see that there is a certain amount of fairness shown in this matter, and that not only the men who are prepared to lay down their lives for their country, but every man should have a chance of joining in that most glorious sport. It is rather unfair that only those who dare to fight for their country do so, and that those who do not dare are those who stay behind, content not only to stay behind, but to take the jobs of the men who have gone; so that when the men come back, after the War is over, they
    2408
    will find some junior whipper-snapper in their place, and they will have to go off to another country and seek a fresh opening there. That sort of thing is happening in many cases at the present time. That is the reason why I am sorry to see the House rising for six weeks without some statement from a responsible Minister, from the Prime Minister himself, that he does contemplate, if need be, the raising of an Army in this country on compulsory lines. I do not say that it is necessary yet, but I do say that what we want is a lead from the Prime Minister, from the only leader in the country, to say that when circumstances warrant it he will not shy at that possibility; but that he will expect from Englishmen that they shall all take their fair share and not satisfy themselves by cheering the devotion of others. I think what we want in this country more than money, more than shells, more even than men, is a leader, a leader who shall give the country a lead. Everybody is looking for a leader. Hon. Members laugh. I do not pretend to deal with the subject from a humorous point of view. Times of war are very different from times of peace. In times of peace I think one can get on very well without a leader. In times of peace we can qualify ourselves to be our own leaders, but in times of war you have got to sacrifice the individual to the community. You have got to have a dictator, if possible; a man who will direct. I do not care whether he runs risks or makes mistakes, but, for God's sake, give us a leader who will lead without fear of consequences. The whole world, not merely this country, but the whole world, from Vladivostock to San Francisco, is looking to see whether or not we can develop a leader.
    They are watching to see whether it is possible for us to shape into line with the new conditions, whether we are prepared to face the test of giving up not only money, of which we have plenty, not only principles, which are easily shed, but of giving up the one thing which you are all afraid of shedding when it comes to the point—your life. That is the whole thing. Are you prepared to do what France has done? They have stood the test. You have in France a million men dead for freedom. They have stood the test well. A million men there founded themselves on the teachings of the men who came from the Gironde and from Marseilles. They have died in order that France may be saved

    2409
    and in order that freedom may be saved. I think that the majority of this country are prepared if necessary to go to the same lengths and for the same objects. But the majority should remember and insist that the same principle should apply all round, and that all citizens of England should be prepared to defend this country in the situation to which it has come just as the citizens of France have done. But I do not want to develop these questions. I am not asking the English people to be like the French. Nor am I asking them to be like the Germans, for I am profoundly grateful that they cannot be. But I want Englishmen to realise that every act of devotion and self-sacrifice is required at the present time, and is ennobling in spite of the fact that it involves compulsion. It is quite clear to me that what is really fine about compulsory service in time of war is that it involves self-sacrifice and devotion, and that it involves an exceptional measure of these qualities, and therefore the compulsion to which you have to submit is not degrading as it would be if it did not involve this self-sacrifice.
    I think not only is that the view at the present time of the majority of the citizens of this country—of course, it is predominantly the view of the men who are already risking their lives in the trenches —but, in spite of what the hon. Member for Derby has said, I think that it is also the view of the best of the working classes in this country. I believe that in speaking to-night I should by no means put on a white sheet. I am by no means a radical renegade. I represent here to-day the views of all the fighting leaders of the labour movement during the last five years—Cunning-ham-Grahame, Ben Tillett, and John Scurr—and the leaders of every syndicalist movement. All these men are now in the fighting line. They are now talking as I am talking. They are all for smashing the German spirit. Smashing it with "silver bullets" and with "business as usual"? No! All these people—and I know them well. I have spoken day after day and week after week to labour audiences for five years—these people share my view because they have a hatred of slavery. They have been prepared, at any time, to lay down their life for freedom. All the more are they prepared to go to that length now in order to prevent a German domination of the world, which will mean not only the domination of the
    2410
    German Kaiser, but the domination of a German religion, wholly antagonistic to English ideas. That is why all the advanced parties of the labour movement are what may be described by some others as militarists at the present time. They are there to fight what they understand is the German spirit of militarism and materialism based upon the doctrines of Nietzsche. There is one particular reason why I Want an early declaration from the Prime Minister, why I want to hear as soon as possible the decision upon whether we are to make this sacrifice or not, and it is this: During last year we have not progressed so far as we thought we should towards our goal. One of our Allies is in a very difficult position at the present time. But what the year has taught us, the marvel it has shown, is the regeneration of France. A year ago they were flying before the Prussians into the centre of France. A year ago they themselves thought that they were a nation helpless in the face of German organisation. That has all gone. Now the Frenchman knows quite well that he is at least the equal of the German, and, man for man, can keep up with him. The French woman has shown that her endurance is superior to the endurance of the German frau. Their organisation of the munition service is every bit as good as that of Germany. When you consider that the industrial portion of France is overrun by the barbarians, it is a marvel to see her development at the present time. Their 75's are better than the guns used by the Germans. The French are not only the most dangerous military opponents of Germans at the present time, but Germany knows it. Is it not only too evident that they will do everything they can to buy off the French opposition? I have no doubt that they will offer France peace on easy terms. They will give them Alsace-Lorraine back; they will offer them half Belgium. These are the temptations that they will put before the people. Put yourselves in the place of the French. If your country were overrun, a million men dead, the risk of extermination—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"]—an offer of peace on such terms—[An HON. MEMBER: "Have you forgotten revolutionary France?"] I have not forgotten revolutionary France, but I have also not forgotten Buonaparte. France's Army will hold out, the women of France will hold out—I believe France will hold out. But have we any right to submit

    2411
    her to the temptation without taking just as big a share in this War as they are taking themselves?
    We have no right to ask them to sacrifice their sons and not ourselves take our share in the line. We are holding only 40 miles; our casualties are one-tenth of theirs. We saved them last year, and we saved ourselves at the same time. This may be called by some an indiscreet speech, but is it not an indiscreet attitude that this country is taking up? There are plenty of people to say that we are doing everything in the War. Is it not time to put ourselves in the shoes of our Allies, and to consider what some of them may think of our efforts at the present time? I believe that this is the pledge we ought to give to our Allies, to say that we will undertake national service if necessary in order to hold a fair share of the line, and take upon our shoulders a fair share of the slaughter of this War. This is not a war out of which we can stand now. In the beginning we might have stood out of the War, not with honour and safety, but now we are in this War and we are the nation the Germans hate, we are the people who are in most danger, and I think it is about time that we should realise this more fully than we do, and show that we realise it in the only practical way. This is not a war about the balance of power; it is not a war got up by dynasties; it is not a war engineered by Statesmen to deal with some national aspiration. It is a war of two different creeds—two fundamentally different creeds, it is a war of religion. Here we stand at the present time, and we know it in this House, we stand as we have often pretended to stand in the past, but as we really stand now—for those old-fashioned doctrines of liberty and justice, individual and national freedom, for the faith in the rights of man, for the faith in the perfectability of mankind, undisciplined, uncontrolled. They stand for a religion based upon force, the right of force; the right of the sword; the right of one man to control his neighbours, to force them to his point of view. Those are the two points of view which are warring at the present time. They are so fundamentally different, they go down to the bedrock of human nature. Those two points of view are warring together. I, for one, am prepared to make any sacrifice, to go to any length, to see that the German ideal is crushed.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: Seldom, I suppose, has this House listened to a more deplorable speech. The main portion of the speech was devoted to what the Prime Minister earlier to-day called a calumny on the people of this country. The Prime Minister spoke with prescience, as, I suppose, he knew that somebody like my hon. Friend would get up here to-night to make these aspersions on the honour of this country, and which is supposed to be a form of patriotism in these days. And, knowing in advance what some ill-advised and foolish persons said, he described it in one sentence as a calumny upon the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] The portion of the speech, which did not amount to calumny on the people of this country, was devoted to caluminating the people of France, our glorious Ally. What did the hon. Gentleman say about France? He said that, in spite of the fact that we entered into this quarrel mainly in order to maintain the integrity of France and her possessions—[An HON. MEMBER: "He never said anything of the kind."] I remember well the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary told us that Germany guaranteed the integrity of France, they offered not to bombard the coast towns of France, but they refused to maintain the integrity of the French possessions beyond the seas—an infamous proposal, as the Prime Minister called it on the 6th August last year—and because of that infamous proposal made to us we, the people of this country, like one man sprang to arms to defend and help our Allies. The hon. Gentleman is one of the men who refused to support the Government at that time. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has fought for his country since."] Yes, and I dare say a great many more of us would be glad to do the same but for accidents over which we have no control. The hon. Gentleman said that, in spite of that, France might be tempted to make a separate peace without consultation with or the approval of this country. A more dastardly suggestion could not be made against the honour of one of the greatest countries of Europe. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am in the recollection of the House. If his words meant anything, they meant that. Although I am not French, I love and honour that great country as much as anyone, and I say that such a suggestion is to cast dishonour and discredit upon France. [An HON. MEMBER: "You misunderstood altogether."]
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I do not think it ought to be suggested that I made a dastardly attack upon France. The way I put it was this: The temptation was very great, and we ought not to inflict such a temptation upon an allied nation.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The whole burden of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that this country had done practically nothing. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Nothing commensurate with her ability and capacity. Let me ask the House to be fair to the country. It used to be said that there was a party of "Little Englanders" in this country. Where are the "Little Englanders" to-day? [An HON. MEMBER: "There is one!"] I venture to say that no country in the world has ever done so much as England has done during the last twelve months. Three million men have joined the Colours. [An HON. MEMBER: "Out of twelve million!"] I do not care out of how many. You have three millions who have volunteered. I ask the House to reverse the position for a moment. Suppose England had been invaded by a foreign foe; suppose the fairest parts of Kent, Sussex, and Hampsire were in the hands of the enemy; sup pose London had almost been invested how many men from any Continental country do you think would have volunteered to come forward to help this country? Yet before the foot of a single invader has trod English soil we have 3,000,000 men who have volunteered. That is a spectacle which no country and no age has ever before presented. What else have we done? We have sunk our domestic differences. Is that a small thing? There is not a single measure which either the late Government or the present Government has asked the House of Commons to pass which has not been passed. I will not say with enthusiasm, but at all events with a reasonable amount of unanimity. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There has hardly been a Division on any controversial subject since the War began. If you search the history of any country; if you search your own history during the Napoleonic Wars, the Seven Years' War, the Wars of Louis XIV., or the time of the Spanish Armada, you never had such a spectacle of national unity and solidarity as has been presented by England during the past twelve months. What has England done? What has England suffered, that we should be forced to listen to men who traduce her honour and fame? Is there a single Vote of Credit—
    Sir CHIOZZA MONEY: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman, who opposed the War at the beginning, entitled to traduce the motives of hon. Members who have previously addressed the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is present. If he takes any exception to what has been said he can defend himself.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: I am quite able to defend myself; it is not worth while.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman described himself as a renegade-Radical. In spite of what has been said I am still a Radical—without a hyphen! I do not shed my principles. I cannot get rid of the principles which I have been taught to revere simply because we are in the middle of a great war, and unless it can be shown to me, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the winning of the War depends upon the abandonment of those principles. In regard to the hon. Member for Northampton, I am not surprised that he should feel perturbed when he hears good old English principles. I come of the oldest race in this Island. I suppose I am racy of the soil. What history proves above all other things is this, that freedom, individual and collective, is racy of our soil. I remember reading a short time ago an account by an Italian visitor to England in the fifteenth century. What struck that visitor most of all was "the spirit of freedom; of free, independent liberty which pervaded all these fierce islanders." That, thank God, has continued down the centuries. Freedom is the breath of our nostrils. Though you may say that in a time of war the fact that we are a free people does not help to carry on the War with as much efficiency as the dragooned and well-disciplined hordes of Prussia, I am quite sure of this, there are other things that make up for the deficiency of our organisation. Organisation is not everything. The Prime Minister, about 6th June, made a short speech here welcoming the advent into the field of our latest Ally, Italy. He described that country as the custodian of the free traditions of Europe, and he went on to say that, because she was the custodian of those free traditions, she had maintained her genius and her initiative, which was foreign to the very idea of the Prussian militarism we are fighting. If there had been conscription in this country ten years ago I am not prepared to say you might not be able to

    2415
    adapt the circumstances of the moment to conscription, but gratefully I say England has not had conscription, and I say that in a time of great national emergency like this, when the War has been started, you cannot alter the whole constitution and basis of your society. It is all very well to say that if we had conscription and organisation as in Germany we might, for instance, not have had the strike in South Wales. You may say, if you like, that a strike is a very bad thing. I am quite sure that such a thing as that would have been impossible in Germany. I say further that, though the strike may be a bad thing in itself, it is evidence of a spirit of victory.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Treachery.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Treachery to whom? [HON. MEMBERS: "TO us!"] Who are the traitors? The men who strike out for themselves or the masters who force them to do it? I do not wish to have any controversy on that matter. I am willing to concede for the moment—for the sake of argument—that the strike is a bad thing. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that a section of the community has no right at a time of great national emergency to dictate to the Government, or to attempt to dictate to the Government, but I say this: it is all very well for a Government, if it has a well-disciplined, a well-drilled and dragooned people such as the Prussians for two centuries and the Germans for two generations to apply those methods; but you cannot apply them here. It is not a question of argument. People talk of compulsion of labour and conscription. I say you cannot do it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the people of this country will not have it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, you tried last week compulsion in South Wales. You had your Munitions Act passed only three weeks ago. You had, I suppose, one of the most popular Ministers administering that Act, a man who is universally respected—certainly in Wales, and I believe all over the country. The South Wales district was proclaimed. Yet events showed that you cannot dragoon the people of this country. Their traditions and whole instincts are against it. They have been brought up in a free atmosphere. You cannot dragoon the people of England by passing an Act of Parliament or talking in this way. Our
    2416
    Allies are in a different category. They have had to face a great military Power on their border for generations, and they have become accustomed to conscription. The only answer to the argument about the necessity of being prepared to put every man in the field is this: You have appealed to the voluntary patriotism of the people of this country and it has hitherto been found sufficient to carry us through. Do not change your tactics now. This country has done things which no other country in the world has ever done or could do. This country has shown what people can do when they are fighting for what they believe to be right and just, and when they do it of their own voluntary free will. I hope and believe that the Government will go on in the way they have started and not allow themselves to be deflected from a course which in the past has yielded fruits which nobody would have believed possible twelve months ago. I hope the Government will not allow themselves to be deflected from this course, and then I feel sure they will achieve ultimate victory.
    Mr. AMERY: The greater part of the speech which the hon. and learned Member has just made, and the much more serious and reasoned and convincing speech of the hon. Member for Derby, have been based on a certain supposition, which is, that we are fighting on behalf of France as the result of some bargain with France, or as the result of some philanthropic consideration which bids us defend the integrity of French territory. If that were the case, then I think we have done our fair share, and our contribution has been far more than we ever gave France to understand we should provide. But that is not the question at issue. We are not fulfilling an obligation to France. The question is are we fulfilling our obligation to ourselves? We are engaged in a struggle for our existence and not for the existence of any other country in the world, and the whole issue which has been raised by hon. Members who have had the courage to say that they were wrong in the past and look upon this question differently to-day, is that we have not yet put forward a sufficient effort, and are not yet fighting in the spirit that is necessary to bring this War to a successful issue.
    Before touching upon the broader question, I should like to say a few words in answer to the suggestion

    2417
    which has been made by previous speakers that the system which we had in peace time of leaving enlistment to the voluntary inclination of the individual has been a success. Look to the past! Supposing we had had some national system, even of the mildest kind, we should at any rate have had uniforms, rifles, and guns, and the whole question of munitions would have been started on an entirely different basis. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) spoke about winning this War with silver bullets. Does he realise the immense and unnecessary waste of money which the present system involves? Does he realise the dissipation which it involves of our financial resources, which are by no means so inexhaustible as some people thought at the beginning of the War? Again, take this very question of munitions, to which so much anxious attention has been devoted, upon which so many committees have concentrated, last of all, a Committee which is striving, with how little success the Minister of Munitions has told us this afternoon, to undo the "evil results of unregulated enlistment, and to try and bring back from the ranks the men who have been waiting unequipped for a whole year because the equipment which they could make themselves was not being made.
    We heard something from the Prime Minister this afternoon about the trouble it causes the War Office Departments to be inundated with questions. I wonder if hon. Members have any conception of the difficulties which the system of voluntary recruiting has forced upon the War Office. It is not only a question of the Members of the War Office Staff who are actually engaged in the work of recruiting; it is the immense difficulty which it has caused in every department. The fact is that nobody has ever had any solid ground to go upon, and nobody has ever known what scale he has to work to. Every department of the War Office has been making bricks without straw. There has been a great deal of criticism—I do not know much about it, because I have been away —about certain departments. I ask hon. Members just to consider the position in which the heads of these departments have been placed. It has been suggested that in August last they ought to have accepted orders for plant and other things for an Army of three millions. I beg hon. Members to remember that in August last it "was a question of "another hundred
    2418
    thousand men." Then Lord Kitchener appealed for a second hundred thousand. Again and again, a new scale has had to be devised, and again and again the men doing the administrative work have had to change their whole conception. You cannot blame Lord Kitchener for it. How was Lord Kitchener with his experience of Egypt and India to know how many men were coming forward in response to the appeal for voluntary recruiting? I have heard people say that we ought to wait until Lord Kitchener comes and asks for compulsory service. This is a question which involves the industry and the finance of the country. It is a question of national policy. It is not a question for the Secretary of State for War; it is a question for the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister upon whose responsibility this great change can be carried out. The hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. L. Williams) said that you cannot make a change like this during the course of a great war. Another great and free people, the United States, fighting for freedom and union, as we are, made the same change, and it was Mr. Abraham Lincoln, as head of the State, who introduced that change just as I hope that the Prime Minister of this country will come to this House and introduce it before long.
    I should like to say a few words—in addition to the arguments on behalf of national service which have been so well stated by the hon. Member who opened the discussion, and by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood)—upon the question of the whole method on which this War is conducted. The subject of national service touches only one aspect of that question. The conclusion to which I have been forced by my experience during this War is that as a nation we are not making the effort which the seriousness of our situation demands. That may sound a hard saying; it would be very much easier for me to win the cheers of the House, as did the Prime Minister this afternoon, by talking about the miraculous transformation, the wonderful things that have happened, and the sound of the tramp of armed men. Of course, it is wonderful when you look at it in comparison with our ordinary state of peace. It is wonderful that hundreds of thousands have flocked to the Colours, where it was difficult to enlist thousands before. But if you look on the effort of this country, not from this end

    2419
    but from across the Channel, where a small section of our people are fighting side by side with the whole manhood of France, where they are up against the whole manhood and the whole organised industry of Germany, then the thing wears a very different complexion. And it does so even more when you look at it from the outside, as I have been doing for some months, from some of those neutral countries, where both combatants appear in more equal perspective, and where the people form a very shrewd and sometimes unpleasantly frank judgment on the efforts and attitude of the different parties to this conflict. There you find what they are impressed with is not the miraculous transformation, but the miraculous slowness with which the people of this country are waking up to the War; not by the greatness, but by the smallness of our effort; not by our amazing energy, but by our amazing slowness; not by the miracle of our transformation, but by the miraculous fact that we still go on living and talking as if we were really in a state of peace, when we are in the midst of a great struggle for existence.
    The neutral looks at results, and not at the change of affairs in this country, and what strikes him is that at the end of a year of war, with a population here in the United Kingdom very much larger than that of France, we hold barely one-tenth of the French line of trenches. Not once or twice, but on many occasions, the question has been asked me by some friendly neutral a Greek or Roumanian— who honestly wished information, "Why is it you only hold this line? Why cannot you do more?" I have given such explanation as I could. But I knew it was not convincing. Men have asked why we, with the greatest engineering industry in the world, cannot yet produce anything like the quantity of munitions produced by France, let alone by Germany? Why we still have wage disputes and trade-union practices, as though war was being waged in the planet Mars? The only answer I could have given was, because we did not mobilise our industries at the beginning of the War, and had not done so yet. In other words, that we did not take the War seriously enough at the beginning; we are not taking it seriously enough now.
    I do not know if I shall be accused also of being a calumniator of my country when I ask whether any Member of this House, or whether the people of this
    2420
    country, have yet to any extent envisaged the possibility of defeat in this War. The Prime Minister in his speech certainly did not. I think it is time we did face that contingency, because it is to defeat that we are drifting, unless we wage this War in a very different spirit and by very different methods. I do know what many-neutrals who have opportunity of judging, and who are not swayed so much by their wishes and hopes in this matter, think. There is a very large body, including not only unofficial persons but even Governments who have come to the conclusion that we are not winning this War and are not likely to win it. Indeed, I ask why should an impartial observer imagine that our half-hearted, belated methods should overcome the immense determination, devotion and self-sacrifice of a country like Germany? Why should he be convinced that we are going to win and Germany be defeated?
    It is not the patriotism of the people of this country that is at fault. I do not think there is anything you can ask from the people of this country that they will not willingly and gladly give. I believe that the people of this country have a truer and more intense patriotism than that of any country in Europe. It would be monstrous if it were otherwise. It would be monstrous if British freedom and British justice could not command the same self sacrifice and devotion as Prussian militarism and Austrian bureaucracy. What the people of this country need, and what they are clamouring for, is direction, guidance, leadership. They have not had direction or guidance ever since this War began. They have had plenty of miscellaneous exhortation, in eloquent speeches, in gaudy posters and from earnest canvassers. But that is not direction. It does not really help a man, who is distracted by the various responsibilities of home and business, or tell him what he ought to do. When a man sees some poster asking him to fill the ranks and pile up the shells, or a poster which looks like a hatter's advertisement asking him what cap he should wear, or some poster in eloquent language asking him to "take up the sword of justice," or in rather more homely phrase "to be a sport"— does that really tell him what he ought to do? Or for that matter, if some zealous ill-informed lady canvasser comes round, or if his employer tells him, half-threateningly, that he ought to go to the Front, is that guidance to a man? What

    2421
    a man wants at a time like this is the authoritative order embodying the nation's will, telling him in which battalion or factory he is to serve. That is the way to appeal to a man's patriotism, to his sense of duty, to his good practical sense and to his sense of fair play.
    The same applies not only to this question of recruiting, but applies also to all these other industrial questions. This afternoon the Minister of Munitions made an eloquent appeal to trade union leaders to ask trade unionists to forego their practices. It is no good appealing to people to sacrifice either the interests of capital or what they conceive to be the interests of labour unless you are prepared to take measures that will compel them to make that sacrifice. It is not pure selfishness in this matter; it is a conflict of duties. A director has a duty, direct and personal, and a responsibility towards his shareholders. The trade union leader, and any man who is a leader among working men, feels he has a duty towards members of his union, and towards members of his own class, including not only the man in the factory to-day, but the man at the Front to-day, whose prosperity may depend on the conditions to which he is likely to come back after the War. You cannot by mere exhortation get rid of these difficulties. What you have to do is to pass measures which will eliminate the whole possibility of either capital or labour making a profit out of the needs of the nation. The one thing the nation is looking for to-day is guidance. This is not a time at which you can afford half-measures, and belated half-measures at that. It is not a time for waiting and seeing whether recruits or victories will turn up. You may very possibly find that we shall not get either. It is a time of immeasurable urgency. Every day that we delay putting forward the whole energies of this nation, as Germany is putting forth her energies, inclines the scales of war against us. We cannot go on drifting as we have been doing. This afternoon I heard the Prime Minister end his speech with an eloquent peroration bidding us to persevere as we have been doing—as he added towards inevitable victory. If we do persevere in conducting the War in the manner in which we have conducted it hitherto, if we persevere in postponing decisions, if we persevere in waiting and seeing, if we persevere in half-measures, if we persevere with this dogged irresolution on every question of importance, the
    2422
    only end of our perseverance must be inevitable defeat, inevitable failure. We are now adjourning for seven weeks, a period which some hon. Members apparently think too long. To me it does not seem a matter of very great importance whether our reflections and our criticisms are suspended for a week or two longer or not. What matters is that during this period of leisure Ministers should definitely make up their minds on this question of recruiting and of all the other groat outstanding questions, have done with half-measures, and make up their minds to fight this War with the whole strength of a united nation. Let them confront this House from top to bottom a Ministry decided on action and determined to lead. This House and the country will not be slow to follow them.
    Mr. MORRELL: Those of us who are inclined to believe that the voluntary system is best suited to the genius and temper of this country, and has worked well hitherto, and that it would be madness to exchange it now for a compulsory system which has not hitherto been tried will, I think, not regret that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Guest), has thought fit to raise this question. I have listened to the speeches which have been made on behalf of compulsory service, and I listened especially to the speech of my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood), who in the old days was known as one of the staunchest advocates of individual liberty in this House, and I have asked myself on what grounds, apart from questions of sentiment, it is suggested that we ought now to make this tremendous change in our system. It has not been suggested by any speaker hitherto that there is an immediate military necessity for this change. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Guest) thought it was desirable to face the question in case some day we might have to make the change. That was the tendency of his remarks. Certainly my hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood) did not treat it as an immediate necessity. He did not, for instance, suggest to us that at the present time we have not got men in numbers amply sufficient for the equipment and the material we possess. On the contrary, my hon. Friend who has worked in the Munitions Department, knows very well that the War Office have a good many more men at their disposal than they are able properly to equip and prepare for war. The arguments which are used in favour of this compulsory

    2423
    system are almost entirely of what I might call a psychological character. We are asked candidly by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) to make this change because it will encourage our Allies — the hon. Member who opened the Debate used the same argument—and because it will put fresh force and courage into our troops at the Front to know that other men are being compelled to go into the ranks in order to take their place. I am not going to enter into the question of whether that is a sound argument or not; whether it is really necessary that we should make this change in order to encourage France, or whether it is really necessary that our men, who have already done so magnificently at the Front, should have this extra stimulus. I am prepared to admit, for the sake of argument, that it might have that effect, and that there might be that advantage, but I do really ask hon. Members whether they think the general results would justify this tremendous change in our system. If this Debate has shown nothing else, it has shown one thing, and that is that a change of this sort cannot be carried without absolutely breaking up the present harmony that exists in the country. Hon. Members are perhaps sanguine that they will be able to carry the country with them. At any rate, even they will not suggest that they will have an unanimous country at their back when they proceed to introduce compulsory service.
    If the strike in South Wales proved nothing else—I regret that strike as much as anybody—it proved this fact clearly, that large numbers of workers in this country are determined to go through this War as they began—upon the voluntary principle. They will not listen to any idea of compulsion now. There is another point: we are told that we ought to have more men in the field. The Prime Minister this afternoon reminded us that it is not merely the duty of this country to put men in the field. We have two other very important duties to perform. We have, first, to keep command of the seas, and thank God we have been able to do that. Secondly, as the Prime Minister reminded us, we have to play a very important part in financing the cause of the Allies. This country is practically the only Western European nation that has its system of currency and of credit in a sound condition to-day. Why is that? It
    2424
    is because we have been able to keep our industrial system practically unimpaired during this War and we have done that upon the voluntary basis. We have hon. Members like the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Sir Leo Chiozza Money) and the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. Amery) coming to us and saying that by the system of voluntary recruiting great harm has been done to this and that industry; that many men have been taken out of one village, and that so many men have been taken from this or that industry. I am not prepared to suggest that the system of voluntary recruiting as it is now carried on, is carried on under the best possible conditions, and that some guidance may not be necessary; but will anyone tell me that if we have a system of compulsion we are not going to have a very much larger interference with industry than we have to-day under the voluntary system? We are told sometimes that in Germany they have succeeded in raising an enormous Army and at the same time in maintaining their industries. In Prussia they have got this system working. They are well accustomed to organisation. But at any rate, let us remember that in France at the beginning of the War French industry was almost dislocated as the result of mobilisation. They found that even in the case of the doctors whom they required for the troops, they had great difficulty in withdrawing them from the ranks on account of the mistakes that were made under the compulsory system. All through France they found the same difficulty as the result of this system.
    Possibly if the system had already been in operation in this country for a long time, we might be able to manage it without crippling our industries. But to tell us that now we are going to introduce a new system of this sort, and at the same time not paralyse our industries, is to tell us what is obviously untrue. It may be that in the last resort we shall have some system of this sort. I am not prepared to deny that; but they will have to go a great deal further to prove its necessity than anything that has been said in this day's Debate. We have carried on this War, I believe, hitherto, through our adherence to this system of liberty, in a way that would have astonished those who have most advocated compulsory service in the past. We have raised by the voluntary system an army of a size that would have

    2425
    been incredible to our forefathers. Are we to-day, in order to crush Prussian militarism, to turn aside and to introduce into this country an imitation of Prussian militarism for which we are not suited, and to which the large proportion of the workers of this country will never willingly submit? I am glad that this question has been raised, because I think that it will make the Government and the authorities pause, even if they have any idea of doing so—I do not believe that they have— before they allow a relatively small number of men, who have an influence in the Press and in this House out of all proportion to their real weight, to force this great change upon the country.
    Major HUNT: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down made a great point about individual liberty. His idea of individual liberty is liberty for a man to get somebody else to fight for him. That is what was said in effect by the other two speakers against compulsory training, because they talked about freedom. The hon. Member for Derby said that we are a free people. Well, I do not know that we are freer than other people. We have to pay taxes by compulsion. The one thing apparently about which we are free, and for which there is so much rejoicing among certain people, is that we are free not to lift a little finger in defence of our country and our women and children. That is really what our boasted freedom means. One of the Members who spoke against compulsion accused the National Service League of sinister action in favour of conscription. I think that that is a very unfair charge. Members of the National Service League did their very best to encourage recruiting. I myself held several meetings for the purpose of encouraging recruiting, and I think that the necessity for compulsory training has been very strikingly shown to-night. The hon. Member for West Derby kept on telling us of the number of industries that could not have any more men taken out of them. That may be so, but surely there are great numbers of other men, single men, shopkeepers, men with nothing particular to do, that could have been and would have been taken if we had a fair system by which everybody not wanted by the Goverment for Government work had to do his fair share of duty in defending the country. The real effect of it was that we took the wrong men because we could not get the right men. We took the men that were really wanted, according to the
    2426
    Minister of Munitions himself, thousands of them, because we could not get the others, the young unmarried men in shops and so on, who ought to have gone and did not.
    The system is not only wrong, but it is unfair; and it is surely very plain that there has been an enormous amount of money wasted by the Government in advertising, providing posters, and posters very unworthy of a great nation, and added to that, there is the enormous amount of work done voluntarily, and which would not have been necessary under a compulsory system, and therefore, could have been applied in other ways more useful to the country. And then one must remember that hundreds of thousands of married men, as well as men who have enlisted, but ought really to have been kept at home, where they would have been more useful than even at the War, are a great expense now, and will be a great expense in the future. Probably there are at least a million or more in Great Britain—I am not taking Ireland—who could very well be enlisted — young men, unmarried, who are doing absolutely nothing at the present moment to help to defend their country. The Prime Minister said that we were going to fight to the last man and the last shilling, yet he has not compelled all our available men to be trained so that they can be used before we have lost our last shilling. I think it is perfectly notorious that very many people in France are very much dissatisfied with the part we are taking in the land War. They say, and say rightly, that we are not pulling our weight, that we are not really putting forth as much as we might. The late Government, I suppose I ought to say, tried to blame for lack of munitions the greed of the employers and the idleness and drunkenness of the men. But the real reason of our difficulty in getting men and also munitions was, and is, that they are afraid of losing the votes of a certain number of persons if they take a resolute course and give a lead to the people.
    Ministers have been loyal to each other; they have been disloyal to the country. They have refused to tell the people the truth; they have hidden disasters and shirked compelling every eligible man that was not wanted for Government work to do his duty. I do not think the present Government is much better than the last. They are still drifting, and they are still shirking. The

    2427
    Government's duty is to make every man in Great Britain do his duty, and they refuse to make full use of our power at sea. They let off the man who signals to the enemy submarine with two or three months imprisonment, and they call it grossly offensive if a poor Member of this House suggests that it is quite time for them to take the gloves off and really make strenuous war. Look how the soldier at the Front is treated in comparison with the man who signals to the enemy submarine. The soldier at the Front, after months of weary nerve-wracking war, if he goes away from his regiment for a few days, and if he is caught, is shot as a deserter. That is the way the Government treat our own soldiers, and the way they treat traitors at home. I think I am perfectly justified in saying that the Government at present are fighting with the gloves on. The patriotic married men who enlists, and who is sent home wounded, is still compelled to go back to the firing line directly his wounds are healed. The unpatriotic single man can stay at home in comfort and safety. I say that to allow that sort of thing to go on, as our system admittedly does, is absolutely wrong, and T believe the Government know as well as I do how unfair it is. Lord Lansdowne the other day in the House of Lords put it fairly strongly. We are going to be sent away now for seven weeks, and this is going to be left undone. There is another thing about what is called the voluntary system, and I really wonder the Labour Members do not take more notice of it. All sorts of indirect coercion are used to compel men to join the Army, there is no doubt about that—to compel married as well as unmarried men to join the Army. The Government still calls it the voluntary system. Now we are going to have this House shut up. The Prime Minister's excuse apparently is that the permanent officials need a rest. He did not trouble about the permanent officials in the days when we sat nearly all the year round, while he was driving his party Bills through the House. The real reason is that having muzzled the Press, he is determined that there shall be no criticism of any sort for six or seven weeks. In my opinion the House ought not to adjourn till compulsory training is made the law of the land and cotton is made absolute contraband. The effect on our Allies of bringing in compulsory training would be enormous. They would know then that we were really going
    2428
    to do our best and that we really meant busines. If the Government are going to gain and retain the confidence of the country, no matter how much money they may vote, they must be just as well as generous. It is not enough to reward the brave, to compensate the efficient, and pension illustrious placemen; they must also punish the inefficient and the wasteful, and hang, not intern, traitors. They must place a baton in the knapsack of every soldier of labour. In other words they must give our working people a fair chance of permanent prosperity in our own country. I hope that after what has been said to-night, the Government will seriously consider this question of compulsory military training. It ought to have been brought in at the beginning of the War; it ought to have been brought in ten years ago. But there is still time to show our Allies that we are going to put our whole force into helping them to conquer the worst enemy that any nation has had at any time within the last five hundred years.
    Mr. TENNANT: I am, of course conscious that this is a matter of great importance, and one upon which the House would rather hear the authoritative pronouncement of a Member of the Cabinet than anything I can say. But there are some considerations which I should like to put before the House before it comes to any definite decision upon this important question. My hon. and gallant Friend who raised this question talked about winning the War and winning it quickly. I would ask him whether he considers that any different position would have been attained in the military situation to-day by this country's having put more troops into the field. I am extremely doubtful myself whether any such result would have been achieved up to the present moment. All of us feel that the crisis in which we find ourselves is so great, and so urgent is the position that all preconceived ideas formed in peace time, must necessarily be reviewed. I have endeavoured to review and reconsider any preconceived ideas of my own upon this subject. Of course hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House entertain their views upon this difficult and important subject with strength and tenacity. But I would ask whether any real necessity for an alteration of our voluntary system has yet been demonstrated? My hon. Friend (Mr. Wedgwood), to whom I

    2429
    listened with pleasure, asked us, and all patriotic citizens, to undergo that ennobling self-sacrifice which to-day was so essential. There is no man in this House who is not ready to undergo anything in the way of self-sacrifice which he really thinks would be helpful to bring this War to that conclusion that we all desire. I do not really think that there is any sacrifice which we are not, each of us, prepared to make. But, as we have heard to-day from the Prime Minister, recruiting is very satisfactory. The numbers of men that are coming forward, as we know, have been very large, and although the hon. Member for Derby stated that we are getting all the men we want, that perhaps is rather an exalted, an exaggerated, view of the situation. I do not want it to go forth authoritatively from this House that no further men are required. That I should deplore. I say this with a full sense of responsibility: that as we put larger and larger numbers into the field, so we shall require larger and larger reinforcements. That is an important consideration that I should like the House and the country fully to apprehend. We have to consider not only the question of the number of men, but also the industry and labour of this country from the point of view of finance. This is a difficult and complicated subject. It must be obvious to the mind of any man who has given this subject any consideration that our industries must not be depleted to the extent of our not being able to pay our way, and to effect exchange with foreign countries for those munitions that we buy from them!
    That leads one to the consideration whether or not we can take more men from the civil occupations of this country. Here I would point to the Registration Act, which will enable us to see whether or not we can recruit further from those engaged in civil occupations. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen Burghs (Mr. L. Williams), and while I am not at all unsympathetic— far from it!—to his point of view, I rather regretted his attack upon the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood). That hon. Member and the hon. Member who spoke last (Major Hunt), have both been willing to make the great sacrifice. Both have joined the Army, and my hon. Friend behind me has been wounded in the service of his country. Each of them also said that we are not making the
    2430
    sacrifices necessary to this War. I do feel inclined to repudiate that. I do believe the people of this country have made great sacrifices, are making great sacrifices, and are prepared to make still further sacrifices. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not all of them."] You have only to look at the situation as it confronts us in the most patent manner to know that our fellow-countrymen have in all walks of life made sacrifices. The hon. Member for Ludlow spoke about the Government being afraid of losing votes. I really thought he might not have descended so low as that. I really repudiate such a suggestion with a good deal of warmth, because I feel that it is far from the actualities of the case. No human being has ever thought of that in the last twelve months, and I resent such a suggestion. And then to talk of fighting with the gloves on, when you consider that we have voted 3,000,000 men for the Army and 350,000 men for the Navy; when you consider what has been actually achieved; when you recall the situation in September, which was largely saved by the British forces—largely saved is not to put it too strongly—and when you consider the naval situation over the whole of the high seas, then, I think, to talk about fighting with the gloves on is rather an absurd suggestion. The hon. Member went on to complain that our voluntary system was really not a voluntary system, because the people are being coerced. I understand that is the process the hon. Gentleman desires us to take.
    Major HUNT: Not indirect coercion.
    Mr. TENNANT: I really do not know that I follow that. I have stated that in my judgment and belief there is no sacrifice that this country is not prepared to make. If it becomes necessary to compel people to undertake something they do not desire to undertake, then it may possibly be we may have to take that course. Whether that policy is desirable or not, whether it would achieve the results which are expected of it or not, of course remains to be seen. I would remind the House that we have at the present moment a voluntary army, which is really a glorious possession. We have achieved in the field a position which, I think, must always remain with us as a great national possession. Whether the inter-mixture with that voluntary army of a compulsory army will have to be undertaken or not I cannot say. I do not wish to close the door to it. Of course,

    2431
    the House realises it is not in my power to close the door to it, nor do I wish to say anything which will in any way embarass any Member of this House or the Government in taking such action as is deemed to be necessary for the successful conclusion of this War. I would say that the Government are prepared, in the words of the Prime Minister, to achieve that successful issue upon this War even though we have to spend our last man and last shilling or the last drop of our blood.
    12.0 M.
    Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH: I have listened to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for War, and I say, with very great respect, to him that I do not think we are very much wiser as to where the Government stand in regard to this important matter. My complaint is that it is high time that the Government should make up its mind. If we had taken the munitions matter up some nine or ten months ago we should have been in a far different position. My fear is that there is a tendency to delay these matters until the last moment. Hon. Members opposite have said that the course we are suggesting should only be adopted as the last resort. What is the last resort? The moment the Prime Minister comes down here and demands these men the principles of hon. Members are all gone. Do not put this question on the ground of principle, but on the ground of expediency and then we shall understand where we are. My own position is that I do not look upon this matter from the standpoint of necessity, but from the point of view of justice, and that alone. As I have said elsewhere it is not necessity that makes it just, but justice that makes it necessary. Do not all those hon. Members who have spoken against national service agree that every citizen ought to contribute to the defence of his country according to his ability to render service? Is that not an elementary principle and almost a platitude which ought to appeal to hon. Members who have spoken against national service. We are now defending England in France. Is this a war of aggression? If not then it is a war of defence, and at this moment we are defending England as truly in France and Flanders as if we were fighting in the fields of Kent. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about our Fleet?"] I notice that those who now look most to our Fleet in a moment of peril are the very men who voted against providing a stronger Navy.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: That is not true as far as I am concerned.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I know that has been a common habit in the past, and generally those who are now the loudest in their praises of the Fleet are the men who did not contribute much by their votes in this House towards maintaining it. When the country is in peril I say that it is the duty of every citizen according to his capacity to render service to his country. I do not see why the burden should fall more upon some than others. I do not see why one family should send all their sons to the Front while another family should have three or four sons at home. Is that just? There is not an hon. Member in this House who will stand up and say that that is just. In these circumstances, other things being equal, I think this duty falls upon all equally. A good deal has been said about compulsory military service. My idea of national service is this. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Tennant) said truly that everyone is willing to render any sacrifice for the sake of his country. Yes, but it is the duty of the Government to tell every man in the country what sacrifice the country wants from him. This is what we are looking up to the Government to do. Every man has got a right to be told what his allotted task is in the present moment of peril. It may be that one man who is an agricultural labourer will remain an agricultural labourer; it may be that a man who is in the coalfield will remain in the coalfield; it may be that a man who is on the railway will remain on the railway, but there are a great many men who are more fitted perhaps for military service than for any other service, and a man who is more fitted for military service than for any other service ought to render his duty to the State and give that military service to his country.
    Mr. TENNANTmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: Let him do it! He does not do it. I suppose we all live a part of our time in London. Does any body say that he can go along the streets of London without coming to the conclusion that there are thousands of men at any rate—
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: I want to understand from the right hon. and learned Member what becomes of the principle of

    2433
    justice if the agricultural labourer is to be left working in the field and the miner is to be left working in the mine? I thought the right hon. and learned Member was putting it on principle.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: I said "render service to his country," the service which be is best able to give to the State. If that man renders the best service he can to the country in the field he remains in the field; if he renders the best service to the country in the mine he remains in the mine; if he renders the best service to the country on the railway he remains on the railway. That is what I say, and it is quite a consistent thing. It has been suggested that we Liberals who take this view have departed from the traditions of Liberalism. I repudiate that altogether. I think that it is a mistaken view of the whole principle that governs the situation. You compel the poor parent to send his child to school. Is that a humiliation or a degradation? You compel a man to pay taxes. Is there anything humiliating in that? Does anybody believe in voluntary taxation 2 Do not you ask people to pay taxes according to their capacity to pay? Is it not an old Liberal doctrine to put it on the shoulders best able to bear it? I seem to have heard that phrase some where. What were we Liberals doing a little more than twelve months ago 2 We were exercising compulsion against men who differed from us. I was engaged particularly on a particular Bill. There are many in Wales who want to belong to a Church associated with the State. My hon. Friends and I were for compulsion, and said to them, "You shall not belong to a State Church; you shall belong to a Church which is dissociated from the State." It is really elementary; it is the very essence—
    Mr. PRATT: I thought that a man was to be left free to join the Church or not as he pleased.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: There was an Established Church in Wales, and my friends and I were going to use the forces of our majority in this House to disestablish that Church against the will of the minority. We were also trying to compel the Unionists in the North of Ireland to depart from the particular form of allegiance they had to this country and to make them live under a Home Rule Government. We were going to use the forces of compulsion for that
    2434
    purpose. And what about compulsory insurance, the great triumph of the Liberal Administration? We compel you to insure. Is that a degradation or humiliation? As a matter of fact the very essence of legislation is to be found in the forces of compulsion and to say it is degrading—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is Prussianism."] It does not matter what label you attach to it. We are now discussing the principle of the situation, and that principle is that both parties in turn, the Liberal against the Conservative and the Conservative against the Liberal, are using the forces of compulsion to compel the minority to obey the will of the majority of the day.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The House is the free choice of the electorate.
    Mr. GRIFFITH: Ah! I understand. If there is a majority in this House in favour of compulsory service the objections will all go. If a vote in this House goes in favour of compulsory military service the objections to it of my hon. Friend opposite are gone.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: Did the hon. Gentleman put anything about compulsory military service in his election address?
    Mr. GRIFFITH: Now we have the question of the mandate. I am not going into that. Of course I did not put it in my election address. Remember we have had no election since the War began [Interruption].We might certainly try to make up in reason what we do not lack in passion. I did not intend to raise any controversial matter and I spoke with my usual moderation. I thought I was putting the case as reasonably as was possible. If I have shown any undue heat I will only say this to the House—I have been here a great many years. I have a great many friends on both sides, and I have taken my part without any fear in debates on motions in which I have believed. In the last twenty years, I can say honestly and sincerely, there never has been a motion, there has been no topic, no subject in which the case has been so irresistible as is the case for compulsory national service in this the gravest moment of our national history.
    Mr. P. O'BRIEN: I do not often intervene in debates in this House. I understand that what is really before us now is the question of Conscription. One of my hon. and gallant Friends who has spoken

    2435
    has referred to people who want other people to fight for them. I claim that the Irish soldier does not want any one to do his fighting for him. He does it better than anybody else can possibly do it. And in the records of the "War there is voluminous evidence of that fact. I say further—and I speak with authority for the Irish party with which I have the honour to be associated—that any proposal for Conscription will meet with their most deadly and determined opposition.
    Major HUNT: It is not proposed for Ireland.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has already made his speech.
    Mr. P. O'BRIEN: I accept at once the authority of my hon. and gallant Friend. I know whoever may be Prime Minister for the time being he is going to keep him straight on that question. But I repeat that we will not be troubled with Conscription in Ireland. We may be led but we will not be driven. We can claim by the records of the volunteering and of the fighting that our people are ready to fight for what they believe to be the interests of this country, but they do not want any compulsion, and they will not have it. I know that I can speak in the name of Irishmen and say that in whatever form it comes up their opposition to it will be determined and deadly.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: This Debate seems to have degenerated into a wrangle between different sections of Radical thought, some holding to their original opinions, and others having changed their opinions. I am not going to follow the line which this Debate has taken. The Debate originated with a statement by the Minister of Munitions as to the progress which was being made with his Department, and I shall go back to the subject of munitions, because that is of far more importance at the present moment than the subjects which have been debated. I must say that in some respects the Minister of Munitions has made a statement which has filled my mind with the gravest apprehension. He stated that the Government had started sixteen Government factories, and that they contemplated starting ten further factories. In the course of his statement he told the House that there were two great difficulties. One was that of staffing with men the factories
    2436
    at present in existence, and the other was the shortage of machinery. I should have thought that the first thing he would (have done would have been to see that all the existing factories were properly equipped and running to their maximum capacity before entering upon fresh adventures in the form of starting new factories. Because a factory is not merely a question of machinery and men. You have to get managers, a staff, draughtsmen and a drawing office, and you have to make various tools, jigs, and all sorts of things, which in the ordinary course take manufacturers time to accomplish, before a factory can be made a going concern. When the right hon. Gentleman tells us in one breath that the existing factories are not properly equipped or working to their maximum capacity, and in the next breath that he is launching out into this new venture, then, in my judgment, the situation is one of the greatest possible gravity.
    The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had taken advice from competent people in connection with his work, and that he had engaged upon his staff something like seventy men who had previously been engaged in the manufacturing industries of the country, who were competent men and were of the greatest value in his new Department.
    But I cannot help feeling that he has not conferred with or consulted the firms which are engaged in the manufacture of munitions as he should have done. They may be divided into three groups. In the first group there are the firms which constitute the armament ring. Apparently they are the only people who have been consulted. Then there is the second groups the big firms, electrical and mechanical, which are engaged in peace time in competitive business. Then there is the third group of small firms. The difference between the big and the small firms— there is very little in common between them—is that the big firms are self-contained as regards the different articles which they manufacture. They are all equipped with automatic plant of different kinds, and they are able to turn out, with every part complete, the articles which they manufacture. The smaller firms, of which there are a very great number in the country, are capable at present of rendering the greatest possible aid to the Minister of Munitions, but they are not self-contained. They are mostly firms which have been started to manufacture

    2437
    a speciality, and they are not equipped with all the automatic machinery which it is desirable in circumstances like the present they should have; but they are efficient mechanical and electrical manufacturing firms, and as far as I have been able to ascertain they have not been consulted at all by the Minister of Munitions on the problem which he has now to deal with.
    They want a little help. Their men have been taken by the recruiting officer and they now could be of the greatest benefit to the War Office if arrangements were made by which these men could be returned to them or by which they could be helped with machinery or material which many of them sadly lack. I had occasion only recently to visit one of the new officials in the Armaments Department, and I was agreeably surprised to find an officer with a very intimate knowledge of his particular branch of the engineering trade. He was a complete master of it. He knew every detail, and the reflection occurred to me that if this was a sample of the officers who had been secured in the new Munitions Ministry there was every prospect of it proving a great success. A day or two afterwards I had occasion to call on the same individual, and I pointed out how a great deal of help in the direction in which he wanted it could be obtained if he could grant to a certain firm an order for the return of men who had enlisted and were still in the country, or if he could give them help for these Munition Volunteers. Then it appeared that this gentleman— he was an extraordinarily capable man— had been appointed to hustle contractors but had no power at all. He could not do a single thing on his own initiative. All that he could do was to make recommendations that men should be returned, and there was a possibility that at some distant date these men might or might not be returned to their civil employment. If the Minister of Munitions had had any knowledge of organisation, the first thing he would have done would have been to appoint an officer, such as the officer I have described, to visit the various factories which were behind in their deliveries, and not to blame and abuse the heads of these factories but to help them. Every manufacturer in the country to-day who is on War Office contracts, is doing his best to help the country and Government by giving the greatest possible output of the articles
    2438
    required. A great deal of that output is delayed through the want of a little systematic help from this new Ministry. A little sympathetic help in the direction I have indicated would do far more towards the production of munitions of war than the abuse and hustling such as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. He has failed in his attempt to hustle the working-men, and he may depend upon it that he will fail in any attempt to bully or hustle manufacturers. You want to get them to work with you. You want to get the best out of your people, and the best way to do it is to help them and not abuse them. There is another branch of this subject to which I wish to refer, and that is the question of badges for workmen. That is a most important subject. If badges are fairly and equitably given to the workmen it will encourage them. It will also get over a great deal of this trade union trouble, because the men will be encouraged to disregard their unions and union regulations and you will get a better feeling and a better output in every direction. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that under the new rules badges were to be given to the men engaged on war work who were irreplacable. I do not quite know what he meant by that, because it is only a few days ago that some regulations were issued by the War Office on the subject. The regulations are dated 12th July, and according to those regulations badges are only to be given to men who will undertake to enlist when their services cease to be urgently required at their trade; also they are only to be issued to men who were of recruitable age. To my mind that is hardly a wise way of dealing with this matter, because if you only issue badges to men of recruitable age you give very little encouragement to the old men or the men who are not physically-suitable for the Army. You give very little encouragement to these men who do the best in their power for the country in the hour of its need.
    Let me explain more clearly to the House what I mean. You have a man of recruitable age who is working, we will say, forty hours a week, working short time, not turning up till after breakfast, leaving early, and perhaps not turning up on Saturdays. You give him a badge; he swaggers about with his badge. You have in the same factory old men who realise the gravity of the situation, who are putting in sixty-

    2439
    five—I have instances of these—sixty-six, sixty-seven, and sixty-eight hours of work a week—no badge. Well, I think the old men who are setting a splendid example to the young men, who are doing their duty to their country, are worthy of a badge. I know, because men have spoken to me on the subject, that they bitterly resent these restrictions or rules which are made, and I am perfectly sure they will bitterly resent the new rules which the Minister of Munitions has announced today. If I may make a suggestion to him, as a practical way of dealing with this difficulty, it is that he should entrust the distribution of badges to the employers. They are the people to be entrusted with it. He wants the good offices of the employers, the employers want the good services of the men—entrust the distribution of badges to employers. Make it a regulation that no badge will be granted to a man of less than three months continuous service with an employer. Fix a limit, that the badge shall not be granted to a man of less than fifty hours a week service; and then you might go on by way of reward, and I am sure it is a reward which the working classes would appreciate, and give to a man who works long hours, say to every man who works over fifty hours a week—say fifty-five—in addition to a badge, a bar. For sixty hours a week give him two bars, for sixty-five hours a week give him three bars, and to a man who works over sixty-five hours a week give four bars, and the men will treasure those bars, will wear those bars, and be proud of those bars. You will encourage the men, and the way to get the best out of them is to encourage and not to abuse them. They would get some reward they would value, and I am perfectly sure that if the right hon. Gentlemen who have the handling of these matters would take advice from people who have to deal with men, whose business it is to get the best out of their men, they would come to the conclusion that what I have suggested is the right way of dealing with this matter, and that these conditions which they propose—that badges should only be given to men who are irreplaceable—will not work, will cause a feeling of jealousy and annoyance, and will in the long run do more harm than good.
    That is, in substance, all I wish to say and I hope the words I am now using will have some weight with those who are
    2440
    responsible for dealing with this matter. If you once adopt the principle of trusting the employer you can impose what conditions and penalties you like upon the employer who commits a breach of his trust. But trust the employer; let him award the badges; let the badges be such that they are to be returned if, after three months, the man slacks or falls off in his hours of service. The employer can do that. If a man quits his employment he surrenders his badge. He will earn a new badge in a new place. You will help the employers, the men will like it, and in the long run the State will get the benefit by extra work out of the men and increased munitions of war.
    Mr. NEEDHAM: I venture to introduce a new subject to the attention of the House. I put questions from time to time to the Financial Secretary in regard to proficiency pay for members of the old Volunteer force who in their membership of that force were efficient, and who since the War have re-enlisted in His Majesty's Forces. These excellent Volunteers do not get paid proficiency pay, which is given to members of the Territorial force. The answers the Financial Secretary has given are to the effect that they are not able to revise the decision to continue the present system, and therefore they continue to refrain from giving this proficiency pay. I think this is a very great hardship on a large number of old Volunteers who made themselves proficient according to the standard demanded by the War Office in their time, and whose Volunteer service to the country is now not regarded as having been given at all. The provisions of the Army Orders that exist to-day are that a man who has been in the Territorial Force and has been present) at two camps of fifteen days is entitled to proficiency pay. There are many many thousands of Volunteers in this country in the service to-day who in their time as Volunteers served fifteen-day camps, and particular injustice is done to many of the Manchester Battalions who during the last years of the Volunteer force were year by year going to fifteen-day camps for a period, I think, of seven or eight years, and I am quite sure the same remark can be made with equal definiteness with regard to other battalions throughout the country. I have had, and I expect many other Members have had, many letters on the subject. I might say I have been deluged by letters from old Volunteers on

    2441
    the point, but I content myself with reading one case. This is from a man in the 3rd/7th Manchester Battalion Regiment:
    "As matters now stand I am denied proficiency pay, with a record of practically twenty-seven years' service, while a man who joined this unit in July 1913, attended training in August 1913 and May 1914, draws proficiency pay, with less than one-tenth of my service. This is a special injustice to Manchester Volunteers, as from 1900 to 1907 they were doing precisely the same training as the Territorials have since done.
    This hardship is all the greater because the arrangements and conditions for Territorials have only come into existence since the War commenced, and I think the House can give its cordial assent to the request of the old Volunteers that their case should be still once more reconsidered with the expectation that reconsideration will bring a favourable answer to their request. I hope the Financial Secretary to the War Office may be able to indicate some hopes in that direction.
    Sir R. COOPER: I would not intervene while these interesting and important subjects were under discussion because I wanted to make a reference to two totally different subjects. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Munitions both made impassioned appeals to the House this evening that Members should curb their criticisms and questions, give up backbiting, and refrain from plotting and plot-mongering. If important Ministers of the Crown, like the two to whom I have referred, are under the impression that the administration of this War by the present Government is meeting with a very wide measure of public approval, I can assure them that they are living under a very great misapprehension. As for Members like myself—and I believe I am almost the only one on this side who can possibly fall under their ban—who see things being done in a wrong manner, and who know that people who are making sacrifices for us in this country are not getting a fair show, and that money is being wasted unnecessarily—is it not our duty frankly and openly, so far as we conceive it to be in the public interest, to bring these matters up? For my own part, whilst I desire in every possible way—and I think, so far as munitions are concerned, that the complete absence of any question or criticism from me for over a month past is some evidence that I do desire—only to serve the best interests of the country, on the other hand, as long as I represent here some 100,000 people of this country, whenever I feel that any criticism can be
    2442
    made or question can be put to the general advantage of the country and not against its interest, such observations as we have heard from these two right hon. Gentleman this evening will in no way deter me.
    Sir A. MARK HAM: The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not referring, I am sure, to the hon. Member, or to anybody in particular.
    Sir R. COOPER: I thought he was referring to a whole number of us.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: No, he was not.
    Sir R. COOPER: At any rate, I know that I am guilty of asking questions on munitions, and recently questions on the aliens. What the Government appear to lose sight of is the fact that the public are watching with mystification the different changes of attitude during the War which the Government adopt towards this problem. For a long time they did very little. Then they interned a number of people; and then they let them out. Now, apparently, they are getting a little bit more backbone. Why I raise this question to-night is because I have asked one or two questions on very important matters, in my opinion, with regard to the conduct of the War; and I find that the attitude of the Government, and apparently their policy, is that they will not take any action against anyone in this country, whether in a Government Department or outside of it, unless they have a primâ facie case of grave suspicion that such a person is undesirable. I think that as long as that is the basis on which the Government is going to act, they will never rid this country of the dangers— which have not been known to the public, although many Members of the House know; the cases which are very properly secrets, and I am not going to refer to them to-night—from which the country has suffered. Our Allies have suffered in the same manner, especially Russia, in connection with her munitions, through treachery by aliens. Our Allies are acting in a very much more drastic manner than we are, and I suggest to the Government that the backbone which, as I understand from the Home Secretary, they are now displaying, ought to have been manifested a long time ago, in the early stages of the War. I suggest, further, that it should not be applied only to the residents and to those living privately in this country.

    2443
    Their attention might equally be drawn to the various Departments of the State. In looking through the list of the staff in the War Office, in the July Army List, you will find such names as these, serving the country: Schlich, Bovenschen, Dannreuther, Rueker Munich, Underlin, Varrelmann, Ackermann, Umlauf. If any one will take the trouble to look amongst the list of officers in the Army List for July, he will find that there are 135 officers whose names begin with "Sch." There is no really British name, to my knowledge which begins with "Sch." It is quite probable that a large number of these people—the vast majority, one may well believe—are loyal to this country, and it may be all right if such people are kept to the positions of ordinary officers. But when, as in the ease to which the hon. Member for Mansfield referred this afternoon, a man of enemy extraction, who is the son of Krupp's agent in London, is serving in the Intelligence Department, I think the sooner a stop is put to such folly the better.
    There is one other matter in regard to aliens. That is, that whilst—and I think it is quite a right thing too—a very great 'deal of solicitude is shown for the feelings of aliens, it is an extraordinary thing that one can find nothing like the same consideration being shown to British-born and loyal people of this country. I have been investigating a very extraordinary case within the last few days. It is that of a British workman of a superior type —an engineer—who lives at Crayford, in Kent. He has some small works there, where he is turning out something in the nature of cooking ranges. He is a man of sixty-five years of age. He received from the military authorities a notice that within seven days he must leave the Thames and Medway district. I am certain that everyone will be sure that, rightly or wrongly, the military authorities would think, and would feel sure that they had good cause for taking such action. But, my point is this. That man has not the faintest idea why he has been sent away from the district where he has lived, where he works, and where his employment and home are. He is, as I said, sixty-five years old. He is absolutely British; I have seen his birth certificate. There is nothing of any German or Austrian nature connected with him in any shape or degree. At present, that man has no redress, no means
    2444
    of appeal, and he has to obey the authorities. Yet those aliens who have been in our midst right up to date, have a special Court of Inquiry, presided over by a judge and, from the cases reported yesterday to this House, one-half escape from the order of deportation. I do not know if the Financial Secretary will be good enough to look into that case, as I am quite sure he and his colleagues in that Department would very much regret if they did injustice to any individual, either to a Britisher or to anyone else. I have given some attention to this matter, and I am convinced that this man is absolutely innocent. So far as it is possible for anyone, who tries to be fair-minded, and to have a full consideration of the interests of the State, to speak, I am convinced he is innocent. I hope the Financial Secretary will take some little trouble to look into the case.
    I wish to make a reference to the question of munitions. I was very-interested in hearing the right hon. Gentleman (the Minister of Munitions) make his statement this afternoon, and I particularly appreciated his reference to the desire of the Prime Minister and himself that the people of this country should, this afternoon, be taken fully into the confidence of the Government. If only they would do that a little more freely in other directions I think there would be a good deal less criticism and questioning and a better feeling on the part of the public. I have, probably, a very much closer knowledge of what goes on in that Department than the right hon. Gentleman imagines, or perhaps desires, but I can say this, that why I have been so glad to leave this subject alone for the last month is because I have known that he was getting hold of the job. There has been an enormous improvement in that Department, and whilst there is plenty of room for criticism in a great task like that, more especially in detail, for the moment, and taking a broad view of it, I regard the progress made in the last five or six weeks as being, on the whole, very satisfactory. There is, however, one point which I desire to raise, and I raise it, not from any idea of carping criticism, but solely because it is an illustration of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman can, if he will take the trouble, save this country a very great deal of money, and do something substantial towards protecting the gold reserves of the country. I want to take a case where an order

    2445
    was placed in America for two million shells, actually part and parcel of the offer I made on the 17th June last. But I can leave that aspect of the order alone, because these two million shells were offered to the Government by a firm represented in London on the 8th May last, and the price was seventeen dollars each, ready for the gun, f.a.s., New York. They were to be prepared by the firm of Barnes, Basset and Company, of New York. The first point of interest is that the reply to the offer made on the 8th May was sent from the Department on 19th July, thus it took two and a-half months to answer the offer made. What has-happened in the meantime? Before that reply was sent from the Department, acting under instructions from the Munitions Department here, Messrs. Morgan, of New York, have bought these two million shells from the British Government at eighteen dollars each. What does that mean financially to this country? It means a direct loss of £400,000, and a commission to Messrs. Morgan of £180,000, making a total of £580,000. I think also the fact should be considered that the man who is acting as agent in London and made this offer on behalf of the Government would have received a large commission of 75 cents per shell, or the total very big commission of £300,000. What we are concerned with in this country is how we can get the shells we want at the lowest price and with the greatest advantage to the gold reserve. If you had given the order in London you would have saved half a million, more or less, the £300,000 would have been paid to the agent in this country, and would have stopped in this country, and been spent here, so that the gold reserves would not have been depleted. You would not only have saved half a million on that order, but, in addition, you would have had that £300,000 spent in this country which now will be spent in the United States. I pointed out in the memorandum which I sent to the Prime Minister, in the middle of June, what I am quite sure all those responsible for dealing with this problem of shells in Canada and the United States appreciate. I heard the Minister of Munitions state not long ago in this House that the arrangement with Messrs. Morgan was saving this country millions. What is the simple fact? When Messrs. Morgan approached these people in America with reference to this offer of shells to which I have referred, these people were keen enough to see that Messrs. Morgan wanted
    2446
    these shells for this side and asked a dollar more each than the price offered in London. So that placing this order with Messrs. Morgan actually had the effect of increasing the price over and above the price at which these very goods were really at offer.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): What does the hon. Member mean by saying that these goods were really at offer?
    Sir R. COOPER: I have corresponded with the War Office; I do not want to take up time. The offer was made on the 8th May. I think my hon. Friend misunderstands me. I will put it clearly again, for it is a very important matter. What has happened is this: On the 8th May the London agent of an American firm offers shells to be made in the factory of Barnes, Basset and Company, New York. On the 19th May Mr. Hanson, the Director of Artillery, promises this firm that if after inspection of the works in America they are considered satisfactory the order will be made with the English agent. Then the offer is refused on 19th July. But before that date, some days before, I believe, Messrs. Morgan in New York actually secure those very shells at eighteen instead of seventeen dollars each for the Munitions Department. What I say is, that that order was placed to the detriment and disadvantage of this country.
    Mr. FORSTER: Does the offer of seventeen dollars a shell include commission or not?
    Sir R. COOPER: No, the price quoted on the 8th May was f.a.s., New York, loaded ready for the gun, no commission of any description to be paid. I do not know whether the agreement with Messrs. Morgan would require the Government to pay a commission of £180,000 upon that or not, but there was no commission to anybody else.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: Are we to understand that this firm in America made an offer to the Government at seventeen dollars a shell, which offer was open for some time, and that while that original offer was still standing they made a further offer of these same shells to Messrs. Morgan at an increased price?
    Sir R. COOPER: This offer lay before the Munitions Department until it was

    2447
    rejected by them to the London Agent on the 19th July. Whilst this offer was lying at the Department they instructed Messrs. Morgan, and, before they refused the offer, Messrs. Morgan approached this firm for these two million shells. The firm at once knew, they were clever enough to guess, that Messrs. Morgan had undertaken to buy them for the Munitions Department, and they promptly asked eighteen dollars and got that price.
    Mr. AINSWORTH: How can they offer the same goods over again when their offer was on the books of the Department?
    Sir R. COOPER: That is exactly what happened. I think the hon. Gentleman must allow that when their representative in London made the offer on the 8th May, and they had heard nothing in July, they are perfectly free to make the second offer. These shells had in the meantime been offered to the Russian Government, as a matter of fact. Does the hon. Gentleman think that a firm in America capable of making two million shells can sit still month after month awaiting the pleasure of the British or any other Government?
    Mr. AINSWORTH: May I suggest that if they had made an offer of these shells that offer was open and that they must take the price originally offered for the shells?
    Sir R. COOPER: They would if the Munitions Department were smarter in their business. Mr. Hanson on the 19th July wrote to the effect that he was directed to express regret that the offer of the 8th May had remained so long unanswered, and that the offer was declined.
    1.0 A.M.
    I regret to take up so much time, but I wish merely, briefly, to put before the House another curious fact in connection with munitions. The shipyards in Canada are not working full time at the present moment. The Canadian Vickers is a company at Montreal, entirely of British capital and no Canadian in it. They are not fully employed; they are grumbling; they have only one cruiser to repair, and there is this additional fact, that of the work which they have got in hand about one-half are orders that have come to them from the United States for small boats for the British Government. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will be good enough to just bear that in mind, or to pass that information on. Whilst we are complaining about the enormous difficulty
    2448
    of getting engineers and labour in our shipyards in this country, British yards in Canada with British money in them are not being properly employed, and the people are grumbling because they cannot get more work to do for the British Government, whilst people in America are making ships for the British Government. That is not strictly right, because they are making parts of ships. Orders are being placed there which might very well be placed in Canada and carried out under British capital. I have one other matter in connection with munitions to which I must make a reference. It is a month ago now since in this House I endeavoured to get the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions to withdraw a very unpleasant personal attack he made upon me in accusing me of making false misrepresentations, misleading this House and misleading the country. On the 28th June he would not withdraw the statement he had made, although I had given him evidence which I think ought to have satisfied him that he was entirely misled in the information given him and that my representations on that matter were absolutely bonâ fide. He read a letter from this firm of George Mann and Company, of Leeds, which was to this effect: "We have reason to believe that we are the Leeds firm referred to, and we wish to entirely dissociate ourselves from the statement, which contains a wrong impression altogether and is not consonant with the fact's." That is all there is in that letter, with the exception of the heading of two lines, which made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that that letter did not refer to the subject for which he used it, and he has since had information brought to his notice to remind him of this and to show that the use of that letter in the sense in which he used it was absolutely wrong. I am not going to mince words over this. I consider that the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion behaved badly to me in not having withdrawn his accusation on the information which he then had, but when he went a step further and with a two-line heading on a little letter showing it could not possibly refer to the subject for which he used it, he was not only misleading the House, but in my opinion he acted in a very unscrupulous manner. Let me go a step further. I have taken one month since this in which I have endeavoured in the public interest to keep off these personal matters and to try and let the right hon. Gentleman get on with

    2449
    his munitions and not be worried by a Back Bencher like myself. Even his own friends have appealed to him to clear this matter up, but for some peculiar reason of his own he has shown what appears to be a very obstinate determination. All I have to say is this: He is a gentleman with very high responsibility and with very great power. If he will not withdraw and do simple justice to a fellow Member of this House I can do nothing but leave it to the judgment of my colleagues and of the public; but the whole fact is based on this, that I represented Messrs. George Mann and Co., of Leeds, as being ready to make half a million shells for the British Government. The right hon. Gentleman ridiculed me after making some very unnecessary and what he thought were offensive personal remarks about my own business, which I can pass over. He then tried to make me look extremely foolish by ridiculing me for bringing to the Department a firm who printed coloured pictures to make half a million shells. The fact is that he has replied to me in a question to-day that the Leeds Munitions Committee are at the present moment negotiating with this firm for the placing of these very shells with them. The Government are therefore trying to place an order for shells with this firm, but he will not withdraw his attack on me for representing this firm to him as a proper firm, ready, able, and willing' to make shells for the British Government.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: In how long did this firm undertake to give delivery?
    Sir R. COOPER: It was four to five weeks. I am speaking from memory, but I think they were to start with two to three thousand a week, and after four weeks they were going to turn out ten thousand a week. That is speaking from memory, but virtually it is something like that. I am only sorry to have to bring forward these things at a time like this when the right hon. Gentleman has such an enormous task on his shoulders. All we want him to do is to get the munitions, and we want to do everything we can to assist him. I can only say for my own part that it has been a matter of enormous regret to me that I should have had any occasion to raise a personal matter like this. It is still more unsatisfactory inasmuch as when absolutely straight, clear, clean facts are put before him he will not do me the simple justice for which I have asked.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I am off.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am surprised to see the men leaving the House who yesterday came and canvassed us to sign a requisition to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Gentleman would not be talking now if we had not got up that petition.
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is quite right, and I am afraid the hon. Member who-last spoke would have got in very much earlier if such long speeches were not made by the hon. Members who have just left the House. It seems to me that Members really come to ask other Members of this House to sign requisitions to suit their own convenience, and that when their own convenience is suited, and they have made their speeches, they depart and leave the House without any regard to anything else apart from what they themselves bring before the House-That I consider as being a very selfish policy on the part of any Member of this-House.
    Mr. BOOTH: I will go and tell them.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Well, it does not matter. I was going to call attention to a matter, and I am very glad to see two Members of the Government present in the persons of the Financial Secretary to the War Office and the President of the Local Government Board, because I am quite sure that if the President of the Local Government Board was sitting oa the other side of the House, the same as he did before the Coalition Government came into power, he would render good service to the soldiers and sailors in calling attention to some of the defects in the payments to them. I am going to call attention to a matter which to me is very, very serious. I am going to refer for a few minutes to the suspension of the passing of the Pensions Bill, and I am going to try to show the House what the effect will be on a very large number of men. It is not correct, I may say, to state what was stated to-day by the two leading Members of the House, namely, the Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary, that by the suspension of the passing of this Bill we shall revert to the status quo and' that things will remain just as they were-

    2451
    Now, that is not so, because this Committee was set up for a definite purpose; this Bill set up two Committees for a definite purpose, and that was to recommend the payment of pensions to dependants, and to those men who were partially or totalled disabled. We are in this position by the suspension of this Bill: that all the men who were wounded in the War before last October are due at the present time to receive their full pension if they are entitled to it. The position is, that all these men at the present time are either receiving their separation allowance, at least their wives are in eases where they are married, or the dependants, the mothers or sisters, are receiving their dependant allowance. I want to point out what the effect of the suspension of this Bill will be. Take the case of dependants, or the wife of a man who was wounded and is now disabled. In the case of the dependants they will receive their dependant allowance, according to the first Report of January of the Select Committee, for twenty-six weeks. It is the same with a man who has a family: the wife will receive the separation allowance for a period of twenty-six weeks, and after that it is expected that the separation allowance and dependant allowance will lie stopped.
    Mr. FORSTER: No.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, well, that is the very point I want to ask my hon. Friend about; whether the payments will be continued until the case is settled.
    Mr. FORSTER: That is so.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am very glad to hear that. I should like to point this out. Take the case of a wife. The husband is wounded. I will assume that he is permanently or totally disabled. Under the separation allowance she will receive J 2s. 6d. a week for twenty-six weeks, according to the first Report. He will receive 4s. 6d. Be has paid 3s. 6d. towards that separation allowance. He will get 4s. 6d., which will be 17s. for the wife and husband. Under the pension scheme, if the local committee came to the conclusion, and recommended to the statutory Committee, that that man was totally disabled, he would receive a pension of 25s. a week, and he would be entitled at the present time, if this Committee had been set up, or within the next month, to a pension of 25s. a week.
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long)made a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, he would not. I have come across cases. The facts are these. The War Office will not decide any pensions. They will only decide temporary pensions—that is to say, Chelsea Hospital are considering temporary pensions. I have appealed to the War Office several times, trying to get pensions for men totally disabled, and I am told by the War Office, or the department in charge, that they cannot fix these pensions until the statutory Committee is set up, and the Committee report to the War Office as to that to which this man is entitled. Really that is the absolute object and intention of this Pensions Bill.
    Mr. LONGmade a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. SAMUEL: What I am arguing is quite right. I should be very glad to hear what the President of the Local Government Board has to say, but my contention is this: that this man who is totally disabled, who was wounded before last October and as not yet had his pension fixed, that man and his wife ought to be entitled to 25s. They are only getting 17s., according to what I make out, and are practically losing 8s. a week until his pension is fixed. The only pensions fixed under the Report of 14th April, the second Report, are those of the wives and children. Apart from the wives and children, no pensions are fixed up to this date. If you take the man with a wife and one child the case works out in this way. At the present time she would be paid twenty-six weeks separation allowance after the man is wounded. Take his weekly payment of 4s. 6d., after making the allotment, and that will come to 22s. If that man were totally disabled he would be entitled to a pension of 25s. a week, he would get 2s. 6d. for his child, that is his first child, and that comes to 27s. 6d. a week against the 22s. he is now receiving. That man and his wife and child are losing 5s. 6d. a week. I contend that if this is going on for a period of at least three months before we can set up the statutory Committee and the local committees who are to investigate all these cases and make a report, it is a very serious matter to the country, and I believe it will cause a great deal of dissension in the country. There is only one

    2453
    way to cure it. I am appealing to the Financial Secretary. I hope he will look into this matter. What I have said is correct, because I have been to the War Office several times to make inquiries. These people should continue to receive separation allowance. He should give an undertaking that if they are entitled to a total disablement pension the War Office will undertake to pay them the back pay to which they are entitled. If they are going to wait another three or four months before the pension is fixed I believe they are entitled to the back pay, because of the delay in setting up these committees. I have considered it my duty to call attention to this because it is not right for anyone who knows the subject and what is to be done under this Bill to say that this delay is leaving matters as they were. It is a very serious delay to the country, and I hope the War Office will undertake to make reparation to these people.
    Mr. FORSTER: I think, at any rate, I hope, I can reassure my hon. Friend. I think from the speeches which were made earlier in the day the House will realise, and I am sure the House will support the Government in their decision, that the postponement of the Pensions Bill will not be allowed to affect the financial position of anybody disabled. With regard to the specific case the hon. Gentleman has put to me, the case of the widow or the dependants of a man killed, he says that under existing arrangements—
    Mr. SAMUEL: I put the case of the man wounded but totally disabled; not killed.
    Mr. FORSTER: I thought the hon. Gentleman made the case of the man killed whose dependants get the separation allowance for twenty-six weeks.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Excuse me. In the case of the man who is killed, the wife is entitled to a pension fixed under the Report. I was speaking of the wounded man who was totally disabled.
    Mr. FORSTER: The Bill does not touch the position of the men at all. The pension of the soldier is entirely outside the scope of the Bill. The statutory Committee, which will be created when the Bill becomes an Act, has nothing to do with the pension of the soldier. The pension of the soldier is fixed by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital now. The same practice will obtain after the Bill is passed into law, and the amount of the pension which
    2454
    the man draws is fixed by the Commissioners of the Hospital on the assessment of the medical authority. If they assess the man's incapacity at one half, he gets 12s. 6d. a week; if they assess it as total, he gets 25s. a week. It does not depend on the Bill at all, and I want my hon. Friend to understand that quite clearly.
    Well, then, in regard to the points which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, whom I interrupted in order if I could, to make a point which he was putting before the House clearer. I shall, of course, do all I can to bring the statements he has made before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions. The control of these matters has passed out of the hands of the War Office into those of the Ministry of Munitions, and I will undertake to see that the matter is brought to my right hon. Friend's attention. My hon. Friend referred to one matter with which I am concerned, and that is that, after quoting the names of a number of gentlemen who are part of the permanent staff at the War Office, and making some comment upon those names, he referred to the position of a workman in Kent, whose name he did not give—
    Sir R. COOPER: Mantle is his name.
    Mr. FORSTER: If my hon. Friend will communicate by letter the name and the circumstances I will undertake to have the case examined and looked into. Then, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester raised the question of the decision, which I reluctantly announced a couple of days ago, in regard to the extension of proficiency pay to members of the old Volunteer Force. He commented on the sense of grievance under which these gallant men suffer on this account. I can assure him, as an old Volunteer myself, that I personally have done what I could to secure proficiency pay for men of the old Volunteers. I can go further than that, and say that the members of the Army Council have done their best to secure that the proficiency pay should be given to the old Volunteers. I cannot go into this question at any length at this time in the morning, but I want to give the broad essentials. The essential elements in the grant of proficiency pay are: length of service, camp qualifications, and military tests. Proficiency pay is given to men of the Regular Army who have two years' service; for them there are service and military tests alone. For men of the Territorials, the Army Council

    2455
    insists upon full attendance at two fifteen-day camps; and it is in respect of these men who are outside the ranks of the Regular Army itself that this camp test is regarded as absolutely essential as the prime qualification. Now, when we came to consider the question of the Volunteers, we found the difficulty of applying the camp test. My hon. Friend referred to some of the Manchester regiments who voluntarily went into camp for fifteen-day camps. But he must bear in mind that you cannot extend proficiency pay to individual battalions. You have got to settle whether or not you are going to allow service in the old Volunteer Force to count. If you say it may count, you have got to apply it to all the old Volunteers who are qualified. I think it would be quite impossible to say that it could only be applied to a particular Volunteer. My hon. Friend will appreciate the point when I remind him that there was no kind of compulsory camp for any Volunteer battalion. I helped to start a Volunteer battalion, and we used to go into camp of our own free will, and we had to make our own arrangements, and there was no compulsory obligation about it.
    When I found I could not apply the camp test to the old Volunteers I tried to see if I could apply some other test, and whether we could not extend the proficiency pay to the Volunteers in return to an extended period of service. Instead of giving it in respect of two years' service, I tried to see whether we could give it to them in respect of four years' service. But the moment I abandoned the camp test I was brought face to face with the inclusion of all the Territorial Force who are not at present qualified, because they have not got the necessary camp qualification. You have thousands of men in the Territorial Force who, not because they were unwilling to do it, but from force of circumstances, had never been able to attend for two fifteen-day periods. The moment you abandon the compulsory camp qualification I do not see how it is possible to avoid the extension of the proficiency pay to such men as well. And if you are going to do that, you are going to make an enormous demand on the Exchequer; it would be very difficult to calculate exactly what it would come to, but it would approximate to £1,000,000 a year. Now, I say, in the present situation, that is a burden that we cannot lightly
    2456
    assume. I speak as an old Volunteer when I say that, if my words can reach them, I appeal to my old comrades of the Volunteer Force not to allow any sense of grievance to interfere with the full performance of the duty which they have voluntarily undertaken. They, I believe, will feel a legitimate pride in being able to turn to account now the military experience which they gained at a time when they were not very fully encouraged, and I am quite certain that, even although they do cherish some sense of grievance, they would never allow it for a single moment to interfere with the full discharge of their duty to their country.
    Mr. BOWERMAN: I only rise for a couple of minutes to endeavour to elicit a fuller reply to a question I addressed to the War Office this afternoon. A Volunteer Training Corps has been raised in Deptford, as in many other parts of the country. There is a large battalion, 500 or 600 strong, and their officers had arranged for a three days' camp in Kent, to take place next week. They were under the impression that no difficulty would arise in carrying out the arrangements. They were prepared to march to Orpington, to convey their tents, food and everything of the kind; it would not have cost the War Office a brass farthing. And then having made all those arrangements to start on Sunday next for a stay of three days in Orpington, they found that they were to be denied permission to camp. They were going to camp on private ground so that there again no expense would fall on the War Office; and you may imagine their surprise when they received a letter from the War Office to say that they would not be allowed to camp. When I put a question to the Minister this afternoon, I received the answer that they were denied this opportunity to camp because it was in a prescribed area. I understand the term "prescribed area" to-mean that aliens would not be permitted to go there. It is quite new to me to find that men who have volunteered to serve their country if required are placed in the same category as aliens. This action has created consternation among the men. When I put the question this afternoon I thought I would have received some explanation why these men were denied the opportunity of going to camp. I hope my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office will give me and the men of Deptford some explanation.
    Mr. FORSTER: I also am interested in the question of the Volunteers to which my hon. Friend has alluded, and I went into this question at the War Office to-night when my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War was busily engaged here, to see whether or not any arrangement could be made by which the grievance to which my hon. Friend alluded might be removed. I think there has been some misunderstanding about the actual instructions given by the military authorities; at any rate, I think I may say that, while the general prohibition with regard to camping in the county of Kent and in other neighbouring counties still holds good, Volunteer Forces will be allowed to camp within the Metropolitan Police area. I think that Orpington is included in the Metropolitan Police area so that they will, I-think, be allowed to carry out their original arrangement.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That To-morrow, Mr. SPEAKER, so soon as he has reported the Royal Assent to the Bills which have been agreed on by both Houses, do adjourn the House, without Question put, until Tuesday, 14th September.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATION BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered accordingly, and agreed to.
  COTTON ASSOCIATIONS (EMERGENCY ACTION) BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered accordingly, and agreed to.
  TREASURY CONTROL OF ADMIRALTY AND WAR DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURE.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 28th July; Mr. Montagu]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 325.]
  EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
  Return presented relative thereto [Address 28th July; Mr. Brace]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 326.]

  OUTPUT OF COAL IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  Return presented relative thereto [ordered 28th July; Mr. Bunevman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 327.]
  It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty-five minutes before Two o'clock a.m., Thursday, 29th July.