Commons Sitting of 6 May 1915

Preamble
The House being met, the CLERK AT THE TABLE informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.
Whereupon, Mr. WHITLEY, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Ormskirk Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a second time.
Friends' Provident Institution Bill,
Metropolitan Water Board Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Glasgow Corporation (Celluloid) Bill (Suspended Bill) (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday next.
Tramways Provisional Orders Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Message from the Lords,
That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to revive and extend the powers for the acquisition of lands, and to extend the time for the construction of certain
1232
authorised tramways of the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [Bristol Tramways Bill [Lords],
Bristol Tramways Bill [Lords],
Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

DISABLED SAILORS AND SOLDIERS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board upon the provision of employment for Sailors and Soldiers disabled in the War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS (IRELAND) (POPULATION).
Return ordered "giving the population (1891, 1901, and 1911) and valuation, according to counties and Poor Law Union, of the various districts scheduled as congested in Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 397, of Session 1902)."—[Mr. Flavin.]

LABOURERS' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
Return ordered "in respect of labourers' cottages in Ireland, showing (1) county and rural district; (2) valuation of rural district; (3) number of labourers' cottages, (a) built, (b) in course of construction; (4) amount of loans, (a) sanctioned, (b) received; (5) amount required to be raised annually in repayment of loans sanctioned; (6) amount which would be raised by the maximum rate of 1s. in the £ allowed for the purposes of the Acts; (7) amount which it has been proposed to raise in each rural district under the provisions in Section 12 of the Act of 1906; (8) rate per £ required to raise amount specified in column 5; (9) present poundage rate levied on rural districts for the Labourers Acts purposes; (10) amount of Exchequer contribution for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1915; (11) amount of rent received from tenants of cottages and plots during the year; (12) unissued balance, if any, of county's share of the Exchequer contribution; (13) totals per county and province and for all Ireland; and (14) Return made up to the 31st

1233
day of March, 1915 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 277, of Session 1914)."—[Mr. Flavin.]
Return ordered "showing (a) the number of cottages and allotments provided under the Labourers' Acts by each district council in Ireland; (b) the rents reserved in letting under those Acts; (c) the number of cottages or allotments unoccupied within each district council area; (d) the number of cottages or allotments the rent whereof is in arrear and the total amount of such arrears within the said area; (e) the number of cottages applied for in each rural district under the last completed scheme under the Labourers' Acts, together with the number of applications for extra half-acres to cottages already built under the said scheme, the number of applications for cottages and extra half-acres sanctioned, the amount of the official, legal, engineering, clerical and other expenses incurred in connection with the preparation and confirmation of every such scheme and the particulars thereof; (f) the number of cases where advances have been made under Section 2 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, as amended by the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1906 and 1911, to agricultural labourers; and (g) Return made up to the 31st day of March, 1915, (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 276, of Session 1914)."—[Mr. Flavin.]

CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT AT THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE).
Copy ordered "of Treasury Minute, dated the 4th day of May, 1915, stating the circumstances under which certain Civil servants have been retained in the Service after they have attained the age of sixty-five; and of the Return therein referred to."—[Mr. Acland.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    EGYPTIAN COTTON (PROHIBITION OF EXPORTS).
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the prohibition of the export of cotton contained
    1234
    in the Order in Council of 27th April applies to exports from Egypt of Egyptian cotton; and, if not, whether he intends to take any steps to prohibit the export of Egyptian cotton from Egypt to all ports other than those of France, Russia, Spain, and Portugal?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The Egyptian Government has been invited to prohibit the export of cotton in the manner suggested, and the measure is expected to become operative very shortly.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the six months 1st October to 31st March, Germany and Austria imported 99,272 bales of cotton from Egypt in 1913–14 and in 1914–15 none during the same period; whether the imports of cotton from Egypt to Italy and Switzerland together in the six months 1st October to 31st March, 1914–15, increased by 99,524 bales; whether he has any information as to the ultimate destination of the Egyptian cotton represented by this increase in imports; and if he will state the names of the firms who are the principal shippers of Egyptian cotton and the principal consignee in Switzerland and Italy, respectively?
    Sir E. GREY: The figures given by the hon. Member are substantially correct; but I would refer him to the answer given to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on 5th May, and remind him that it has only been the policy of His Majesty's Government to prevent all imports reaching Germany since 11th March, so that the statistics quoted do not cover more than a very short period during which the present policy has been in operation. Since the initiation of that policy everything has been done to prevent all imports reaching Germany, and, as I have already informed the hon. Member, in reply to a previous question to-day, instructions have been given for the prohibition of the export of raw cotton from Egypt to any destination from which it could reach Germany.
    Mr. PETO: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the names and nationalities of the firms who have been the principal exporters of Egyptian cotton?
    Sir E. GREY: I have not at this moment.

    INTERNED SHIPS IN NEUTRAL PORTS.
    Sir J. D. REESasked what steps are taken to prevent the repairing and escape of enemy ships interned in neutral ports, and the return of their crews to the enemy fighting line?
    Sir E. GREY: The actual steps taken in each case are within the discretion of the neutral Power concerned. Probably the most usual course would be to remove parts of the machinery and to set limits to the movements of officers and men.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are we to understand steps are being taken?
    Sir E. GREY: No, I cannot say in every neutral country what steps are being taken by the Government concerned. It is only the Government of the neutral country that can take steps; the steps are within its own discretion.
    Sir EDWARD CARSON: Have any ships escaped?
    Sir E. GREY: After they have been actually interned?
    Sir E. CARSON: Yes.
    Sir E. GREY: I cannot say without notice.
    Sir J. D. REES: Has representation been made to America to that effect?
    Sir E. GREY: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of any specific question. I am not aware that there is any cause for anxiety as to the escape of any ship actually declared interned by any neutral Power. If there were cause for anxiety we would, of course, make representation to the neutral Power concerned.

    FRENCH WINES.
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether any communications have been exchanged between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the French Republic regarding the proposed new taxation on French wines?
    Sir E. GREY: The interests of the French wine growers have been brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government, who are considering the question.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.

    TREATMENT OF BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
    Colonel LAWSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that at least thirteen British officers are, imprisoned in solitary confinement in the military prison at Cologne; whether they are only allowed one hour's exercise in an insanitary yard once a day and are forbidden, even then, to speak to one another; whether their cells are about 12 feet by 6 feet, with only one window high up in the wall; if they are denied decent sanitary conditions; and whether any German officers in England captured from submarines are subjected to like treatment?
    Sir E. GREY: As to the first three parts of the hon. Member's question, similar information has reached me from unofficial sources. With regard to the last part of the question the answer is in the negative, as is shown by the report of the member of the United States Embassy, who visited the German prisoners at Chatham, and which was published by the Press Bureau on the 4th instant. The prisoners at Devonport were visited yesterday. I may add that the treatment of the prisoners at Devonport is similar to that accorded to the prisoners at Chatham. The report of the treatment of German prisoners here has been forwarded to Berlin, as it was stated that the same treatment would be given to the British prisoners in Germany.
    Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether any immediate action is going to be taken with regard to the treatment of British prisoners in Germany; and whether he is aware that, if the present mortality amongst the prisoners continues, there may be very few alive at the end of the War?
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURYalso asked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to carry out the Resolution of the House of Commons of 27th April dealing with the treatment of prisoners of war in Germany?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I must refer to the statements which were made in the Debate yesterday.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is no immediate action going to be taken with regard to these prisoners?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I described yesterday exactly what steps we are taking.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Then are steps only going to be taken after the War is over?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must refer the Noble Lord to what I said yesterday.

    DEATH SENTENCE ON PRIVATE LONSDALE.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information to the House as to the reported sentence of death passed on Private Lonsdale, British prisoner of war in Germany?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for War (Mr. Tennant): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. No information has reached us beyond what is contained in the newspapers. I would also refer the Noble Lord to the written answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for South West Ham.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Will the right hon. Gentleman get some information. This man's life is in jeopardy.
    Mr. TENNANT: It is impossible to get information from the German Government. The man's life is dependent entirely on the fiat of the Emperor of Germany.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Cannot representations be made to the German Ambassador in Berlin?
    Mr. TENNANT: He is fully cognisant of the fact. The German Ambassador in Berlin has been communicated with through the Ambassador in London.
    Mr. DUNCAN: May we expect that if methods like this continue to be pursued in Germany, we shall play the same game here?
    Mr. TENNANT: That is no part of the policy of the Government.

  WOUNDED IN MILITARY ZONE (VISITS TO RELATIVES).
  Mr. JAMES HOPEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether permits to visit Boulogne even on public business can only be obtained through the base commandant; whether permits to
  1238
  visit wounded relations in the military zone can only be obtained through the medical commandants of hospitals; and what means are available for ascertaining in what hospitals individual patients may be found, and how application to the medical commandants should be made?
  Mr. TENNANT: Permits for British subjects to visit Boulogne or to visit wounded relations in the military zone can only be obtained through the permit officer, Downing Street. The notification of the hospital in which a wounded officer or soldier is lying is made from the War Office or from the Record Office. Under present regulations relatives must produce to the Permit Office the telegram from the War Office or Record Office saying that the officer or soldier is dangerously wounded.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that at the Permit Office the information given is that these permits must be obtained at Boulogne in the case of anyone wanting to go there?
  Mr. TENNANT: I was not aware of that, and I think the proper procedure is the one I have just read out.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give careful consideration to this case, in view of the great anxiety of relatives, and the possibility, at any rate, that under the existing procedure they will not be able to get their permits until after their relatives are dead?
  Mr. TENNANT: Of course, I thoroughly appreciate the anxiety of the relatives, and I am most anxious to do what is in my power. I will look into the question of the Noble Lord.

  UNION CABLE COMPANY DIRECTOR.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the hon. Member for the Saffron Walden Division, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if Siegfried Hirschmann is still a director of the Union Cable Company and where he is residing; does he receive fees; and what steps the Office of Works has taken to secure that no part of the profit on the cable contract given to this German firm reaches Siegfried Hirschmann?
  Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury): Mr. Hirschmann, so far as is known, is still a director. His place of residence is not known to the First Commissioner. He is receiving no fees. Before the contract was made the First Commissioner ascertained that the Board of Trade had appointed a supervisor under the Trading with the Enemy Amendment Act, 1914, which with other Acts and Proclamations precludes payment of money to or for the benefit of an enemy.
  Mr. BOOTH: Will the Office of Works not try to find out where this man does live, in view of the importance of an enemy getting knowledge of our cable contracts?
  Mr. BECK: I think my hon. Friend rather misunderstands the situation. The Office of Works has really no responsibility in this particular matter beyond giving the contract to the firm most suitable to carry it out. All Regulations regarding enemy aliens are done under the Trading with the Enemy Act and by a Board of Trade official.

  NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY (FARES TO CONVALESCENT HOMES).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the North-Eastern Railway Company has withdrawn the advantage of cheaper fares hitherto accorded to sick men taking up residence in convalescent homes; and whether this action has been taken by the company at the suggestion of the Board of Trade?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I am in correspondence with the railway company on this matter, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this withdrawal is causing very great discontent?

  UNITED KINGDOM PORTS (CONGESTON).
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will obtain from Lord Inchcape's Committee a
  1240
  formal Report on the congestion of various important ports in the United Kingdom; if the same will be issued to Members of this House or laid upon the Table; and if he can state at what date this Report will be issued?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Lord Inchcape's Committee was not constituted to inquire and make a formal Report on congestion in the various ports. It is a Joint Committee of members nominated by port and dock authorities for the purpose of an interchange of views as to the practical steps to be taken by those authorities either separately or in co-operation for dealing with the traffic of the ports in the most expeditious manner possible. The Committee has already accomplished valuable practical work on these lines. I doubt if any useful purpose would be served by calling on them for a formal Report on congestion, and I fear that such an alteration in the objects of the Committee would necessitate a modification of its composition and lead to delay.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the congestion of the ports is a matter of vital importance, and is a direct factor in the increased cost of the food of the people?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Yes.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not in the public interest that the Report should be issued, because others may be able to make suggestions as well? Can he explain why, on a recent occasion, when the Home Sec-rotary, answering a question addressed to the President to the Board of Trade, referred me to the Report. Was that merely diplomatic evasion?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I will make inquiries.
  Mr. HOUSTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is more congestion in the port of Liverpool than in any other port in the United Kingdom; that on or about 14th April some seventy vessels were waiting for discharging berths; that the average number of vessels waiting for berths daily since that date is about sixty, and that many of the berths allotted to steamers are full of cargoes discharged from previous vessels and technically known as foul berths, and, therefore, practically useless for the purposes of discharge; that the ss. "Lime Branch" arrived in the port of Liverpool on 1st March and at the present

  1241
  date, after being sixty-five days in port, has only succeeded in discharging about two-thirds of her cargo; that there is also a shortage of labour for discharging purposes in Liverpool; and that on the 3rd instant six steamship companies were short of about 1,000 men; whether he is aware that the delay in discharging steamers creates a scarcity of tonnage and an increase in freights without any corresponding advantage to the steamship lines; and whether, in view of the injury to the port and the steamship lines trading to and from Liverpool, he will make representations to the Admiralty and the War Office to make use of other ports where there is less or no congestion?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Without going into details the facts are, generally speaking, in accord with the hon. Member's question. The congestion of the port at Liverpool has caused me great concern, and I can assure the hon. Member that the Admiralty and War Office are fully alive to the difficulties at Liverpool, and are doing all they can to reduce them, both by the use of alternative ports and in other ways.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to the War Office and the Admiralty to divert some of the ships which are fitting out there and occupying berths to other ports, where they would not cause congestion in the same manner as they do at Liverpool?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I will consider that suggestion.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Does the hon. Member realise what the detention of a steamer like the one I have mentioned means for sixty days in port, and only discharging part of her cargo?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now simply repeating his original question.

  TRADING STEAMERS (GREAT BRITAIN AND HOLLAND).
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether any steamers are trading between Great Britain and Holland, and, if so, which?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: There are steamers trading between Great Britain and Holland, but it is not desirable to give publicity to their names.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the passenger traffic has been discontinued or suspended, and, if so, how long has it been suspended, and will he explain why that suspension synchronises with the holding of the Women's Peace Conference at The Hague?
  Mr. HOGGE: May I ask my hon. Friend whether firms who are interested in sending and receiving goods have recently had notice of this suspension?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question.

  BRITISH DYES, LIMITED.
  Mr. BOOTHasked whether the Swiss dye manufacturers attended at Whitehall recently and refused to be coerced into exclusive dealing with British Dyes, Limited; whether the chairman of the company has visited Basle by arrangement with the Board of Trade and what is the object of his visit; and what is the Government policy towards users in this country who object to this monopoly?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: No suggestion as to exclusive dealing with British Dyes, Limited, has been made to the Swiss dye-making firms, and the answer to the second part of the question is also in the negative. I have no knowledge of any proposed monopoly such as is suggested in the last part of the question.
  Mr. BOOTH: Will my hon. Friend say whether the Swiss dye manufacturers did attend at Whitehall recently?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That is so.
  Mr. BOOTH: What was the object of the conference, and what was the pressure put upon them?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: When the hon. Member makes suggestions as to pressure, perhaps he will give me notice?
  Sir F. CAWLEY: Has any arrangement been made between the British Dyes, Limited, and the Society of Chemical Industries?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That does not arise.
  Sir F. CAWLEYasked whether Sir Mark Oldroyd has resigned the chairmanship of British Dyes, Limited; who is the

  1243
  new chairman; and whether he has been appointed with the approval of the Government?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I understand that owing to ill-health Sir Mark Oldroyd has found it necessary to resign the chairmanship of British Dyes, Limited, and that the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. Falconer) has been appointed by the directors in his stead. The appointment is a matter solely for the directors of the company, and does not require Government approval.
  Sir F. CAWLEY: May I ask if the hon. Member for Forfarshire was on the Advisory Committee or on the Committee which advised the Government?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I do not know to what Committee the hon. Baronet refers, and perhaps he will give me notice.
  Mr. WATT: Is it not a fact that these directors are paid £10,000 a year for the management of British Dyes, Limited?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The figures were made public in the course of the Debate.
  Mr. BUTCHER: What salary is the new chairman paid?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is really a question which the hon. Gentleman ought to give notice of, and it does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  MEDICAL CONSULTANTS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the duties of the eminent doctors to whom he pays £5,000 a year; whether they demanded or were offered such fees; and how many other civilian doctors are employed at higher than the rate of pay for naval doctors?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The duties of five of the consultants, at a salary of £5,000, are to perform surgical, medical, or research work at the Naval Hospitals to which they are appointed and where they reside, and to visit for operative or consultative work any of the Naval Hospitals or civil hospitals taking naval patients, in any part of England. The sixth consultant performs similar duties
  1244
  for the whole of Scotland. They were offered the fees paid, and did not demand them. Other civilian doctors employed on special terms and not at naval rates are one junior consulting surgeon, at £1,500 per annum, who is acting as operating surgeon in the hospital ship at the Dardanelles and consulting surgeon for all ships and naval hospitals in the Mediterranean; and two anaesthetists, at £1,000 per annum, one doing daily duty at Haslar and one at Chatham hospitals. Both of these gentlemen are also sent anywhere in England or Scotland where their services may be required.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it not an entirely new departure for the Admiralty to employ medical consultants?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It was arranged generally in 1908, that in the event of this country being engaged in war, this scheme and the appointment of consultants on these lines, though not at these salaries—they were fixed afterwards—should be undertaken.

  BRITISH PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS.
  Mr. WADSWORTHasked whether, in view of the engineering importance of the War, any of the British professional engineers appearing in the published lists of the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, to the number of 12,000, have been retained at upwards of £3,000 per annum; and whether he is aware that this is the only profession which has to qualify by actual labour experience before admission to the lists of the institutions, and therefore peculiarly numbers in its ranks the consultants whose services should be retained in labour matters?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, I am aware that a certain term of professional training is a condition precedent to membership of the institutions referred to, but I do not think that my hon. Friend's inference is necessarily a sound one.
  Mr. WADSWORTHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the engineering importance of the War, any British professional engineers in

  1245
  the published lists of the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Electrical Engineers, and of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, to the number of 12,000, have been retained at upwards of £3,000 per annum; what number of these professional engineers are actually serving in the ranks, whereby their experience of labour and mastery of materials is lost to the nation and its workers who must have the advice and direction which constitute a great national asset; whether the Government will consider the advisability of retaining a number of these professional engineers at retainers essential to such an eminent and arduous profession and at least equal to those paid to medical and legal consultants; whether he has considered whether the public recognition and extensive retention of these trained engineers in authoritative positions would improve labour processes; whether these engineers could relieve a number of experimental military officers for service with the troops; how many of the listed professional engineers have offered their services for organising and other engineering work to the War Office and have not so far been retained; whether, in view of the preventative, constructive, and aggressive value of the work of this profession, the Government will take steps to place its members in prominent positions in the legislature and to extend its services beyond the Committee Rooms; and whether any chemists are retained by the Government at £5,000 per annum?
  Mr. TENNANT: In reply to the first three parts of the question, I am not aware that any civilian engineers have been retained at a salary of £3,000 a year or upwards, nor can I state that number of the members of the institutions are serving with the ranks. The War Office is receiving much useful assistance from members of the civil engineering profession and no complaint has been made that workers on war materials are being hindered owing to want of professional advice. As regards the fourth part of the question, it is not considered that the labour processes would be improved by the extensive retention of trained engineers beyond those already in War Department service. As regards the fifth part of the question, a certain number of civil engineers have already relieved military engineers for service with the troops. As regards the sixth part of the question, the applications from civil engineers are to numerous to specify. I understand that sixty have been employed in various ways. I think that the point
  1246
  raised in the seventh part of the question would more properly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am not aware that any chemists are retained by the Government at £5,000 per annum.

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACT.
  Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the evidence of the Director of Transports, he now proposes to put the crews of all vessels in Admiralty service under the Naval Discipline Act?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The question is under consideration.

  MUNITIONS.

    SIR JOHN JELLICOE'S LETTER.
    Mr. HOGGEasked what action was taken on the receipt of Admiral Sir John Jellicoe's letter of 26th March, in which he stated that the efficiency of the Fleet was endangered by the labour situation?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Reports on output naturally receive close consideration, and one result of this and other communications is the Bill to which the House will to-day be asked to give a Second Reading.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question as to whether the Admiralty at once took action upon Sir John Jellicoe's letter; and could he, at the same time, say whether the labour situation applied entirely or specifically to the strike on the Clyde or to the conditions which attached to what we call the drink problem?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as I can remember, the strike on the Clyde could not possibly have had anything to do with Admiral Jellicoe's letter, which was dated 26th March, and, if my memory serves me, the strike was over long before that.
    Mr. HOGGE: Was it the drink question?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have taken steps, and one of them is the Bill the Second Reading of which we are asking for to-day.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is it not a fact that Admiral Sir John Jellicoe knew nothing about the drinking?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I could not say.

  LOSS OF H.M.S. "FORMIDABLE" (BUGLER S. C. REED).
  Mr. HOHLERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the gallant conduct of 17153, Bugler S. C. Reed, Royal Marine Light Infantry, who lost his life on the sinking of H.M.S. "Formidable," of whom it is recorded that, when advised to use his drum to keep himself afloat, he replied that he had thought of it, but had given it to one of the bluejacket boys for that purpose as the lad had nothing to keep himself afloat in the heavy seas then prevailing, and that he did not feel very nervous; and will he consider whether a medal or some other enduring record of this boy's fine example might be given to his parents?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no medal which could be given for an act of this sort, but the relations will get the War medal. The Admiralty have already shown their appreciation of this boy's courage by sending to his father a special letter, which I will read:—
  [Copy of letter sent to Mr. W. T. Reed.]
  14th March, 1915.
  "I am commanded by My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to inform you that they have received through General Sir Francis Thomas, K.C B., Royal Marine Light Infantry, the enclosed statement made by Private Herbert Beal, R.M.L.I., of a gallant act performed by your son the late Bugler S. C. Reed, R.M.L.I., on the occasion of the sinking of H.M S. "Formidable" in the Channel on New Year's Day, 1915, in which he, unfortunately, lost his life.
  My Lords desire me to convey to you their deep appreciation of the courage and self-sacrifice displayed by your son, and they trust that the knowledge of the facts may be some consolation to you in your bereavement."

  ALEXANDRA DOCK, NEWPORT (DISCHARGE OF TORPEDO).
  Sir RICHARD COOPERasked if, on the evening of 21st April, a party of ladies was taken over the torpedo-destroyer "Lawton" whilst lying in the Alexandra Dock, Newport (Mon.), and a torpedo was fired by one of the party across the dock, narrowly missing an Italian steamer and burying itself in the dock side; if so, what is the value of the damage done, including the value of the torpedo; and if it is within the regulations for parties of strangers to be shown over naval vessels during war time?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The facts are practically as stated, except that the accident was not caused by one of the party, but
  1248
  was due to gross carelessness on the part of one of the crew, disciplinary measures for which are now being considered. The party consisted of four friends of a chief petty officer, two of them, I understand, being employés in the docks. The estimated damage has not yet been ascertained, and I do not think it would be in the public interest to give the value of the torpedo. The regulations admit of friends of the crew being shown round ships, during war, at the discretion of the commanding officer.

  ARMY CLOTHING CONTRACT.
  Mr. BOOTHasked if a large contract has been given to Glanfield and Sons for clothing; and whether, in view of that firm being busy with a £2,500,000 contract for the War Office, he will explain why the work was not placed direct with the makers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Admiralty contracts recently placed with Messrs. Glanfield have not been very large, the most important being a contract for supply of kits for air mechanics, worth possibly some £500 a week. They are actual manufacturers of clothing, and are not allowed to sub-let this work, but they necessarily obtain some small articles of the kit from other sources, e.g., braces, ties, etc.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that Messrs. Glanfield and Sons have sent letters to manufacturers in the West Riding saying that they are asked by the Admiralty to communicate with them and try and place orders with them?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not understand that in connection with the contract referred to in this question.
  Mr. WATT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this figure of £2,500,000 is accurate and whether it is in addition to £3,000,000 worth of work which this same firm—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Admiralty.

  VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
  Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have yet come to any decision in regard to the request made that those in their civil

  1249
  employ and not of military age may be allowed to join the Volunteer Training Corps; and will he accede to this request?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, Sir. No Admiralty employé who is beyond the age for military service will be refused permission to join the Volunteer Training Corps.

  ENEMY ALIENS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to Lord Lindley's and Lord Wrenbury's views that the Continental Tyre case, permitting alien enemies formed into an English company to carry on their trade, etc., here, should be carried to the highest tribunal; and, if so, whether he will consult the Board of Trade with a view to such appeal being carried out?
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon): What is practically important in this matter is to secure that while British shareholders get their dividends as usual, enemy shareholders should not, and that no company registered in this country should be allowed to carry on its business in time of war save under British control and save in a way which is an advantage to this country. These practical objects are being secured under the emergency legislation which has already been passed, and I do not think an appeal in the Continental Tyre case would in any way improve the position.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of legislation?
  Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir. The desirability of legislation was considered by the whole. House last autumn, and the legislation to which I have referred was passed with the consent of the whole House with the object I have indicated.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the responsibility for the non-removal of alien enemies from the prohibited areas lies with the Secretary of State for the Home Department or with himself; and, if with himself, what is the reason for allowing so many to remain in such areas in spite of the raids, both naval and aerial, which the enemy has made?
  Mr. TENNANT: The responsibility for the removal of enemy aliens rests with the Chief Constable, who is directed, in case of doubt, to consult the military authorities. The military authorities have also independent power, udder the Defence of the Realm Regulations, to remove suspected persons of whatever nationality, but I am advised that enemy nationality alone is not sufficient ground for removal.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it the War Office view that it is in the interests of the country to leave this largo number of enemy aliens in prohibited areas on our coasts?
  Mr. TENNANT: All enemy aliens as to whom there is ground for suspicion are-removed. Those as to whom there is no suspicion are not.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then unless there is actual suspicion in the mind of the War Office with regard to the individual enemy alien, there is no objection to their remaining in prohibited areas?
  Mr. TENNANT: All enemy aliens who live in prohibited areas are the subject of constant watchfulness and care.

  PRIZE COMMITTEE.
  Sir E. CARSONasked the Attorney-General whether the Prize Committee has been appointed under any Act of Parliament or with the authority of the House of Commons; what is the amount of claims made before such Committee up to the present date; what is the procedure of the Committee; and whether, before any money which would otherwise be payable as prize money to the Royal Navy or any public funds are allocated for payment of claims before the Prize Committee, this House will have an opportunity of discussing the question?
  Sir J. SIMON: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Prize Court, when dealing with enemy property over which British or neutral bankers or merchants have a charge, lien, or mortgage for money advanced, disregards entirely all such claims, and leaves the banker or merchant without any security for the return of the money he has advanced. Consequently the Committee was appointed by the Prime Minister to receive and consider such claims and to make recommendations to the Treasury in regard to them. I have asked for details of the amount of claims,

  1251
  and will furnish them when they reach me. The Committee investigates such claims by examining the shipping and commercial documents or otherwise, according to circumstances. As I have already explained to the right hon. Gentleman, the Committee does not decide out of what funds the claims will be met. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give notice of a question to the Prime Minister on the last point raised in his question.
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his former statement that these claims may be paid out of the naval prize money, whether there is any representative of the Navy upon this Committee; and may I also ask him whether in other cases outside the question of capital, where contracts are interfered with and there are losses, the contracting parties will also get compensation, or why is there any special reason in this case?
  Sir J. SIMON: As regards the first part of the question now put by the right hon. Gentleman, there is a representative of the Navy on the Committee; and, as regards the second part of the question, the House will judge whether it is not right that claims of British merchants and traders should at any rate be considered and investigated. I do not know of the other incidents to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
  Sir E. CARSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that every day there are questions where people have been almost ruined by the War in relation to their contracts?
  Sir J. SIMON: I do not know what the question is unless it is that the right hon. Gentleman objects to the claims of British merchants and bankers being investigated.
  Sir E. CARSON: No, the right hon. Gentleman must not say that. I have not said so at all. All I ask the right hon. Gentleman is that this matter should not be done behind the backs of the House, but that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of discussing these particular questions, especially having regard to the fact that the Prize Court is—
  Mr. LYNCH: On a point of Order. Is this Question Time?

  CHARGES AGAINST MINISTERS.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Attorney-General whether, having regard to the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act and the penalties at common law and by Statute for the dissemination of false news, he will consider the advisability of moving the Public Prosecutor with a view to the prevention of charges in the Press of corruption against Ministers and of such practices as tend to discourage the people of these countries in their efforts to bring the War to a successful issue and to give strength to the enemy?
  Sir J. SIMON: The expediency of a prosecution has always to be judged in reference to the facts of a particular case, and I do not know to what case my hon. and learned Friend refers. I think public opinion will be far more effective than public prosecution in any such case as my hon. Friend supposes. Of course no objection is taken to public criticism, as long as such criticism is inspired by a single-minded desire to promote the public interest.

  CIVIL SERVICE (ASSISTANT CLERKS).
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is proposed to grant a War bonus to meet the increasing cost of living to those assistant clerks who, for seven years and upwards, have been marking time on their maximum of £150 without any increase whatever in their pay?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): I cannot differentiate between persons who have for some time been at the maximum salary of their class without receiving promotion and any other class of Civil servants receiving the same or a less salary. The question of the pay of Government employés at low salaries must necessarily be considered by the Government as soon as a decision is given in the case of the Post Office servants, but I cannot at present say more than that.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is not this a case where differentiation ought to be made, seeing that the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service emphatically and very strongly reported that these clerks had a case for an immediate increase?
  Mr. ACLAND: Quite; and they have all been given increments of salary.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Did not the Royal Commission also recommend that these men who had reached the maximum of £150 should be advanced to £200?
  Mr. ACLAND: It was possible, as a very special case, to isolate the case of giving one increment to all assistant clerks from all the others, and it was done; but that is the only recommendation which can be isolated. The recommendation which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned is intimately bound up with the whole reorganisation of very different classes besides this one.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that in the same sentence they recommended that those who have reached the maximum should proceed by stages to £200?
  Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Member will find that question is intimately connected with several other questions which must wait over until the authorities concerned have a little more time to deal with them.

  HERRING EXPORTS.
  Mr. SUTHERLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there are over 60,000 barrels of cured herrings still lying in Scotland; that whereas, before the War, the rate of freight to Petrograd was about 2s. 6d. per barrel payable by the consignee, freight and carriage expenses are now over 22s. per barrel payable in advance by the shipper; that if licences to export herrings to Russia had been promptly issued a large proportion of such herrings could have been sold, whereas owing to the delay in granting permits sales to any great extent on this side are now rendered almost impossible; and whether, in view of the hardship inflicted on holders, a large proportion of whom commenced business last year, he will appoint a Committee or take other steps to inquire into and report upon the situation?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): According to my latest information, the stocks on hand on 30th April amounted to about 55,000 barrels, and a small export trade is still going on. From reports received, I understand that the former and present terms of export to
  1254
  Petrograd are substantially as stated by my hon. Friend. The issue of licences to export does not rest with my Department, and I am not in a position to enter into the considerations raised by his reference to that matter. I will consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend as to the appointment of a Committee.
  Mr. COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government contemplate making any payment whatever as compensation in respect of herrings rendered unsaleable by the War?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is a very large question.
  Mr. WATT: Is not the right hon. Gentleman shocked to realise that?

  FARM LABOUR.
  Mr. PETOasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether Form Z 3 of the inquiry relating to the labour requirements of farmers has been sent to all farmers in Great Britain, or whether it relates to England only, or has only been sent to selected farmers; and whether he will make public the result of the inquiries made through this Form by his Department?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the Form Z 8. This is a Form of inquiry regarding the state of employment, and has been circulated to employers of labour in various industries by the Labour Exchanges Department of the Board of Trade periodically since the outbreak of War. With the object of ascertaining winter conditions of employment in agriculture, the Form was sent in January to a large number of representative farmers in England and Wales, the names being supplied through the Board of Agriculture. The results of this investigation were included in a Report presented to Parliament in March (Cd. 7850), a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. The form is at the present time being circulated again to a still larger number of farmers in England and Wales, and also to representative farmers in Scotland—the names being supplied, as before, through official channels.
  Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentleman make known to the House the result of these further inquiries?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I will endeavour to do so.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what steps he has taken to encourage the employment of golf caddies in agriculture during the present shortage of labour?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Harry Verney): The Board addressed a circular in March last to some 1,100 golf clubs in England and Wales suggesting that caddies over school age should be urged to register with the Labour Exchanges for agricultural employment. Replies have been received from ninety-two clubs, twenty-six of which promise to give effect to the suggestion, three promise consideration, and the remainder either do not employ caddies at all, or, if they do, the latter are already engaged on agricultural or other work in their spare time.
  Sir W. BYLES: Will the hon. Gentleman extend his efforts to golf players?
  Sir H. VERNEY: I will consider that.

  FOUNDLING CHILDREN.
  Mr. CURRIEasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will afford temporary assistance to hospitals and institutions which have at their disposal facilities for caring for foundling children so as to guard against the risk of hastily prepared measures in this direction in the absence of authoritative information?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this questoin. The information which has reachel me from a number of different sources leads me to believe that the problem will be found to be much smaller than has been suggested, and I doubt whether action on the lines proposed would be necessary or advisable. It is, of course, most important that infants should not be separated from their mothers, and I should hope that the number of foundling children would be very small indeed. I may add that the Local Government Board are prepared to
  1256
  receive applications for Grants in aid of maternity centres.

  RECRUITING (CENSUS OF UNMARRIED MEN).
  Mr. TURTONasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to bring in a Bill empowering and directing county councils and municipal corporations, acting through selected committees, forthwith to take a census and investigate all cases of unmarried men between the ages of eighteen and thirty-five within their respective areas, in order that they may furnish the War Office with the names of those men who, in their judgment, are deemed to be available for the service of their country, discriminating between those who can be called upon to serve in some military capacity or in industrial work?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that a case has been made out for a compulsory return.

  ARMY COMMISSIONS AND CIVIL SERVANTS.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a Treasury minute has been issued to the War Office intimating that no application for a commission is to be considered from anyone in the Government service until he has obtained permission from his Department or has discharged himself; whether the notification that a month's notice will not be required from members of the staff of the Valuation Department desiring to enlist applies to those applying for a commission; and, if so, whether a minute will be issued to the War Office stating that such applicants may be considered on the same footing as other applicants not affected by the Treasury Minute above referred to?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): No minute of the nature referred to has been issued. The action of the War Office, though naturally related to the Treasury Regulations of last August, is within their own discretion. I understand that no difficulty such as my hon. Friend anticipates would arise in the case of a temporary valuation officer who, before terminating his engagement in order to join the Forces, applied to the War Office for a commission.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL (RAILWAY FACILITES FOR WORKMEN).
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that inconvenience and delay in reaching their work has been caused to a number of workpeople employed at Woolwich Arsenal as a result of the closing of Deptford Station; and whether he will consider the desirability of making representations to the general manager of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway with a view to the restoration of travelling facilities for such workpeople when going to and returning from the Arsenal?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am afraid that I cannot add to the information contained in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend's previous question on the 22nd April and the letter which I subsequently addressed to him.

  ARMY HORSE-SHOES.
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a notice has been sent to all farriers who have been engaged in making horse-shoes for the Army that no further hand-made horse-shoes will be required after 30th April; whether he can state where the future supply is being drawn from; and whether he is aware that the working farriers of the South of England were appealed to in November last to put forth their utmost exertions to supply the Army with horseshoes, and in response have not only produced a very large quantity but have stocked large quantities of iron which the decision of the War Office leaves on their hands?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Baker): A notice was sent to the farriers that no further handmade horse-shoes would be required after 30th April, and this date was subsequently extended to 31st July on receipt of information that some farriers had laid in stocks of iron which would otherwise be left on their hands. Orders have been placed in this country for all the machine-made shoes that can be obtained, and further orders have been placed in America. I regret the necessity, but the change is due to urgent representations by the military authorities
  1258
  that machine-made shoes are more satisfactory for shoeing in the field.
  Mr. PETO: Is it not the fact that nearly all the defects in the hand-made shoe supplied are due to defects in the patent supplied, and not to the execution of the work?
  Mr. BAKER: I think those in the field are well able to judge as to that.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Does the hon. Gentleman make any inquiry as to the patents supplied to those engaged in the hand-made industry? Are those patents open to the criticism which has been passed upon them by officers in the field?
  Mr. BAKER: I know the matter has been fully investigated; but I shall be very glad to have the special point of the right hon. Gentleman examined.

  CIVILIAN DOCTORS (PAY).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any civilian doctors are employed by the Army at salaries of upwards of £3,000 per annum; if so, who are they and what are they paid; and how many civilian doctors are receiving rates of pay higher than doctors of corresponding rank in the Royal Army Medical Corps?
  Mr. TENNANT: There are no civilian doctors receiving higher rates of pay than officers of corresponding rank in the Royal Army Medical Corps and Army Medical Service.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Will not inconvenience arise from the fact that the Admiralty are paying four times as much as the Army?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that this is not the time for argument.

  POST OFFICE TEMPORARY EMPLOYES (ENLISTMENT).
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that over 11,000 out of 20,000 temporary men employed in the Post Office are between the ages of nineteen and

  1259
  thirty-eight years and over 6,000 are unmarried, he will endeavour to make some arrangement with the Postmaster-General to enable them to be enlisted and to employ more old men on this temporary work?
  Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has already been communicated with in the sense mentioned. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a question to him.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I put one to-day.

  PROMOTED OFFICERS (PAY AND EMOLUMENTS).
  Mr. GOULDINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether officers who, since the War began, have been promoted to higher ranks will henceforth receive the full pay and emoluments of their new rank; whether this will apply to all those recently appointed, including those in the substantive ranks of colonel, brigadier-general, and major-general; whether there are any exceptions to this rule; and, if so, what is the reason for these exceptions?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir. All regimental officers draw the pay of the higher rank from the date of their substantive promotion, and the same rule will now apply to temporary promotion also. Staff officers are generally paid according to the appointment which they hold.
  Mr. GOULDING: In view of the hon. Gentleman's answer, is he prepared to give a return of the pay and emoluments of the directors of the different Departments of the War Office?
  Mr. BAKER: If the hon. Member will put that in a separate Question, I will certainly consider it.

  NATIONAL RESERVE (GRATUITY).
  Sir WILLIAM BEALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the literal application of the regulations under which a National Reservist was promised a gratuity of £10 if he joined the Regular Army on mobilisation, and £5 if he joined the Territorial Forces, has caused disappointment and a sense of injustice in the case of National Reservists
  1260
  who, having joined the Territorial Forces and received the £5, have gone to the front and are now fighting alongside of the Regular Army; and if he can see his way to increase the £5 gratuity to £10 in such cases and, if necessary, to amend or supplement the regulations for the purpose?
  Mr. BAKER: These gratuities have been paid in respect of a specific obligation, and I regret that the regulations cannot now be altered.

  ACTING PAYMASTERS.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) why those men who resigned important and responsible positions in civil life and placed their whole time and services at the disposal of the Secretary of State for War to perform the duties of acting paymasters have not been given any rank or status, seeing that the duties of acting paymaster in peace times are performed only by commissioned officers; and (2) if those civilians serving on the strength as acting paymasters are the only body of civilians doing the duty of officers in any branch of the naval or military services who have not been given commissioned rank; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists amongst them as regards their treatment, both by the military authorities at many of the places where they are serving and also by the Army Council, whom they have repeatedly memorialised in regard to their status, but who have ignored their representations?
  Mr. BAKER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the St. Augustine Division of Kent. I would add that a reply has been sent to all representations on this subject which have reached the War Office, and that, as I have previously stated, the Department is most anxious to place no obstacle in the way of those who might properly apply for combatant commissions.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if Colonel Carter, Inspector of Army Pay Offices, after a recent inspection, issued a report which has been forwarded by the Army Council to regimental paymasters at the various offices to the effect that acting paymasters are to be responsible for 10,000 accounts and their clerks for 1,000 accounts each, whereas in peace time a paymaster, with

  1261
  many years' experience, and skilled clerks of the Army Pay Corps have been expected to deal with a maximum of only 6,000 accounts; if Colonel Carter himself, when acting as regimental paymaster, ever dealt with more than 6,000 accounts, although he had the advantage of experienced clerks of the Army Pay Office; and if he is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists at all the pay offices in the United Kingdom, both with reference to Colonel Carter's inspection of the various pay offices and of his report thereon; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BAKER: I think that it would be most undesirable to discuss by way of question and answer in the House an unpublished report made by an inspector to the Army Council, but I would point out to the hon. Member that the system of pay accounts in war is much simpler than in peace.

  ROYAL FUSILIERS (EMPIRE BATTALION).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when the inquiry into the affairs of the Empire Battalion is to be held and where; what are the terms of reference; whether the inquiry will be public; and who are being asked to give evidence?
  Mr. TENNANT: As already announced, the Court of Inquiry will hold its first public sitting in Westminster Hall on Monday, 10th May. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the terms of reference if he so desires. The inquiry will be in public. The question as to who shall be called to give evidence is left to the discretion of the Court.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only public charges were made by myself in this House, and that I have had no information at all about this inquiry, and that I am not asked to appear?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think my hon. Friend is rather prematurely distressed.
  Mr. HOGGE: In view of the very unsatisfactory reply, and of the fact that the Court meets on Monday, and that it is public matter of urgency, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment to-night.

  MILITARY HOSPITAL (BANGOUR ASYLUM).
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether Bangour Asylum is being converted into a military hospital; and, if so, what arrangements are being made so that the treatment of the present inmates is not interfered with?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; Bangour Asylum is being converted into a military hospital. I should be glad if my hon. Friend would address the second part of the question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.

  COMMISSIONS FROM RANKS (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will call for a list from the officers commanding units in Scotland of the number of applications by private soldiers and non-commissioned officers for commissions in other units which these commanding officers have refused to sanction, in view of the hindrance to the efficiency of the Army which such wholesale refusals entail?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it is desirable to call for such a list. To do so would not only throw great labour on the regimental authorities, but would also tend to encourage private soldiers and non-commissioned officers to go behind their commanding officers with a view to pressure being exercised in individual cases. It would not be proper for the War Office to take any step which could be construed as countenancing such undue pressure. The instructions which have been given ensure that each application for a commission receives careful consideration.

  ST. JOHN'S AMBULANCE BRIGADE (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).
  Mr. HOHLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the members of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, coming from all parts of the country, who have volunteered for service and joined the Royal Army Medical Corps complain that the conditions on which they undertook to serve have been broken by the War Office; for instance, the St. John's

  1263
  Ambulance Brigade, Sheffield Corps, before volunteering were assured by their officers, Commissioner H. C. Chambers and Commandant O. F. Buxton, that their pay at home would be 1s. 10d. a day; that at Fort Pitt Hospital, Chatham, they received a like assurance from Paymaster-Lieutenant L. Else; that on the faith of these assurances they signed their engagements; that they received 1s. 10d. a day from the 23rd of September, 1914 to the 13th of November, 1914; and that after that date their pay was reduced to 1s. 6d. a day, from which the alleged over-payment of 4d. is deducted; and will he take steps to make good the promise made to these men who are highly trained and have made great sacrifices to serve their country?
  Mr. BAKER: I am inquiring into these cases.

  ARMY PAY CORPS.
  Mr. HOHLERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, since the outbreak of War, the number of specially enlisted clerks in the Army Pay Corps, has been increased from about 800 to 6,000; that meanwhile there has been little or no promotion in the ranks of the warrant and non-commissioned officers of the corps; that the peace establishment of assistant paymasters, honorary lieutenants, in the Army Pay Corps is 58; that their present number is only 50, whilst the honorary commissions in the Army Service Corps have been increased by 128, in the Royal Army Medical Corps by 54, in the Army Ordnance Corps by 99 over their peace establishments; and will he take like steps to increase the number of assistant paymasters and thus enable promotion in the lower ranks and remove the feeling of dissatisfaction that now prevails?
  Mr. BAKER: The facts are not quite as stated. Since the outbreak of War, the number of promotions to commissioned rank has been more than 50 per cent. of the establishment of warrant officers; the promotions (including acting appointments) to warrant rank have been 15 per cent. of the establishment of staff sergeants, and those to staff sergeants have been 25 per cent. of the total establishment of lower ranks. The establishment of fifty-eight assistant paymasters is of recent creation, and was to be gradually filled as the senior officers retired, a
  1264
  process that would have occupied some years. Twenty-five assistant paymasters have been commissioned during the War, and only five promotions remain to be made.
  Mr. HOHLER: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether or not there has been an increase in the number of assistant-paymasters? I could not hear his answer.
  Mr. BAKER: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put that question on the Paper.
  Mr. HOHLER: It is there; but I could not hear the hon. Gentleman's answer. I asked him whether there is any increase in the number of assistant-paymasters?
  Mr. BAKER: I am afraid I do not follow to which part the hon. and learned Gentleman is referring.
  Mr. HOHLER: May I read it?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There are so many questions still on the Paper that perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will see his answer in print, and then, if any further inquiries are needed, he will make them.
  Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled to an answer to a question which is on the Paper?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member has had an answer, which he will see on the records if he did not catch its purport.
  Mr. HOHLER: This part of the question was not answered, and I submit I am entitled to an answer. The question was not answered—it is on the Paper, and I propose to read it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Is the House still under martial law?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member specify to which part of the answer he refers?
  Mr. HOHLER: It is the last part: "that the peace establishment of assistant paymasters, honorary lieutenants, in the Army Pay Corps is 58; that their present number is only 50, and will he take like steps to increase the number of assistant paymasters and thus enable promotion in the lower ranks and remove the feeling of dissatisfaction that now prevails?"
  Mr. BAKER: That will certainly be considered.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer ask these Under-Secretaries to speak up, because their voices are quite inaudible?

  BRITISH OFFICERS MISSING.
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked what is the number of British officers who have been reported missing on the Western front since the War began, and the number of such officers who, up to the present, have been afterwards accounted for, officially or unofficially, as dead, wounded, or prisoners of war?
  Mr. TENNANT: The total number of British officers who have been reported missing in France and Belgium, and who still remain unaccounted for is 191. I am afraid I could not give the total number of officers who at any time have been reported missing. Many of the original reports that an officer is missing are erroneous and are corrected a few days later.

  FURLOUGH (EXHAUSTION AND NERVE SHOCK).
  Colonel WHITEasked if arrangements have now been made whereby men, and more especially non-commissioned officers, who have been serving in the firing line for many months, and who are suffering from exhaustion and nerve shock, may be granted furloughs of six weeks to two months, in cases where the reserve units of their regiments can supply the vacancies so caused?
  Mr. TENNANT: All non-commissioned officers and men who in the opinion of the medical authorities are suffering from exhaustion and nervous shock and require rest are sent home until they are recovered.
  Colonel WHITE: May I bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice a case in which that has not been done?
  Mr. TENNANT: Certainly. I will have it looked into.

  MESS ALLOWANCES.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether officers are allowed to draw allowances for mess and mess outfit; whether he is aware
  1266
  that in the case of some regiments no allowances have been received for February, March, or April, and that the junior officers have been compelled to borrow money to meet their mess bills; and whether he purposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BAKER: I am not aware of any undue delay in the payment of the allowances sanctioned by regulations. If such delay has taken place, and if representations through the usual channel have proved unavailing, I shall be happy to make inquiry.

  ARMY SERVICE CORPS (SERVANT'S ALLOWANCE.)
  Mr. WHELERasked whether officers in the Army Service Corps are entitled to receive a servant's allowance of 1s. or 1s. 6d. per day; and, if so, why this amount is not being paid to second lieutenants at the front?
  Mr. BAKER: Yes, Sir, except that servant allowance is not admissible when soldiers are available to act as servants.

  GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE WORK.
  Mr. FELLasked whether in numerous works engaged on Government work and outside private work a preference is being given to the outside work on account of its more profitable nature; and if the Government proposes where such conditions prevail to have the outside work in every case postponed to the Government work?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, the powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) Act, 1915, will be used to secure the object the hon. Member refers to, so far as it may be found necessary.

  ARTIFICIAL LIMBS (WOUNDED SOLDIERS).
  Mr. PARTINGTONasked whether any arrangements have been made for supplying artificial limbs to wounded soldiers?
  Mr. TENNANT: Arrangements have been in existence for many years whereby a soldier who has, while serving, lost a

  1267
  limb in consequence of disease or injury is provided with an artificial limb at the public expense. The Commissioners of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, arrange for the supply of artificial limbs to such soldiers.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is there not a private agency auxiliary to this now established, and is the War Office giving assistance to that?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have no knowledge of that, but I should think it more than probable.
  Colonel YATE: Is this extended to officers?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think so. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question down.

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (PROMOTION).
  Mr. THOMAS-STANFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in Territorial units now serving in India, promotions due as long ago as October last have not yet been gazetted; and whether, in view of the hardship occasioned, especially to second lieutenants, he will take steps to obviate further delay?
  Mr. TENNANT: Recommendations for promotion in the Territorial Force are made in accordance with paragraph 97, Territorial Force Regulations. I am informed that all recommendations by commanding officers received through the usual military channel from India have been carried out where vacancies for such promotion have existed.

  APPOINTMENT OF ARMY OFFICERS.
  Sir WILLIAM BULLasked whether it has been decided to ignore the training at Sandhurst and Woolwich and in the Regular Army; and, if not, why have so many officers who have had none of these advantages been put over the heads of officers of the Regular Army, including those on Reserve of Officers?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am not quite sure to what class of cases the hon. Member alludes. There is certainly no intention of depreciating the training at Sandhurst
  1268
  and Woolwich to which he refers. There are, of course, a large number of officers employed in the new Service battalions and otherwise who have not been trained at either Sandhurst or Woolwich, but who have had some military experience. Their positions have been settled with reference to their qualifications.
  Mr. WALTER LONG: Is it not the fact that in a very large number of cases promotion to the higher ranks has been given to officers who have had no training at all, while the officers who have fitted themselves as private soldiers are allowed to remain in the ranks in which they were at the commencement of the War?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think quite so sweeping a generality as that which has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman could be made accurately, but I should like to point out that while it may be and, of course, is desirable that officers should receive a requisite amount of training and should be drawn if possible from Woolwich and Sandhurst, it has nor been possible, I am sure he will realise, in every case to appoint officers who have had that amount of training.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of discontent caused through very young men from Sandhurst and Woolwich being promoted so rapidly above the heads of men of considerable experience?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am very much surprised to hear that. The opposite allegation is made by some hon. Gentlemen in this House, and I, personally, have great sympathy with officers who have had special training at Sandhurst.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (NEW BUILDING SCHEME).
  Mr. CHAMBERLAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government have refused permission to the county council to defer for the period of the War the new building scheme required for the reduction of the numbers in the classes. Whether this scheme involves the raising of a large loan; whether the Treasury have given their assent to this loan, and whether the proposal was submitted to the Treasury Committee on New Issues; and, if so, whether that Committee expressed any opinion upon it?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards the first and third parts of the question, the London County Council have been informed that in all the circumstances His Majesty's Government cannot ask the Council to postpone the work. I understand that the scheme will not involve borrowing in the open market, but will be financed out of the Consolidated Loans Fund of the council. As no loan was required to be raised, the question did not come formally before the Committee.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I attach so much importance to this subject that I give notice that I shall call attention to the matter at the earliest possible moment. It is essentially a Treasury matter and I hope the Prime Minister will allow us to raise it on the Vote for the Treasury, not as an education question, but as a Treasury question. In the meantime, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table all correspondence which has passed upon the subject, whether between the Department and the county council or the Department and the Treasury?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Is it not the fact that any dealings with the sinking fund of the county council have to be dealt with in the London County Council Money Bill and require the sanction of the House?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That I could not answer without notice I understand from the President of the Local Government Board that a discussion can take place on the Estimates next Thursday.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On what Estimate?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Board of Education Estimate.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not concerned with this as an education question. What I am concerned with is the difference of policy enforced by His Majesty's Government with the London County Council compared with that recommended to the country only the other day in his Budget speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This difference between the Departments can only be decided by the head of the Government, and I ask that we may discuss it on a Treasury Vote?
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that a circular has been addressed to school boards and other education authorities, both on the English and Scottish Boards
  1270
  of Education, refusing grants by the Public Works Loans Commissioners during the period of the War, and deprecating the raising of any loans in the open market?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. I think that was done at the instance of the Treasury. I pressed that policy very hard upon all the authorities very early in the course of the War. The only exception which I contemplated as Chancellor of the Exchequer was in cases where there was a prospect of there being lack of employment in a particular district, and where works would be necessary. At that time it was feared that there would be certain districts hit very hard by the War. Since then that apprehension has not been realised, and there is no case for the exception which one contemplated at that time.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I press for an answer to my two questions. In the first place, will the correspondence be laid on the Table? Secondly, shall we have an opportunity of discussing this difference of policy between different Departments of the Government on the one central Vote which enables us really to raise it in that form?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As to laying the correspondence, I would not like to give an answer in the affirmative. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, if you always tabled correspondence between Departments, there would be no correspondence. I do not think it would be desirable that we should make a precedent of that kind. It would make it impossible to conduct negotiations between Departments.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May we have the correspondence between the Departments and the county council?
  Sir F. BANBURY: It is important that this matter should be cleared up. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Treasury Committee have expressed an opinion upon this point?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Baronet is a Member of that Committee. I hope the proceedings of the Committee are not to be discussed in public, therefore I do not think it is desirable, if I may say so, for a Member of the Committee to indicate what happens in the Committee. I think that would be a very undesirable practice to adopt. I do not think that they formally passed a resolution, but I will have a conversation with Lord St. Aldwyn on the subject.

  ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS.
  Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is in contemplation to deprive the Royal Welsh Fusiliers of the "Flash"—a national emblem which has been worn by this regiment for more than a century, and if so, whether he will take into account the feeling that exists against such a change?
  Mr. TENNANT: Nothing is known of any intention of depriving the Royal Welsh Fusiliers of the "Flash" which, however, is not a national emblem, but a relic of the silk facing worn to protect the tunic from the flour and grease used in plaiting the "Queue" or pigtail formerly worn. The privilege of wearing the "Flash" was confirmed for the Royal Welsh Fusiliers in November, 1834, and that order is still in force. Recently it has been observed that some officers of this regiment were irregularly wearing the "Flash" with service dress uniform, and instructions have been issued for this to be discontinued. The "Flash" is only authorised to be worn with the scarlet tunic.

  SALE OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS.

    STATEMENT BY MR. LLOYD GEORGE.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Second Reading of the Defence of the Realm Bill to-night, he can inform the House whether any progress has been made in the negotiations respecting the Sur-taxes on whisky and beer?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Since Tuesday's Debate I have had several interviews with the representatives of the various interests, and I think I can say that some progress has been made. I am not yet in a position to make any announcement to the House, but I hope that some conclusion will be come to within the next twenty-four hours.
    Mr. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman alive to the danger that every, day's delay enables enormous profits to be made, and will he not relieve the anxiety in Ireland by telling us whether or not the papers are correctly informed when they state that the Sur-taxes on whisky and beer are dead?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am fully alive to the importance of the point raised by the hon. Member, and it is desirable from
    1272
    every point of view that the suspense should be terminated at the earliest possible moment. I was engaged the whole of yesterday, until very late, discussing the matter and this morning I have been at work again. No time will be lost I can assure the hon. Member. I am very sanguine that there will be an arrangement that will be satisfactory to all the interests concerned. There will be no delay.
    Mr. BOOTH: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the allied trades as distinct from the brewery trades in this matter?
    Mr. T. LOUGH: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the question of French wine also has been mentioned?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. I am considering the whole subject. Yesterday I met representatives of the wine interests, not merely the French, but the Australian as well.
    Mr. BOOTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman meet representatives of the allied trades?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Who are the allied trades?

  ASPHYXIATING GASES (RESPIRATORS AND HELMETS).
  Colonel WHITE: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether protective helmets or masks against asphyxiating gas have actually been issued to the troops at the front?
  Mr. TENNANT: I only received the notice of my hon. and gallant Friend's question when I came into the House. I might perhaps be allowed to say that originally, when the Germans first introduced gas as a weapon of warfare, we sent out one million respirators which were supplied to us originally from the Admiralty. These respirators were not found to be quite so efficacious as we desired, and they were supplemented by another form of respirator, the cotton waste, which was saturated with a solution of carbonate of soda and hypo-sulphate of soda, being held in place by a veil. That is now being used by the troops. The question has arisen whether it would not be preferable to have a helmet such as is used by fishermen, which is made of woollen material, with the spaces for the eyes, the cotton waste inside being saturated with the same solution. Dr. Haldane has again

  1273
  gone to the front to conduct experiments with these various materials and methods. That is really all I can say.

  DARDANELLES OPERATIONS.

    ANNOUNCEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the Prime Minister give the House any information about the Dardanelles?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The House and the country are in possession of the official statement issued by the War Office and Admiralty on Saturday, the 1st May. I am able to add a few more details.
    It will be remembered that it was decided to land at three main points simultaneously—at Cape Helles and Sedd-el-Bahr, the southernmost point of the Gallipoli Peninsula; at Kapa Tepe, about 13 miles North on the Western shore; and at Kum Kale, on the Asiatic side. The landing on the Asiatic coast was essential, in order to silence the hostile batteries which could interfere with the landing on the Gallipoli Peninsula.
    At dawn on 25th April the landing took place, the troops making use of six landing places. The 29th Division landed at Sedd-el-Bahr, the Australian and New Zealand Corps at Kapa Tepe, and the French force at Kum Kale. By nightfall 29,000 men had been disembarked in face of fierce oppression from Infantry and Artillery entrenched behind successive lines of wire entanglements. The leading troops of the 29th Division were held up all day at the amphitheatre just west of Sedd-el-Bahr, but at sunset they executed a fine attack along the heights from Tekke Burnu, which enabled a good position to be taken up covering the disembarkation of the remainder of the Division. The leading Brigade of Australian and New Zealand Corps, under the command of General Birdwood, were towed to the beach at Kapa Tepe at 4.30 a.m. on the morning of the 25th, and landed in complete silence. The enemy opened a heavy fire at point-blank range; the beach, however, was rushed with the bayonet, and the attack was carried with utmost dash up the slopes of the Sari Bair Hill.
    1274
    The French forces effected their landing at Kum Kale and advanced with great gallantry against Yeni-Shanhr.
    Every report received speaks of the magnificent co-operation of the naval forces.
    I regret to say that the losses in these operations were heavy, including the death of Brigadier-General Napier, commanding the 88th Brigade.
    During the 26th, the disembarkation continued, the troops ashore being subjected to continuous and determined attacks by the enemy; these were in every case repulsed with loss; the 29th Division, under the command of General Hunter Weston, pressed forward and with great valour carried the Turkish position of Sedd-el-Bahr, which consisted of a labyrinth of rocks, ruined houses, and wire entanglements.
    By the evening of 27th April, the 29th Division was firmly established across the Peninsula, having advanced about two miles from the point of landing; they had been joined by the French troops who, having fulfilled their task, had re-crossed from the Asiatic side. The Australian and New Zealand Corps had defeated every counter attack made against them, and had steadily gained ground east of the point where they had disembarked. During the 28th and 29th April the further disembarkation of troops and stores continued and progress was made.
    By the 2nd of May a further advance had been made by the French and British troops at the Southern end of the Peninsula, and also by the Australian and New Zealand Corps, which had been reinforced by the Royal Naval Division, and the position has by now been everywhere consolidated.
    In the successful performance of this most difficult operation of war, namely, a landing on an open beach in face of determined opposition, the troops engaged have displayed unsurpassed courage and skill.
    The operations are being continued and pressed forward under highly satisfactory conditions.

  International Opium Conference.
  Sir J. D. REESasked whether any and, if so, what action is to be taken upon the correspondence respecting the third International Opium Conference; whether it is proposed to pursue this matter further during the continuance of the War; and, if not, with what object the Report of the British delegates is to be presented to Parliament as soon as the protocol de cloture is officially received from the Netherlands Government?
  Sir E. GREY: No further action has been taken beyond depositing the ratification of the signature of the British delegates, nor is it practicable to take any further action at present. The correspondence respecting the third conference, including the Report of the British delegates and the protocol de clôture, was laid before the House as No. 4 Miscellaneous (1915), in February last in accordance with an undertaking given in this House, with the object of making all the availabe information accessible to those Members of the House and of the general public who are interested in this question.

  Curragh Farm.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the maps and documents of the property known as the Curragh farm, of Mrs. Caroline Blake, of Renoyle, Connemara, have yet been lodged with the Congested Districts Board with a view to sale?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The answer is in the negative.

  Irish Land Commission.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how many of the non-established examiners of titles and conveyancing clerks attached to the Irish Land Commission that Department proposes to dispense with; and what will be the saving effected by the proposed reduction?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The reduction in the provision for the temporary staff of the Examination of Titles branch in the Irish Land Commission will be £6,300 in a full year, this amount representing the pay of seven temporary examiners and of two professional clerks. This will leave an expenditure of £5,500, representing the salaries of six examiners and two clerks,
  1276
  but the question whether this sum will be allocated on the present basis or whether it will be devoted to the retention at reduced salaries of a larger number than six examiners is still under consideration by the Land Commissioners, in whose discretion the allocation has been left.
  Mr. HORNERasked how many of the permanent staff of the Irish Land Commission have been, or are about to be, retired as having attained the age of sixty years who have not had forty years' service; and, having regard to the fact that the Treasury letter of 12th December, 1890, recommends that no efficient Civil servant be retired at sixty years who has not had forty years' service, how is it proposed to compensate those officials who, contrary to such recommendation, may be compulsorily retired at sixty years of age although they have not had that length of service?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Eight permanent lay Assistant Commissioners, who have attained the age of sixty years but are not yet sixty-five, have been, or are about to be, retired on pension from the staff of the Irish Land Commission, and the retirement of three other officers in like circumnstances is in contemplation. The terms of the Treasury letter, referred to by the hon. Member, were intended to mitigate the hardship to individuals if a new Order in Council was to be suddenly applied to them, and it was expressly provided that any exercise of the discretionary powers approved in the letter should be subject to the requirements of the public service. The present retirements are being effected in the public interest and are in pursuance of the Order in Council, which has now been in force for over fourteen years. I am accordingly not prepared to make any recommendations for compensation to the officers affected.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether Sir Matthew Nathan's proposals to tamper with the Fair Rent Courts and Land Purchase Courts in Ireland by this system has his approval, or is it done under the initiative of that stranger to the country himself?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman puts the question in a manner that is entitled to receive an answer.
  Mr. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we may see the correspondence between Sir Matthew Nathan

  1277
  and the Land Commission, and whether the action taken by him is taken against the protest of the judges of that body?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The correspondence will certainly not be laid upon the Table.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the temporary examiners of title in the Irish Land Commission and their clerks, who are all either barristers-at-law or solicitors, come under the heading of professional legal staff, specified in the Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, dated 2nd April, 1914, and that such Report has recommended that all existing officers of this class should be given the benefit of established status, which implies permanency and a pension; whether, notwithstanding such qualifications and recommendations, it is now proposed, on account of the War, to place a number of these officials on half-pay and also dispense with others without even giving them that option; and, if so, having regard to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service and of Ministers to employers as to their duty to retain and provide work for their employés during the War, what provision, in compliance with their own recommendations, has been or will be made by the Government for these officials?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Royal Commission in their Report estimated that the land purchase work of the Irish Land Commission would be completed within a definite period, and in paragraph 4 of Chapter VII, they expressly find that persons engaged to perform work capable of completion within a definite period are properly unpensionable. I am therefore unable to agree in the hon. and learned Member's interpretation of their recommendations. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. and learned Member's previous question on the 29th April, and to the question of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh yesterday.

  Second Division Assistant Clerks.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Secretary to the Treasury the number of assistant clerks who were promoted to the second division during the year 1914?
  Mr. ACLAND: Fifty-one, Sir.

  Ethyl-Alcohol Duties.
  Mr. HORNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that ethyl-alcohol, upon which duty is payable, is essential in the manufacture of many medicines used in both human and veterinary practice, the Government will allow a rebate to be granted to the manufacturers or other means adopted by which this duty will not become a tax upon the alcohol used in their preparation, seeing that otherwise the imposition of the contemplated duties will largely increase the cost of these medicines to all users, and thus press with excessive severity upon the poor and add enormously to the expenses of hospitals and charitable institutions?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The whole question referred to is under consideration.

  Welsh Church Bill.
  Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Prime Minister when the Government intend to proceed with the Welsh Church (Postponement) Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot make any definite statement as to the date.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: When will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to make a statement?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say at present. We have very urgent financial and other matters to attend to, but this question will not be lost sight of.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: I will repeat the question next Tuesday.
  Mr. KING: In view of the undertakings embodied in this Bill I hope it will be put through as soon as possible.

  Constitution of Cabinet.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the present overgrown size of the Cabinet, embracing twenty-two members, is a development of a period of freedom from great wars; and whether he can now see his way to place the Cabinet on a War basis by reducing the number of Members by 50 per cent., seeing that there is an entire absence of legislative measures affecting some of the Departments which are represented in the Cabinet?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is that answer based on a belief that greater wisdom and secrecy—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that questions are intended to obtain information, and not for purposes of argument.

  Book of Common Prayer.
  Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Lower House of Convocation of the Province of Canterbury has passed a resolution favouring the canonisation of King Charles I.; and whether any request has been made for the legislation required to add the name of King Charles to the list of saints in the Book of Common Prayer?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is, I am informed, in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.
  Mr. KING: May we hope then that whatever requests may be put forward—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Whitsuntide Recess.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the Prime Minister if he will inform the House when it will rise for the Whitsuntide holidays?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I hope on Thursday, the 20th inst.

  Beer Duty.
  Mr. DENNISSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the number of barrels of beer and stout having a gravity of 1,043 and upwards upon which duty was paid for any recent period of twelve months?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The information asked for is not available.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what business he proposes to take next week?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Tuesday we shall proceed with the remaining stages of the Defence of the Realm Bill and other Bills on the Paper.
  On Wednesday we shall take the Budget Resolutions in Committee.
  4.0 P.M.
  On Thursday we shall take Supply. I have down here the Vote for the Board of Education. I think that that will meet the purposes of the right hon. Gentleman; but, whatever Vote be necessary, he can raise any questions which he desires, and after that we will take the Board of Education.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that it must be the salary of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Ordered, "That the other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (AMENDMENT—No. 3) BILL.

  MUNITIONS AND TRANSPORT AREAS.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  I need not add anything to the statement which I made last week in support of the Second Reading of this Bill. I think that since that date, although the taxation proposals which I foreshadowed have aroused very considerable opposition, there has been no opposition indicated to the main principles of the Bill which is now before the House. On the contrary, I have been urged from all quarters to proceed in order to get complete control of the munitions area, and to deal with the special difficulty which exists. I trust that the House will now give the Second Reading of the Bill, and enable me to get the whole of the Bill at an early date next
  1296
  week, in order to proceed to cope at once with this special difficulty. There is no reference, not even a brief reference, to the taxing proposals in this particular measure. I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Cork at the present moment on the question of taxation. I stated quite clearly, I think, last week, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, that the Government would not proceed with anything which could be regarded as controversial by any considerable section of the House. All the negotiations which I have been conducting since then have been borne in mind, and I am very confident that after the interviews which I have had with various sections we shall be able to arrive at something which will be satisfactory, not merely to the interests concerned, but satisfactory to all those who take any particular interest in this subject. I hope that we shall be in a position in the course of to-morrow to make some definite arrangement. Had it not been for the fact that I was engaged this morning, and that I have got charge of this Bill this afternoon, I am very sanguine that negotiations would have been completed before nightfall.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he is lucky enough to come to an agreement, he will have the terms of that agreement published at once without waiting until next week?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The House of Commons is always entitled to the first announcement in a matter of this kind. If the House of Commons is prepared to waive that right—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO"!]—the suggestion made can be adopted. Unless I had some sort of general assent by the House of Commons that it would not be regarded as an infringement of its right, this course could not be followed, because the matter is concerned with taxing proposals. But I should have thought that it was in the interests of everybody that the moment there is any agreement arrived at, it should be made known. I quite take the hon. Gentleman's view, because, after all, the matter is one that concerns a considerable trade, and a still more considerable public, and I think that they are entitled to know, the moment that the Government have made an arrangement, what the terms of that arrangement are. I take it that, on the whole, that is the view of the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Otherwise I

  1297
  certainly should not be in a position to publish the agreement. Subject to that I do hope that the House of Commons will accord a Second Reading to the Bill this afternoon, and there will be another opportunity on Tuesday next for going into the matter, and raising any other question, or, if the compromise arrived at be unsatisfactory, there will be another opportunity under this Bill, though, personally, I think that the subject is quite irrelevant to this Bill. But if others take a different view it is quite open to them to raise the question on the Committee stage or the Third Reading.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken precisely the course which I stated I thought he should take when the subject was under discussion. Therefore I need not say that, so far as I speak for my Friends here, we are prepared to fall in with the suggestion which he has made. I do not quite agree with him in his statement that these two subjects are irrelevant in reference to each other. I think that the question of taxes which do affect the trade, and the question of dealing with the trade are very closely connected, and I think that the proposal which I made is a very fair one, and should be carried out. That is that we should not be asked to part finally in this House with the Bill which we are discussing until we know precisely how the other matter stands. That is the position which I am prepared to take up. As regards the point which was discussed a moment ago, I think that the right hon. Gentleman has correctly interpreted the feeling of the House—that is that the view of this House as a whole must be that those who are directly affected and have a very considerable interest in this matter, and are anxious to have an arrangement made, are entitled, if such an arrangement be made, to have it made known as soon as it possibly can be made known. That will not, of course, interfere in any way with the rights of the House of Commons in regard to the matter; but I am sure that it is in the public interest, if an arrangement be come to, that everyone should know about it as soon as possible.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: As I stated on two previous occasions, taking this Bill as far as it goes at present, I am cordially in support of it, but I am in support of it as it stands. If it is to be taken as part only of the policy of the Government as disclosed the other day by the Chancellor,
  1298
  then I am not prepared to support the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is very sanguine of an agreement being arrived at, and arrived at within the next twenty-four hours. Of course, I do not know what he means by the word "agreement." Does he mean by that a settlement which will meet with the support, not only of the trade, but of all sections in this House?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think so. I have said so. I said not merely of the trade, but of all those who have got an interest in this particular matter.
  Mr. REDMOND: If the right hon. Gentleman says that he is sanguine that it will be brought about within the next twenty-four hours, I am very glad to hear it. But until I know a little more than I do at present or than I learned this morning, I must remain somewhat sceptical in the matter. And until I have some solid reason for knowing that this agreement is going to be arrived at which we can all support, I am not in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill. But I am in favour of dealing with the drink question in the way proposed in the Bill. I would be very sorry to do anything to endanger the passing of this Bill, and very sorry to do anything to delay this Bill. But the delay cannot amount to anything, because the right hon. Gentleman has only asked for the Second Reading, and he has admitted that before we come to the other stages of the Bill this question about taxation has to be settled. So no practical delay will be caused by leaving over the Second Reading until this arrangement has been come to. In fact, the question of delay cannot be raised at all. How many weeks is it since we were told of the pressing nature of this drink evil? During all the interval what has been done? Under the existing powers which the Government possess under the Defence of the Realm Act a great deal could have been done, and we know that a great deal has been done in some places to meet the necessities of the moment. Last week in Dublin where there were large movements of troops, an order was issued forbidding drink to be given to soldiers in any public-house in the whole metropolitan district. Powers of the widest kind are at present in the hands of the Government. They have not exercised these powers. Therefore it does not lie in their mouth to complain of delay between now and next Tuesday in the passage of the Second Reading of

  1299
  this Bill, in view of the fact that if the agreement alluded to should be arrived at in the meantime they will get the Bill just as quickly as if they had got the Second Reading to-day.
  There is no good in the right hon. Gentleman saying that this Bill is not connected with the taxes. Last week he introduced this Bill in a speech which lasted for more than two hours, and I venture to say that at the very least three-quarters of that speech dealt not with this Bill at all, but with the question of taxation. The two things were put before us as a whole—as the whole object of this Bill. If the Bill stands alone, if I am told that the taxes have gone and the Bill stands alone, then I am heartily in support of it. For these reasons I think the Debate ought not to go on, but ought to be suspended until this agreement, or arrangement, has been arrived at. I do not think that we should part with any weapon we have in our power to compel the right hon. Gentleman — if to compel him is necessary—to carry out the pledge of the Government, given over and over again, namely, that no controversial legislation of a character likely to lead to embittered and prolonged controversy and opposition ought to be introduced into this House under present conditions. For these reasons I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Sir WILLIAM BULL: I beg to second the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.
  Mr. BOOTH: I do not think it is at all safe to assume that the entire country is behind the Government with regard to this project for taking over licensed houses and managing them. There is a deep-seated residuum of feeling throughout the country which will manifest itself in due time. A very large number of very active Liberals are already beginning to make their contentions known, for they very much object to the principle of the State becoming proprietors and managers of this traffic. I warn the Government that hon. Members are being constantly approached by very influential people holding that view. I desire to raise two or three questions in regard to the Bill, and one has reference to the allied trades—maltsters, coopers, and others—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That question does not arise on the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.
  Mr. BOOTH: If under your ruling it is not convenient that I should proceed with the point I was about to raise, there is the further point as to what is the meaning of this Clause in regard to clubs.
  Mr. COWAN: Is the hon. Gentleman in order in discussing the provisions of the Bill on a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, it is not in order. The Debate must be confined to the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate until it is disposed of, and then the Bill may be proceeded with.
  Mr. BOOTH: That is my point; that is why I am asking for the adjournment. This is an important question in reference to clubs, and the fact that not the slightest attention has been paid to the control and management of clubs shows that the Debate ought to be adjourned. I should have thought that the Government, of all people, would have accepted this appeal which I am making to them that further time should be given before-legislation of this description is proceeded with. I am sure that the Government are under a very great mistake if they think that the Bill is generally accepted throughout the country. If the Motion for Adjournment of the Debate is accepted, these people will then be able to make their wishes and views known, and I believe some of us desire to hear them. Therefore, I support the Adjournment of the Debate, and urge that consideration should be given to the important question of the control of clubs, which will be affected by the main Clauses of this Bill.
  Mr. JOHN WALSH: I desire to say a few words on this question, which is most important to my Constituents. It is very extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to carry this Bill as a whole without having given any guarantee as to what his intentions are after the passing of it. We in Ireland have had a very sad experience of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer making promises and, with his usual slight turn of the wrist, cajoling us and fitting his taxes passed upon our country with fair promises of after concessions which are never fulfilled, but upon this occassion we will not, if possible, permit him to kill the last branch of Irish industry which is left us by the British Government which he now represents. I

  1301
  could say some very hard things about the manner in which our country has been treated in the way of taxation by this Government, but the Motion before the House would not permit me. But on no account can I be a party to the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill until the right hon. Gentleman withdraws the Sur-tax on beer and spirits so far as Ireland is concerned.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I regret that this Motion for the Adjournment has been made. This Bill is of very great urgency, and on its speedy passage depends the making of adequate provision of what I may call decent conditions with regard to the supply both of food and drink for the men who are concerned in the industries on which the safety of the country at this moment depends. I think that anything that delays its passage at a moment like this is very serious indeed in the interests of the country and of the Empire. With all due respect to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford, I think the fact of the modified proposal which my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to submit in regard to taxation, and which he has said he hopes to be in a position to make known to the world in the course of twenty-four hours, really affords adequate ground for getting the Second Reading of the Bill to-day. The House will be in possession of the Bill on the Committee stage and the Third Reading stage. Whatever relevance there may be—I do not go into that question at all—between the two subjects—I do not deny-that there is a certain amount of connection between them—this Bill, on its its merits, apart from proposals of taxation, is in our own opinion urgently needed. If this were an ordinary occasion, and we were living in ordinary and normal conditions, I should ask the House not to accept the Motion for the Adjournment, but I am most anxious that all important controversy in all these matters should, as far as we can, proceed with harmony and general agreement. I do not recognise that my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth), in what he said, if he will allow me to say so with great respect, showed any connection whatever between his observations and the question now before the House. The reasons which he advanced were addressed to the merits of the Bill, and would be most appropriate on a Second Reading, but they were most inappropriate to the Motion for the
  1302
  Adjournment of the Debate. It is only because I am most anxious that in this, as in other things, that we should proceed by general agreement, that I make this suggestion to the House: There is a Motion standing in my name on the Paper, which I was about to more, and which has been moved regularly during the last few weeks, that the adjournment should take place until Tuesday. If I accept this Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, I shall not submit the Motion to adjourn until Tuesday, and we shall take the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday, although I very much regret the waste of a day. I hope that the House will consent to that course, so that the actual date upon which the Bill passes on to the Statute Book will not be deferred. If that has the general approval of the House, and if the suggestion meets with general agreement, we will adopt that course.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: At a very early date the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that no contentious business, as I understood, would be proceeded with, and upon that undertaking this House forewent a very valuable privilege—namely, the right to introduce Bills—and acceded to the wish of the Government to give them the full time of the House. That, I think, involves reciprocity on the part of the Government. For my part, I thought, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said both to-night and the other night, that we might regard these proposals as regards beer and spirits as at an end. I cannot believe that anyone who has followed the proposals affecting taxation in Ireland, and the constant aim of all Irish Members for the last 25 years on these matters, would imagine that such an extraordinary proposal as that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted would be regarded as non-contentious. What made the matter more extraordinary was the fact that according to the newspapers in Ireland the right hon. Gentleman was for days and days together in communication with the hon. Member for Waterford, the hon. Member for Belfast, the hon. Member for Mayo, and I think also—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman is overlooking the fact that we are concerned only with the question of the Adjournment of the Debate, and his arguments must apply to that.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I recognise that the Member who moves the Adjournment can state the whole case, while he can truncate the case of others, which no doubt is a great advantage; but I shall bear your ruling, Sir, thoroughly in mind, and confine myself to saying that the Prime Minister must remember that for ten years, without objection, he has had the constant support of the great body of Irish Members; and it is only when what we regard as a vital attack upon our position is made, that such a Motion is made as that which has been submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. Even a worm must turn, and I support the action taken to-night by the hon. Member for Waterford. He would not vote against the proposal when we divided. They have seventy-two votes, and we have only five; but they abstained from voting, and there was an uprising in Ireland, and some of his supporters would not listen to the hon. and learned Gentleman in Queen's Park.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the Question is that the Debate be now adjourned.
  Mr. HEALY: If my remarks are not revelant, it seems to me that debate is practically impossible. What I would suggest to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford is that he might temporarily agree to the withdrawal of his Motion, so that the Debate might be carried on in a reasonable and what I will call an intellectual manner, because I can assure you that there is a great deal to be said from my point of view. Therefore, while I am very glad indeed that after ten years the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has plucked up courage to make some stand on behalf of his country, I deplore very much that I cannot on this Motion point out the numerous occasions on which he has entirely failed to do so.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his recent speech on this subject said that we are fighting three enemies, Germany, Austria, and drink. I think if the Government does not proceed this afternoon the country will say that they have been defeated by drink, and in the present condition of affairs I do not think the Government ought to suffer such a humiliation.
  Mr. JOHN DILLON: I rise for the purpose of saying a word or two in reference to what fell from the Prime Minister. Let
  1304
  it be clearly understood that no one on these benches desires to delay the pas sage of this Bill. The reason my hon. and learned Friend made the Motion he made was simply this. He thought, as I think, that we are entitled before we proceed to discuss the Second Reading of this Bill to have the whole plan of the Government before us. That is common sense. We have not the whole plan of the Government before us, and one of the main reasons why I felt bound to rise was this, to inform the Prime Minister that if on Monday we are still left in doubt as to the whole plan of the Government, we will be compelled to move a similar Motion. I wish to say, with regard to the observations which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we were all agreeably surprised at the tone of his speech, because he seemed to be extremely sanguine that he was within sight, within a few hours, of an arrangement which would satisfy all parties. But there was a very remarkable expression which fell from him, and which I confess disturbed my mind considerably, and that was when he said, when called upon to publish that arrangement to-morrow, a thing which I myself do not think would be the best policy. He said, "If the arrangement should prove unsatisfactory." How could it be unsatisfactory if it is agreed to by all parties? What I really want to know is this—
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend is under the impression that I said something, and has quoted something, but I never said anything of the kind.
  Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman said if the arrangement was unsatisfactory it could be discussed on Tuesday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Satisfactory!"]
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The point I put was this, that if the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with whatever arrangement was made, and it is not for me to say what he considers satisfactory, and if he thought that the arrangement was not satisfactory he could discuss it.
  Mr. DILLON: That is exactly what I said. Then what we are to understand is that an arrangement is contemplated unsatisfactory to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and to the other hon. Gentleman who sits on these benches. Is that an arrangement, and an arrangement with whom? Is there to be an arrangement with the Opposition in this House

  1305
  or behind the back of the House with some people outside the House? I really do not think the publication of an arrangement, unless it was an arrangement to which all responsible parties in this House were parties, during the interval of Friday or Saturday next would be at all a satisfactory business, because there would be no security at all that it would be an arrangement in the sense which we understood, and which, at least, I, personally, understood was pointed to by the opening sentence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is now perfectly manifest from his interruption that he contemplates the possibility of an arrangement unsatisfactory at least to the Members on these benches. In honesty, we must tell the Government and tell the Prime Minister that if that be so, and if the arrangement is unsatisfactory, we shall be just in the same position on Monday as we are now, our object being not to delay this Bill by a single hour or a single day, but to get from the Government a statement to which, I think, the House is entitled. We have surely drifted into a very queer way of doing business. I do not blame the Government; it was inevitable. But, under the circumstances that have prevailed in this House for the last year, business is done in a way which really is wholly unsuitable to any business about which there are serious differences of opinion. After six months of that procedure the Government slips into a method which is quite inconsistent with the tradition and practice of this House. If the Government depart from the understanding and arrangement that has governed our proceedings for the last eight months, they must revert to the old procedure if they are going to bring in contentious business which will lead to debate and division.
  The Prime Minister spoke very seriously of the great desirability of getting this Bill through immediately. There is a very simple method by which it can go through to-night, and that is by dropping these taxes. It looks rather suspicious that we should hear from the Prime Minister himself mention of modified proposals under this arrangement. I do not know what modified proposals mean. Does it mean modified taxes, because, if it does, I am afraid we will be just in the same position on Monday as regards the taxes as we were. Therefore, I say, if this Bill is delayed by this Motion, the responsibility does not lie on us. We do
  1306
  not desire to interpose any obstacle in the way of the Government in applying a remedy to this evil, whether it be so great as has been alleged or not, and I very much doubt if it is so. We desire to place no obstacle in the way of applying the remedy and to make no delay in applying that remedy, but we hold that the taxes which were proposed are no remedy and have no relation to it, and if the Government are really in earnest in trying in this proposed Bill to apply an effective remedy as speedily as possible, they can do so by the simple method of dropping the taxes, when all parties in this House will co-operate.
  Sir ROBERT WILLIAMS: I am profoundly disappointed at the course the Debate has taken within the last few minutes. Not very long ago we had the Prime Minister getting up and saying that this Bill was very necessary. He went on to say that if any proposals that might be made or adhered to were found to clash with this Bill there would be plenty of time for readjusting them; or, in other words, that was a pledge from him that time would be given for the readjustment. He pointed out that the Bill was necessary, and that the only way he would suggest to meet the demand of several hon. Members was to propose an extra Parliamentary day. I should have thought that the House of Commons, every part of it, would not have desired to add to the burden of the Prime Minister, or of the Government, by asking them to give another day out of their strenuous labours to come down to the House of Commons. I should have thought, after that speech was made, and I expected that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford would have said, "We cannot cause the Prime Minister or the Government any extra burden, and we will accept his assurance that there will be plenty of time afterwards for discussions." I am profoundly disappointed that that opportunity has been lost of making it quite clear that the House of Commons, as a whole, is waging this War, and that when we are at war it means that we are prepared to enable the Government to fight it as they ought to be able to do.
  Mr. LOUGH: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the generous spirit in which he has met the Motion made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond). I really do not think the matter ought to be further discussed—[An HON. MEMBER:

  1307
  "Sit down, then!" and Laughter.] I am glad I have brought the House into good humour again. I need hardly say I am not going to discuss the question at any length, but I will say everything that appears to me to be necessary to be said on the subject. I think the hon. Member who has just sat down, and perhaps one or two of my right hon. Friends in the Government, have not paid sufficient attention to the friendly spirit in which the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford moved the Motion for Adjournment. He did not say one word against the Bill "that is before us. He promised the Bill his most hearty support. He even explained that the Bill would not be delayed in any way by the acceptance of the Motion for Adjournment. I do not think we ought to pass the Second Reading of a Bill when we have been told that some arrangements which this House ought to make are going to be made behind the back of the House. It is before Parliament those arrangements, which are to please everybody, should be made, and we ought to hear them in the first instance. Under those circumstances I entirely sympathise with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in asking for the Adjournment. I think the Prime Minister has met the Motion in an excellent spirit, and I venture humbly to appeal to the House to accept it.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: What has decided me to vote for the Amendment is the expression "modified," which was used by the Prime Minister. He distinctly hinted that any agreement that might be come to might be a mere modification of the Sur-tax proposals. The only possible modification that can satisfy us or satisfy Ireland is the abandonment pure and simple of those Sur-taxes in their entirety, both for whisky and beer. This afternoon I pressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer to relieve the intense anxiety in Ireland by saying "yes" or "no" to what nearly all the London newspapers, whether rightly or wrongly, agree in saying that these, taxes are dead. The right hon. Gentleman did not contradict that statement. Let him only say that the newspapers are right—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If I permitted the hon. Gentleman to continue the argument, that would open up a whole Debate on the question of the merits, and that would not be in order on the Motion for Adjournment.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I am not going to go into any details irrelevant to this Motion, and I am certainly not going over one-tenth of the ground the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) was allowed to go. I simply want to make one observation, which I insist is perfectly in order, in reference to whether or not this Debate is to go on. Let the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether that statement is true. If it is true, there is an end of the matter, and there is peace so far as we are concerned. If it is not true, there can be nothing but war.
  Mr. ROCH: I am sorry that we are not able to proceed with this Bill to-day. As one who has listened to the whole Debate, I cannot perceive what reason has been given for the adjournment. So far as I can understand, the hon. and learned Member fer Waterford declared that he had no objection to the Bill, but was strongly in favour of it. I do not appreciate the point of view from which he moves the adjournment of a Bill of which he is strongly in favour.
  Mr. J. REDMOND: I am opposed to the Bill as part of the general scheme outlined on Thursday last.
  Mr. ROCH: As I understand, the hon. and learned Member is in favour of this Bill, but he is against certain taxation proposals. I fail to see the logic of the hon. and learned Gentleman not allowing this Bill to go through at once and then carrying on his opposition to perfectly separate proposals. I should have thought that it would have suited the convenience of all to have proceeded with the Bill as arranged, and then—
  Mr. HEALY: Is not the hon. Gentleman going beyond your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is perfectly in order.
  Mr. ROCH: I should have thought it would have met the case if hon. Members opposite had allowed this Bill to go through, and then carried on their opposition to the other proposals to which they really object. May I say about those other proposals—
  Mr. HEALY: Is this in order?
  Mr. ROCH: I think there is general agreement in the House that we cannot

  1309
  pass any proposals to which there is widespread objection. Hon. Members would therefore be perfectly safe in letting this Bill, of which they are in favour, go forward, relying upon that common good feeling and general understanding that proposals to which there is real opposition in all or most quarters of the House will be modified or withdrawn. For that reason I hope that we shall proceed with this Bill to-day.
  Mr. O'GRADY: I cannot let the statement of the Prime Minister go by without quite respectfully entering my protest. The right hon. Gentleman said that this Bill was absolutely essential in the interest of the safety of the country and in order that the War should be carried on as vigorously as possible. The assumption behind that is that the Government believe largely in the statements contained in the White Paper issued last Sunday. Speaking for myself, I absolutely disagree with that reason. If the Government come along and say that this Bill is essential, the position of our party, at any rate as far as I am concerned, is that the Government must take the responsibility for the Bill itself. You cannot get away from the fact that this Adjournment Motion does bring us to the question of the Sur-taxes. After all, we must understand the motive behind the Sur-taxes on whisky and beer and behind this Bill. I suggest that if some declaration could be made now upon the question of the Sur-taxes, it would make the position much easier and enable the Government to get their Bill without opposition.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Such a statement could not be made either on the present Motion or on the Bill.
  Mr. COWAN: I hope I am in order in supporting the suggestion which has been made. In any case, although I see no objection to the adjournment of the Debate, I am surprised that Members should be willing to ignore the appeal made by the Prime Minister. Still, seeing that under present circumstances legislation can only go through by agreement, I feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had better recognise that he cannot carry these taxes in face of opposition from the Irish Benches. I think, therefore, that he would do well to withdraw them, especially seeing that he says they are not intended to raise revenue, and provide some
  1310
  other means of encouraging the use of light beers and discouraging the use of spirits.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I am sure the Prime Minister will admit that from the day when he made his appeal to all classes and sections in the Empire no class has responded with such promptitude and courage as the Irish—not only the Irish in other parts of the world, but the Irish in Ireland. Nor does the appeal which he makes to these benches this afternoon fall on deaf ears. But that appeal should be made, not to us, but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is very easy to secure this Bill, which the Prime Minister says is vital to the interests of the State, by the right hon. Gentleman declaring here and now that we have heard the last of the taxes in which nobody believes but the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day:
  "The House of Commons may depend upon it that no personal pride shall stand for one moment between the accomplishment of unity and the purpose which we have in view."
  May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to put that declaration into practice? He will not get these taxes without the most bitter and violent opposition.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have several times said that if I allow such statements the whole question will have to be open for discussion. The present Debate must be confined to the question of Adjournment.
  Mr. HEALEY: May I suggest that you appeal to the hon. Member for Waterford to withdraw his Motion, so that the Member for West Belfast may proceed?
  Mr. DEVLIN: I recognise, which the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. Healy) does not, that this is the Imperial Parliament and not a circus; therefore I proceed to deal with a matter of vital concern to Ireland, apart altogether from the position which the hon. and learned Member, despised by his own nation, occupies here to-day.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That statement has nothing to do with the question before the House. The question is, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned accordingly; to be resumed upon Monday next (10th May).

ARMY ACT (AMENDMENT—No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill is a substitute for the Bill which I asked the House to read a second time last week, and which stands as the next Order on the Paper to-day—the Territorial Force Bill. As I explained to the House on that occasion, it is very desirable that we at the War Office should be enabled to liquify our assets, so to speak, and employ such soldiers as are available in the capacity in which they are most required.
Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not sure which Order he is on?
Mr. TENNANT: The Army Act (Amendment—No. 2) Bill.
Sir F. BANBURY: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said it was the Territorial Force Bill.
Mr. TENNANT: Not at all. The hon. Baronet doubtless could not hear what I was saying, although I was straining my voice considerably. When the whole House is talking, it is very difficult for a Minister to make himself heard. I was explaining that this Bill is in substitution of the Territorial Force Bill, the Order in regard to which I shall ask the House to discharge when this Bill has been read a second time It will be agreed, I think, that where you have considerable wastage in a particular battalion, and there are not sufficient Reserves in the Reserve battalion for that particular unit, it is desirable that the process of transfer should be made more simple and more easy. The whole object of this Bill is to empower the Army Council to make such transfers. With regard to the Territorial Force, which is not dealt with in this Bill at all, certain practical difficulties were revealed by the short discussion of last week. In fact, it was made quite obvious that there exists in all quarters of the House a strong disposition to safeguard what I may call the Territorial principle. I therefore asked leave to adjourn the Debate in order to consider what should be done. I am glad to be able to alleviate any apprehension which may exist by stating that we no longer propose to transfer against his will
1312
a man of the Territorial Force from any one unit to another, or from any one corps to another. I ought to accompany that by the further statement that it is our intention to call for volunteers, and to ask members of the Territorial Force to agree to be transferred from one unit to another, or from one corps to another where the necessity arises. Having stated that we propose to proceed on the voluntary principle, and to safeguard the pay of any soldier or officer proceeding from one corps to another, I do not think there is anything more requires to be said. I hope hon. Members will agree that this is an enabling power which ought to be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State; for, after all, in the last resort, what do you say to the man who is gallant enough to come forward and say that he desires to serve his country? "What you want to do is to get a bullet or a bayonet into a German." That is what he is most anxious to do—all praise to him for it!—and if he can serve his country better in one corps than in another, I am perfectly certain that the British soldier is the man to undertake that task.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. DENNISS: I quite understand the necessity for this Bill, and I think every hon. Member does; but I would like to call the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for War for a moment to one particular case in which possibly he might make special arrangements. I mentioned it when the Territorial Force Bill was before the House. The case is this: A number of battalions have been allowed to be raised which are commonly known as "Pals' Battalions." They were only allowed to be raised on condition that they paid their own expenses. Take an example from my own Constituency, where £5,000 was guaranteed in order that a corps might be raised under those conditions. We raised that corps, and the officers did everything to get it ready for service. The men generally enlisted with the thought that they would not be separated—fellow townsmen, friends and club mates. I want the right hon. Gentleman to consider on this corps and others like it the effect of transferring members against their will to other units, and still more to other corps. This might be thought to be a very great breach of faith on the part of the Government, especially in the case where many of these friends themselves subscribed largely to provide their own equipment. It may be that there are not many of

1313
these battalions, but I do think the right hon. Gentleman should give us some assurance that, so far as possible, they will not be interfered with. I do not say that in no event the exigencies of the War might require it, and that they, seeing the necessity, would not volunteer and would not go. But do not let the Government under the existing circumstances pass an Act of Parliament without any assurance whatever that their rights, their interests, will not be specially protected in so far as they have been given an assurance and have enlisted on the faith of it.
Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary that I made no complaint whatever against him, but owing to the noise that was going on in the House, through no fault of my own—
Mr. TENNANT: Hear, hear!
Sir F. BANBURY: I did not quite understand what Bill we were dealing with, and I thought it essential that we should understand that. I think there is something in what my hon. Friend behind me says. I also think there is a great deal more in the case of the old historical regiments. A man might be transferred into any Line, or Cavalry, or Artillery regiment when he did not wish it. These considerations apply much more in the case of the old historical regiments who have great associations, and the men of which love their regiment. There is, I say, very much more in their case than in the case which my hon. Friend behind me has just brought forward. We are at war, and we have got to do the best we can under the circumstances. I feel quite certain that neither the Secretary of State nor the right hon. Gentleman would, if they could avoid it, transfer men who have enlisted in a particular regiment to other regiments. Under these circumstances, therefore, I wish to support the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir IVOR HERBERT: I wish to add a few words on the same lines as the hon. Baronet who has just sat down. I wish to remind the Under-Secretary for War that national feeling, especially, has been particularly prominent in the regiments which we have recently been raising. In Wales, in my own county, this feeling has produced very great results, and I believe in Ireland and in Scotland similar results have been produced. If there were to be any application of this Bill in transferring men
1314
from a Scottish regiment to an English regiment, or from a Welsh regiment to an Irish regiment, or anything of that sort, I think it will have a very serious effect altogether upon recruiting. Personally, I recognise, as the hon. Baronet did, that we are now living in times of great pressure, and we must give full power to the Executive. I have not risen in any way to oppose this Bill, but merely to remind the right hon. Gentleman, and through him the Secretary of State for War, that feelings of national character, such as have been alluded to, which are very strong in distinguished regiments that have great traditions in the Army, must not be recklessly swept away.
I can quite understand there must be cases in which it would be very desirable to apply the provisions of this Bill, in which I see special provision has been taken. There has been in some parts of the country an excessive rush of men to the Artillery, to the Army Service Corps, and to similar corps, when possibly in those very districts the local regiments which depend upon the districts for drafts to the front are not able to get recruits. It is extremely desirable in such a case that the district should be given to understand that when any local regiment is at the front bearing the burden of the day, that it is their duty to provide the drafts to make up wastage, and that these transfers should be made, notwithstanding the fact that a man may pass from one branch of the Service to another which has not the same emoluments. I think a very proper and generous provision has been made by the Clause of the Bill which provides that a man shall not lose by the fact of that transfer. At the same time it is also necessary that provision should be made to prevent the abuse of that generosity by checking the recruiting in those areas for those particular arms, or otherwise a man instead of going into his local regiment may take a circuitous course through the Royal Artillery or the Royal Engineers, and in that way add materially to the emoluments he will get when he eventually reaches his local regiment. My intention in rising is merely to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to these facts, and especially to that of national feeling, or a too rigid application of the powers of the Bill, might be to the detriment of the Army.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: There are two points which I wish to deal with in this Bill, to the general principles of which I

1315
am quite sure no objection can be taken. I should like to emphasise the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Oldham. We may take it generally, I think, that these battalions that have been raised, and raised to efficiency and strength—I have had some hand in these matters myself—will, if possible, be kept together and not broken up to reinforce other battalions, though I quite realise in the case of a battalion of 300 or 400 men, that it is absolutely essential that it should be broken up, and distributed amongst other battalions. There is one point arising out of this Bill as applied to the Regular service. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to deal with it—that is, the question of retransfers after the War is over. I am not speaking now of Service battalions because they come to an end when the War is over, but the Regular battalions—the Guards regiment, and so on. Would it not be fair—I do not suggest it should be incorporated in the Bill—that the War Office, and the right hon. Gentleman, so far as possible, should make it clear that at the conclusion of the War men who have been taken out of one historical regiment and put into another should have the option of going back to their own regiment. If it is possible to transfer them in one case, it ought to be possible to make a reasonable arrangement, without putting it in the Bill, to enable them to return to the regiment of their choice at the end of the War.
The other point is with regard to the Territorial Force which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman a little while ago. He told us he was going to withdraw the Territorial Force Bill, and that he was going to call for volunteers to transfer from the Territorial Force. That, I quite agree, is reasonable, but I do want to ask him to see that no pressure of an undue character is put upon the members to transfer. One does not want to go back to the Debate of last week, but it was agreed and mentioned ad nauseam that pressure was put upon the Territorials to volunteer for foreign service—I do not mean pressure by the War Office, but by their own officers. While we want every man to volunteer for foreign service, we do not want to have undue pressure put upon anyone until the time comes that the Government calls upon every man to take his place in the fighting force. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is no undue pressure used.
Mr. R. McNEILL: I only want to put one question to the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand the Bill, as it stands it would be possible to transfer as between combatant and non-combatant branches of the Army, backwards and forwards. Is that the intention? I do not suppose for a moment—I do not believe—that any member of a non-combatant branch would have the slightest objection, in the face of the enemy, to be transferred to a combatant branch, but all the same the fact should be considered that the services are on distinct lines, and it should be made quite clear before the Bill is passed whether what I have asked is or is not the intention of the Government.
Colonel YATE: Does this Bill apply to officers or only to men? Is an officer who enters any special regiment—either the Cavalry or the Guards—in which he has hereditary or county connections to be transferred to any other regiment against his will, or is he not? Does the word "soldier" in this Bill cover officers or not? We ought to have a definite rule on that point. It is not right that officers with personal connections with a particular regiment should be transferred against their will. The second point I would like to ask is—we have had no special reference from the right hon. Gentleman on the point—as to whether or not it is to apply to Service battalions or to Regular battalions?
Mr. TENNANT: It applies to the whole Regular Army.
Colonel YATE: There have been various cases, and I do not quite understand what has been done. We heard the other day of some 400 men who had been transferred against their will from a West Country regiment (Gloucester) to fill up the ranks of a regiment in Ireland. Is it for that reason that this Bill has been brought in? The move caused very great dissatisfaction—almost a mutiny, it was said—in Ireland I think that is a very bad precedent to follow. All these things should be thought of. If they are not it may cause a very great deal of dissatisfaction in the Service if men are transferred against their will. In the Regular regiments particularly it is very hard that a man who specially enlists in a Line or the Guards Regiment should be transferred and not be allowed to go back to his old regiment at the end of the War. I trust all these points will be considered, and a distinct assurance given that when

1317
military necessities no longer demand it men who has been transferred shall be allowed to return to the regiment in which they originally enlisted, and in which they may have a particular hereditary connection.
Mr. BOOTH: I rise to support the appeal of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I have cases in my mind of Territorials who, when many of their neighbours and friends were not thinking about the defence of the country, decided to join the defensive force. They gave their mind to the subject of Home defence. They took an interest in the subject and thought greatly about it, and decided in times of peace years ago that their contribution in case the country was in danger should take that particular form. But they have given up a point which has been in their mind for some time, largely because the present trouble is of overwhelming importance. Perhaps if it were a minor war they would not do it. Making another sacrifice to the country, they get attached to a particular regiment, and then they are moved on again, without any consent being given on their part. Rumours are about the country that it has been done for one reason or another. I should think most of them have very little foundation; but I think a sympathetic pronouncement from the Front Bench that, not merely at the termination of the War, but at any time during the War when there is a favourable opportunity for these men to transfer, it may be back to their own regiment, they should be allowed to take advantage of it. I do not like to wait until the conclusion of the War before a man is restored to a regiment of which he is fond, and if circumstances allow this to be done I hope the War Office will consider it.
Mr. TENNANT: With the permission of the House I will say a word or two in answer to the various comments which have been made. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member opposite, I would say that officers, by the terms of their engagement, now are liquid throughout the whole Army. They can now be transferred from any part of the Army to any other part. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that, if he casts his memory back. With regard to the main argument which has been laid before the House, that it is desirable to preserve intact that corporate spirit which is imbued in batches of men joining special
1318
corps, I would say at once, though this must not be taken as a pledge, but as an indication of what is in the mind of my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, that it is not the intention to break up those corps or those battalions at all. That is not the main object of the Bill whatsoever. I think what may be fairly described as the main object of the Bill is this: At the beginning of the War, when we were increasing our Armies by leaps and bounds, we enlisted into the Cavalry as well as the Artillery large numbers of men, believing they would be engaged in the ordinary way in warfare of which we had previous experience. This warfare is peculiar, however, and we are not able to employ Cavalry in anything like the numbers we have in past warfare. Therefore it is desirable that the surplusage of Cavalry should be utilised in the trenches, as they have been. We thought it would be much more useful to transfer them into Infantry regiments and use them—as they are spoiling to be used—at the present moment. A very good illustration of that is the Brigade of the Canadian Cavalry, under the command of my right hon. and gallant Friend the late Secretary of State for War, who, I dare say it is known, are going out as Infantrymen. A very splendid example they have set.
The hon. Member for Brentford suggests that we should make some provision for the return of a man to his own unit after the War is over, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) suggested that that should be done even before the War is over. I think my hon. Friend spoke a little as if we were at peace and not at war. It is absolutely impossible to do what he suggests, and to give anything in the nature of a pledge that we should return a man from the unit for which necessity has demanded him back to his own unit, simply because he wants to get there. That would not be a reasonable thing for him to ask; but I am sure that the military authorities will use every endeavour when the War is happily brought to a conclusion, to return men to their own units in which they originally enlisted, should there be any possibility of so doing, and I anticipate there will be every possibility. The hon. Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. B. McNeill) asked if it was the intention of the War Office to utilise non-combatants in combatant service. I think I ought to make quite plain that that is the intention. Where a man, for instance, can be spared

1319
from the Royal Army Medical Corps, where he is a stretcher-bearer, non-commissioned officer or man, and can be spared, it might be quite desirable that he should be utilised in the combatant forces. I hope there will not be any mistake about that, and I hope the House will agree that that is a power which we ought to have, although, as I say again, I do not think it will be very largely called upon. But it is a power we ought to have, and my Noble Friend desires to have these wider powers in his hands, so that he may be able to utilise material which is in the Army in the manner which, he considers will be most likely to bear fruit and bring about an early victory.
Mr. DENNISS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a little more specific reference to those battalions I mentioned particularly?
Mr. TENNANT: I hope I have made it clear that there is inside the War Office a strong sympathy with the reasons which have made those men enlist in a corporate capacity, and we have no desire at all to break up those corps, or do anything to thwart their most laudable ambition that they should serve together. On the other hand, I think the hon. Gentleman must realise, in view of what I said at the conclusion of my remarks, that we ought to have the power to be able to use them—perhaps to transfer them in batches to another corps, perhaps to use a man in another corps, an individual it may be. I do not say that power will be largely used, but I do not think the House would be well advised in denying that power to my Noble Friend.
Sir IVOR HERBERT: Am I to understand that transfers from corps raised on a national basis are only to be applied under the most stringent necessity?
Mr. TENNANT: I am sure I can give my hon. and gallant Friend an assurance that this power will be used most sparingly, and only when necessity arises. It is highly improbable that it will ever be used in the rather violent manner suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend by transferring a Highlander to a Devon or Cornwall regiment, or a Welshman to an Irish regiment.
Lord C. BERESFORD: The right hon. Gentleman says that all officers are now liquid. Does he mean an Infantry officer
1320
will be put into a Horse Artillery battery, or that Horse Artillery men will only be employed in trenches?
Mr. TENNANT: I believe that the Army Council are empowered to employ an officer in every branch or arm of the Service.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

TERRITORIAL FORCE BILL.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [27th April] "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. TENNANT: I beg to move, "That the Order be discharged, and the Bill withdrawn."
Question put, and agreed to. Bill withdrawn.

POLICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of 4 and 5 Geo. 5, cc. 34 and 80, and 5 Geo. 5, c. 32.)
(1) Sub-section (2) of Section two of the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, shall have effect as if the words "for rendering special service in the Navy or Army" were omitted therefrom.
(2) The Sub-section which, by Section one of the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, is substituted for Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, and Sub-section (2) of Section one of the Irish Police (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1915, shall respectively have effect as if the following provision were added thereto:—
"If the man dies or is disabled whilst in naval or military service under circumstances which do not entitle his widow or children or him to any pension or allowances payable out of naval or military funds, the police authority shall have power to grant to his widow and children or to him such gratuities or pension as could have been awarded under the enactments relating to the

1321
police, had the man been a member of the police force at the time of his death or disablement."
(3) For removing doubts it is hereby declared that the privileges to which a man may be entitled under the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, or the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, or the Irish Police (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1915, shall continue, and may be renewed, notwithstanding that the man is granted a temporary commission for the purposes of the present war in any of His Majesty's naval or military forces.
(4) This Section shall as respects England and Scotland be construed as one with the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, and the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, and as respects Ireland with the Irish Police (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1915.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: I should like to refer to Sub-section (2) of Clause 1. My attention has been called to it because the local authorities who have charge of the police are under the impression that by this Clause a new charge will be put upon the local authorities. I refer to Sub-section (2) which says:
"If the man dies or is disabled whilst in naval or military service under circumstances which do not entitle his widow or children or him to any pension—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. Member proposing to move an Amendment?
Mr. J. SAMUEL: No, I am asking for an explanation.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment on the Paper.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "effect" ["shall have effect as if the words"], to insert the words "and shall be deemed always to have had effect."
This Amendment is to clear away a doubt expressed by an hon. Member on the Second Reading of the Bill as to whether it was retrospective. These words make the effect of the Bill retrospective, and carry out the wishes of the House expressed on. Second Reading.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, agreed to.
Mr. TOUCHE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after "words" ["as if the words"], to insert the words "if the police authority are satisfied, after consultation with the Admiralty or Army Council, that the constable possesses qualifications not possessed by ordinary recruits."
This Clause modifies the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, which again modifies the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914. In the Police Constables (Naval and Military (Service) Act, 1914, the privileges of the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, were extended to any constable who enlisted, subject to his possessing qualifications not possessed by any ordinary recruit for rendering special service to the Navy or Army. In other words, the Reservist who has been drawing Reserve pay during time of peace, and is under an obligation to join the Forces, gets a protection, while a man who volunteered for the same War service, and received no financial consideration during time of peace, receives no protection unless he has special qualifications. I understood, when this Bill was first introduced, that that benefit henceforth was to apply to all. I do not know whether I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion. The new Bill omits the restriction of the benefit to men capable of rendering special service, but it retains the restriction to constables with qualifications not possessed by ordinary recruits. The object of my Amendment is to put every constable who enlists on the same footing, always provided, of course, that he does so with the approval of his chief officer. I am afraid if it is left as it is the constable would have to resign and thus lose the benefit of his previous service. I hope I have made myself quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman, and I trust he will accept my Amendment.
Sir F. BANBURY: May I ask whether the words proposed by my hon. Friend are in the proper place, because I think they are in the wrong place. I do not think they would make sense of the Clause.
Mr. McKENNA: I think the Amendment is quite right as it stands. I entirely agree with the argument put forward by the hon. Member, but to give effect to his argument I think we ought to add the words "with the consent of the chief officer of police."
Mr. LYNCH: I had an Amendment prepared, but I prefer the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman him-

1323
self. I think he has the desire of carrying out the intention of the Amendment which I have prepared. I support the contention of the hon. Member who has just sat down. I want to secure that the police officer who is now a police officer and who joins either the Army or the Navy shall be practically in the same position as if he had previously been a Reservist, either of the Army or of the Navy, and had been called up by the Army or Navy authorities.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert the words "with the consent of the chief officer of police."
Proposed words inserted.
Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "effect," to insert the words "and shall be deemed always to have had effect." These words are inserted in order to make the Bill retrospective.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (4), to insert
"(5) This Section shall continue in operation only during the continuance of the present War."
This Amendment is proposed in order to meet an objection which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth), and I hope it will meet his view.
Mr. BOOTH: I thank the Government for putting in this Section. On a previous occasion I appealed for some definite words. Probably these words do not alter the meaning of the Bill, but they make the point clear, and I am anxious that all these matters should be made plain to the lay reader.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: I would like to know what will be the effect of this Amendment. Suppose a pension is granted by the local authorities, will that cease at the end of the War?
Mr. McKENNA: We are dealing now with allowances during the War. Pensions will not and could not cease. The object of this Bill is to enable certain allowances to be paid during the War to the constable if he enlists, and the whole effect of this Clause ceases at the end of the War. If the constable dies in the service of the Crown he will receive his pension.
Lord C. BERESFORD: Supposing a constable elects to continue his service under this arrangement after the War he will get an extra pension and his original pension, and his original pension is increased.
Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord is perfectly right. If the constable serves after the expiration of his ordinary service and goes on serving for another year he will be entitled to a pension at an additional year's rate. He will get that under the existing law.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. J. SAMUEL: My attention has been called by the local authorities to the new charge which is going to be placed upon them under this Bill. Under Sub-section (2) it is provided that:—
"If a man dies or is disabled whilst in naval or military service under circumstances which do not entitle his widow or children or him to any pension or allowances payable out of naval or military funds, the police authority shall have power to grant to his widow and children or to him such gratuities or pension as could have been awarded under the enactments relating to the police, had the man been a member of the police force at the time of his death or disablement."
What the authorities contend is that this is a new charge, and they say that if a policeman volunteers or if he joins the Colours, or if he becomes a Reserve man and joins the Colours, he is entitled to a pension out of the naval or military funds, and the local authority can pay his widow or children a pension, or in case of injury they can pay him a gratuity. This is really a war charge upon the local authorities, because we hold that if a man, under these circumstances, is killed in the War, or injured, the National Exchequer, through the Army or the Navy, should meet the pension and the gratuity. Now you are saying in so many words that there is no such provision. I will assume that this Clause states that there is no provision to grant a gratuity or a pension under certain circumstances to the police officer who joins the Army or the Navy and is injured or disabled or killed, and the right hon. Gentleman says the local authority must undertake, or can under-

1325
take, that charge. I say distinctly that that is a new responsibility upon the local authorities. It may become a very serious one, and some of these authorities are rather alarmed at the prospect of these new charges upon them. I hold that if a man joins the forces, whether a police constable or not, if he is killed then the pension should come from the State to his widow and children. If he is injured then we hold that the gratuities should come from the State and not from the local authority. I feel certain that the local authorities, with rates up to 8s., 9s., and even 10s. in the pound, have a quite sufficient burden to bear at the present time. On this point I should like a clear opinion from the Home Secretary.
Mr. McKENNA: I am not sure that my hon. Friend realises the exact purpose of this Bill. This is a measure which has been introduced in response to a request made to the Home Office by certain police authorities, who have asked for additional powers to those which they now possess for dealing generously with police officers who enlist.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is that so?
Mr. McKENNA: Yes. This is an enabling power and not a compulsory power, and if the police authority holds the view expressed by my hon. Friend that this is a charge which they do not feel justified in imposing upon the ratepayers the effect will be that at least one of their servants who enlisted would not get the additional pay.
Mr. J. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain in that case what will become of the man if he is not entitled to draw a pension?
Mr. McKENNA: I was just coming to that point. The reason for this particular Sub-section is this: The rules governing the right to pensions are not precisely the same in the military force and in the police force. Of course, in such a case as my hon. Friend mentioned, the case of a police officer who had enlisted and was killed or wounded there would be a naval or military pension; there would not be any burden upon the police authority in regard to pension. But in determining rights to pensions police authorities are a little more generous than the naval and military authorities. There are cases, for instance, in which the naval or military authority might hold that disease or incapacity, which might affect a soldier or sailor, was
1326
not pensionable, whereas in similar circumstances the police authority would hold that it was pensionable, or that it would entitle the sufferer to a gratuity. It is in order that a local authority should be able, if it so wished, to pay a pension or a gratuity to a police officer in those special circumstances, which must be rare, of course, that this power is given to them. No police authority need exercise the power, nor would it ever come into operation in any ordinary case of death or wounds.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Suspension of Right to Retire on a Pension.)
Notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, no constable shall, during the continuance of the present War, be entitled without a medical certificate to retire and receive a pension for life except with the consent of the chief officer of the police force to which he belongs.
Mr. LYNCH: I beg to move, to leave out the words "except with the consent of the chief officer of the police force to which he belongs," and to insert instead thereof the words "But provided in such case that the right to receive on retirement such pension shall not, while the constable continues to serve in the force, be liable to forfeiture except in the case in which a pension when granted is liable to forfeiture under Section 8 of the Police Act, 1890."
The sole object of the Amendment is to prevent any chance of favouritism, whereby one man might be allowed to resign and another man might be prevented. I would like to submit my Amendment to the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman, but, if he can safeguard the position by any words of his own, then I will accept them.
Mr. McKENNA: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. He will see, as regards the last part of it, that there are already on the Paper words meeting his view. I recognise that part of the Amendment to which my attention was drawn on Second Reading by the Noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Beresford) is very important and wide-reaching. You might have the case of a constable who is retained, but whose heart, for one reason or another, is not in it. You do not like to dismiss him, because he may have been a

1327
good servant in the past. I take it that in such a case the chief officer ought to have the right to say, "We do not wish to retain your services any longer." That is the only way in which discipline can be maintained, and I think on the whole, therefore, that it would be better to leave this loophole for the enforcing of discipline, which is contained in the words, "except with the consent of the chief officer of the police force to which he belongs." I do not believe that the power given by these words would ever be abused, but, if they were, attention could be immediately drawn, and would be drawn, to it. Under these circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.
Mr. LYNCH: I will accept the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. BOOTH: Human nature is frail, and chief constables as well as other people may have favourites. I do not know whether the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Touche) puts the matter right. If I can be assured that it does meet the point I will wait until that Amendment is moved, but I want the Home Secretary to realise what gives rise to this point. A man may have come into conflict with his superior officer. It may not be on any serious matter, but they may not get on together and another man may be more of a favourite. The opinion is that while for disciplinary purposes they must obey their chief, yet when it comes to retirement and they are leaving the force to enjoy a pension, the chief constable should not be able to allow his favouritism to apply beyond the service. In this case it practically does. He is able to say when the pension shall begin. That is a point of uneasiness. If there were some authority to which an aggrieved constable could appeal, it would be different. In matters of discipline there should be no appeal. When a man joins the service he must take it for good or bad and he must obey, but when he wants to leave and accept his pension, can any favouritism be shown then? If the Amendment of the hon. Member would meet the case, then I would agree.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. McKENNA: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
"Provided that where a constable has given before the commencement of this Act or hereafter gives during the con-
1328
tinuance of the present War written notice of his desire to retire in circumstances which, but for this Section, would entitle him to retire without a medical certificate and to receive a pension for life, his right to retire at the termination of the present War with a pension not less in amount than that to which he would have been entitled had he retired at the date when such notice was given shall not be liable to forfeiture except for such misconduct as would, had he been in receipt of a pension, have rendered the pension liable to forfeiture."
This provision has the effect of securing to every constable, who has now a statutory right to retire, his existing statutory right to pension. I believe that these words carry out exactly the purpose-which the Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) had in view when he raised the matter on Second Heading. I see that the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Touche) has an Amendment further down with the same object, but with great deference I would say that I have had the advantage of a very skilled draughtsman in the words I have put upon the Paper, and naturally my words, in consequence, are rather better than his. I would prefer, therefore, to have the Amendment in the form in which I have placed it upon the Paper. I do not know that it requires anything more to commend it to the House. I believe that opinion was unanimous that the statutory pension of the constable should be secured to him by this Bill.
Mr. TOUCHE: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman's object is the same as my own. I had drawn up my Amendment before I had seen his on the Paper and I cannot claim to have had the assistance of such a skilled draughtsman, whose language it is not always easy for the lay mind to understand. I have put down my Amendment with the object of protecting a constable who has earned his pension and is not allowed to retire. That is the whole point, and what we are all driving at is to amend the Bill so that a man man may go on after twenty-five years with his pension automatically secured to him, and so that if he does go on for twenty-six years he will get the full pension to which he will be entitled at the end of twenty-six years. There is some uncertainty as to whether the Amendment drawn by the very skilled draughtsman is going to have that effect, and

1329
while I do not want to be critical, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to mention very briefly the criticisms which have been made to me.
The feature of his Amendment is that the security of the pension depends on a written notice. That raises a question. If no notice is given, the pension might be liable to forfeiture after the completion of twenty-five years. On the other hand, if notice is given, it may mean that a man may serve twenty-six years without qualifying for the twenty-six years' pension. That at least is a fear. I do not know whether it would be the result, but would he not be in the position of starting again after twenty-five years'? He has taken his pension of twenty-five years by giving notice, and, if he stays another year, will that give him the full twenty-six years' pension? I know that there are some men who are afraid that it will not do so. I do not want to suggest my form of words is better than the right hon. Gentleman's if he can satisfy me on that point. I want to secure that a man automatically gets his pension and is not going to lose the chance of it because he omits to give written notice of it, and also that if he goes on for another year after the twenty-five years he will be entitled to the full pension. I do not think that my Amendment will meet the point of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). I know that there is a strong objection taken to the power vested in the chief constable; but for my part I cannot see the force of it. I think that it is very reasonable. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me whether my words are covered by his Amendment?
Mr. McKENNA: That, is a very important point. The undertaking which I gave to the Noble Lord was that the statutory pension which the constable had earned at the end of his twenty-five years should be secured to him, no matter what happened afterward, and I also undertook that he should be entitled to the additional rate of pension in consequence of his having to serve the twenty-sixth year. If these words do not carry out that object, I have not carried out my undertaking. In view of what the hon. Gentleman now says, I will put that specific point to the draughtsman, and if it is not right it shall certainly be put right. It is quite clear that what is intended is the full twenty-five years' pension, with the full statutory rights and obligations, together with the year's pension which he would
1330
obtain if he served another additional year. Does that meet the hon. Gentleman's point?
Mr. TOUCHE: I am quite satisfied.
6.0 P.M.
Mr. YEO: There still seems some doubt in the minds of the men who are on the point of retiring. When the time comes for them to retire, and the Government calls upon them to continue their service, will they be placed in exactly the same position as men who have already been pensioned and called back to the service? These latter men are receiving, in addition to their pension, a good weekly wage, and the men for whom I am speaking ask that they should be put in exactly the same position as these pensioners. This point is causing a good deal of concern among the men who are becoming eligible for the twenty-five years' or twenty-six years' pension. They intend to retire on that pension, and if they are to be asked to go back to the service for the remainder of the War they think they should be put on the same basis as men who retired ten or twelve years ago, who are in receipt of their pensions, and who are now being called back to the service.
Mr. PERCY HARRIS: I quite understand the necessity for retaining constables in the service under present conditions, but it seems to me they are giving up a valuable right and receiving nothing in return, because, at the present time, as far as I understand it, a constable who has served twenty-five years is entitled to retire without a medical certificate, and if he has served twenty-six years he is entitled to a full two-thirds pension. This Section provides that the constable shall continue to serve for one-third of his pay, because he is already entitled to two-thirds in the form of pension, towards which he has himself contributed. I do not think it can be considered you are treating these men quite fairly, and, therefore, I hope that the suggestion made by the preceding speaker will receive consideration at the hands of the Home Secretary.
Mr. C. DUNCAN: I think the Home Secretary's Amendment, as far as the wording goes, makes good the point the right hon. Gentleman has promised to attend to—namely, that the constable's pension at the end of twenty-five years shall be made secure. But in making it secure the right hon. Gentleman seems to

1331
have completely left out of consideration the fact that if a man continues to serve for a longer period—say, for twenty-six, twenty-seven, twenty-eight, or even thirty years—the pension which he ought ordinarily to become entitled to over and above the twenty-five years is not covered in any conceivable way by this particular Amendment. I do not wish to suggest that the Home Secretary desires to evade that point at all, but I think that, in his anxiety to meet the twenty-five years' case he has forgotten about the extra years.
Mr. McKENNA: That is provided for under the ordinary Regulations. If a man stays beyond twenty-five years he automatically gets the increased pension.
Mr. DUNCAN: Will that apply even when this new Bill is passed and become an Act of Parliament? That is the point about which there is doubt.
Mr. McKENNA: And that is the point into which I have undertaken to make inquiry.
Mr. DUNCAN: It is the only point which seems to be doubtful, and if the Home Secretary will undertake to cover it I shall be quite satisfied.
Question put, and agreed to.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Short Title.)
This Act may be cited as the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915.
Amendment made: At end, insert the words "and the Police Reservists (Allowances) Act, 1914, the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1914, and so much of this Act as amends those Acts, may be cited together as the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Acts, 1914 and 1915."
Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

COPYRIGHT (BRITISH MUSEUM) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Acland): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
I think the House will desire that in asking it to give a Second Reading to this
1332
Bill I should address myself to the point whether the Government is justified in placing a Bill of this kind at this time before the House. I am very glad to see present so many guardians of the rights of private Members. I will explain my point as briefly as I can. The governing words on which we claim we are justified in bringing in this Bill were those uttered by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the Session, when he asked private Members to assent to certain limitations and curtailments of their usual opportunities. The right hon. Gentleman said:—
"The Government are asking private Members to give up their usual opportunities, but in return private Members are entitled to demand from the Government—and the demand is a perfectly reasonable one—that so long as this order is in force they will introduce no legislation of a party or contentious character and that they will indeed confine, as we propose to confine, their legislative proposals, unless in some exceptional case in regard to which there is general agreement to such measures as may Vie found necessary to facilitate, financially or otherwise, the successful prosecution of the "War."
If I cannot justify the Bill as falling within those words of the Prime Minister, I should not be justified in asking the House to proceed with it. I think it can be said, first of all, that it will assist the State, financially or otherwise, towards the successful prosecution of the War, to pass the Bill. But if that view is not accepted, then I think it may be regarded as an exceptional case in regard to which there is general agreement. I have arranged that a very full Memorandum should be prefixed to the Bill, explaining what it is intended to do. The House will see that under a Section of the Copyright Act an advertisement is held to be included in the definition of a book as contained in that Act, and, therefore, advertisers are entitled under the Act to send to the British Museum all their advertisements, or labels, or other things which they affix to their goods, and to require in each case a written receipt signed by the head of the department for each such advertisement so sent. Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of the question as to whether publishers of advertisements have a right to require that they shall in some way be registered, I think there can be no doubt that the British Museum is not the right place for registration, or the proper body upon which to put the burden of making it. The extent to which this right of sending advertisements and labels has been exercised is not very great so far, but there is one firm which has stated that it will send 10,000 advertisements per year, each

1333
to be separately acknowledged, entered, and stored, and if other firms should act in a like manner, and it is quite possible—if there is some possible ghost of a point in sending advertisements to be registered in this way—then many other firms may act similarly, and, instead of merely one firm sending 10,000 advertisements per year, we may have dozens or scores of firms doing the same thing.
The question of accommodation and space at the British Museum is naturally a very important one, and the authorities of the museum represent, no doubt with perfect truth, that if they have to store all this mass of absolutely useless material they will require further space. Space costs money, and the site of the British Museum is a very costly one. I think it is justifiable to ask the House that the museum should be saved from the necessity of perhaps having to provide extra accommodation on its present site, especially as it would involve employment of much labour and very great expense in this period of war. Apart from having to provide special buildings at considerable expense, the museum authorities ought to be spared the labour of the clerks in receiving and separately acknowledging all these advertisements. We shall be glad of the criticisms of hon. Members on the question whether it is justifiable now to bring in a Bill of this kind. The statement of the Prime Minister was fully and formally laid before the Government, and they decided that it was so. They thought the Bill came within the Prime Minister's statement, and they hope the House will so regard it. They hope, at any rate, that, in the words of the Prime Minister, the House will regard this matter as an exceptional case in reference to which there is general agreement.
Mr. BOOTH: This Copyright Act was passed by the present Government in 1911 with considerable amendment. I was a rather stout opponent of it, and considerable concessions were made, and one point on which I had down an Amendment dealt with this particular matter. But Ministers, in their usual lordly way, waived my objections aside and passed the ridiculous provision that every advertisement and label shall be sent to the British Museum. It was not a preceding Government that did this, it was the existing Government, and they did it in spite of all warning. Indeed, they went to the Selection Committee in order to keep me off the Committee because they feared that I might
1334
be successful in forcing such rubbish out. I am not often in favour of legislation, but I do like Bills which repeal stupid legislation, such as Governments will sometimes pass. The House will probably gather from the rather apologetic speech of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that it is a little difficult to justify this as a War measure. It certainly will not be able to look upon it as a missile against Admiral von Tirpitz or the Crown Prince of Bavaria, and it is about as far away from fighting in the trenches as one can possibly get. I am glad to see present one of the trustees of the British Museum. I want to put this specific question to him: Is this one of the general Departmental Bills they bring in when the Department finds the occasion opportune? The offices at Whitehall are full of such Bills, and they generally mean a little more power to the officials and a little less to the general public. If the necessity for this Bill is due to an emergency springing up during this War period, we may go some way to meet the Government. But if it is not, if it has been in the pigeon-holes of the office for several years—as, indeed, I think it should have been—then it is a breach of the Prime Minister's pledge.
I do not object to legislation of this kind. By all means bring the Bill in and let the House sit and do its duty. Hon. Members are drawing their full pay of £400. Let them attend to their duty properly. When the bargain was made private Members were robbed of all their rights. As I understood it, the bargain was that the House should not have its attention diverted from the great War. We responded to that appeal. Therefore, private Members were not to bring in Bills on a Friday, or to move Resolutions on other evenings, as was customary under the Rules of the House, because, however good their intentions were, they might be diverting the attention of the House from the War, and might, for instance, bring in Bills dealing with the drink traffic, and matters of that kind, which have nothing to do with the War. There was to be no more temperance legislation or any Sunday Closing Bill, because the Government had to set its mind on the War with Germany. I was not in favour of the bargain. I should have preferred that the House of Commons should have gone on to a greater extent with its usual procedure. But we bowed down to the omnipotence of the Government. Therefore, I ask, in order to comply with that procedure, the

1335
right hon. Gentleman, who, I believe, is one of the trustees of the British Museum, to assure us that this is a sudden trouble sprung upon them while the nation is at War. If that be so, I can quite see that putting up buildings and employing labour in erecting extra storage accommodation for rubbish of this description is not a suitable thing to do during the War. Only a statement of that kind can possibly justify this Bill as coming within the Prime Minister's statement, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us that assurance?
The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): If the late Sir William Anson had been still happily here he would now be representing the trustees of the British Museum, as he did for many years. I speak only in my capacity as a trustee of the British Museum to answer the question courteously put to me by my hon. Friend (Mr. Booth). I had nothing to do with the Copyright Act, 1911, and certainly never influenced the Committee of Selection as to what action they should take as to the exclusion, or inclusion, of my hon. Friend as a Member of the Committee on that Bill. I can give the assurance that the hon. Member wants that this is a sudden emergency. I went on behalf of the trustees of the British Museum, only a few weeks ago, to the Treasury, to point out what a full meeting of the trustees had considered to be the difficulty with which they were faced. This Bill, to my knowledge, has only been drafted and in print for about three weeks. I produced it at the earliest moment I could, for I thought there was an emergency. The British Museum has been used, very cleverly, by certain traders to get registration of trade labels to which they were not entitled and which they were not intended to have. The result was that the British Museum would be driven to provide more accommodation and a larger staff to deal with these labels which are being constantly sent to them. One of the special emergencies is that the staff of the British Museum has already been greatly depleted owing to the number of them serving at the front now, and if to put even normal duties on a depleted staff is hard, to put added and quite unnecessary duties upon that staff would be cruelty to the British Museum. I hope the House will see that this is an emergency Bill and will be willing to pass it.
Mr. LYNCH: I happened to be a Member of the Committee on the Copyright Bill, which had one serious defect, namely, the non-inclusion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Booth). I can quite understand his feeling, because I know the wisdom and humorous turn of expression under which he conceals, more or less ineffectually, his sound commonsense. I believe he himself remedied the omission by haunting the Chamber like a Peri at the gate of Paradise, while we were engaged on our arduous toils. I am one of those who have used the British Museum constantly for years, and I regard it as one of the important factors—I do not say of my education, but of the foundations on which I hoped to base an education. The British Museum is like many other British institutions—it suffers front routine, and a certain lack of receptivity of new ideas. I believe the museum, even as a great education institution, would be greatly improved if, in addition to the elaborate catalogue of names which is of great assistance to readers, there were also a catalogue, which would require very arduous labours to prepare, but which is, perhaps, even more necessary, namely, a great catalogue of subjects. When one enters the museum for the first time, his feeling may be one of highly wrought expectancy, but that gives way at once to a sentiment of dismay. I once met an honest horse-shoer there who hoped to find a book on farriery. His expression when he entered the portals of the museum was like that of Von Kluck recently at the Battle of the Marne. He asked me to indicate the manner in which he could proceed to find the information he sought among this enormous embarras de riches. I would suggest that for the benefit of men of elementary education, there should be in the British Museum a series of guide-posts or signs, so that step, by step they could be led into the contemplation of the field of any subject they desired to study. I believe that the energy let loose by this Bill might be used in compiling such a catalogue as I suggest. Although one is bewildered by the number of books in the British Museum, there are some remarkable lacunœ. I have asked in vain for books in French, German, or Italian, and I was going to say in American, but I mean books produced by American publishers. Even one written by an English author of the highest repute, but published in Chicago, was not to be found on the shelves of the British Museum. I

1337
suggest that some of the surplus energy let loose by this Bill could be employed by instituting active research for new books of value published in foreign countries. I believe that some kind of Committee does exist or that there is somebody responsible, but his rôle is too passive. There should be somebody on the outposts of the world of ideas looking out for original work of real value in foreign countries.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this Bill deals only with advertisement labels and advertisements.
Mr. LYNCH: The Bill is an excellent Bill, partly because, in the way I have suggested, it would let free the energies of the great staff of the British Museum, and I am giving reasons why these books of value should be preferred to the advertisements which are sent to the British Museum. I am comparing one book with another. One day Disraeli went into a bookshop and asked what was new in the literary world. He was shown a book by Gladstone. He looked at it and said, "It is certainly in the shape of a book, but it is not literature." I am comparing these advertisements, which are exploited by British tradesmen, with literature, and suggesting that they should be replaced with books of real value.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is a matter for the administration of the British Museum.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Harcourt.]
Bill accordingly be considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
Sir WALTER ESSEX: I want to be assured that there is no weakening of property in copyright made by this Bill. I have not had an opportunity of comparing it with previous legislation affecting copyright, and one cannot remember what took place in the Debates on the earlier Bill. I should like to be reassured on this point, because of the statement made by one hon. Member stigmatising all advertisements. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Bill said that the advertisements as a
1338
whole were worthless, which is going beyond the facts. The quality of our advertisements has, in many cases, been the envy of Europe—I will not say of America. I can say in praise of them that they have been very excellent productions, frequently reaching a high level. I know that in all cases the work is not worth preserving, but I should like to be assured that those who strive to lift the quality of the work they do for the advertising public are not losing any of their property by this measure, but that their property and rights are safeguarded.
Mr. ACLAND: I can give the hon. Member the assurance for which he asks. I was very particular to inquire whether we were in any way, by a side wind, affecting, or likely to affect, the copyright law. I thought that would not be in any way a justifiable thing to do. I am assured quite definitely, after some inquiry and research into the matter, that the rights of copyright advertisements and other matter will not in any way be affected. I used the word "rubbish" about certain advertisements, having in my mind only the particular advertisements which had so far, for the most part, been sent to the British Museum, and which are mainly medicine bottle labels and tracts about tabloids and things of that kind. I yield to no one in admiration of the art of advertising as it is practised in this country.
Mr. LYNCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there exists in these Acts a definition of advertisement which covers the case, because there are very valuable books issued by the Commonwealth of Australia which might really be called advertisements, but which the British Museum might be glad to secure? Is there any such definition of advertisements, or have the directors of the Museum sufficient discretion now, or are they compelled to refuse books which they desire to have?
Mr. HARCOURT: I can assure the hon. Member that the trustees have a quite full discretion in that matter, and there is nothing in the wording of this Bill which would deprive them of that discretion or make it in the least necessary to refuse books merely because they contain within their covers a number of advertisements.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. HARCOURT: I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This is another small Bill which I would commend to the House. It is a Bill to extend the system of extradition of fugitive offenders from British protected States. The Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881 can be applied by Order in Council to British Protectorates but not to protected States where the King of this country does not possess jurisdiction. At present a protected State cannot provide for the legal custody of fugitive offenders on the high seas after they have left the territory of their States. It is desirable to extend our system of extradition to the Federated Malay States and other States, such as Johore, Borneo, and Sarawak. But the Federated Malay States are Sovereign States. We cannot legislate for them but we can enable them, if they so desire, to take advantage of our fugitive offenders' system. This Bill will not be made effective by Order in Council in respect of any State until the ruler of it has entered into a formal agreement for the purpose of giving his consent nor till he has made appropriate legislation according to his own local law; but in anticipation of the passing of this Bill the rulers of the four Federated Malay States have already made the necessary formal agreements and have ready draft enactments which they wish to pass as soon as the Imperial Bill becomes law. Steps would then be taken to make the necessary arrangements and agreements with the rulers of the other protected States which are outside the federation of the four Malay States. If any ruler wishes to stand outside this arrangement it is competent for him to do so. The Order in Council under the Bill will extend the Fugitive Offenders Act only to those States which have consented and legislated accordingly. It is extremely desirable that, in a state of war, our facilities for dealing with fugitive offenders throughout the world should be as comprehensive as possible, and I can commend this Bill to the House as a useful, necessary, and uncontentious measure.
Mr. BOOTH: I am not quite clear that a case has been made out for this measure. I think my right hon. Friend's argument is just as strained as on the British Museum Bill. The Federated Malay
1340
States have been there for some considerable time. I know there is trouble. I have visited it myself, and can remember complaints being made of people taking fugitives across the shallow waters. But if there is some additional reason why it should be passed now or should not be delayed, I think my right hon. Friend should be more specific. I did not quite catch one sentence that he uttered, but I should like to ask whether it meant that there was some additional reason because we were at war. If so, I should have thought that other places would have been contemplated besides Johore and the Malay States. Will it apply to the Sudan or to German Africa when we enter into possession of it? That is what I took it to be when I read the Bill, that they wished to be prepared for changes arising out of the War. I was rather dismayed when I heard the chief case based upon the Malay States. I think my right hon. Friend should have been more specific.
Mr. HARCOURT: The Political Offenders Act of 1881 confers power on the King here by Order in Council to apply the Fugitive Offenders Act to all Protectorates, and if German Africa ultimately become a Protectorate no amendment of the existing law would be necessary. Egypt being a Protectorate, the existing law is sufficient for the Sudan. But there are a few protected States which are not British Protectorates because the King has not the right to exercise authority over them. But these States are willing to avail themselves of our extradition law and to facilitate the transfer of offenders; but it is necessary for that purpose that this Bill should be passed. It may be true that it should have been done before, but for some reason or other, which I am not in a position to explain, it was not done before. It is still more desirable that it should be done now, since we are at war, in order that fugitive offenders may not find that they have a place of escape either in the four federated Malay States or in the other States which I have mentioned.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."
Bill accordingly be considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether this would apply in case a German enemy escaped over the border and a German ship came into Penang on the opposite coast from the Malay States with a dummy funnel and flying the wrong kind of flag? My own impression, from information I have, is that there were some confederates in Penang. Do I understand that if anyone who had been guilty of giving assistance to the enemy were to escape across, this Bill affords an opportunity of dealing with him which does not now exist?
Mr. HARCOURT: It creates no new offence. It merely enables operations to take place in the Federated Malay States such as can now take place in any Colony or Protectorate; but it does not create any new class of crime, or enable us to deal with any criminals who cannot be dealt with under the principal Act of 1881.
Mr. BOOTH: Would it include a German spy?
Mr. HARCOURT: If a German spy could have been dealt with under the Act of 1881, he can be dealt with in the Federated Malay States.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill Reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

MARRIAGE OF BRITISH SUBJECTS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. HARCOURT: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This is a Bill to facilitate the marriage of Colonials in this country, or of Britishers in the Dominions and Colonies. It was put forward many years ago by the Registrar-General here. It was not discussed at the last Imperial Conference, but it has been a matter of continuous correspondence with the Dominions and of personal conversation with their representatives at the last Imperial Conference, of which I was the chairman. Its object is to facilitate the acceptance here of banns and notices of marriage issued in other parts of the Empire. We are not legislating for the self-governing Dominions, but we can and shall apply this Act by Order in Council where and when they have legislated reciprocally. The only reason why it has not been introduced before is that I have been in con-
1342
tenuous correspondence with all the Dominions on this practically ever since the last conference, and this is the earliest moment at which I have been able to bring it forward. I think from what he has heard and seen in the papers, my hon. Friend will admit that there is urgency in this country for facilitating marriages whenever you can do so. At present there are certain quite unnecessary delays imposed upon a man arriving here from; Australia, because he cannot bring his certificate of banns or notices with him, and therefore the marriage cannot take place until he has set up a residence here and qualified in the ordinary way. In the same way Britishers going to various Dominions suffer inconveniences there. I put this forward for the purpose of facilitating rapid marriages in every way in our power.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."
Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and Reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

STATUTORY COMPANIES (REDEEMABLE STOCK) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This is an emergency measure framed in the interests of certain statutory companies whom it empowers to issue preference shares or stock, or debentures or debenture stock, so as in each case to be redeemable. Companies by definition are any railway company, canal company, dock company, or water company, or any company incorporated by special Act who are for the time being authorised under such an Act to construct, work, own, or carry on any railway, canal, dock, water, or other public undertaking, and includes any person or body of persons so authorised.
Such companies are in general not entitled to issue redeemable stock. The power, however, to issue redeemable stock is not a new one. Some companies actually possess it. For instance, the L. and S. W. and the L. B. and S. Coast.

1343
Railways; and the L. and S. W. has been able to make use of the powers during the War to the extent of issuing a million stock of 5 per cent. redeemable preference shares. It is obvious that if companies do require to issue stock during the present crisis and have to issue it at war rates, and the stock being not redeemable, an unfair burden would be cast upon them. The effect of issuing stock in that way would be to reduce other stock practically below the minimum price at which it can be sold. In the circumstances it would seem a real emergency measure to give them the power. But the power is strictly restricted. At the end of Clause 1 hon. Members will see:—
"This Act shall apply only to stock authorised to be created, or to be issued before the outbreak of the present War, or after the outbreak of the present War, and before the commencement of this Act; and redeemable stock shall not be created or issued, in pursuance of the powers given by this Act, during the continuance of the present War, and a period of twelve, months thereafter, except with the consent of the Treasury."
I think I can confidently assure the House that the Bill is truly an emergency measure, and I trust it will be found entirely non-controversial.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not going to oppose the Bill, but I should like to ask whether there is any very great demand for it and whether the hon. Gentleman has considered the question of company law in regard to the reduction of capital, because I understand the Bill is to enable a company—I will not deal with debentures—to issue redeemable stock. Suppose you add £100,000 to the capital of a company. You put it into the assets, and you hold it out to the world that you have £100,000 more assets for the creditors with whom you are dealing. In this Bill you are going to authorise this company to reduce its capital, and the creditors and other people with whom the company are dealing might find, or they might not know, that they were dealing with a company with £100,000 less assets than they had had before.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the power to reduce capital is most strictly guarded in ordinary companies. There is no power under the Company Trading Act to reduce capital, except by
1344
petition, and the Court takes great care, by ordering advertisements to be made, that all those likely to be dealing with any company reducing its capital may have ample notice that from that time henceforward that company will have so much less assets and so much less for creditors to go on if default should be made. If this is going to be permitted to gas, water, and dock companies, there is very little to prevent it being applied by a subsequent measure to all limited companies, or all large limited companies. There are many companies to-day whose capital is non-statutory, but whose capital is as large as that of statutory companies, and therefore, if the statutory company is to have the right to issue this capital at the end of the War, it would seem to be equally right that a non-statutory company should have the right to issue redeemable shares. I do not want to oppose, but I am not sure it is desirable that this power should be given without the same stringent conditions of public notice as are required when capital is to be reduced at the present time.
Sir PHIPSON BEALE: I should like to ask for a little explanation on this point. As I understand it, this Bill does not actually give a company any new power to issue capital, but it enables them to exercise their existing borrowing powers in a new way. Under the present law, unless it has been altered, these borrowing powers exist in a form in which they can borrow for a time in debentures, and it is only by incorporating the Companies Consolidation Act of 1863 that they get the power to issue it in the irredeemable form of debenture stocks. Therefore, it puzzles me when it is said that it does not give them power outside their borrowing powers, why they want to borrow for a term of years, as against the issue of irredeemable debenture stock. I do not wish to oppose the Bill, but I do not quite fit it in with the existing law relating to the borrowing powers of companies.
Mr. BOOTH: I do think this Bill is required, if the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) will allow me; though I speak rather from the investor's point of view. As one who has continually to give advice when investments are made by insurance companies—the House knows that they often have large sums to invest—we do find great difficulty on this point. In many cases investments have gone out of this country in redeemable stock, because

1345
there has not been an opportunity for them in this country. I think this is very urgent. We do not know, many of us engaged in insurance, what difference the War or the termination of the War will make in the condition of business, and it would be a convenience if we had large opportunities for investment in redeemable stock. At the present time we are shut in with Treasury Bills, or investments in railways, but if the concerns at home could offer us redeemable stock then we could arrange from year to year that they would have the right to redeem them, and they would have an opportunity to get our money. It is on the ground of the facility to invest that I hope the Bill will be passed. I do think that considering the extraordinary position of investments on the Stock Exchange, a Bill like this would be very useful to many institutions.
Mr. ROBERTSON: It is necessary as the law stands for railway companies that have not already received special powers to receive such powers if they are to issue redeemable stock. As to the reasons for refusing them such powers in the past, I think there was considerable force in the general argument that a railway company should not be allowed to issue redeemable stock, but the old principle has already been infringed. The hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) argues that there is a danger if you give such powers to such statutory companies as are in the Bill, you will have no argument against non-statutory companies afterward. I do not dispute that the whole question may be raised after the War, and it will have to be considered whether such powers will have to be given; in which case the argument he has brought forward will be an argument against giving them in an indiscriminate way. As the powers given in the Bill are strictly limited to these statutory companies, I think he will agree his objection does not hold against this measure. I do not think he need fear that this measure, as an emergency measure, will be the thin end of the wedge.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman does not think it would be right that notice should be given of the time for the redemption for any of these preference
1346
stocks, because it is in effect the reduction of the capital of the company? I think something ought to be put in on that point. If the capital is half a million, and they issue £100,000 to-day, when they pay it off they will reduce their capital and their assets available for the payment of creditors will be reduced by that sum. Any ordinary company has to give notice of a reduction of capital, and will the hon. Gentleman consider between now and the Third Reading the giving in of advertisements of the date before the stock is redeemed?
Mr. ROBERTSON: I will consider the point before the Committee stage. Clause 1 provides that stock is to be redeemable on such terms and conditions as may be specified in a resolution of the company, passed at a special meeting convened for the purpose. That seems to give publicity, but if we see good reason for making the Amendment the hon. Gentleman proposes between now and Committee, we will put one down.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.
The remaining Orders wore read and postponed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Ordered, "That the Lords Message [4th May], 'That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament,' be now considered."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Lords Message considered accordingly.
Resolved, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 3rd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at One minute before Seven o'clock till Monday next.