Commons Sitting of 15 August 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Rhodes Estate Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Craven Estates Bill [Lords].
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the case of the Craven Estates Bill [Lords], Standing Order 211 be suspended, and that the Committee on Unopposed Bills have leave to sit and proceed with the Bill forthwith."[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Mr. KING: Might we have some explanation of this Motion?
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): This Bill is unopposed. The time for appealing against the Bill expired yesterday, and the Committee is appointed to sit this afternoon, so that no one can be at any disadvantage from doing away with the interval between the Second Reading and the Committee, whilst it is a substantial benefit to a small child who is interested in this estate that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent before the Recess instead of it being carried over until the Autumn. That is the reason.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Bill to be read the third time.

UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
Copy presented of Statute made by the University of Oxford on 14th March, 1916, and sealed on 4th May, 1916, amending Sub-section (16) of Section HE, of Title IV. of the Statutes of the University ("concerning Dr. Lee's Professors") [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 117.]
CROWN AGENTS FOR THE COLONIES
Copy presented of Accounts of the Crown Agents' Office Funds for 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    PRISONERS OF WAR.

      SHOOTING PRISONEBS AT LIMBURG.
      Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report received from the American Embassy at Berlin as to the death of Patrick Moran stated that the action of Casement had been a contributory cause; and can he state whether he is able to publish this Report?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): It is stated in the telegraphic summary of the Report from the United States Embassy at Berlin that Moran and Devlin refused to join Casement; the United States Government have not yet consented to the Report being published.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Sir STEPHEN COLLINSasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make inquiries into the case of P. B. Jordan, a conscientious objector, who is now undergoing a sentence of ten years' penal servitude as a result of his conscientious objection to military service; whether this man and the other men who are serving a similar sentence for the same cause are suffering physical ill-effects from their sentence; and whether, in view of the promise recently made by the Prime Minister, he will consider the advisability of releasing these men on furlough until their case can be reheard by the Central Appeal Tribunal?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): In answer to the first portion of the hon. Member's question I would refer him to my reply to

    1619
    him of the 7th August. I cannot undertake to make any special inquiries as to the state of health of soldiers in prison in view of the fact that ample provision already exists for ensuring that the health of prisoners is observed whilst undergoing sentence. I am not aware to what the hon. Member alludes when he refers to a promise recently made by the Prime Minister, and I cannot consider the release of these men on furlough. I take this opportunity of stating that the only soldiers on furlough are those whose cases were not reached by the Central Tribunal during the currency of their sentence.
    Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one or two men sentenced only last week by court-martial are already placed on furlough, although their sentences are not completed?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I am not aware of that fact.
    Mr. KING: I will give the hon. Gentleman the names.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, at a sitting of the Purley Local Tribunal on 31st July, four applicants named Sparks, Alexander, Armfield, and Narraway expressed willingness to undertake work of national importance; that in each case exemption was refused, and that before the same tribunal on the same day five men named Collier, Knight, Beasley, Mennell, and Peaice, stated that they were not able conscientiously to accept work of national importance as a condition of exemption, and were then exempted from combatant service and from non-combatant service if within twentyone days they found work of national importance; and whether the tribunal is carrying out the intentions of the Government, which were that an appellant was to be given that form of exemption fitted to his case?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply which he gave on Thursday last to a question by the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division beyond stating that the tribunal after hearing the cases came to different conclusions as to the genuineness of the objections of the two groups of claimants.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will
    1620
    have inquiries made into the cases of two conscientious objectors, Archie Victor Hobart and Cecil Arthur Hobart, of 1, Romany Road, Norwich; if he is aware that these two men, after appealing to the local and Appeal Tribunals, were exempted from combatant service but refused leave to appeal to the Central Tribunal; that on 19th and 20th May they sent in applications to the local tribunal for reviews of their certificates as they were willing to do work of national importance; that on 9th June both were arrested and handed over to the military authorities and subsequently sentenced to 112 days' hard labour on 21st June; that on 24th June the father of these men received notices for them to appear before the local tribunal on the. 28th June; and that in their absence, owing to detention in Maidstone Prison, the cases were adjourned; and whether they are still in prison and their cases not yet disposed of by the local tribunal?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The fact that a man holding a certificate of exemption from combatant service has applied for a review of his certificate does not preclude the military authorities from calling up the man for non-combatant service, nor are they bound to allow the man to appear at the hearing of his application for a review. I may inform the hon. Member that I understand that the cases of these two men have come before the Central Tribunal under the scheme outlined by the Prime Minister.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the event of the proposals of the Home Office Committee for the employment of conscientious objectors embracing industries where the hours, conditions, and wages are governed by trade union regulations and agreements, the proposals will be submitted to the trade unions affected for their comment?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I understand that the Committee do not anticipate that any appreciable number of the men referred to them by the Central Tribunal will be employed in industries where trade union regulations and agreements are operative, but in any case the Committee do not intend that individual employers shall benefit at the expense of the community by obtaining the labour of these men at cheaper rates than they would otherwise

    1621
    have to pay. I cannot undertake on behalf of the Committee that they will submit any of their proposals to the trade unions (if any) who may be concerned; but I can undertake that any suggestions which any trade union concerned may make to the Committee with a view to the fulfilment of the principle stated above will be welcomed by them.
    Colonel YATEasked the Postmaster-General whether he has sanctioned conscientious objectors being retained in the Post Office; and, if not, now that such cases have been brought to notice, he will take steps to remove such men from Government employ?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Postmaster-General has asked me to answer this question on his behalf. He has arranged with the Committee on Work of National Importance that Post Office servants who obtain exemption from military service on grounds of conscientious objection, conditionally on performing work of national importance, may, with the concurrence of the local tribunal, be allowed to remain on their Post Office duties. A Post Office servant who is a conscientious objector is required to appeal to the local tribunal; exemptions are not granted on grounds of conscience by the Post Office.

    TRANSPORT WORKERS.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to an announcement that appeared on the 25th ultimo to the effect that recruiting officers will take steps after 1st August to call up all transport workers at the docks and public wharves who are not in possession of a Board of Trade certificate, a properly certificated badge, or an unexpired certificate of exemption granted by a tribunal on personal grounds, and that after 1st August it will no longer be safe to rely for exemption on certificates issued by local tribunals on the ground that a man is in. a reserved occupation; if he will say on what authority the recruiting officers propose to act, seeing that the result of their action will be to cancel certificates of exemption; and whether the right course is for the military representatives to apply to the tribunals for a revision of the certificates in these cases?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have made inquiries into this matter and I understand that an announcement generally on the lines
    1622
    indicated by the hon. Member has appeared in the Port of London. Dock transport workers were certified by the Board of Trade as being engaged in work of national importance and any individual certificates of exemption issued on the ground that a man is engaged as a port transport worker would rest upon that general certificate of the Board of Trade. Applications for certificates of exemption from port transport workers would come before the Port Labour Committee. It is unnecessary for military representatives to apply to tribunals for revision of the certificates in these cases. I would refer the hon. Member to Part III. of the Regulations issued by Order in Council for tribunals under the Military Service Acts, 1916.
    Mr. MORRELL: Do I understand that these men will have to get a certificate from the Board of Trade?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that they can go before the Labour Committee.

    IRISH MIGRATORY LABOURERS.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds Hugh Gallagher, John Gallagher, and Anthony O'Donnell, migratory labourers, ordinarily resident in county Donegal, have been arrested in Mossend at the instance of the military authorities?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have caused inquiries to be made about these men, and the results shall be communicated to my hon. Friend as soon as they are received.

    EXEMPTION APPLICATIONS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether Mr. E. Halliwell, a married man, who broke his collar-bone two days before his case should have been heard by the Stoke Tribunal, sent his doctor's certificate with a letter asking for adjournment which was refused, the case being decided in his absence against him; that on inquiry of the clerk, Mr. Sharpley, he was informed that the letter and medical certificate were placed before 'he tribunal when his case was being considered, and that the chairman of the tribunal, Mr. T. Thornton, subsequently informed him that the letter and the certificate were not produced at the tribunal, which had no knowledge of the reason for his absence; and will he say whether, in view of the action of the clerk, the rehearing of the case will be ordered?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend is informed that no statement such as is attributed to the chairman has been made, and that the chairman has not had any communication with Mr. Halliwell since the tribunal heard his case.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether Mr. G. W. Riley, of 95, Benwell Road, Holloway, an ex-Territorial, applied for exemption before the Islington Local Tribunal in ignorance of the fact that he was an exception under the provisions of the first Act; that he was refused exemption by that tribunal and did not appeal to the Appeal Tribunal owing to the fact that he had discovered that he was an exception; that he applied again to the local tribunal on the 23rd June, having come under the provisions of the second Military Service Act, and was refused a second hearing, with the result that he has lost his right of appeal to the Appeal Tribunal; and whether, seeing that Mr. Riley was handed over to the military authorities on the 23rd instant, he will instruct the Islington Local Tribunal to rehear the case as soon as Mr. Riley has obtained leave of the Army Council?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The facts do not appear to be as stated in the hon. Member's question. My right hon. Friend is informed that G. W. Riley applied for exemption on conscientious grounds on the 25th February; that he did not state that he was an ex-Territorial, that his application was refused, and that he then appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, who dismissed the appeal. Subsequently he made another application, again on conscientious grounds, and beyond merely stating on his application form that he was an ex-Territorial and did not come under the previous Act appears to have given no explanation for the second application. On the evidence before him my right hon. Friend is not prepared to intervene in the matter.

    LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. KINGasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Stepney Local Tribunal consists of twenty-five members, of whom four are licensed victuallers; how many applications for exemption made before this tribunal by licensed victuallers have been granted, and for what periods; and how many have been rejected?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: It appears that there are two tribunals for Stepney, one for cases under the Military Service Acts, the other for the case of voluntarily attested men. None of the members of the latter tribunal are licensed victuallers, but I am informed that four members out of a total of twenty-five on the former tribunal are licensed victuallers. Some exemption has, I understand, been given in thirty out of thirty-one cases of publicans and publicans' managers dealt with by this tribunal. I have no information as to whether the military representative has appealed in any of these cases. If he thinks the circumstances demand it he will no doubt do so.
    Mr. KING: In view of the rather remarkable figures, will inquiry be made and will the military representative himself be asked for a report upon the position?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I will consult my right hon. Friend on that point.

  SALONIKA.

    STJN HELMETS AND PUNKAHS.
    The following question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. G. FABER:
    5. To ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is an insufficiency of sun helmets for our troops at Salonika, and an insufficiency of punkahs for the sick and wounded there?
    Mr. FABER: Might I say that I asked this question last Thursday, but the hon. Member was not ready. I then put it down again for to-day, but, in the meantime, I have received a reply from the hon. Gentleman. If he could give me the reply in this House, I might, perhaps, with your permission, put a supplementary question.
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; there is no insufficiency of sun helmets. A sufficient supply to cover issues to the whole force was sent from Egypt last month. No representations have been received as to insufficiency of punkahs for the sick and wounded.
    Mr. FABER: I understand that quite recently there were a number of troops wearing sun hats. Could the hon. Gentleman say whether, according to his knowledge, that is so; and, further, whether, as a matter of course, punkahs will be required in hot climates?
    Mr. FORSTER: I cannot say anything further with regard to the question of punkahs. I understand that no representations have been received as to any insufficiency. With regard to the question of sun helmets, I think it is a fact that until recently the troops were wearing sun hats and pugarees. It became evident that was insufficient. They have asked for sun helmets, and those are being sent.

    INDIAN TROOP TRAIN (DEATHS OF SOLDIERS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether, considering the fact that there was no emergency which necessitated the sending out of drafts for regiments in India in the middle of the Indian hot weather and that the Commander-in-Chief in India asked in February that these drafts should be sent out as early as possible, he will state who were the officers in England responsible for the delay in the dispatch of these drafts from February till June, which delay was apparently the primary cause of the deaths from heatstroke on the Indian railway that subsequently occurred in the case of the drafts sent out in the transport "Ballarat"?
    Mr. FORSTER: These drafts were asked for on 24th February, but previous demands not having been satisfied, owing to shipping and men not being available, they were not dispatched until 5th May, when shipping and men became available. The responsibility rests with those responsible for providing sufficient men to meet the needs of the Empire.
    Colonel YATE: Might I ask, considering that drafts are never sent out to India in the hot weather, whether the authorities in England are not equally responsible with the authorities in India?
    Mr. FORSTER: The men were urgently wanted, and I am afraid that we cannot observe the ordinary rules of peace time with regard to drafts. We had to send the drafts.

    SOLDIERS AND CIVILIAN WORK.
    Mr. THOMASasked the Secretary of State for War whether the soldiers supplied to the private contractor engaged in laying about twenty-six miles of light railway in connection with No. 2 Filling
    1626
    Factory, Aintree, Liverpool, were, except for a bonus of 15s. for about three months' work, only paid Army rates, whilst the contractor's own men were paid the trade union rate obtaining in the district; and, having regard not only to the feeling on the matter among the soldiers concerned, but also the question involved of industrial conscription, whether he will see that soldiers are not used for industrial purposes?
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of, State for War whether seventy soldiers have been lent for the past two months to the firm of Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Company, chemical works, at Lostock, Northwich; whether he can state the nature of their employment and whether they receive Army pay only; whether the Army pay is less than the customary wages they would receive as workmen; and, if so, whether the War Office benefits by such an arrangement at the expense of the soldier?
    Mr. FORSTER: I dealt with the general question of the employment of soldiers for industrial work in answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport yesterday. I think that answer covers the particular instances referred to.
    Mr. ANDERSON: When soldiers are lent as workmen for a period of two months—I understand that period, with the consent of the War Office, can be still further extended—can they not be placed on the Reserve temporarily, so as to retain their civil rights whilst they are so employed, and so that they only come under military control when they rejoin the Army?
    Mr. FORSTER: When the men are constantly passing into and out of military service in the manner suggested, there are real practical difficulties. As a rule, we limit these working parties as far as we can, but in cases where men are released for munition work and are passed into the Reserve the practice which my hon. Friend suggests is carried out.
    Mr. G. FABER: Who takes the difference between the amount that Brunner, Mond, and Company pay in wages and the rate in the Army Reserve?
    Mr. FORSTER: The arrangement which I announced yesterday only applies to eases of working parties where the men go as soldiers under their own officers. In

    1627
    future the men are going to get the appropriate rate of civilian wages less a proportionate deduction for food, lodging, clothing, etc.
    Mr. FABER: In this case where Brunner, Mond, and Company have borrowed the men for two months?
    Mr. FORSTER: That applies to the past practice, and the State gets it.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Private Arthur Flint, King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, belonging to Sheffield, who, after witnessing his friend's head blown off by a shell in the trenches, became mentally unbalanced and was sent back to England; whether he is aware that, after being put in various hospitals, he was placed in Wakefield Asylum and discharged from the Army on 9th January, 1916, as no longer fit for war service; that he has not received his arrears of pay; that nothing is being paid in respect of him at the present time; that his parents are contributing towards his maintenance in Wakefield Asylum; that repeated applications to the War Office have met with no response; and that the Chelsea Commissioners have intimated that the man is not entitled to a pension; and whether he will cause full and immediate investigation to be made?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made into this matter. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
    Mr. ANDERSON: What is the position of men who are mentally unbalanced by what they have gone through in the War when they are sent to the asylum—do they and their dependants continue to receive some measure of financial assistance from the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have already explained that matter. Where the man has a pension the local authority, if he is sent to the county asylum, claims a certain proportion of the pension to cover the cost of maintenance, and any balance that remains goes to his dependants.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is
    1628
    rather hard that the wife and children of a man who loses his reason by being in the War should be penalised?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; but the hon. Gentleman must remember that the pension is issued primarily to keep the man himself, and, that being so, if the asylum authorities insist upon a certain payment being made on account of the man's maintenance, then that naturally and necessarily becomes the first charge upon his pension, but the Government, acting for the State, recognises that there is a duty to provide for the wife and children, and that is done by means of the Statutory Committee, which gives a supplementary pension in each case.
    Mr. KING: In this case where a man is discharged from the Army and is in the county asylum, is there not a considerable charge on the rates for his maintenance?
    Mr. FORSTER: Where the man is pensioned that is paid out of his pension.
    Colonel YATE: Does the man always get a pension on being discharged from the Army? I had a case the other day of a man whose people were called upon to pay half-a-crown a week towards his maintenance in a lunatic asylum.
    Mr. FORSTER: If I caught the hon. and gallant Gentleman correctly, that applies to another case altogether.

    LIGHTING REGULATIONS (JEDBURGH CASE).
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland, anent the sentences of fine amounting to £55 passed upon five persons at Jedburgh by Sheriff-substitute Baillie, whether in the case of Mr. James Hunter, sentenced to pay a fine of £7 10s., the learned judge found as a fact that any atrocity or aggravating circumstances was alleged, admitted, or proved constituting a reason for inflicting a penalty of the above amount for breach of the Lighting Order regarding the obscuring of lights?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): No finding in the terms suggested was issued, nor was any such finding required. I am informed that at least three warnings were given before the prosecution was instituted.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can my right hon. Friend say on what ground in subsequent cases, particularly that of the procurator-fiscal, the fine was only £1?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not know whether it is to be put down to the clemency of the sheriff in that case or not. This was a case in which the man who had contravened this Order had been warned three times. Therefore presumably that operated in the mind of the sheriff, and made him think that exemplary punishment was required.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that that was one of the first prosecutions under the Order, and that in subsequent prosecutions the fine was smaller, although people had had notice that such fines were being imposed?
    Mr. TENNANT: I can only assume in the cases where a smaller fine was imposed that the notices had not been so numerous.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the procurator-fiscal understood to be ignorant of the law, just as the Attorney-General here is ignorant of the law?
    Mr. TENNANT: Well, Sir, we cannot all be as learned in the law as my hon. Friend.

    DUKE OF SUTHERLAND'S ESTATE (GIFT TO THE STATE).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what is now being taken as the annual value for rating purposes of the estate of 12,000 acres offered by the Duke of Sutherland as a gift to the State, distinguishing be tween the annual value for rating purposes of the fishing rights, which are reserved by the Duke for himself and his successors, and the annual value for rating purposes of the property proposed to be gifted; whether there are any buildings or other improvements on that property; if so, whether they are included in the gift or on what terms they are to be taken over; and whether the State is undertaking any obligations as to the construction of the proposed light railway on another portion of the Duke's property?
    Mr. TEN NANT: According to the Valuation Roll for 1914–15, the annual value of the land and shootings is £475, and the annual value of the fishings reserved by the Duke is £180. The buildings on the property are included in the gift, and consist of the shooting-lodge and offices, a farm steading, and five dwelling-houses. There is no obligation to construct a light railway, but the Duke has granted a way-
    1630
    leave for such a railway over his adjoining property should it be required for the purposes of the land now gifted.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if this assessment gives a correct estimate of the value of the land, is not the land on that basis worthless, or is it because it is under-assessed?
    Mr. TENNANT: I really am at a loss to understand what operates in the mind of the hon. Member which makes him desire to detract from an honourable, a generous and a munificent gift, trying to make out that we, the recipients, are not the real persons who are advantaged by it.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: In making that statement is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the assessment he has given shows the land is worth less than £1 an acre, and is it on land like that he proposes to put the Scottish soldiers?
    Mr. TENNANT: If the Noble Duke happens to be the possessor of land which is not so valuable as other land yet chooses to give it to the State, surely we are not to look a gift-horse in the mouth.

    HARVESTING (EMPLOYMENT OF SOLDIERS).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can remove the uncertainty that exists as to the terms on which farmers can obtain the temporary use of soldiers for harvesting or other urgent agricultural work; whether the soldiers thus released regain -for the time being their civil rights or remain subject to military law; whether they are paid the harvesting wages of agricultural labourers or continue to draw their ordinary rates of pay as soldiers; whether there is any difference in amount between the money paid by the farmer for the use of these soldiers and the money actually received by the soldiers; and, if so, what is the difference?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think there should be any uncertainty. Full information has been issued by the Board of Agriculture and the War Office, and can be obtained at the local Labour Exchange. Soldiers allowed on furlough for agricultural work remain subject to military law. They are paid a special rate of harvesting wages. I think that I sent to my hon. Friend a copy of the relevant Army Council Instructions.

    CEYLON (SPEECH IN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL).
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the speech by the European Member, the hon. Mr. Creasy, in June last in the Legislative Council of Ceylon, in which that gentleman expresses the conviction that a great many innocent persons were now dying in the gaols; and will he call for a Return showing how many persons are at present in gaol in Ceylon in connection with the riots?
    The UNDER - SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): I have seen a report of the speech in question. The number of persons convicted for offences connected with the riots is given in the correspondence presented to Parliament. Having regard to the undertaking given by the Governor, mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for Salford North on the 1st August, I see no reason to call for any further Return at the present time.
    Mr. MORRELL: Are we to understand that there will be no further inquiry with regard to these men who are now in gaol?
    Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not at all, Sir. If my hon. Friend will refer to the question and to the answer he will find that the Governor is making inquiry personally into these cases.

    PENALTIES ON CAB DRIVERS (SARK).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the penalties inflicted by the Seneschal of Sark upon two cab drivers in the island of Sark who infringed an ordinance relating to the restriction of vehicles being driven on Sundays by obeying an order to attend at the harbour on Sunday, 2nd July, to meet His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor, who was visiting the island; and whether he can remit these sentences and procure the cancellation of this and other obsolete ordinances?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed by the Governor that as a result of his inquiry into the circumstances of this case he is submitting a recommendation
    1632
    for the remission of the penalties imposed. The inquiry into the general question is not yet completed.

    ALLIES' ARMIES (ENLISTMENT OF FRIENDLY ALIENS)
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary (1) whether, in arrangements made for enlisting in the armies of the Allies those friendly aliens within the realm of Britain, he has considered the difference of status between those ordinarily resident in Great Britain and those who have come to reside here since the War began; whether a similar exception will be made in the case of the former to that exception granted by the Military Service Acts to those British subjects who are ordinarily resident outside Great Britain; and (2) whether a number of Russian Jews in this country are refugees from Belgium and France whom the invasion of those lands by Germany drove to these shores; that these persons have been waiting for nearly two years for the time when the deliverance of their homes from the German tyranny would allow their return to Belgium and France; and whether, in view of these persons being engaged here mostly in useful employment, he will exempt them from deportation to Russia, where they have no homes and where they fear that pogroms and penalties would await them?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The case of these men will receive the same consideration as that of other Russian subjects resident in the United Kingdom.

    WHISTLING FOR TAXI-CABS.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the nuisance caused in the streets of London at night by persons whistling for taxi-cabs; and whether, in view of the large numbers of wounded soldiers now in London and of the loss of rest and the suffering caused to them by this nuisance, he will take steps to abolish these noises at any rate in the neighbourhood of hospitals, and, if necessary, introduce legislation for this purpose?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The comfort of the large numbers of wounded soldiers now in hospitals in London has the first claim to consideration; and I am disposed to think that members of the public would prefer

    1633
    to submit to the inconvenience of not being able to whistle for cabs when they need them themselves than continue to endure the nuisance of hearing the whistling when other people need them. The diminution of the number of cabs available has greatly increased this nuisance, while the development of the telephone has done much to provide a satisfactory alternative. I am informed by the Postmaster-General that telephones are now installed at forty-seven shelters in London, and a telephone device which I was able, when I held that office, to provide for cab ranks where there are no shelters, has now been extended to forty-five cab ranks. There are also 244 cab offices with telephones. I have consulted with the Commissioner of Police, and I am now proposing a Regulation which will enable me to prohibit the use of cab whistles during the hours of the night, probably from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., in a certain specified area or areas in the Metropolis. I hope it may be possible to bring the Regulation into effect on Monday next.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Can my right hon. Friend say why this proposal has been so long delayed. Why was it not taken a year ago?
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if care will be taken to see that the areas will be included in which wounded soldiers are likely to be living at night.
    Mr. SAMUEL: That is the first consideration.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why last January his Department told me on the floor of this House that special legislation would be required in regard to cab whistles and now we are told that it can be done by a police regulation?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I should have to refer to the Question Paper and to the answers before I could have the privilege of replying.

  MUNITIONS.

    FIKM WITH GEBMAN-OWNED CAPITAL.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Home Secretary if he will explain why a German named Baeur is permitted to hold one-third of the capital of a firm supplying munitions; why this German is permitted to travel down to Wales when he likes
    1634
    and to live near a reservoir which sup plies the whole population with water; and if he will take steps to secure the internment of this alien?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Without further particulars I cannot identify the case to which the hon. Member refers. If he will give me the information on which his question is based I shall be glad to make inquiries.
    Mr. STANTON: May I say that I have already addressed two letters to the right hon. Gentleman giving him the proper name, yet the name is not right here?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think they have been received. I will make inquiries with regard to the man named.
    Mr. STANTON: I wrote you two letters giving you the name.

    LEAVING CERTIFICATE.
    Mr. MORRELLased the Minister of Munitions if he will make inquiries into the case of F. Greenwood, formerly of Burnley, and now working in the war department at Messrs. Waring and Gillows, and particularly if he will say whether this man was sent by the Burnley Labour Exchange, in November, 1915, to Vickers' Works, at Erith; whether as the result of his work there he lost his health so seriously that it was necessary for him either to leave this firm entirely or to be transferred to another job; that the firm refused to transfer him; that he then gave notice to Messrs. Vickers, dated 1st July, 1916, that he would leave their employment; that he has since been employed on war work by Messrs. Waring and Gillows, and that Messrs. Vickers have refused to give him his discharge, so as to force him back into their employment; and whether, in view of the fact that this man's health has been impaired, and that he is now engaged upon important war work, the Government will take steps to see that the Munitions Act is not used by Messrs. Vickers as an instrument of industrial compulsion?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): The proper course for the workman in question, if he considers that a leaving certificate has been unreasonably refused, is to lodge a complaint with the Metropolitan Local Munitions Tribunal, who may, if they think fit, grant a leaving

    1635
    certificate. The case has previously been brought to my attention, and the workman has been advised to take the steps indicated above. I am not aware whether he has yet done so.

    COMPLETION OF CONTRACTS.
    Mr. BOYTONasked the Minister of Munitions whether certain contracts were entered into with many firms of London engineers after May, 1915, for the manufacture of shells and other munitions, and that on the strength of representations made to them they put aside ordinary work, laid down special or adapted plant, and entered into contracts, but that owing to the failure of the Government to supply raw material, drawings, specifications, gauges, etc., such contracts could not be completed by the specified time; whether under these circumstances he will permit the contractors to complete the original orders, provided he is satisfied that there has been no unreasonable delay on their part; and if repeat orders will be given?
    Dr. ADDISON: Cases have occurred of the kind described in the first part of the question. Every such case has been carefully considered in conjunction with the contractor, and an agreed extension of time has been allowed. When the circumstances justified it, repeat orders have been offered or the contractors have been invited to tender for other articles.
    Mr. KEATING: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make inquiries about similar cases that have occurred within the last twelve months of people being prevented from carrying out contracts and who were refused permission to complete the original orders?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am afraid that will entail inquiries. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me details.

    WOMEN WORKERS' WAGES.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the statement by the then head of his Department in June, 1915, that the Government would see that there was no sweated labour among the women doing war work and that there should be a fixed minimum wage for the women workers; whether any minimum for these women has been fixed; and, if so, will he state what the minimum is?
    Dr. ADDISON: In pursuance of the powers conferred on the Minister by Section 6 of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act, 1916, the rates of wages covering nearly the whole field of female labour on munitions work have now been laid down in Circular L.2 and Statutory Rules and Orders Nos. 447 and 456, and are now-being applied. No payment at a lower rate than that specified in the Orders is permissible in any area or trade to which the Orders apply. If my attention is called to any case where sweating is alleged on munitions work, I will inquire into it at once and take any necessary action.

    MEDICAL ATTENDANCE.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Minister of Munitions what provision is made for medical attendance to the workers in munition factories and industrial establishments in connection therewith; and whether this service is prejudiced by the demands now made upon the Royal Army Medical Corps in connection with the recent heavy casualties on the Continent?
    Dr. ADDISON: Every effort is made to provide suitable medical and nursing services in munition factories, so far as may be necessary. Special arrangements are made with regard to workers in explosive and filling factories and for those engaged in other dangerous occupations. In connection with these latter, further steps are at present under consideration. It is obvious that the means for obtaining these services are affected by the demands for medical services on the part of the military and naval authorities and of the civilian population.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1914.
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any enactment in the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, to prevent money received by-the Public Trustee as profits made by German or other alien enemy holders of investments in controlled or other firms being handed over to our enemies after the War; whether he can inform the House in how many controlled firms there are enemy alien shareholders; and whether it is the intention of the Government to modify the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, in such a way as to prevent these profits, when

    1637
    once lodged with the Public Trustee, being handed over to Germany or other alien enemy countries after the War?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): Section 5 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, provides that after the termination of the War the Public Trustee shall deal with any money paid to him under the Trading With the Enemy Acts in such manner as may be directed by Order in Council. Full control is thus retained over all money paid to the Public Trustee, and no alteration of the provisions of the Act is necessary. I am unable to state in how many companies owning controlled establishments there may be some enemy shareholders.
    Mr. NEWDEGATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly find out?
    Mr. HARCOURTNo, Sir. I do not think I can.
    Mr. NEWDEGATE: Is it not a fact that in the book which gives the names of people owning shares in companies the names of aliens are given as well as those of people in this country; and can the right hon. Gentleman not give a Return of those aliens who hold shares in companies which are now controlled companies and providing munitions for carrying on the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think the names would give the fact that the individual was an alien. It would mean an enormous number of inquiries, which I am afraid the Board of Trade is not in a position to make.

    LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY.
    Mr. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the locomotive men employed by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company at Goole are paid off one day or more a week, and consequently find it very difficult to maintain a reasonable standard of life on less than a week's wages, whilst at the same time labour is urgently required on Government work in the district, but these railwaymen are not allowed to work elsewhere; that Goole is said to be the only place in the country where railwaymen are not permitted to work a full week at the present time; and, having regard to the guarantee of divi-
    1638
    dends which has been given to the railway companies, and also the fact that it is not in the national interest during this crisis that men should be forcibly kept idle, whether he will at once inquire into the matter, and at least ensure that these men shall be guaranteed not less than a full week's work and a full week's pay?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Representations have already been made to the Board of Trade on this subject, and I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a letter in which the Department, after making inquiry, have written in reply.

    NAVAL PRIZE MONEY.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if engineers signing under T 124 are not entitled to a share of prize money; and, if so, why this is the case?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The scope of the distribution of prize money has not yet been decided. It is therefore impossible to deal with the claims of any individual class. The claims of all classes who may have any reason for supposing that they are eligible to share in the distribution are now being considered. I ought again to add that inasmuch as the Board have decided upon a general distribution of prize money to the Fleet engaged in the War—as against the old system of the distribution of prize money amongst captors in each particular case—no distribution is possible, I am afraid, until the pool is complete at the close of hostilities.
    Colonel YATE: When will the scheme of distribution of prize money be decided and published?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the scale. That will no doubt be published in due course in the "Gazette," but the whole matter will be presented to this House in a Bill which we hope will pass in time to enable us to proceed with the distribution when the pool is complete at the close of hostilities.
    Colonel YATE: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be introduced?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In due time for the purpose it seeks to secure.

    PARTIALLY DISABLED SOLDIERS (TRAINING).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board what schemes are already in hand for the training of partially disabled soldiers; how many soldiers are now undergoing a course of training; and whether the Government accepts responsibility for the industrial employment of these men when their course of training comes to an end?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the Circular recently issued by the Statutory Committee, which deals at some length with the training and employment of disabled sailors and soldiers after they have left the Service. Schemes of training are already in force at Roehampton, at Brighton, at St. Dunstan's, and in certain polytechnics and technical institutes, and, when the local committees are in working order, I hope that a complete scheme, such as is indicated in the Circular, will be in operation. Numbers could not at present be given. The Statutory Committee are entrusted with the function of making provision for the training and employment of disabled officers and men, and the hon. Member will find in the Circular information as to the methods which the Committee propose to adopt.
    Mr. WARDLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the schemes to which he has referred are financed by the Government in any degree whatever?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Yes, Sir; some of them are financed by funds which are more or less under the control of the Government.
    Mr. WATSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the Statutory Pensions Committee will consult with the Scottish Board of Agriculture as well as with the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries with regard to the provision of training for partially-disabled ex-service men in agricultural processes?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The answer is in the affirmative.

    SALMON DRIFT-NET FISHING.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agricul-
    1640
    ture (Ireland) whether be has received representations showing that the funds of the conservators of fisheries for the Letter-kenny district have been seriously depleted in consequence of the restrictions placed by the Admiralty upon salmon drift-net fishing upon the North-west Coast of Ireland; and whether the Department is prepared to make a Grant, similar to that given in other districts, to enable the Board of Conservators to fulfil their obligations to their employés and to afford adequate protection to a national industry?
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department have this application under consideration.

    PREVENTIVE MEN (TEMPORARY ALLOWANCE).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Board of Customs and Excise has stopped the payment to preventive men employed in the Landing Department of the temporary allowance granted to preventive men; if he will state the reason for this action; and whether he will have the payment restored to these few men, who are feeling the financial loss in this period of high prices?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The men in question, being physically unfit for waterguard duty, have as a, special indulgence being retained in the Department on routine shore duties instead of being compulsorily retired, and they are not performing any of the special war duties in respect of which the allowance in question was granted to their colleagues on water-guard duty. They have, therefore, no claim to it.

    INDIAN ARMY (TEMPORARY PROMOTIONS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction in the Indian Army with the recent scheme for the temporary promotion of officers and the way in which the grievances of the Indian Army have been dealt with; and whether he can give any assurance that it is not the intention of the Government

    1641
    of India after the War to revert to the old scheme of promotion and that measures will be taken to prevent the present supersession of Indian Army officers being permanent?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not think me unreasonable if I say he can scarcely expect me to deal with so large a matter of future organisation by way of question and answer in the House.
    Colonel YATE: Can my right hon. Friend say that the matter will receive the consideration of the India Office later on?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, this and many other questions arising out of the War will have to receive our consideration when we have the material for a judgment upon them. That is not to be taken as a pledge that I will produce a solution which will commend itself to my hon. and gallant Friend.

    GERMANS IN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. PERKINSasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the danger to the State which is to be apprehended from the continued employment in Government Departments of persons of German nationality, whether naturalised or not, he will consider the desirability of making forthwith a general rule that all such persons shall be discharged immediately from the service of the Government?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I have made inquiries and I am informed that no persons of German nationality or naturalised British subjects who were formerly of German nationality are employed at the War Office, the Admiralty, the Foreign Office, the Treasury, or the Ministry of Munitions, with the exception of one official as to whom I would refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford on the 13th December, 1915. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind in any other Department I shall be glad to make inquiries.

    SOLDIERS INVALIDED (GOLD BRAID).
    Mr. STANTONasked the Secretary of State for War if the War Office will allow the new Army Order of the wearing of gold braid to apply to all those soldiers who have been invalided from frost-bite, dysentery, and other causes whilst) on active service; and, if not, will he say why it is not to be so applied?
    Mr. FORSTER: The question has been very carefully considered. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second part that the distinction in dress in question is to be granted only to officers and soldiers suffering from injuries inflicted by the enemy.

    ENLISTMENT OF BOYS.
    Sir GEORGE TOULMINasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private T. C. Pomfret, No. 2,543, 1/7th Lancashire Fusiliers, born 10th February, 1899, enlisted on 10th September, 1914, when only 15½ years of age; that he was immediately sent to Egypt; and that a birth certificate showing his correct age was forwarded to his commanding officer, with a request that the boy should not be sent into the firing line; whether this request was quite in order; whether it was ignored, and the boy is now missing; and what explanation can be given to the parents?
    Mr. FORSTER: An early report on this case has been asked for, and when it has been received no time will be lost in making my hon. Friend acquainted with the result.

    MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN.
    Sir G. TOULMINasked the Postmaster-General whether letters and telegrams are now reaching the Mesopotamia Expeditionary Force; and whether information is sent to relatives at home if telegrams which they send are not delivered?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The Postmaster-General has asked me to answer this question on his behalf. Letters are dispatched each week to the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force, and, so far as he is aware, the Indian postal authorities, to whom they

    1643
    are handed at Bombay, ensure delivery to the addressees wherever possible. Some delay appears to be inevitable. As regards telegrams, so far as he knows, there is no reason why telegrams addressed to members of the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force should not be delivered; but he will be happy to make inquiry in any specific cases of the failure of telegrams to reach their destination, as he is doing in the case about which the hon. Member has written to him.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it sometimes takes four months for a letter from this country to reach the Expeditionary Force in Mesopotamia?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I was not aware it was as bad as that. There were delays. The Financial Secretary to the War Office gave an answer yesterday.

    COMMERCIAL CORRESPONDENCE (EXAMINATION).
    Sir G. TOULMINasked the Postmaster-General whether cablegrams, telegrams, and letters containing information as to commercial transactions are examined before delivery and information sent along to public Departments concerned in the commercial transactions to which the information so obtained refers?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Postmaster-General has asked me to answer this question. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him yesterday. If the information contained in letters and telegrams falls within the formula I then used —i.e., is likely to conduce to the successful prosecution of the War—the answer is in the affirmative.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: May we understand that commercial information which is contained in private letters is passed on to the Departments concerned in the transaction?
    Mr. FORSTERindicated assent.

    BREAD PRICES.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the price of bread in London was to be raised on Monday, 14th August, to 9d. the 4-lb. loaf;
    1644
    and whether, having regard to the fact that the purchasing power of £1 is at present 12s. 9d., or thereabouts, he will say if there is any intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to take steps to prevent further increase in prices and to bring down the present price of bread to 8d. the 4-lb. loaf?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. I am aware of the fact that a general rise in the price of bread has just taken place in London. This appears to have been caused mainly by the rise in the price of wheat in New York, resulting from circumstances affecting the condition of the wheat and prospects of the harvest in North America. My hon. Friend will appreciate the fact that these circumstances are beyond the control of His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. WARDLE: Is it a fact that speculators in this country have been holding up wheat and forcing up prices?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, I do not think so. There has been a very remarkable rise in the price of Northern Manitoba wheat in the last four weeks in Mark Lane—from 57s. to 72s. 6d. per quarter on Friday last.
    Mr. CROOKS: Does, not the right hon. Gentleman think that to prosecute some of these people would do a little good?
    Mr. HARCOURT: You cannot prosecute in America.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is my right hon. Friend going to take any steps to commandeer the coming British harvests for the purpose of keeping down the price of bread?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No; I have no announcement to make on that subject to-day.

    ROSYTH DOCKYARD (WAGES).
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that discontent exists among the Scottish workmen at Rosyth in respect to the lower wages paid them compared with the English workmen employed; can he explain why the war bonue given to Englishmen is 4s. a week while only 3s. is paid to Scotsmen; and why the English workers are allowed 6d. a day for travelling expenses whilst Scotsmen are allowed nothing?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I hope I may be allowed at once to dismiss any idea that we prefer Southerners to Scottish workmen at Rosyth. In our employment all the world over we have, I am glad to say, a very considerable number of Scotsmen, many of whom have made their way to high rank. We were, of course, bound in the earlier stages of the development of Rosyth Yard to ask for volunteers from our Southern yards, in order that the nucleus of the Rosyth staff should be officers and men well acquainted with dockyard practice and routine. In asking our Southern employés to sever all their Old associations and start anew in Scotland we were bound—and I am sure my right hon. Friend will concur—to offer special conditions as a set-off to inconvenience and interruption. The result is that, although we have secured to our employment a very considerable number of men locally entered, and although those men receive rates and conditions which compare favourably with the private employment of the locality, being only human, they probably look a little jealously at the special consideration which we have felt bound to offer to the transferees from the South. As regards the suggestion that we give a war bonus of 4s. to Englishmen, whereas only 3s. is paid to Scotsmen, the facts are wrongly stated. The 3s. is given to men, whether Englishmen or Scotsmen, who had already been locally entered at a time rate 1s. higher than those to whom the 4s. was given. As my right hon. Friend is fully aware, we are here, as elsewhere, anxious to deal fairly and equitably with men who are serving us loyally; but I cannot admit that the local entrants at Rosyth have a claim to the special concessions we have made to the transferees from the South, some of whom, I do not doubt, are themselves Scotsmen.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Does my right hon. Friend think it just and equitable that of hundreds of men who are living in the same town some distance from Rosyth, some of them are allowed travelling expenses and the others are not? Will he kindly give special consideration to that point?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The men who came from the South severed all their connections, and the Admiralty were bound to make allowances to them. Men living at a distance from Rosyth, whether local men or transferees, get free railway travelling, but the transferees get 6d. a day to com-
    1646
    pensate them for the time taken up in travelling, and if the right hon. Gentleman now asks whether that ought not to be given to local men too, I will go into that question again. There is another Department concerned in this besides the Admiralty.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the Department have created a situation which will cause discontent at Rosyth, and that they have, in fact, created a discrimination which will not be assented to by the local men?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this matter on the first opportunity.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Is it not a fact that the men from the South get 23s. a week maintenance in addition to the 3s. paid for travelling expenses?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: When we ask men to come from their homes in Devonport or Sheerness, and other places, for a period of three months, we give them up to 23s. 4d. a week to keep a second home. That is perfectly justifiable, and that enables him to look round and find a new home. When he has done that the 23s. 4d. stops.
    Mr. ADAMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that that distinction, to which I have no objection, is quite sufficient without imposing any other disabilities on the local workman?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said it is quite likely that, being only human, the Scotsmen will probably look with a little jealousy on these matters. I will look again into the point about the 6d. allowance for travelling.
    Mr. WILKIE: Are the Scotsmen at Rosyth paid at the rates obtaining for men outside Admiralty employment?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; I have said that the local Scotsmen are being paid at the rates of workmen outside our employment in that locality.

    ARMY ACT INQUIRY.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I desire to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is

    1647
    in a position to give the names of the tribunal appointed under the recent Amendment of the Army Act?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): The Court of Inquiry has been constituted as follows: Field-Marshal Lord Nicholson will be in the?chair, and the other members will be Major-Gleneral Lord Cheylesmore, Mr. Justice Atkin, and Mr. Donald Maclean, M.P.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will Lord Nicholson do this as well as the Dardanelles?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think this ought to take very long.

HON. MEMBERS' SEATS.
Mr. COWAN: Arising out of the incident which occurred yesterday afternoon at Question Time, I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you do not think that the time has now come to relax a Rule the application of which is, in my humble judgment, both oppressive to some Members of this House and illogical in itself? This question was raised in 1895, on the 26th February, again on the 24th May, 1898, and again, when you yourself were in the Chair, on the 19th March, 1906. On each occasion, in my opinion, an unsatisfactory answer was given, and certainly the matter was left in an unsatisfactory state. I think I may presume to say that it is still unsatisfactory. There is here a distinct and serious conflict between the theory and practice. The theory is as you stated yesterday in your interpretation of the Rule, which, of course, I absolutely and implicitly accept. That theory is that when a Member of this House desires to retain a seat for a particular sitting he must place upon that seat, some time before the meeting of the House, two cards, a large card and a small card. The large card bears upon the face of it this declaration, "This card, signed and placed on a seat by a Member, will secure it for him on that day until he attends Prayers, provided that he does not in the meantime quit the precincts of the House." That is the theory, and I make bold to say, and I think I may go so far as to defy contradiction, that not one Member in ten obeys that injunction.
HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
Mr. COWAN: If any hon. Member comes into this House before Prayers he
1648
will find, if the day is the occasion of a full-dress Debate or if there is any matter of considerable interest to be discussed in the House, a large number of seats reserved, and he will find them reserved with a small card bearing nothing but the mystic word "Prayers.1 Why is it that the practice has been changed? When I first came into the House, ten years ago, the universal practice was for a Member to write his name on both cards and place both cards on the seat he desired to take. As time went on, I noticed that a large number of Members gradually dropped putting this large card on the seat, and to-day the small card only is placed there, except by one or two Members who probably attach an exaggerated importance to antique practices.
HON. MEMBERS: War economy!
Mr. COWAN: It is just because I want to get on with the War that I say we should get the opportunities to which we are entitled of securing our places in this House, the only business of which is, for the moment, the conduct of the War. I submit that the fact that the large cards have been discarded by the common consent of Members of this House is evidence that the Rule has become obsolete. In these strenuous times there are few Members who have the time to come here in the early morning and remain here doing nothing for hours until the House meets, and I am not one of them. There are very few Members who have time to do this mainly in order to compete with others for certain places in the House. In circumstances as they are to-day, in these times of war, and I will not base my case too strongly upon the War, because I think that the argument is relevant even in times of peace, I would say that this House might very well adapt itself to modern conditions, and it is an absurdity and an anachronism that this injunction, which each one of us has ignored for years, should remain a Rule of the House, and that an hon. Member should have a right, simply because he has been here all day doing nothing, to oust another Member who has been engaged upon national work—and this applies to most Members, though not to the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle). It is a monstrous thing that men who have nothing better to do than come here and waste time in waiting for prayers, which they do not attend, should have a right to oust other Members who are doing serious work from the places to which they are entitled. I believe

1649
that if you make inquiries you will discover that the practice has been exactly as has been described, and that the general sense of the Members of the House would approve of such alteration in the Rules as would prevent such a state of things from continuing to exist.
Mr. SPEAKER: I expounded what the hon. Member calls the "theory" yesterday, and I think that the hon. Member "will do the Chair the justice to say that in the decisions given in 1895, 1898, and 1906, the Chair took up exactly the same position. It may be true that, in consequence of the abnormal state of things which has existed during this Session and last, Members have not been attending the House from early morning until prayer time, as they did before when there were Committees at work, but I do not think that it is for me to alter these Rules. The hon. Member has asked me to make a new rule. I have no power to make a new rule. The House makes its own rules; I am only the interpreter. I think that the proper course would be, if there is really any general desire that the Rules should be altered— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—to alter the Standing Orders. There are already two Standing Orders dealing with Members' places, presence at prayers, and so on, and if the House generally wishes to alter the old system, it is always open to the House to do so, either by a general Resolution, or a Resolution which would become a Standing Order of the House.
Mr. WILKIE: Would it not be possible to extend the red ticket to those of us who are doing work for the War, as well as those who are engaged on other Committees of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: The red ticket is issued under a Resolution of the House, which limits its use to Members who are engaged on Committees, and therefore it would require another Resolution of the House, or an amendment of that original Resolution, to extend it to other Committees.
Mr. PR INGLE: I only wish to say that the hon. Gentleman did not do my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) the courtesy to inform him that he was going to raise this question again, and further that the incident would never have arisen had it not been that the agreeable manners of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowan) made his near proximity oppressive to his neighbours.

LARCENY BILL.
Read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Amendments to—
Clayton Aniline Company (Railways) Bill [Lords],
Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board Bill [Lords],
Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

BILL PRESENTED.
SPECIAL REGISTER BILL,—" to make provision for framing a Special Register of electors," presented by Mr. LONG; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General, Mr. Hayes Fisher, and the Lord Advocate; to-be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, the Reports of Supplementary Estimate for New Services, Army and Army Ordnance Factories Excess Estimates, 1914–15, and Navy Excess Estimate, 1914–15, may be considered before Ten of the clock this day, and that the Proceedings on Government business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I would be much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman if he would tell us what business he proposes to take to-day after Supply? I understand that it is proposed to take Order 8, Municipal Savings Banks (War Loan Investment) (No. 2) Bill, which is on the Paper. I must protest against that being taken at a late hour of the evening, as it involves a very important principle. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present, because I desire to reaffirm a statement which I made about this Bill the other day, as to the opposition of the bankers of London. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Governor of the Bank of England himself came down and saw him and the Financial Secretary on Wednesday last, and objected to this Bill being taken.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): All I can say is that after the statement of the hon. Baronet, I had occasion to sec the representatives of the bankers, who told me that their attitude with regard to the Bill was not in the least changed from the attitude which they adopted when the Bill was introduced. There was a Bill with the same title, No. (1) Bill, introduced earlier in the Session. The bankers made representations to me against that Bill, and I accepted their view and withdrew the Bill. Subsequently I saw the representatives of the bankers again, and told them that we had decided to proceed with a Bill dealing with the subject, and would do our best to meet their views. The Bill was drafted after consultation with the bankers, and the bankers' secretary wrote
  1660
  to me to say that they would not oppose the introduction of the Bill. I have seen the bankers personally, and they told me quite frankly that while they did not like the Bill, they would not oppose it; that they particularly wished that it should not be thought in the House of Commons that they were taking up an active line in opposition to a particular measure, because they thought that these measures were the business of the House of Commons and not their business. I asked them if they had seen what had taken place in the House—my right hon. Friend will forgive me, as it is a delicate matter to refer to, but they did not agree that he had any authority to speak on their behalf in opposition to the Bill. Their attitude is quite simple. They did not like the Bill, but they would not oppose it. That is the statement made to me on behalf of the bankers, both in writing and personally, and I hope that on that statement the House may be assured of the desire of the bankers that the Bill should be considered on its merits, and as they expressed it, without any dictation from them.
  Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.— [15TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  10TH AUGUST.—REPORT.
  Resolutions reported,
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
  CLASS II.
  1."That a sum, not exceeding£74,457, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896."

  CLASS I
  2."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£95,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, in respect of Insurance and Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,431, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for maintaining certain Harbours under the Board of Trade, and for Grants-in-Aid of Harbours."
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding£14,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead."
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding£488,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and for a Contribution towards the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding£101,354, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings in Ireland, for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works, and for the Maintenance of Drainage Works on the River Shannon, and sundry Grants-in-Aid."
  7."That a sum, not exceeding£41,867, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for payments under The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., The Railways (Ireland) Act, 1896, The Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1902, and for other purposes connected with Irish Railways."

  CLASS II.
  8. "That a sum, not exceeding£22,288, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day
  1662
  of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding£200,162; be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons."
  10. "That a sum, not exceeding£166,801, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."
  11. "That a sum, not exceeding£36,271, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
  12. "That a sum, not exceeding£5,631, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council."
  13. "That a sum, not exceeding£180,011, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
  14. "That a sum, not exceeding£72,634, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment! during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund, and other services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions."
  15. "That a sum, not exceeding£5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete

  1663
  the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, etc., for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under the Bankruptcy Act, 1914."
  16. "That a sum, not exceeding£15,777, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales."
  17. "That a sum, not exceeding£15,383, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Government Chemist."
  18. "That a sum, not exceeding£25,866, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."
  19. "That a sum, not exceeding£41,720, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General."
  20. "That a sum, not exceeding£12,337, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."
  21. "That a sum, not exceeding£43,092, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Control (Lunacy and Mental Deficiency), England."
  22."That a sum, not exceeding£46, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Ex-
  1664
  penses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and for the Expenses of the preparation of Medals, Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals."
  23. "That a sum, not exceeding£7,439, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Debt Office."
  24. "That a sum, not exceeding£12,995, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."
  25. "That a sum, not exceeding£4,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment under the Public Works Loan Commissioners."
  26. "That a sum, not exceeding£26,715, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar-General of Births, etc., in England."
  27. "That a sum, not exceeding£276,959, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding and Printed Books for the Public Service; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."
  28. "That a sum, not exceeding£12,150, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Office of His Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues."
  29. "That a sum, not exceeding£320,000 (including a Supplementary

  1665
  sum of£300,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1917, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
  30. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,784, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland."
  31. "That a sum, not exceeding£13,447, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary in Dublin and London, and of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, and Expenses under the Inebriates Acts."
  32. "That a sum, not exceeding£73,170, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture and other Industries and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and of the services administered by that Department, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
  33. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,243, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland."
  34. "That a sum, not exceeding£105,750, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
  35. "That a sum, not exceeding£65,528, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Ex-
  1666
  penses of the Local Government Board, Ireland, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
  36. "That a sum, not exceeding£3,830. be granted to His Majesty, to complete payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Public Record Office in Ireland, and of the Keeper of State Papers in Dublin."
  37. "That a sum, not exceeding£24,871, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Works in Ireland."
  38. "That a sum, not exceeding£8,360, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar-General of Births, etc., and for the Expenses of Collecting Emigration Statistics in Ireland."
  39. "That a sum, not exceeding£14,672, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Valuation and Boundary Survey of Ireland."

  CLASS III,
  40. "That a sum, not exceeding£35,038, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury and King's Proctor, and the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; for the Costs of Prosecutions, or other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."
  41. "That a sum, not exceeding£10,404, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for certain Miscellaneous

  1667
  Legal Expenses, including Grants-in-Aid of the Expenses of the Incorporated Law Societies of England and Ireland."
  42. "That a sum, not exceeding£177,416, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  43. "That a sum, not exceeding£23,147, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."
  44. "That a sum, not exceeding£5, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Public Trustee."
  45. "That a sum, not exceeding£65,171, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses connected with the County Courts."
  46. "That a sum, not exceeding£58,282, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries of the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, the Contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Constabulary, and Expenses in connection with Special Constables and the Police Reserve."
  47. "That a sum, not exceeding£280,090, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses of the Prisons in England, "Wales, and the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Discharged Prisoners."
  48. "That a sum, not exceeding£165,384, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Inspector of Reformatories, and for the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools, and in Places of Detention under the Children Act, in Great Britain."
  49. "That a sum, not exceeding£28,524, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Criminal Lunatic Asylums at Broadmoor and Rampton."
  50. "That a sum, not exceeding£24,789, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices in His Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."
  51. "That a sum, not exceeding£50,635, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics, Defectives, and Inmates of the State Inebriate Reformatory, and the Preparation of Judicial Statistics."
  52. "That a sum, not exceeding£32,911, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates."
  53. "That a sum, not exceeding£67,570, be grafted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and of certain other Legal Departments in Ireland as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  54. "That a sum, not exceeding£433,918, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Irish Land Commission."
  55. "That a sum, not exceeding£66,284, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries, Allowances, and Expenses of various County Court Officers and of Magistrates in Ireland, and the Expenses of Revision."
  56. "That a sum, not exceeding£39,293 (including a Supplementary sum of£100), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioner of Police, the Police Courts, and the Metropolitan Police Establishment of Dublin."
  57. "That a sum, not exceeding£729,775 (including a Supplementary sum of£400), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will conic in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary."
  58. "That a sum, not exceeding£65,190, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses of the General Prisons Board in Ireland and of the Establishments under their control, the Registration of Habitual Criminals, and the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics confined in District Lunatic Asylums."
  59. "That a sum, not exceeding£49,788, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland."
  60. "That a sum, not exceeding£4,740, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1017, for the Maintenance of
  1670
  Criminal Lunatics in the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland."

  CLASS IV.
  61."That a sum, not exceeding £9,736,732, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
  62. "That a sum, not exceeding£68,599, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and other Expenses of the British Museum and of the Natural History Museum, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
  63. "That a sum, not exceeding£6,489, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Mill-bank."
  64. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,485, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Portrait Gallery."
  65. "That a sum, not exceeding£2,591, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Wallace Collection."
  66. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,570, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses in respect of the London Museum, Lancaster House."
  67. "That a sum, not exceeding£66,671, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment daring the year ending on the 31st day

  1671
  of March 1917, for sundry Grants in Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants."
  68. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding£20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1917, for sundry Grants in Aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other Grants."
  69. "That a sum, not exceeding£211,200, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for Grants in Aid of the Expenses of certain Universities and Colleges in Great Britain, and of the Expenses under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889."
  70. "That a sum, not exceeding£832,704, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, including Grants in Aid of the Teachers' Pension Fund, Ireland."
  71. "That a sum, not exceeding£40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Grant towards the Salaries of Teachers in Secondary Schools in Ireland."
  72. "That a sum, not exceeding£505, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners for managing certain School Endowments in Ireland."
  73. "That a sum, not exceeding£845, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery of Ireland."
  74. "That a sum, not exceeding£124,453, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Institutions of Science
  1672
  and Art in Dublin and of the Geological Survey of Ireland, and Annual Grants to Schools and Classes of Science and Art and Technical Instruction. including sundry Grants in Aid, administered by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland"
  75."That a sum, not exceeding£59,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the: 31st day of March, 1917, for Grants under the Irish Universities Act, 1908."

  CLASS V.
  76. "That a sum, not exceeding£372,290, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions, and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other Expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote."
  77. "That a sum, not exceeding £506,197, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants in Aid."
  78. "That a sum, not exceeding£12,875, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for Subsidies to certain Telegraph Companies."
  79. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for a Grant in Aid of the Revenue of the Island of Cyprus."

  CLASS VI.
  80. "That a sum, not exceeding £455,694, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate, and Additional Allowances and Gratuities under sundry Statutes, for Compassionate Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Treasury, and for the Salaries of Medical Referees."
  81. "That a sum, not exceeding£7,743, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses, including certain Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain."
  82. "That a sum, not exceeding£778, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for Hospitals and Infirmaries, and certain Miscellaneous, Charitable, and other Allowances in Ireland, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."
  83. "That a sum, not exceeding£2,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and other Expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries."
  84. "That a sum, not exceeding£3,219, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for making good certain sums written off from the Assets of the Local Loans Fund."
  85. "That a sum, not exceeding£5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Ireland Development Grant (Grant-in-Aid)."
  86. "That a sum, not exceeding£27,311, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, to repay to the Civil Contingencies Fund certain Miscellaneous Advances."
  87. "That a sum, not exceeding£10,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for Grants to Voluntary Hospitals in respect of Duty on Spirits."

  CLASS VII.
  88. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,654,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st
  1674
  day of March, 1917, for the payment of Old Age Pensions in the United Kingdom, and for certain Administrative Expenses in connection therewith."
  89. "That a sum, not exceeding£618,262, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the; Salaries of the Staff and other Expenses of Labour Exchanges, including the Contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and Repayments to Associations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911."
  90. "That a sum, not exceeding£42,135, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Board, and for a Grant in Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service."
  91. "That a sum, not exceeding£15,307, be, granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for making good the Deficiency on the Income Account of the Fund for Friendly Societies."

  MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS.
  92. "That a sum, not exceeding£900, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions."
  93. "That a sum, not exceeding£90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Expense of the Ordnance Factories, the cost of the production of which will be charged to the Army, Navy, Ministry of Munitions, and Indian and Colonial Governments, etc."

  REVENUE DEPABTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
  94. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,374,513, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Customs and Excise Department."
  95. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,536,350 (including a Supplementary sum of£150,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
  96. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Medical Establishment, and of Medicines, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  97. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, Bounty, etc., of the Special Reserve and of the Officers' Training Corps, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  98. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Grants, Pay, Allowances, Training, and Miscellaneous Charges of the Territorial Force, and Channel Islands and Colonial Militia, including the Expense of Permanent Staff, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  99. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Establishments for Military Education, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  100. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Transport, and Remounts, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  101. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Supplies and Clothing, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  102. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Ordnance Department Establishments and of General Stores, which
  1676
  will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  103. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Engineer Stores and Aviation, including Technical Committees, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  104. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, Lands, and Miscellaneous Engineer Services, including Staff in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  105. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  106. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  107. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals; of Out-Pensions; Rewards for Distinguished Services; Widows' Pensions; and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  108. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
  109. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victual ling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  110. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  111. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  112. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  113. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Scientific Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  114. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Fleet Reserve, and the Royal Naval Volunteers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  115. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  116. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Mat6riel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  117. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  118. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  119. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, and Repairs, at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants in Aid, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  120. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of various Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  121. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  122. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Half Pay and Retired Pay to Officers of the Navy and Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  123. "That a sum, not exceeding£ 1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval and Marine Pensions, Gratuities, and Compassionate Allowances, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  124. "That a sum, not exceeding£1,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
  125. "That a sum, not exceeding£10, be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses of Army Expenditure beyond the Grants, for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1915."
  126. "That a sum, not exceeding£10, be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses of Army (Ordnance Factories) Expenditure beyond the Grants, for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1915."
  127. "That a sum, not exceeding£100, be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses of Navy Expenditure beyond the Grants, for the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1915."
  First Ninety-one Resolutions read a second time, and postponed.

  MINISTEY OF MUNITIONS.
  Resolution 92 read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  4.0 P.M.
  The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Montagu): I have a very long, and if I could only express it adequately, a very interesting story to tell the House. I think there has been no Debate on the Ministry of Munitions since December last, when my right hon. Friend, who is now Secretary of State for War, gave the House an account of the marvellous work which has been accomplished and outlined the work that still remained to be done, and warned us that if the nation did not throw itself heart and soul into the struggle they might find themselves too late. I should like to take the story up where he left it, and I feel sure that I shall have the sympathy of the House when I remind them that I have only been in the office for a month, and that I cannot pretend to know very much about it myself. Even if I knew everything that was to be known it would be impossible to describe the whole Ministry and all its activities in one speech, however long, and therefore I propose to take one or two features of our work and try and describe them. I will take, first, the question of output, for it is by this first and foremost that the House and the nation will ultimately judge the Ministry of Munitions. I will begin with shells. Figures have been given for some other countries showing the increase in the output of empty shell as a percentage of the output at the beginning of the War. But our output, which was only expected to supply an Army of 200,000 men, was so negligible that percentages on such a basis give quite fantastic results. For example, the empty shell output from home sources has increased, since September, 1914, 170 times in the case of 18-pounder shells, and 2,650 times in heavy natures.
  I prefer to take as my basis of comparison the average weekly production of complete rounds up to the end of June, 1915, a year before the Ministry of Munitions came into existence. Compared with that, the rate of production of 18-pounder ammunition during the year 1915–16 was six and a half times that during the preceding year, and for
  1680
  the week ended 1st July, 1916, it was seventeen and a half times as great its the average rate in 1914–15. The weekly average production of ammunition for field howitzers in 1915–16 was eight times that for 1914–15 and is now twenty-seven times as great. The production of ammunition for medium artillery increased seven and a half times in 1915–16, and is now more than thirty-four times as great as the average weekly production up to the end of June, 1915. The greatest increase of all has been in the class of ammunition where increase was most difficult. The average weekly production of heavy shell was in 1915–16 twenty-two times as great and is now ninety-four times as great as it was in 1914–15. These figures can be put in another way, and even, I think, more graphically. The output which, in 1914–15, it took twelve whole months to produce can now be attained from home sources in the following periods:

  For 18-pounder ammunition in three weeks;

  For field howitzer ammunition in two weeks;

  For medium-sized shell in eleven days; and

  For heavy shell in four days.

  That is to say, we are now producing every four days as much heavy howitzer ammunition as it took us a whole year to produce at the rate of output of 1914–15. If we lump all natures of gun and howitzer ammunition together, we are now manufacturing and issuing to France every week about as much as the whole pre-war stock of land service ammunition in the country.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is that for British troops in France.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I said delivered in France—for British troops. I come next to artillery, which is one of the greatest features of development. Fifteen months ago the Navy absorbed by far the greater part of the factories suitable for manufacturing big guns. The armament firms of the country had very little machinery or plant capable of undertaking more than a mere fraction of the Army gun programme, and it was necessary to provide very large extensions of buildings and to equip them with new machinery. I am told that the area occupied by the new buildings amounts to 1,000,000 square feet, and it has been necessary to provide new machine tools to the number of

  1681
  over 2,500 to cope with the work. In addition to the armament firms, hundreds of other engineering concerns all over the country have been engaged in carrying out the work of the programme—building gun carriages, ammunition wagons, and all the various accessories and spare parts required for artillery. The result of these efforts is very marked. We are now turning out in a month nearly twice as many big guns as were in existence for land service when the Ministry of Munitions started. The monthly output of heavy guns increased more than sixfold between June, 1915, and June, 1916, and the present rate of output will eventually be nearly doubled. By June, 1916, the monthly output of the 4.5-in. howitzers had become three times as great as in June, 1915. For every 100 18-pounders turned out between the outbreak of War and the 31st of May, 1915, about 500 were turned out in the following year. As the equipment of 18-pounders is now practically complete, manufacturing capacity, except such as is required for repairs and renewals, has been transferred to other uses. I would remind the House that all this has been done when, I think, something like half the engineering capacity of this country is still hypothecated to the Navy.
  I turn to machine guns. The number of machine guns accepted from the outbreak of War to the end of May, 1915, was only one-eighteenth of the number accepted in the next twelve months, the weekly output having increased, since the Ministry of Munitions was founded, four-teenfold, and is still increasing. The total stock existing when the Ministry was formed could be replaced in from three to four weeks at the present rate of output. The wastage of machine guns during periods of active operation is very heavy, and the demands of the War Office are continually increasing both for ground and aircraft work. But, notwithstanding great increases, we shall very shortly have satisfied all the requirements of the British Army. [An HON. MEMBER asked a question which was inaudible.] I said, although the requirements are continually increasing, even the latest increases we shall have satisfied in a very short time, and I hope we will be able to turn our manufactures to the benefit of our Allies. Rifles are more difficult to increase than any other munition of war. Nearly three times as many new rifles of home manufacture were accented after in-
  1682
  spection in the first year of the Ministry's activities than were accepted from the outbreak of War to the constitution of the Ministry. In addition, many hundreds of thousands of rifles have been repaired and resighted. I understand rifles have always been the chief factor limiting the number of men who can be put in the field, and the best evidence therefore of the progress of rifle output is the size of the Army that we are now able to arm and maintain overseas. It is a matter for congratulation that the equipment of our whole Army, both in machine guns and rifles, has been accomplished from home sources alone. [An HON. MEMBER: "America!"] What I said is true. The arming of our Army now overseas, as regards machine guns and rifles, has been wholly done from home sources.
  In obtaining these results the chief credit should be given to the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, which has done very good work and turned out more rifles than was thought possible, and has assisted and co-ordinated the other factories. Without its help I do not think the increase in British output would have been anything like what it has been. The home production of small arms ammunition is now three times as much per week as a year ago. The output of small arms ammunition has necessitated the co-ordination of the brass and cupro-nickel strip manufacture and the results have been so satisfactory that there has been no shortage in supply. We have been able to meet all demands for ammunition made by the War Office and yet at the same time build up a stock which should remove any anxiety for the future. Additional supplies have been arranged in order further to assist our Allies, and this contribution will reach very important proportions in the near future. As to explosives, the production of high explosives is sixty-six times as large as it was at the beginning of 1915, by far the most of it being produced in Government factories. The House may guess what work has been needed to reach the present production of high explosives when I say that the weekly consumption of high explosives in ammunition of all kinds is now between 11,000 and 12,000 times the amount required for the land service ammunition manufactured in September, 1914. In regard to trench warfare, in addition to the great increase in the supply of guns and gun ammunition, special attention has been directed

  1683
  to mortars and ammunition for trench warfare. Heavy and light mortars are now coming forward in large quantities with corresponding supplies of ammunition. The output of bombs increased thirty-three-fold between May, 1915, and May, 1916. If we compare the weight of contained explosive, we find that 150 times the amount of explosive was required to fill the bombs at the later than at the earlier date. Before I leave the subject of output, these figures, striking as they are, do not by any means represent the whole of our material contribution to the common needs of the Allied cause. I say nothing of the assistance we are giving in supplies of food and other materials not intended for the destruction of human life, or the incalculable services of the Navy and the merchant service. I am dealing only with the services rendered by the Ministry of Munitions.
  A substantial quantity of finished munitions is being manufactured for the Allies in our national factories and by private firms. They include shells, field howitzers, heavy guns, grenades, machine guns, and small arms ammunition. We are sending to France one-third of the whole British production of shell steel. This is one of our most important contributions to the Allied cause. Steel is the basis of modern war, and the loss of the Northern provinces of France has robbed our Ally of nearly three-quarters of her steel-producing capacity. There are numerous other metals which, through a system of common purchase which was established some time ago and is now being developed, this country is supplying to our various Allies. These are metals either made in this country or purchased in the Empire or in neutral countries. They include copper, antimony, lead, tin, spelter, tungsten, mercury, high-speed steel and other less important substances. I can give the House the best idea of the magnitude of these metal transactions when I say that the monthly value of those supplied to the Allies is£6,000,000 sterling, while the method of purchase adopted has already, under that limitation of prices, secured a saving of over£41,000,000, a benefit which is shared with the Allies. [An HON. MEMBER: "Per annum?"] That is what has already been saved. We are also sending the Allies the constituents of explosives in very large quantities, manufactured at our national factories mainly, or with the new plant
  1684
  which the enterprise and initiative of Lord Moulton's Department has established in many gasworks throughout the country. We are supplying them with millions of tons of coal and coke per month, and with large quantities of machinery. Machine tools, as my right hon. Friend explained to the House last December, are one of the most essential factors in the manufacture of munitions, and 20 per cent. of the present machine-tool production of this country is destined for the Allies. After that, I think the munition workers of this country may flatter themselves that they have borne some part in the glorious victories of Russia, Italy and France. That is all I have to say of quantities. I pass now to quality.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, will he explain why we are still importing ammunition from other countries if we are turning out so much?
  Mr. MONTAGU: The principle we go upon is that of endeavouring to supply both our Allies and ourselves, distributing to the best advantage the goods that we obtain either from this country or from abroad. I think it will be satisfactory to the House to learn that, so far as one can judge, concurrently with, I might almost say in spite of, this remarkable increase in quantity, there has been a substantial and satisfactory improvement in the quality of the material which we are supplying. I do not envy the responsibility of those whose business it is to provide the design of weapons and of ammunition. Eight months ago the responsibility for design was transferred from the War Office to the Ministry of Munitions, because in the belief of those who were responsible for the Ministry at the time you cannot divorce the responsibility for design from the responsibility for supply.
  This transfer has greatly contributed to efficient and smooth working collaboration between officers responsible for the design and quality of munitions, and those responsible for supply. The former have worked untiringly at their special task, and are to be congratulated on the results of their labour. The problems they have to deal with can only be referred to in very general terms, but as regards the artillery itself no secret is divulged in saying that our new artillery material has acquitted itself during the recent fighting to the entire satisfaction of the British Army. I received yesterday a special message from

  1685
  my great colleague in France, M. Thomas, telling me that General Gossot, the head of the technical departments of the French Ministry of Munitions, reported after a recent visit to the British front that he had nothing but praise for our heavy guns and howitzers. He had found them beautifully made in every detail, most accurate and most efficient. One of his colleagues, General Jacquot, speaks equally highly of our new anti-aircraft guns. Credit for this must be given where the credit is due. Previous to the War we were not a military nation, and it was only natural that our designers of war material should pay greater attention to naval than to military armaments. It is a matter for congratulation that our armament firms have produced types of heavy land artillery at such short notice, which have now stood the test of prolonged action. I want to add— I must add—that the types of heavy howitzers now being manufactured in such large numbers were settled before the Ministry of Munitions became responsible for design. The War Office, and particularly the Department of the Master-General of Ordnance, is, therefore, entitled to share the credit with the designers and manufacturers for this satisfactory state of affairs.
  Though I say that matters are satisfactory in this respect, it should not be inferred that the Ministry of Munitions is without its problems on the subject of guns. Even when manufactured to the best design and of the best material, guns wear out, and are damaged or knocked out by the enemy's fire. The British Army have suffered remarkably few losses from capture by the enemy. The provision that has to be made for repair, both in the field and at home, is an increasing source of anxiety. During the present offensive the difficulties have been quite satisfactorily surmounted. We are working in close touch with the Ordnance Department of our Army in France, and there is reason for expressing confidence that our means will prove adequate for this great task, but we shall have to mobilise for renewal and repair increasingly as our ammunition increases. Then, again, the conditions of the present warfare continue to emphasise the value of long range for modern artillery. Our unpreparedness for war has, at least, had one compensation in this respect. Our weapons are all of modern type with good range, when compared with similar weapons in the hands of the enemy. Still the demand is ever for increasing range as the value of long-range
  1686
  fire becomes more apparent when combined with good aerial observation. All I can say is that the Ministry of Munitions has not been unmindful of this tendency in the past and that it is keeping moving with the times.
  Now as to ammunition. It is within the recollection of all listening to me to-day that little more than a year ago the character of our artillery ammunition was the subject of much criticism. It is, perhaps, not too much to say that the Ministry of Munition owes its existence to the urgent demand for an increased supply of high explosive ammunition that resulted from the operation of the spring of 1915.
  Sir G. REID: When was the Department set up?
  Mr. MONTAGU: About May, 1915. Two problems were involved—to increase the quantity, and to improve the quality. To a great extent these are conflicting considerations, as all changes in design, however trifling, react on output. This task has been faced. It was difficult for the following reason: We had little experience of high explosives. Our experience was practically limited to one explosive, lyddite. We knew little about a substance which has become famous and is spoken of as T.N.T. But it was quite impossible to fulfil the programme; on these two explosives, and the dilution of the latter with other ingredients was a first necessity of the problem. So before we could achieve a solid increase with high explosive ammunition a whole series of problems involving much research and experimental work had to be solved. These problems have been successfully solved by the Ordnance Committee, and by Lord Moulton's Department, assisted by the staff of scientific chemists who work at Woolwich under the Superintendent of Research. The proportion of high explosive shells to shrapnel asked for by the Army is now being provided, and although it must be remembered that when you have an improvement in design it is some months before it can be put into the manufactured supply, and before it replaces the stock of the old design, the results in this country and the reports received from abroad show that during the last few months there has been a steady improvement in the quality of this ammunition.
  There is another difficulty that has to be faced. Changes that improve the detonation of high explosives are apt to introduce additional risk. In fact, the

  1687
  artillerist who has to work at this problem is always between two dangers. He has to avoid premature explosions. We have lost some guns through premature explosion. I fear it is very possible that we shall lose more. But in spite of our initial want of knowledge of this subject, in spite of the very rapid rise of output, in spite of the fact that manufacturers without any previous experience have bean impressed into this difficult and responsible service, our losses in guns and in personnel from this cause have never been a really serious consideration, and what I think is eminently satisfactory is that the factor of safety has continued to rise with the improvement in detonation and the rapidly increasing output. There may have been some, there certainly were, who, when the Ministry of Munitions was first formed, were doubtful of the wisdom of entrusting such great responsibilities to a body of civilian amateurs. They feared disaster, and in certain cases openly expressed their fears. Those fears may now be allayed. There is room for further improvement— that I am bound to acknowledge. Many hon. Members no doubt still hear from their friends at the front of "duds," and, according to their temperaments or their actual experiences, their friends tell them that our ammunition is better or worse than the German ammunition. It is not possible at the present moment to say whether our ammunition is better or worse than the German. We know that the enemy has his failures just as we do. What the Ministry of Munitions claims is a very distinct measure of success in dealing with a very difficult question and a justifiable confidence of continued improvement in the future.
  Far more so than in the case of artillery, it has been necessary to improvise our trench warfare material. In spite of very considerable difficulties, success in this department has been achieved. Types are becoming settled, and output is very satisfactory. As regards trench mortars, our light and medium types are stated to have done admirable work during the present offensive. A heavy type has been suggested which has done well, but there is probably more scope for the designer in this class of weapon at present than in any other. I am glad to be able to tell the House that the helmet which is now being supplied in adequate quantities is very satisfactory, and is probably the best in the field. The Ministry has carried out
  1688
  much experimental work with body shields, and we have now some results which are being tested on a large scale in the field. A good deal has recently been said on the subject of lights. Comparative trials have been carried out with our own and captured German lights, and there is absolutely no justification for saying that our own compare unfavourably.
  Colonel ARCHER-SHEEdissented.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I will invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to another trial. Entrusted as I am with the responsibility for one of the most important branches of the conduct of this War. I do not want to give the impression from what I have said as to improvement of quality that the Ministry is inspired by a snug complacency on the subject. Against such an enemy as Germany we can never afford to stand still, oven for an instant. There must be continued progress, or we shall get left behind. My right hon. Friend and predecessor established in the Ministry a separate Department of Invention, the principle object of which was to encourage invention and initiative. The aim of the Ministry ought to be to carry on its research and experimental work with such energy, that whenever the opportunity offers there is always a new and improved design waiting to be introduced. I have now told the House that the quantity of munitions have increased and the quality improved, I think we have all constantly present before us a conspicuous proof of the justice of my claim in the present offensive on the Western front in France. I want, if the House will permit me, to indulge in a short digression. I have tried to understand for myself, in approaching this new problem for the first time, the purpose and the mode of accomplishing the purpose of this vast expenditure of ammunition in a modern battle. I want to give the House the result of my inquiries, in the hope that it will help laymen to understand what is going on, and in the humble hope that it will not arouse the contempt of soldiers.
  As I understand it, when an attack is planned against a securely entrenched enemy, with barbed wire everywhere, with elaborate communication trenches, and powerful long-range supporting artillery, the first necessity is to break down the wire and smash his first line of trenches. This means a heavy expenditure of field artillery, shrapnel, and trench mortar bombs for wire cutting, and heavy howitzer

  1689
  shells for trench destruction. If this task is inadequately performed, if the wire cheeks the Infantry, if machine-gun emplacements remain intact, the attack fails, and fails with horrible results. When the bombardment has disclosed to the enemy an impending attack, the enemy tries to stop it by curtain fire. During the bombardment the enemy, from his observation posts, is constantly watching for the Infantry assault. He concentrates a converging fire from hundreds of long-range guns upon the trench area from which the Infantry must debouch. That fire has got to be subdued, or the attack takes place under a perfect tornado of projectiles; hence the necessity for counter-battery work. An immense expenditure of shells from long-range guns, controlled from the air, whence alone the fire can be directed at the enemy's guns, goes on whenever aerial observation is possible. The guns are well entrenched, and this runs away with an enormous amount of heavy and medium ammunition. Next the attack takes place. Its flanks have got to be protected, and while the Infantry is engaged in facing the parapet of the captured trenches the other way they have got to be protected from counter-attack. A counter-attack begins by the enemy's bombers coming down the communication trenches and bombing the captured trenches. They cannot be seen—cannot be spotted from the Artillery observation posts. The only means of dealing with them is to direct a barrage fire which sweeps every communication trench, leaving nothing to chance. Later the enemy's more formidable counter-attack comes along. It is organised under cover of concentrated artillery fire by means of massed Infantry from the support trenches. The success of these attacks have not only got to be prevented, but the enemy must not be allowed to formulate them. So the successful Infantry must be protected on its flanks and front by barrage fire of shrapnel and high explosive directed against the enemy's support trenches, where the Infantry, unseen, are organising for the counter-attack.
  Finally, to be able to press on successfully from one attack to the next, the resisting power of the enemy must be worn down by want of rest, of relief, of food. All day and all night the approaches to his trenches must be kept under fire to prevent relief coming to his men, to prevent the replenishment of ammunition supplies, and to prevent his obtaining
  1690
  food and rest. If you add one more detail, what I believe the French call tire de démolition, which is directed by the very heaviest howitzer guns against especially fortified nodes which are dotted about the area of the German lines, and consider all the operations which I have described, wonder ceases that you want so much ammunition. The only marvel that remains is you can ever produce enough to sustain the attack which goes on week after week, day and night, with varying, but always with sustained intensity.
  Writers in the German Press have endeavoured to comfort the enemy by the assurance that our heavy bombardments in the last few weeks have made irreparable inroads into our resources of ammunition—the ammunition which has been laboriously accumulated for months past. It is truer that the expenditure of heavy ammunition during the last month has been more than double the amount that only eight months ago was thought to be wanted at the time. The preliminary bombardment in the week before the attack consumed more light and medium ammunition than the total amount manufactured at home during the first eleven months of the War, while the total heavy ammunition manufactured during the same period would not have kept the bombardment going for a single day. It is, however, a great satisfaction to be able to state that in the larger natures the output of the factories week by week covers the expenditure. If workers and employers continue to play their part nobly, as they are doing to-day, there is now no fear that the present offensive will be brought to a premature conclusion by shortage of ammunition.
  I have much more to say, even at the risk of wearying the House. I have just said, as briefly as I could, what has been accomplished, both in amount and in quality. I should like to say a little about the methods by which it has been done. The Ministry of Munitions, although it has only been in existence thirteen months, already numbers on its central staff over 5,000 persons, and it is growing till it bids fair to become one of the largest Departments of the State. I know there has been much criticism and suspicion of this mushroom growth. I want, however, to ask the House to believe that the growth has beer inevitable in view of the increasing variety, diversity, and complexity of the work which we have been compelled to undertake. It is not merely a question of placing orders for a large quantity of materials. My

  1691
  predecessor, when he addressed the House in December last, referred to the extensive organisation which was' necessary for following up and expediting the completion of contracts. The Ministry of Munitions is sometimes compared—to its disadvantage—to the corresponding French Department, because the latter is much smaller. But it must be remembered, for one thing, that we have to do a great deal of administrative work here which my colleague in France is spared. Thus, the problem of labour organisation in France is far simpler than it is in England. They have no Munitions Act to administer. They need no such system of leaving certificates or of munitions tribunals as we have had to set up. They have not to administer the limitation of profits in some 4,000 controlled firms. They are spared many of the complicated problems created by the suspension of trade union regulations and the introduction of the dilution of labour. The release of soldiers from the Colours for munitions work can be far more simply performed in France than in England.
  I would ask anyone who is disposed to criticise the size of our administrative staff to remember that we have to control an expenditure of far more than£1,000,000 a day. If you compare the cost of the central staff with the amount of its expenditure, the cost of the central administration is low, and amounts to less than one-sixth per cent. I want to give the House a trivial illustration, if I may, of the variety of matters with which the Ministry deals. When I was told that I had to make a statement on the Munitions Department, I cast my thoughts back over the matters with which I had to deal on that particular day. I began with a friendly controversy with a Government Office about the transport from near the Arctic Circle to a neutral country of a mineral the name of which was unknown to me, but which I was assured was the limiting factor in the output of certain indispensable munitions. I went on to discuss the question as to whether we should press the India Office, in the interests of the munitions supply, to construct a certain railway line in a remote part of India. There was a question of certain measures affecting the output of gold in South Africa. There was a discussion as to the allocation of a certain chemical, very limited in quantity, to meet the competing needs of the Army, the Navy, and the Air
  1692
  Service. There was a deputation from an important educational institution asking to be allowed to continue certain building operations. There was a discussion about the men deported to the Clyde. There was a discussion on certain contracts in America valued at over£10,000,000 sterling. In the course of the morning the Munitions Inventions Department brought to see me some walking specimens of exceedingly ingenious artificial legs. There was a conference on the allocation of several highly skilled workmen of a particular class amongst competing firms. There was a discussion as to the quickest means of manufacturing gun carriages. There were a hundred and one topics which must confront any body of men who spend their whole days watching curves which ought always to go up and figures which ought always to swell; reading reports from all parts of the world, and confronted always with the cry, "More, more, more!" and "Better, better, better!"
  I can only choose, as I have said, one or two aspects of the administration of which to tell the House. The first one is the question of inspection. Inspection grows, of course, and the inspection department grows pro rata with all classes of munitions. The whole programme is dependent upon its work keeping pace with the output. It is sometimes thought—until a very short time ago I should have thought it if I had thought at all—that inspection means taking one or two samples out of a number of articles, looking at it, and telling by touch or smell whether it ought to be passed or rejected. As a matter of fact, inspection involves the most careful testing and gauging of every article that is passed, and that is a process in production which involves a very large factory staff. The average type of shell requires thirty gauges, a percussion fuse 100 gauges, and a time fuse 240 gauges. As these gauges must fit to within less than a thousandth part of an inch, and in most cases one-third of that figure, to obtain uniform results, it will be understood why the supply of gauges has been one of our greatest difficulties. An even greater difficulty was the supply of adequate staff. In France and other Continental countries a large staff of officers, who had been trained in the technical artillery schools, was in existence at the beginning of the War, and was turned on to supervision of manufacture and to inspection. The outside administrative staff

  1693
  of the Munitions Department in France is, consequently, almost entirely military. In England it is mainly civilian, it is civilian, and it has been created during the last eighteen months.
  We owe a great debt of gratitude to the small core of Artillery officers who alone, at the outbreak of war, possessed the necessary knowledge and experience for controlling inspection, and who have formed the nucleus round whom the vast staff which has been formed has grown up. A large body of engineers has been specially trained in a school of instruction at the Ordnance College at Woolwich, and these men constitute the inspectors and assistant inspectors throughout the country, and they have a great deal of administrative as well as technical work to perform. They supervise the work of the examiners who handle the gauges and carry out the actual operation of inspection. The training of examiners for this inspection work is also a matter of great importance, and it is satisfactory to note that women are now being largely and successfully employed for this purpose. The staff employed by the Department has grown during the past three months from 19,000 to 30,000. Of the total, 14,000 are women, 9,000 of whom have been appointed in the last three months. The Inspection Department have a great responsibility in that guns, shells, fuses, and all other munitions to be of value must not only be dangerous to the enemy, but safe to the troops using them, and to ensure this is by no means an easy task, having regard to the immense volume of all warlike stores now demanded for operations in all theatres of war. Not only have you got to preserve the morale of your men by supplying them with munitions which give neither "prematurea," which kill them, nor "blinds," which fail to kill the enemy, but you have got to remember that "prematures" very often destroy the guns, and therefore safety of inspection is one of the prime necessities of supply. I trust that manufacturers will remember that when they are disposed to chafe at the tedious and elaborate processes of inspection, which are, of course, a check on output, but an essential and, I hope, the only welcome check on output.
  The next Department to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is the Department which deals with marshalling and completion of ammunition. The
  1694
  manufacture of constituent parts of ammunition may be carried on all over the world. These components come from everywhere in an increasing stream by rail and by sea. The stream has got to be regulated so as to avoid congestion and, at the same time, bring an adequate supply of finished components for the filling factories. It is like a highly complicated chess problem to keep everything moving on a colossal scale, and it is made all the more complex by the fact that our supplies of components come from all over the world. You cannot control the supply in country overseas. Railway transport is not subject to our regulations, and the arrival of shipments is necessarily irregular. So we have had to set up a special Department formed to deal with home transport, and a second to deal with overseas transport. The latter is now handling, in co-operation with the Admiralty, 1,300,000 tons of freight monthly, including materials from Spain, Scandinavia, West Africa, the Far East, Chili, the United States, and Canada, and the quick discharge of ships to enable freight tonnage to be used to the best advantage, the expeditious clearance of railway wagons—all these are practical steps of great utility, and everyone who helps to shorten up any one of the stages of transport or handling of material is helping the country at the present time. When the components have been marshalled and assembled, they are dealt with by the filling Department of the Ministry, the development of which has been one of the chief features of the last six months. This development reflects the greatest credit not only on the head, but on the military and civilian officers assisting. While the tonnage of completed gun ammunition issued from the filling factories has risen in six months nearly four-fold, the administration expenditure per ton has been halved. This increase of tonnage takes no account of the enormous quantities handled by the Explosives and Trench Warfare Departments.
  Then I turn to another part of the machine. The supervision and control of the Government factories need a very large staff. Before the War there Were three national factories working for the land service. Now there are ninety-five. These factories include eighteen factories for filling gun and trench mortar ammunition, all of which have been ordered,

  1695
  planned, and built during the last twelve months, and all of which are under the direct management of the officials of the Ministry. One of them is filling nearly twice as much as Woolwich, which, for the first eighteen months of the War, carried practically the whole of the burden of completing ammunition. There are thirty-two national shell factories, which are managed by local boards of management under the supervision of the Ministry. I cannot mention those factories without referring to the highly efficient local area organisation of which they form part, built up under the personal direction of one of the captains of industry whom my right hon. Friend roped into his net, with the enthusiastic co-operation of the foremost men in the engineering industry all over the country. Some indication of the work accomplished by these Boards of Management in organising new sources of supply is given by the fact that between September, 1915, and August, 1916, the factories for which they were responsible, none of which had ever handled a shell before produced in certain natures of shell four times the output of these shells during the first ten months of the War. Then there are twelve national projectile factories in various stages of completion occupied in making heavy shell under the management of large engineering firms supervised by the Ministry. These also are all in buildings which have been ordered, planned, and built by the Ministry of Munitions. They have just, today as I speak, barely developed one-half of their total capacity, but they are already sending out 25 per cent. of the heavy shell produced in this country. I have got some figures of a form familiar to the House. I am told they cover an area in buildings of seventy acres. They consist of bays with an average breadth of fourteen feet, and a total length of fifteen miles. They contain 10,000 machine tools, which are driven by seventeen miles of shafting at an energy of 25,000 horse-power, and their daily output would fill a train one mile long composed of 400 trucks, and requiring eight engines to pull it. They are very largely operated by women's labour. The number of women employed in them is already about 15,000, although a year ago we were told it was impossible for women to manufacture heavy shell. I think the nation is under a great debt of gratitude again
  1696
  to the men who have been responsible for the establishment of those factories, and to the courage, faith, and perseverance of those responsible for the labour policy which has rendered these factories effective. Of the remaining national factories twenty-two are concerned with the manufacture of explosives and their raw materials, six with the manufacture of cartridges and cartridge cases, while one makes nothing but gauges, and another nothing but small tools.
  They serve two purposes: first of all, they render us independent of supplies from abroad, and, secondly, their administration affords us invaluable experience for controlling the whole volume of munitions. As regards the first point, my right hon. Friend pointed out eight months ago its importance, and the Ministry has been improving it. At the time the Ministry of Munitions was started, the percentage of American orders was 70 per cent. of the total output of light shell. We are now able to do altogether without any American supply of light shell bodies, and these orders are in process of being discontinued. As regards heavy shell, American supplies have been invaluable during the development of the new factories, and the orders are still required; but if home and Canadian output comes up to expectation, we ought ultimately to be able to do without American shell altogether. I do not like to pass on without saying that the House of Commons is aware that Messrs. Morgan are our purchasing agents in America, and without expressing our admiration of the way in which they and the American contractors have organised a proportion of their great industries for the output of munitions. As to the second point, that of controlling by means of national factories the output of munitions, I want to say a word as to the finance branch of the Ministry. The finance branch of the Ministry of Munitions which controls an expenditure of, as I have said, over£1,000,000 a day, has been given deliberately far greater powers than, I understand, is the case with the finance branch of other spending Departments. It retains a supervision over the financial clauses of all contracts during their negotiation. It has not had to use at all largely the power of examining the costs of manufacturers conferred by the Munitions Acts and the Order in Council. We have made alterations in costs with the concurrence of manufacturers.

  1697
  The key to the problem of financial control has been provided by the cost accounting system introduced into our own factories. The knowledge so gained has enabled the Ministry to put their finger on the weak spots in administration and extravagance in the factories themselves, and has afforded a standard to check contract prices. The cost of the factories, which was high at the start, has fallen rapidly, and is now much less than the 1915 contract prices. The reduction in home contracts which has ensued represents a saving in the case of shell of £20,000,000 a year. American shell contract prices have been reduced 15 per cent.; Canadian shell contract prices 12½ per cent. Fuse, Gaine and T-Tube prices have been lowered from 20 to 25 per cent., and trench warfare munitions from 40 to 50 per cent. Similar reductions have been made in the prices of explosives, ammunition bexes and small arms ammunition. It is worth recording that the cost of the large explosive and propellant factories erected, or being erected, in this country will be completely covered in from six to twelve months by the difference in the cost of their output and the price of these articles imported.
  5.0 P.M.
  I wish to draw the attention of the House to the extent and variety of our interferences with the commercial and even with the private life of the country involved in the results which I have given. Germany, let us never forget, was organised for war. Her ceaseless and intelligent preparations had given her the workshops, the arsenals, the machine-tool factories, the chemical factories, the skilled labour necessary to equip an Army of many millions. We had no Army—at least comparatively none; we had no intention of being a military power; and while our industries were peace industries Germany was able to mobilise her second line of industrial defence and to use her dye works and her fine chemical works by turning them into explosive factories^ We followed her example after the War, but we had to begin from the beginning, and the demand for munitions of war has entailed a most comprehensive disturbance of the chemical and engineering trades of this country and of their allied and dependent industries. The State has had to step in and control them to an extent which no one a few years ago would have expected the country to tolerate for
  1698
  a moment. For this purpose we have had to establish an elaborate system for instructing Government contractors as to the order of priority which they are to assign, not only to Government, but also to all private work which they are asked to undertake. Again, we have had to fix maximum prices for steel, iron, and coke. We have had to regulate iron-ore freights from the Mediterranean and from Spain. We have had to prohibit speculation in certain metals and to place others under regulations whereby dealings are prohibited without licences. Then there is the case of the machine-tool department, which exercises complete control over the whole of this section of the country's trade. No machinery tools can be ordered from Government or private works without the authority of the Department. It controls the supply of machinery to all Government contractors, as well as the Allies and neutral countries and for private work. It has exercised very freely the powers which the Ministry possesses for removing existing machinery and transferring it to places where it is needed for the manufacture of munitions.
  Again, our building programme necessitated our stopping private building. We have 1,500 applications now under consideration which we hope will lead to a large supply of available building labour. I think it is on the side of labour that we have interfered most with the rights of the individual. If I say that we are to-day far better off in regard to the supply of labour than we expected to be a year ago, I hope no one will think the problem has been solved, and it cannot be solved as long as there is an Army in the field. Our task has been to take the strictly limited supply of labour and spread it as thinly as was compatible with efficiency over the whole demands of the, nation. This has only been done by what is called "dilution," and it is only by dilution and further dilution that we can carry out the programme we have set ourselves. There are other expedients which have Been helpful—something has been done by bringing back men from the Colours to supply skilled labour. Forty-five thousand soldiers have been released from the Army and are now employed in munition factories. They come from 4,000 different units, and have been distributed amongst 3,800 employers. These men have greatly helped to make possible the large increase

  1699
  in the number of persons employed in munition trades. Then we have schools for the education and training of skilled and semi-skilled labour. Over 500 people have been trained as tool-setters to work on one special type of machine; nearly 200 plumbers have been trained as lead burners; and 130 jewellers have been trained as gauge makers. These are examples of what can be done by our system of training centres and university departments, and I trust employers will avail themselves more of the supply. Then there are the War Munitions Volunteer scheme, which has yielded 13,500 skilled workmen who have actually been transferred to war work.
  By utilising these various resources the following results have been achieved: When the Ministry of Munitions was started the number of persons employed was 1,635,000. By June of this year this number had increased to over 2,250,000. Of these about 400,000 are women, which is nearly double the number employed a year ago. The proportion of women is increasing rapidly. In 1914–15 it rose from 9 to 11 per cent., and in the last year it has increased from 11 to 17 per cent. But in spite of all these advantages I have to say once again, notwithstanding that men have been brought from the Colours and that men have been specially trained, the only real way of meeting the difficulty is by an increased application of dilution.
  Now I have shown how we have increased our output, improved its quality, how we have done it and disturbed trade to do it, and I want to complete the picture by expressing our debt to those people in particular to whom, I think, we owe it. We could never have secured this development unless the whole heart of the people was in the cause. Wherever we have asked for help we have got it. Wherever we have demanded services men and women have laid aside their own interests in order to serve the cause. I need not enlarge upon the services of the staff who have been working without intermission at the highest pressure in the offices at the centre and in the district areas into which the country is divided. But I want the House to consider for one moment the debt we owe to labour, skilled and unskilled. For forty years organised labour has been endeavouring, through the trade union movement, to win recognition for certain principles which are held to be necessary to secure a proper recompense
  1700
  and an equitable share in the control of industry. When the War broke out there were disputes in progress, and many grave industrial questions seeded likely to arise in the near future. The declaration of war required that a truce should be declared, and from that moment the time which might have been used as a period of preparation for a contest between capital and labour was consecrated to the services of the whole nation against the common enemy.
  But the cessation of disputes and the postponement of the reforms which slowly emerged from the clash of conflicting interests do not exhaust the full measure of the sacrifices which organised labour has made. The trade unions placed on one side the whole armour of trade union regulations upon which they had hitherto-relied. For all the weapons slowly forged during long years of struggle—rules and customs relating to hours of labour, overtime, the right of entrance to trades, demarcation of industry, the regulation of boy labour, and the exclusion of women from certain classes of occupation—all these directly or indirectly might have tended to reduce the output during the War. The Government asked Labour to put all these on one side. It was a great deal to ask. I doubt if any community has ever been asked for greater sacrifices, but with a loyalty and statesmanship which cannot be overestimated, the request was readily granted. The trade unions required, and they were right to require, a scupulous record and recognition of what they were conceding. It was promised to them as a right, but they will receive more, not only the restoration of the system they temporarily abandoned, but the gratitude of the Army and of the nation, and they will, I trust, place the nation still further in their debt by playing an important part in devising some system which will reconcile in the future conflicting industrial interests.
  Now I want to say a word about women. Women of every station, with or without previous experience of the difficulties, or of the strain and monotony of munition work, have proved themselves able to undertake work which before the War was regarded as solely the province of men, and often of skilled men alone. Indeed, it is not too much to say that our Armies have been saved and victory assured largely by the women in the munition factories, where they helped to produce aeroplanes, howitzer bombs, shrapnel bullets,

  1701
  shells, machine tools, mines, and have taken part in shipbuilding—there are, I believe, some 500 different munition processes upon which women are now engaged, two-thirds of which had never been performed by a woman previous to twelve months ago. I do not want to elaborate this point, because it is well known to the House, but I ask the House, to consider this, together with the work done by women in hospitals, in agriculture, in transport trades, and in every type of clerical occupation, and I would respectfully submit, when time and opportunity offer, it will be opportune to ask: Where is the man now who would deny to women the civil rights which she has earned by hard work?
  We have also had to call on employers and capitalists to make sacrifices. Those sacrifices have been equally heavy and their patriotism equally marked. It has not infrequently happened that employers and workpeople have had the exceedingly galling experience of being pulled up short when production was just getting into full swing. I can assure the country that the Ministry does its utmost to prevent irregularity in its demands, but war does not run according to schedule. New phases of the War create new necessities and demand changes, and recognising, as I do, how unpleasant this experience is—particularly when the work has been undertaken not from a sense of profit, but from a sense of duty—I am certain workpeople and employers alike will continue to put up with the inevitable in the same cheerful spirit which they have shown in the past. Our achievement really is explained by the simple fact that the nation was willing. You cannot govern an unwilling nation, but there is nothing you cannot do with a willing nation. The response to our appeal for a postponement of Bank holiday is a very good example, and it has been cheerfully accepted on beth occasions by the workpeople. We have decided to inaugurate a period of rest at the end of September for certain munition works where relay holidays have been found to be impossible. I trust that this will not be transformed into a national holiday, because it is only intended as a recognition of the fact that machinery and men, and still less women, cannot be worked for ever without a halt for repairs.
  And now I desire to pay one other tribute, and perhaps it is the most important. When the War began, the work which our staff of 5,000 people in London alone is now
  1702
  doing was done by the War Office. A nation which had enjoyed a century of security and was defended by an incomparable Navy had always grudged expenditure of money on military preparations, and the soldier had to plough his lonely furrow without the sympathy of the civilian. Is it to be wondered at that it took some time for the War Office to realise that in this War it was not a soldier's or a civilian's war, but the whole nation's war, and the whole nation for the first time were eager and anxious to cooperate in producing all that was necessary. But apart from this, it must be remembered that the War developed slowly, and that even the soldiers who were responsible for the conduct of operations, and upon whose advice the supply of munitions must ultimately depend, could not be expected at once to formulate their final requirements and to anticipate the vast scale and the endless variety of munition supplies which were to confute the teachings of professors and exceed the vision of prophets. The controversy between high explosives and shrapnel was a controversy settled after much discussion in the fields of France. The knowledge of high explosives which was wanted was not forthcoming until it was crystallised by trench warfare in the Spring of 1915. The great lesson of the early months of the War was that munitions cannot be obtained merely by ordering. You have got to see that the man who takes your orders has the plant and the labour; you have got to follow up the work process by process; you have got to provide from the beginning to the end everything that is necessary. That is the cardinal principle of the Munitions Department. That is the lesson learned in the first months of the War, and it was this main conception with which my right hon. Friend left the Treasury to build out of nothing the Munitions Department and the wonderful output I have described. Everything I have said of our success is a tribute to him. He chose the great leaders of industry who formed the pivots of our machine. He formulated the needs of the moment to labour, and persuaded them to agree to meet our necessities. He realised the scope which our operations should embrace in all the essentials of the production of munitions, and his tireless energy and vigorous personality were the inspiration of the whole vast fabric. He set himself to do more. He realised how much of our prospective

  1703
  supply of big guns was hypothecated to the Navy. He realised how long it took to collect the raw materials and to train labour. It is no secret to say that he ordered far more heavy guns than was then thought by the War Office to be necessary. It is no secret to say that before he left the Ministry of Munitions he had the satisfaction of receiving new requirements from the War Office, which showed that he had not ordered too many, but too few; and yet, notwithstanding that, it is due to his foresight that the surplus guns will be all ready in or about early spring of next year. For this one courageous feat alone and for the Ministry as a whole—in saying this I do not for a moment underrate the help which he has received—the country owes him the greatest debt of gratitude.
  When I say that, I hope the country will not think that all has been accomplished, that our task is complete, and that the end is in sight. Much remains to be done. Our home resources are not yet fully developed. Our dependency on foreign supplies still exists. We have got to keep the organisation up to its mark. We have got to extend it. We have got to overcome difficulties and shortcomings which have been revealed. We have got to anticipate and remedy new difficulties. We have got to devise improvements and achieve a still greater output. The success of our Army is beund up with the supply of big guns, and, though the figures which I have given show that much has been already accomplished, our programme of guns will not be fulfilled till the Army's equipment of heavy Artillery is raised to many times its present strength, and our supply of ammunition must not cease to grow till we are in a position to maintain indefinitely along the whole of our front the present expenditure of ammunition on the Somme. The output of Germany is still increasing, and the end will not be in sight until we have established an Artillery superiority everywhere. The resources of Russia and Italy are insufficient to enable them to establish this superiority for themselves, and I think we must look forward with pride to the fact that a considerable proportion of the further munition-producing capacity next year will be required for them. In war it is as great a thing and as profitable a thing to arm and equip our Allies as it is to arm and equip ourselves. Thanks to our Navy, our resources are unimpaired and our shores are inviolate. Invaded France, despoiled Belgium,
  1704
  temporarily occupied Serbia, gallant Russia with its ports of entry limited by ice, by distance, and by the Dardanelles—all these must find part of their supplies here, profit by our organisation, and be assisted by our munition workers. And, if I may say so, particularly for Russia, the achievements of whose gallant soldiers are at this moment filling every Allied country with pride, particularly for Russia, whose wonderful and self-sacrificing heroism did so much to stem the invasion of the Germans into France in the earlier months of the War, whose success this year helped so much in the Italian victories over the Austrians, and who is now engeged in putting the finishing strokes to Austria-Hungary, particularly for Russia ought we to redouble our efforts and to prove not only our willingness, for that is certain, but our capacity to help.
  Then, is there nothing else? I trust that I shall not be accused of travelling beyond my functions when I ask this question: Is that all? We have organised British industry for the production of munitions. This organisation covers the country and touches our daily life at a thousand points. Scareely any of the articles which it is the object of this organisation to produce are simple in construction. Some are as complicated in their mechanism as the finest watch and yet are put together only to be blown out of the end of a gun. We have learned in this process that where the enemy had an advantage was first and foremost in the application of thought to business results. Old-fashioned machinery and slip-shod methods are disappearing rapidly under the stress of war, and, whatever there may have been of contempt for science in this country, it does not exist now. There is a new spirit in every department of industry which I feel certain is not destined to disappear when we are at liberty to divert it from its present supreme purpose of beating the Central Powers. When that is done, can we not apply to peaceful uses the form of organisation represented by the Ministry of Munitions? I am not thinking so much of the great buildings which constitute new centres of industry, planned with the utmost ingenuity so as to economise effort, filled with machines of incredible efficiency and exactitude. I wish rather to emphasise the extent of which all concerned—and each section is vital to our objects—are co-operating to obtain the best results from the material

  1705
  in our hands. We have the leaders of all the essential industries now working for us or co-operating with us in the Ministry. The great unions render us constant assistance in the discussion and solution of difficulties, whether with our officers or within their own body. On technical questions of the most varied character we have the advantage of the best expert advice in the country.
  We have in being, now that British industry is organised for war, the general staff of British industry. I am sure that we should sacrifice much if we did not avail ourselves of that staff to consider how far all this moral and material energy can be turned to peaceful account instead or being dispersed in peace time. What are we to do with our machines and our factories? How are we to demobilise our labour? How are we to carry out our undertakings to those who have earned our recognition? How, in a word, are we not only to restore the conditions of peace but to make peace more real and precious to all concerned? In the solution of these riddles, which we fail to solve at our peril, we shall need the continued help of all that intellect and experience which has rallied to us for our country's sake. But we must not take our eyes off our immediate purpose. If I lay stress upon the Ministry of Munitions in its achievements, no one will accuse me of claiming any personal credit. More than that, I am sure that my predecessor will agree with me in saying that anyone with our responsibility must feel that his duty lies, not in denying that it is possible for his Department to make a mistake, but in an unwearied endeavour to eliminate a larger and larger proportion of the errors which must arise so long as men and materials are what they are. It is for us to invite and accept criticism, to welcome suggestions and to encourage inventions until the day when the finest and most flawless material is unfailingly and amply supplied to the finest Armies in the world, until in fact the day when we have rescued civilisation from the menace and treachery of our enemies, when we have avenged honour, punished barbarity, restored security, and established peace by the final and lasting defeat of those who have sought this War.
  Mr. ANDERSON: The Ministry of Munitions has been responsible and is responsible for a large part of the Labour policy of the Government with regard to a very considerable field of industry. The Minister of Munitions to-day has referred
  1706
  to that matter at considerable length, but the picture which he has painted requires some shading in a number of aspects. I am convinced that a considerable part of that policy has been mistaken and wrong. We have been told that miracles have been accomplished. I do not deny that certain things have been done, but, regarding some of the things done from the wider aspects of Labour policy, they have not by any means been a success. A considerable portion of the policy of the Minister of Munitions towards Labour has been of a penal and repressive character, and that has been particularly so in regard to legislation. That legislation has not won the confidence of the workpeople. It is based upon an ignorance of the psychology of the workpeople, and I am convinced that neither that legislation nor the administration of it are going to win the best work from the workpeople. Personally, I believe that fair play and just dealing as between the Minister of Munitions and the great mass of organised and unorganised labour will accomplish far more than all the compulsory legislation that can be brought forward.
  I desire to carry the story back to some months previous to the formation of the Ministry of Munitions, in order that we may see exactly what has happened. It is perfectly true that towards the end of July there was a very ugly and dangerous Labour situation in this country. There were strikes and rumours of strikes. It is also true that when War was declared those Labour troubles for the time being disappeared as if by magic. There was many leading articles which spoke about equality of sacrifice, and about the rich and poor being one family, but, unfortunately, it was very largely left there, and for many months there was not, on the part of the Government, that wise foresight and knowledge that there ought to have been. The bad profit-making system remained unchecked and uncontrolled, and the workers in many cases were the victims of their own generous emotions—and when generous emotions are abused they are apt to turn somewhat sour and cynical. One mistake made in the early days of the War was the indiscriminate method of recruiting, by which a large number of skilled workers were got into the Army. A great deal of trouble and money was expended on getting these skilled men into the Army, and a great deal of trouble and money was expended in getting them out of the Army again. Members of this House had to be

  1707
  sent to Vancouver and other places in order to get skilled workers. This at the start aggravated the problem of the shortage of skilled labour. Nobody attempted to think out the effects of war on industry, and things were allowed to drift on with inevitable consequences. The people who were making money and who have made money throughout the War were very largely left uncontrolled. There was a great rise in food prices. The workpeople at the start of the War looked to the Government and said, "We have put on one side our labour disputes and we look to you to guard us against any great increase in the cost of living." Unfortunately, nothing practical was done. I remember when the matter was debated in January and February of last year the Prime Minister's only answer was, practically, to say that if the workpeople would wait till June he thought something would happen. The workpeople did wait until June, but nothing happened except that prices continued to rise.
  In point of fact, that more than anything else destroyed the initial confidence of the workpeople, and led to a restiveness which even manifested itself during the War in temporary disturbances, strike troubles, and so on. You had first of all the very heavy pressure for Government contracts. Side by side with that, you had a shortage of skilled labour, great competition for workpeople, and general confusion and lack of organisation. In the middle of all that the Ministry of Munitions was born. How did the Ministry of Munitions go to work? I believe that those who were responsible for the Ministry of Munitions have attached far too much importance to the compulsory side of their powers. The late Minister of Munitions, now Secretary of State for War (Mr. Lloyd George), used to beast in many of his speeches about the great powers he possessed over labour under the Defence of the, Realm Acts. My own conviction is that the less we hear of that sort of talk the better, and that you are not going to win the confidence of labour by saying what your powers are under the Defence of the Realm Acts, and so forth. It seemed that labour believed itself to be unprotected against the rise in prices, against the methods of the ordinary capitalist employer, for there was far too much ordinary capitalism allowed to take place, even during the crisis of the War. Labour had been asked to waive, and had waived, all its trade union
  1708
  rules in respect of output, rules which, in my opinion, are more applicable to times of peace than to a time, of war. Also, they had put aside rules in regard to the training of new workers, and dilution of labour. The law of supply and demand in regard to labour had been abolished by legislation during this War. Labour today is not able to secure the wages that labour could secure if it were left to the ordinary interplay of supply and demand; and while I have always said, and will say, that I do not believe any interest, neither labour interest nor any other, should take full advantage of the present situation of the country in order to get all it can, I do say that the law ought to apply to shipowners, food monopolists, and all round, and that if you abolish the law of supply and demand with regard to labour, and do not allow a workman to leave one shop to go into another where he can earn more money, it ought to apply to the shipowners and those making very large profits out of the War.
  There is a great deal of growing talk about industrial compulsion. My own view is that the Munitions of War Act was the beginning of industrial compulsion in this country. I believe it was a wrong method of going to work. I believe very few people understood its application and its implication at the time it was passed, and I am convinced that the administration of that Act to-day is causing constant and serious friction and bitterness inside many of the factories and workshops. The bargaining power of the Workmen has gone. I would not complain of that if the powers of the employer to a large extent were also gone, and if the power of forcing up prices had gone; but the wages of munition workers to-day are governed very largely from Whitehall, and there are constant complaints of long delays in regard to arbitration cases, and the like. I say that if there is to be no strike trouble, and I am quite sure no one desires to see strike troubles until the country wins through to happier times, then it is all the more important that the arbitration cases should be settled justly and speedily, with tb.9 least possible amount of friction and irritation. In many cases where men have been asking for some improvement in their conditions they cannot even get the Arbitration Court to decide one way or the other. One of the main troubles to-day is the question of the discharge certificates under the Munitions of War Act. In many cases they act very

  1709
  harshly and unjustly. I believe the first Act was a very hastily prepared, slapdash and ill-considered measure; and if I had time to-day I could show that it acted very unfairly indeed as between the employer and the employed, so unfairly that in the end it was brought home to the Ministry of Munitions itself, and an Act was introduced to amend some of these disabilities. The amending Act was not, however, brought forward until great harm had been done, and many workpeople were very irritated indeed at what had taken place. To-day even the amended Act is causing trouble, and I believe this embargo of six weeks is used again and again harshly by employers in a way that ought not to be employed, if you are holding the balance justly between the workpeople and the employers. We have had cases where employers refused to grant these discharge certificates and to allow the workpeople to go elsewhere, and even where the work they themselves were doing was broken, scanty, and scarce, and wages were interfered with. We have had cases where girls, though earning low wages, were unable to get their discharge certificates in order to go where they could get proper wages and be paid at a proper rate. We have cases where a man's health, or his wife's health, is suffering in the district where he works, and he applies to go to a fresh district which will be beneficial to his own or his wife's health. We have a man fined in this Court for speaking back to his foreman, although I have never gathered that a foreman is fined, whatever he may say to the workmen. We have cases of men fined for disobeying orders, and I do not gather that men are expected to obey orders no matter how unreasonable they may be. It has also happened that where a man in some ease has worked himself practically to a standstill, and has taken a few hours off, he is liable to be taken to the Munition Court and fined £2 for staying away from work for a time.
  I say that what may seem trifling cases are causing to-day a great deal of irritation. I could read case after case, for thousands of cases have been brought to my own notice—thousands of cases happening, not some time back, but now, where a constant stream of workpeople are going through these Courts. Thousands are going through these Courts, and this sort of thing has happened. Here is an instance of a munition tribunal at Newcastle:
  1710
  George Morgan, a fitter, is brought before the tribunal, and I suppose he loses a day or two days' work in order to come before the tribunal. He is charged with having refused to obey the orders of his foreman on 31st July. It was stated that Morgan was engaged in removing some flanges, and that he worked until 10.15 p.m. He then went to his foreman and asked him to sign his card, as he was tired of the job. He said that the foreman's idea seemed to be that a man who started a job should finish it. He said he did not disobey any order, and the foreman signed his card at 10.15. The chairman remarked that the case was rather near the berder-line, but they thought there was evidence that the order ought to have been obeyed, and therefore the man was fined £2. The case was on the berder-line, but they rather thought that the man disobeyed some order that ought not to have been disobeyed, and in place of giving the man the benefit of the doubt he was fined £2! There is no need to read out a large number of these cases which are constantly coming up in the Munitions Court, and what I say, and what I wish to impress on the Minister of Munitions, is that they really ought to issue some sort of circular. It is not within my province now to speak of legislation, but they ought to issue some circular and to discourage merely frivolous and vexatious prosecutions. I have seen cases, as we all have, where I think the workman was very much to blame in his conduct, but I do suggest that any number of these cases that are trifling ought never to have been brought at all. In fact, I have seen cases where the chairman of the tribunal said that employers ought never to have brought such cases. I suggest that everything ought to be done to reduce these cases to a minimum, that the cases ought to be serious cases, and that all sorts of trumpery charges should not be brought, seeming to find some special joy in fining the man. If that is to be allowed to continue, the personal and industrial liberty of the workpeople will go entirely. In regard to legislation of this kind, there is a very unfair and arbitrary distinction and discrimination between one grade of workpeople and another. There are large masses of war workers, such as the miners, who do not come under this legislation at all, and you apply one law and one set of restrictions to one group of workpeople from which another group of workpeople are entirely exempt.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he is only entitled to criticise administration. This is Supply, not legislation.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I quite accept that, but in this matter I am not dealing with new legislative changes. I do think many of these matters are really embodied in administration, and so far as possible I confine myself to that. I think on the whole that perhaps you have allowed me all the licence to which I was entitled up to the present time. This matter works out in very different ways, and I want to deal with two questions which are really questions of administration. I complain of very different treatment indeed. There was trouble among the miners in South Wales, and for reasons which I do not wish now to discuss, 120,000 of the miners came out on strike. It was an enormous force, and the Ministry of Munitions, side by side with the beard of Trade, went down to Wales, met these men, and the matter was settled. The same thing, on a much smaller scale, took place in Glasgow. There was trouble in Glasgow, into the merits of which I do not desire now to go. I am sorry there was the trouble at all, but what did happen in that case was this—
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): Will the hon. Gentleman say to what trouble he refers?
  Mr. ANDERSON: I am corning to that. In the Glasgow case, so far as I understand, no attempt was made at the time to ascertain what were the real grievances. The houses of men were visited about four o'clock in the morning, and a number of men were exiled from Glasgow to various other points in Scotland. I understand that no charge against them has been formulated up to the present time, but that they are still unable, the majority of them, to return to their homes. These men deported from Glasgow have been placed, I understand, under military law.
  Dr. ADDISONindicated dissent.
  Mr. ANDERSON: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but in point of fact I happen to have in my own possession letters from the officer commanding in Scotland which show that he has the widest powers over these deported men, and I have one instance of where a workman, deported from Glasgow to Aberdeen, was afterwards allowed to go to Cardiff to
  1712
  join his ship, and had to sign a declaration in the presence of the military authority that when he went to Cardiff he would immediately go on beard his ship, that he would not report himself to any local trade union leader or labour leader, or draw the attention of any friend in Cardiff to the fact that he had visited that town. I think those are very, very harsh restrictions to impose, and I believe that that sort of thing is not going to do any good. In point of fact, in regard to that case I asked a question which the hon. Gentleman may remember, and he admitted that the facts I brought forward were entirely-true. I want to touch on another matter that has been arousing some attention recently, and that is the conditions under which soldiers are going to be employed in the munition works of this country. We have had various questions asked in this House in regard to the conditions under which the military are going to be employed for working purposes inside the munition factories. I do think that is a matter which requires the closest attention, because unless that is done there is going to be quite needless trouble, suspicion, and mistrust aroused among the working people. Some of the working people believe that if we are not careful the War itself may be used to subordinate labour. Therefore any step that is taken which lends colour to that view is surely very unwise. I have a letter here from a friend at Llanelly, a worker in the Labour movement, who supplies me with certain facts about the employment of soldiers in the Llanelly Steel Works:
  "These soldiers are not now paraded at the drill hall, but outside the works, and they are marched inside after the roll call. The men are directed and controlled by the lance-corporals and other non-commissioned officers. The officer in charge parades the soldiers on Sunday mornings at the drill hall. This happened this morning.—"
  This letter was written last Sunday.
  "A fortnight yesterday the soldiers were paraded at one o'clock outside the works and were addressed by the officer ill charge, who told them that the men were to be in their billets at ten o'clock each night, that they were to clean up and parade at eight a.m. on the following day (Sunday), that the money had not come through to pay them for the week, but he hoped it would arrive on Monday, and, if so, they would be paraded at 5.30 p.m. to receive their pay. The soldiers have now been supplied with overalls. The soldiers belong to a Labour Battalion, and strongly resent themselves being used in this way."
  I wish to impress upon the Ministry of Munitions, so far as they are responsible in conjunction with the War Office, that where soldiers are told off for two months

  1713
  on end by a mere agreement with the War Office—it may be for four months or six months on end—they ought to take them away from military law and place them for the time being under civil control. I am quite sure that unless that is done there will be growing trouble and suspicion in this matter. Here is a question which was asked the other day in this House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks). He asked the Secretary of State for War:
  "Whether 200 soldiers have recently been employed in the Army Ordnance Department and by the Chief Inspection Department, Woolwich, working in two batches on day and night shift, for an average of thirteen hours per shift, without extra pay, and were marched to and from the place of work; whether he is aware that numbers of workmen, some of them married, who were employed on the class of work to which the soldiers were put have recently been discharged; and whether, in view of the pledges given against any introduction of industrial compulsion, he will take into consideration the advisability of placing all departments at Woolwich under civilian control?"
  It appears that in the case of Woolwich civilian workmen have actually been discharged, according to the right hon. Member's own statement, and their places have been taken by soldiers under military law and control. I am quite sure that if that is the fact—
  Dr. ADDISON: It is not!
  Mr. ANDERSON: It is not true?
  Dr. ADDISON: No.
  Mr. ANDERSON: The hon. Member for South-West Ham (Mr. W. Thorne) has a question on similar lines on the Notice Paper for to-morrow, and the matter will have to be thrashed out. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich and the hon. Member for South-West Ham would not put down a serious charge of that kind without having some ground for it. The hon. Member for South-West Ham himself only yesterday raised another matter which brings in the same question of the growing militarisation inside the workshops. He gave the case of a wagon-builder of Penistone, in Yorkshire, who, after being engaged for many years, was discharged on 20th July last because of his trade union activities.
  Dr. ADDISON: Where was this?
  Mr. ANDERSON: At Penistone, in Yorkshire.
  Dr. ADDISON: When?
  Mr. ANDERSON: He was discharged on 20th July. When this man got his dis-
  1714
  charge certificate upon it was written the words
  "This man is wanted for the military."
  That is a discharge certificate, issued, I take it, under the Munitions of War Act.
  Dr. ADDISON: It is not! The hon. Member knows perfectly well that to write that on a Munitions of War certificate would render the certificate invalid.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I do not want to make the charge that employers are legally allowed to write that upon the certificate. My point is that many employers are illegally using the power they have. It is quite clear what the procedure is when they write upon a certificate something which is afterwards used, because I find that the man is no sooner dismissed than he receives a military note to appear before the military authority at Barnsley on the 4th August, at 9.30. That is a very serious matter.
  Dr. ADDISON: Hear, hear!
  Mr. ANDERSON: I assure my right hon. Friend that I know he does not want this sort of thing to spread. It is by no means an isolated case. I was in Wales during the last week-end, and while there I was given a copy of a letter which was sent by the Ebbw Vale Steel and Iron Company to a workman who wanted to leave and handed in his notice. There was some trouble there. What did the firm write in reply? This happened on the 22nd May:
  "In reply to the notice signed by you dated 22nd May, 1916, we beg to say that we decline to accept the week's notice or any notice to leave our employment at the present time. (P.S.—If you refuse to work, and leave our employment without permission, we shall at once report the matter to the military authorities.)"
  What right has this firm to report a matter of this kind to the military authorities? If this man acts illegally he can be dealt with in the proper way. Many firms to-day believe that they have a great power, and that the Munitions of War Acts, the Military Service Acts, and the Defence of the Realm Acts can all be pressed into their service in order to serve their own private ends. I see that the danger is extending even to the mines. I was reading the other day a speech made by the president of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain at Edinburgh, on the 10th August, in which he said, in regard to the danger so far as the mines are concerned:
  "Recent revelations as to the conditions under which soldier working parties were being employed in industrial life show that we were not

  1715
  without cause for apprehension regarding the militarisation of our works. He laid down the proposition that if soldiers were returned to civilian employment they ought to resume all the powers of civilians and cease to be under military authority and discipline. That pledge had been given to the miners over and over again. At the present time negotiations were going on for the return to the mines of a considerable number of soldiers to keep up the national coal requirements. The miners' leaders expected those men to be sent back absolutely clear of military discipline. Some were not being so returned. Whether due to the opposition of the War Office or to the arbitrary action of the local military authorities, he knew of one case where an ex-soldier was sent to a certain mine and told that he must remain there, and that any question of behaviour would be reported to and dealt with by the military. The miners cannot and will not have that sort of thing. If that was a War Office instruction, we are going to take it up with the War Office. Our men must return as free as they were before they were enlisted, otherwise we are in for the worst form of Conscription. I believe the War Office will carry out the agreement made with us. Our interests are the interests of the nation."
  Those are all actual cases of what is Happening. When we were last discussing the Military Service Act the President of the Local Government beard suggested the formation of a large reserve to which men could be attached who were to be released for industrial employment, and he suggested that during the time they were so released, these men would enjoy their ordinary civil rights and liberties, would work under trade union rules and conditions, and would only resume their military discipline if they rejoined the Army for any reason. I believe that is the position which will be taken up by the working people of this country, and that it is the right position. To-day these various laws are making it very difficult indeed even to give expression to any grievance. If any workmen outside the factory criticises the factory or anything about the Munitions Act or the Military Service Acts, there is always the Defence of the Realm Act ready to be applied. We have cases like that of the Glasgow "Forward," which was suppressed at the instigation of the Minister of Munitions without a trial and was put upon its feet again without a trial so far as the Minister was concerned. That is usurping the power of the Courts and all judicial functions, and placing an arbitrary power in the hands of the Minister of Munitions which he certainly ought not to have.
  There are certain other points which are very important to which I wish to refer. First of all, I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can tell me the exact circumstances in regard to the withdrawal of war badges and certificates? Upon
  1716
  whose representation is a war badge or certificate withdrawn from a workman? Is it upon the representation of the employer? If not, upon whose representation? Then I want to ask him whether an employer must give a leaving certificate to an unbadged person? What happens to the unbadged person? Does the employer give him a leaving certificate and allow him to go and find work elsewhere, pending the decision of the military tribunal as to what the man is to do in regard to Army service, or has the employer power to retain that man in his empoyment until he is called up for the Army? I have here a copy of a circular issued by the Ministry of Munitions bearing on that point, but it does not make the matter very clear to me. Last of all, I wish to speak of another matter of great importance. The Minister of Munitions to-day spoke of the great work which had been done by the women in this War, and he made a very memorable declaration—I hope it was the decision of the Cabinet—as to what he thought should be done in return for what the women have done.
  "Where is the man—"
  he somewhat rhetorically demanded—
  "who will deny them their civil rights?"
  Well, there is one member of the Cabinet, Lord Curzon, who has been sending circulars to us, and he does not seem very much convinced as to the granting of civil rights to women, so that I am afraid the Minister of Munitions will still have to argue the matter out with Lord Curzon and perhaps with other members of the Cabinet.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Is it in order on the Munitions Vote to discuss whether or not women should have the right to vote at Parliamentary elections?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must confess that an hon. Member was just asking me a question on another matter, and I did not hear what the argument was.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I am not going to discuss the question of votes for women, but, in point of fact, the question was raised by the Minister of Munitions. As the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is such a great stickler for the rights of private Members of this House, I am quite sure he is not going to allow a Minister to make a statement without allowing private Members to reply to him.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not know that it was raised.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. ANDERSON: It was raised. I was only going to make a passing reference to the matter without raising the whole question. The point I was coming to is this. Whatever may happen in regard to the civil rights of women after the War, I am as much concerned at this moment that their industrial rights shall be safeguarded during the War. The women are weakly-organised in many cases, and they have not got the enormous power that some skilled workpeople have, and, consequently, time and again there is less attention paid to these weak and badly organised people, whether they be men or women, than is paid to some of the highly skilled men. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that hon. Members should pay attention to the grievances and claims of those who are least able to defend and protect themselves. In many cases women have been working far too long hours. In certain cases you have allowed them to be put on twelve-hour shifts, and it is only by protests made by various Members in all parts of the House that we have got any modification of that arrangement. After very few weeks, so far from increasing your output by means of that kind, you are weakening the human machine, and your output is beund to go down. I know cases, especially in the earlier months of the War, where very grievous things were done so far as the women's health was concerned, matters which it would be difficult to discuss in the House, but which are very vital indeed from the standpoint of the future of the nation and the children of this nation.
  I wish to draw attention to a comparatively small matter, but yet these comparatively small matters cause a good deal of friction so far as these working women are concerned. I wish to draw attention, for instance, to something which is happening at the Llanelly National Steel Shell Factory. Here are various pay forms that I have in my possession which were actually given to women workers in this factory, which is owned and run by the nation. I find on one side of the form a girl has deducted from her wages 4s. 6d. for an overall. Altogether, the deductions from her wages that week amounted to 5s. 1½d. I should say that is an especially bad week. But the amazing thing is that, on the other side, there is a list of rules to be observed by all workpeople. Rule 17 says:
  "Persons who are in possession of war service badges or overalls which are the property of the
  1718
  factory must surrender the same when ceasing to be engaged at tho factory."
  On one side the girl is actually made to pay 4s. 6d. for an overall, and yet, on the other side, she is told this is the property of the Government, and must be returned to the Government when she leaves their employment. There are deductions which, I think, are quite unreasonable. There is not only a deduction in regard to health insurance, which, of course, is legal, but there is a deduction from the girl's wage of 6d. for a medical fund, and another deduction of 3d. for a hospital. I should have thought if she paid 3d. for health insurance it ought to have included some of these medical funds and hospitals. Altogether that week, in regard to health insurance, medical funds and hospital, she had deductions to the extent of 1s. 2½d. That, in respect of the wages paid, is altogether too heavy a deduction.
  I wish to speak for a minute on the question of wages paid to women under the new order. The great majority of women are not satisfied with the new provisions which are being made by the Ministry of Munitions. The case of women who were doing men's work was dealt with under a previous Order, known as L2. But apart from those women there are great numbers of women engaged upon war work which was not previously done by men, who cannot leave their employment under the Munitions of War Act without undergoing a penalty of six weeks enforced idleness, and if the Government compels a woman to remain at work in one particular factory under a penal of six weeks enforced idleness if she leaves, that Government has a moral obligation to see that her wages are just and her conditions are good conditions. If she is denied the right to go where she can get better conditions, clearly you ought to see that the conditions are just, fair and reasonable. I would recall a speech made by the Secretary for War as far back as July, 1915. It cost about £3,000 of public money, so it must have been a speech of some consequence and value, because it was made to a certain procession and demonstration organised by Mrs. Pankhurst, in respect of which, I believe, about £3,000 of public money was paid. It was a good speech, and I agreed with every word of it, but I do not agree with the way in which it has been carried out, because sometimes the right hon. Gentleman is carried away by his own eloquence, and things do not always work out quite as he paints them on the platform.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): That is true of every speaker.
  Mr. ANDERSON: This is what the right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion:
  "The Government will see there is no sweated labour. For some time women will be unskilled and untrained, and they cannot quite turn out as much work as men can who have been at it for some time. Therefore we cannot give the same rate of wages. Mrs. Pankhurst is quite right in insisting that whatever these wages are they should be fair, and there should be a fixed minimum, and we should not utilise the services of women in order to get cheap labour."
  I agree with every word of that, and the limitations of it as well. I am sorry to say it was twelve months after that speech was made before an Order was issued dealing with it. The Order was not issued until July, 1916.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGEindicated dissent.
  Mr. ANDERSON: It is quite true, and the Order, when it was issued, was a very disappointing Order. I know the right hon. Gentleman is now taken up with other duties, but I wish he would bring his mind to this one point in regard to the Ministry of Munitions.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am very concerned to see that the pledges I gave are carried out, but surely the hon. Member does not suggest that between the date of my delivering that speech—every word of which I stand by now—and 1st July nothing was done to carry out this pledge that women should get fair wages free from sweated conditions!
  Mr. ANDERSON: Just before the right hon. Gentleman came in I made it quite clear that a circular had been issued—L2—meeting the case of those women who were doing work that men previously did. I am now dealing with the women who are not doing the work that men previously did, but are doing war work. I made it quite clear that a circular had been issued.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That circular was agreed between the trade unions. It was submitted to me by the Labour Supply Committee, upon which trade unionists were represented, including the trade unions of the women. I accepted that Circular, as far as I can recollect, without altering a single comma in it. There were employers as well upon the Committee, but it was an agreed Circular.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I am dealing with another Circular. I am dealing now with the case of those women who were not included in L2, and in regard to this
  1720
  second Order it does not fix a minimum wage as was promised by the Minister of Munitions. It says that wages shall be in one case 4d., and in another case wages shall be 4½d. That does not mean that a minimum is going to be fixed below which no one can be paid, but you are really going back to the old Elizabethan principle of trying to regulate and fix wages, and if you take a wage of 4d. or 4½d., subject to present conditions and with the enormous rise in food prices and the cost of living, that is altogether inadequate. I do not believe that 4½d. at this moment is worth any more than 3d. would have been prior to the outbreak of the War, and wages ought to be based upon present conditions and present prices, and not upon pre-war conditions and pre-war prices. There is in this Circular no guarantee at all in regard to pieceworkers that their case is going to be adequately met from the standpoint of not forcing down piece rates. There is in this Circular no provision for extra payment for overtime, or for night work, or for Sunday labour, and the Order is not universal. There are-exemptions in it. From all these points of view I hope the matter will be gone into again, and that some substantial improvement will be achieved. I want to appeal to the new Minister of Munitions to tone down the zeal of some of his Munitions Tribunals. I do not believe you need rely on any form of repressive legislation to get the best out of people. I want him to discourage trivial prosecutions before these Munitions Tribunals. When cases arise let them be serious cases. I can give any number of quite trivial cases where prosecutions ought never to have taken place and the workman's time ought never to have been stopped for a day. I have given instance after instance where I think the prosecution ought never to have taken place at all. I appeal to him, as I have appealed repeatedly to the present Secretary of State for War when he was Minister of Munitions, to convince the workpeople by fair dealing and to hold the balance even between them and the employers. I am quite sure to-day that compulsion will always fail as a means of adjusting these difficult economic questions. There is universal admiration to-day for the courage of the soldiers, and I am very glad the Minister of Munitions spoke a word about the work of the industrial workpeople in the factories, and so on, because there is no doubt at all that there have actually been about 4,000,000 men taken away from

  1721
  the factories and workshops and yet the work is being done at very heavy pressure by those who remain, many of them breaking down in health, and while we have heard a good deal about their shirking and drinking and that sort of thing, in point of fact, so far as the great mass of them is concerned, they have kept industry going under the most difficult industrial conditions. I hope, therefore, though I know this is no part of the work of the Ministry of Munitions, that we are going to recognise our future obligations to these munition workers as well. There is going to be great dislocation at the end of the War in certain branches of industry. There will perhaps be hundreds of thousands thrown idle in certain branches of work, and I think there ought to be some thought for the future. We ought not to be content merely to speak about the restoration of pre-war conditions. I am not satisfied in my own mind that prewar conditions ever are going to be restored again. Conditions at the end of this War are going to be very different from what they were at the beginning of the War.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Better, I hope.
  Mr. ANDERSON: If the bargain is to be kept fair with Labour there must, at least, be equal safeguards and equal guarantees to meet the new conditions and the new circumstances. I believe there ought to be no difficulty if that is fairly and generously done, and I am quite sure if the work is undertaken in that spirit it will do something even out of all the present turmoil and evil to build up a better and a greater England.
  Colonel areHER-SHEE: I do not wish to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Attercliffe in detail, because many of the matters to which he referred are matters with which I am not competent to deal. I will only say this, that speaking as a man in the street or an outsider from his point of view, that if there are so few cases of real injustice under the Ministry of Munitions as he has portrayed, and that if a man gifted with his eloquence cannot make out a more serious case against the Ministry of Munitions than that, it only shows me that they have done almost as great a work in being able to satisfy labour to a perfectly wonderful extent as the other work which they have carried out. What is more, I do not believe the masses of the workers pf this country are really, discontented
  1722
  with their wages and with the hours that they are working, because they know and realise, perhaps even to a greater extent than some hon. Members in this House, what the conditions of war really are; they know what other men are going through, and they are prepared to take their 'share in various sacrifices and burdens of the War. But I would like to say a word or two with reference to the Very eloquent speech of the Minister of Munitions, and with regard to the munitions which are at present being supplied to the Army. In dealing with such a subject as that one has to be very careful, because this is not a Secret Session, Therefore, anything that one might say which really alluded to actual conditions, if it were severe criticism, might be of some use to the enemy. Therefore, one has to be particularly careful that particular instances are not alluded to. One is also deterred by the fact that, being an officer serving under discipline, it would not be proper for one to make criticisms such as one might make if he were absolutely free and were not an officer in the Army. At the same time, however, I think it is my duty to say that I do not think it is right that the country should believe that everything is well or is yet perfect with regard to our munitions supply. I think when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Montagu) spoke he used words to that effect, but the general effect of his speech was rather to lull everybody into a feeling that the munitions supply was really adequate and more than adequate at present, and that the quality was excellent. It would be only right to point out the fact that our munitions, beth as regards howitzer shells, field-gun shells—not as regards grenades—but as regards lights, and even in some cases as regards the equipment in the shape of automatic pistols, is not yet as good as the Germans. Therefore, until we reach the same standard in quality as the Germans as well as in quantity, the Ministry of Munitions cannot rest. I drew attention some four months ago, when I was last here in the House, to the fact that a certain number of our shells did not burst. It is a matter of common knowledge, and it is not giving anything away to the Germans to say that—because, of course, the enemy know perfectly well the proportion of our shells which do not burst. I was asked by the Under-Secretary for Munitions at that

  1723
  time to send him any cases which came to my knowledge, and I did send him some a few weeks ago. I did not receive any acknowledgment from him, but, as a matter of fact, I presume that he got the letter, and possibly some steps have been taken to improve matters in connection with those facts which have been brought to his notice. But, at any rate, it is a fact that at the present time that our howitzer ammunition is not yet satisfactory as regards its bursting powers, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Munitions gets up here and says that the present operations have shown themselves satisfactory, all I can say is that I do not consider that that opinion will be shared by the officers who have been serving, as I have been, in the recent operations. Also it will be proved by the fact, which is also well known to the Germans, that there are very large numbers of howitzer shells which have never burst lying about the lines which we have captured. There are also many instances of howitzer munitions not bursting properly quite recently. Field-gun shells have burst very well indeed, and I think everybody must be satisfied with them—that is to say, as regards their bursting power. As regards their quality and the force with which they explode, they are not as good yet as the German guns. Of course, we cannot expect to reach the same standard as the Germans, because of their very long preparation before the War, and also, I think, because of the organisation of their whole nation for war which we, under our makeshift system, have not as yet been able to equal. But, at any rate, the efforts of the Ministry of Munitions certainly have been magnificent, and we have got an enormous support now which we never dreamt of eighteen months ago. All I wish to say is, do not let the country suppose for one moment that we are yet as good as the Germans. We must go on until we are, and therefore no effort must be relaxed. Now, as regards anti-aircraft shells, the Minister of Munitions also said that they were very good.
  Mr. MONTAGU: No, I did not.
  Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: You said they were quite satisfactory.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I was quoting the opinion of the French people on the guns, not on the aircraft shells.
  Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: That, at any rate, is practically the same thing, and, of course, it is the size of the gun. We have not yet got as heavy an anti-aircraft gun as the Germans, but we ought to have before long. I believe we have them at home, but they are not yet in the field. Then, as regards bemb-throwing apparatus. I sent a letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for Munitions, in which I asked him to see a special gun called the Foulis gun, which is a very useful gun for throwing messages. I think he saw the inventor. I know the inventor had a letter from Sir Douglas Haig asking that this gun should be experimented with. I believe that some experiments have been carried out with it, but my point in drawing attention to that gun at this moment is, not as a bemb-throwing gun, but as a gun for sending messages. One of the great difficulties in war is to get messages back to the people behind the front line, and that, I think, has been the experience in the recent operations. I myself have seen this Foulis gun throws messages something like 600 yards. When the message lands a small bemb bursts. There is a smoke flare-up, which shows the position where a message is. We have nothing in that way at present, and I am certain, from what I have seen during the past few weeks, that we could have saved many men's lives if we had been able to use some device of that kind. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to have one more experiment with that apparatus. A great deal also was said by the right hon. Gentleman about how we were practically going to supply our Allies, the Russians and the Italians, with munitions, and also the French with steel. Of course, that is very necessary, but I hope that he and everybody who has anything to do with this matter will see that not one man more than can be helped is actually employed in munition making, because we want every single man we can get in the field. I was glad to hear him say that we were making preparations for war next year, because we must develop our full strength in order to bring this War to a conclusion next year. To do that, we want every single man we can get, and therefore I hope you will not make more ammunition for more people than is absolutely necessary, and that you will employ every man you possibly can in our own Army. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the lights were as

  1725
  good as those of the Germans, and asked me to see a demonstration. I am very sorry that owing to the short time I shall be at home, I shall not be able to accept his invitation to see the lights; but if he will ask any officer who has been in the trenches for many months, and has therefore seen many experiments in practice between our lights and the German lights, and if he can find any single officer who will tell him that our lights are as good as the Germans, I shall be very glad to hear from him. But I am quite convinced that he will not find one officer or one man who has ever been in the trenches who will say that our lights compare at all favourably, either in quality or in quantity, with those supplied to the Germans.
  There is only one other matter, and that is the question of shields. I may say I am interested in this matter, because I have' invented one myself. I am not pecuniarily interested in it, and it was rejected. But I am interested in this way, that I have been experimenting with a great many different sorts of shields. One of the things that seem to be certain is that in open warfare it is almost impossible to use shields that will be of any real use in keeping bullets out, because you cannot so far get a bulletproof shield that will cover any reasonable part of the bedy that is under 17 lbs. in weight. Of course, by experiments we might find something lighter, but the lighter forms of shield, which I was told have been adopted by the War Office—and that was given as a polite excuse for refusing mine—have been found by experiment to be almost useless for operations, excepting for trench operations, quite close. I believe the real use of shields is in attacking from the trenches, such as in a new attack when we begin to break the enemy's lines. Then we have plenty of opportunity of bringing up heavy shields under cover of darkness, and the men can wear them, and can throw them away if they prove to be too heavy, and they can be picked up afterwards, but in open warfare their heavy weight makes it almost impossible to wear them. The people who criticise the Ministry of Munitions on this matter ought to take that point into consideration, and to realise that the question bristles with difficulties.
  I hope the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Dundee will be also adopted, and that we
  1726
  shall bring into use some of our native labour from abroad, if necessary, in order to release more men from, making munitions to go into the Army. We are not making any use of their labour at present, and I am quite convinced that labour in this country would not refuse to work with these men if it were clearly understood that they would leave the country directly the War was finished. I think it will be a matter of necessity to do so in order to provide a much larger Army. Another point in reference to munition work. There seems to be no reason at all that I can see why a large number of these munition workers should not be relieved by some of the men who have been for two years in the trenches, and who have been wounded two or three times already. Lots of these men are quite skilled enough in labour to replace the young able-bodied men who are now working on munitions and who have never worked at munitions before, and those young men could then go into the Army and take their turn at the very wearing work of holding the trenches during the coming winter. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these points. I end by saying, as regards his remarks concerning the right hon. Gentleman his predecessor, that those remarks would be endorsed by the vast majority of officers and men in the Army, that the country owes a great debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) for the work which he has done, and for the imagination and courage which enabled him to order far more than was intended, thereby taking time by the forelock and giving us greatly needed assistance.
  Dr. ADDISON: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will reply to the other points raised in this discussion, it might be perhaps as well that I should reply now to some of the criticisms put forward by the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Anderson). At the commencement of his speech the hon. Member referred to the conditions prevailing before the Ministry of Munitions came into existence at all. I do not feel that there is any obligation upon us to answer criticisms of that kind when the Ministry of Munitions was not in existence at all. I quite agree that there have been a good many cases in which there have been certain delays in deciding cases which were up for arbitration and so on. The House will not wonder, I think, that here and there

  1727
  the hon. Member has been able to pick out a case where there seems to have been delay, or even to pick out many cases, when you have regard to the very large number with which we have to deal; but he made one statement which occasioned j considerable surprise. I know that there have been foolish employers in different parts of the country who have tried to make improper use of the Munitions Act, and some of the Members below the Gangway know perfectly well that when those cases were brought to the notice of the Ministry we tried to deal fairly with the matter, but the hon. Member said that thousands of these cases had been brought to his notice. He mentioned all kinds of trivial prosecutions which had taken place, including one in which he said a man had been prosecuted because he spoke back to a foreman. I was so astonished at the statement of the hon. Member that he had thousands of these cases brought to his notice, knowing as I do pretty well, I think, the inside working of the Ministry of Munitions, that I inquired how many cases there had been from the commencement of the Munitions Act until now. In all there have ben 6,518 prosecutions. All I can say is that the hon. Member seems to have enjoyed a unique opportunity for becoming acquainted with these cases, as there have only been 6,000 from the very commencement of the Act.
  It is a fact that there have been trumpery cases on both sides, and would it have been possible, I wonder, to have an Act of Parliament of so entirely novel a character suddenly applied to two million workers without there being a number of trumpery cases brought before the tribunals? There have been trumpery cases brought before Police Courts and various other Courts throughout the country, but I am sure that we do not blame the Home Office for that. We did our best, we repeatedly do our best, to prevent trumpery cases being brought before the tribunals, and if the hon. Member will tell me of these trumpery cases, I will do my best to prevent them being brought up, but I cannot deal with a mere general statement. He knows that we have invited, in season and out of season, details of these cases, and when we get them we will do our best to induce people to behave sensibly. In what few trumpery cases we have heard of, whether they were brought forward by employers or working men, we have done our best to induce them to use the Act
  1728
  in a sensible manner, and we will continue to do so.
  On the whole, I think that the hon. Member dealt with the subject more leniently than I thought he would, but one of the sins which he laid to our charge was that of the trouble on the Clyde. The picture which the hon. Member presented to the House was that the Ministry of Munitions, so far from making any effort to ascertain the causes of trouble, suddenly invoked the military power and in the middle of the night invaded a number of workmen's houses and deported the men from Glasgow. What are the facts? The facts are that for many weeks, by our own officers, by trades union members or officers and by special commissioners, we had been trying to get to the bottom of these troubles on the Clyde. I think I might truly say that we had been doing it for months. We finally became satisfied, and the event has absolutely justified our action, that the strikes were being fomented by quite a small number of individuals, that these men were not representing the vast majority of the workmen, but quite the contrary, and that they were in fact conducting a campaign just as much against organised trade unionism as against anything else. We finally became convinced of that, and so far from not taking action to inquire into the causes of the strike, we had the most careful analysis made, a long time before this deportation took place, of all the different troubles that had occurred in the various shops on the Clyde, and we had an elaborate investigation, and it is impossible for anyone to see that record without recognising that there were a number of men there who were out to make trouble. There was one day they actually, for a short time, tried to bring the men out of a gun shop because several of the women had tea in their teapots on Sunday while the work-girls had urns on the week-days. A small number were just out to make trouble for the Amalgamated Society of Engineers as well as for the Ministry of Munitions, and it was only with the utmost possible reluctance, and after adopting every other conceivable expedient, that we resorted to the methods which were adopted, and I am quite sure that the result of our action on the Clyde has proved up to the hilt the soundness of the conclusions which we drew, and it did more not to destroy trade unionism on the Clyde, but to establish the authority of organised trade unionism on the Clyde, than all the

  1729
  speeches that the hon. Member has ever made on the subject. We have upheld the authority of the organised trade unionism on the Clyde which these men have been out to destroy.
  The hon. Member raised, very rightly too, a question as to the conditions of the military working parties. There are two classes of military working parties—one which has been regarded always as an emergency expedient for a week or a few days, and the other in which men will be employed for a considerable length of time. It so happens, and there is really no likelihood of it ceasing to happen, that now and then in an emergency we ask the good offices of the War Office to release a number of men for some emergency work. When they are asked for we think that a few days will cover the work, but we find out later on that a few days will not do it, and it dribbles on from week to week, and it does so happen, quite rightly, that a number of cases which were intended to be emergency cases dribble on gradually into a long period of employment. We had to put that right, and the new arrangement which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office announced has been instituted. Where men have been released from the Colours to work for a long time they are employed under civil conditions, and our pledges, so far as I know, have been fulfilled. More than 40,000 soldiers have been released for this civil employment There have been one or two odd cases of complaint, but so far as I know there has been no substantial complaint anywhere that the men have been treated unfairly. I do not know of any. If the hon. Member knows of any, I shall be very glad to look into it.
  Then there are cases of men who are released from the Colours and passed into the New Reserve. That is a third class. There are now three classes, the emergency class, the men who have been released from the Colours under the old arrangement, and the New Reserves. The New Reserve is entirely civilian. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government beard said that the men can work where they like. That is the New Reserve, which is quite distinct from the men who were released from the Colours to work at munitions work. Let me make this distinction, which I hope the hon. Member and his Friend will bear in mind: Why were these men released from the Colours to go to munitions work? Because we wanted a large number of men,
  1730
  sometimes here and sometimes there, whom we could move about according to the emergencies of the munitions requirement. These men voluntarily signed an undertaking when they left the Army that they would go to work where we wanted them to go, and they form an invaluable mass of skilled labour which can be moved where we want to according to the arrangements which we have entered into with these men. I am quite sure that if it were not for the services of these 40,000 odd skilled men whom we can move where we want we could hot possibly have produced a certain number of the big guns and of the more difficult munitions that have been turned out for the Armies in the field to-day The hon. Member mentioned a case of a man at Penistone who was discharged because he was a trade unionist, and something or other being written on his certificate. I do not know why he brought that up. Was it a complaint against the Ministry of Munitions?
  Mr. ANDERSON: I mentioned that there was a number of cases which showed the danger of increasing militarisation where the discharge paper was written on, because when this man was wanted the military very soon afterwards took him away.
  Dr. ADDISON: The point I was coming to is this; I believe that there are about 1,300,000 badges and certificates to be dealt with, and in dealing with that matter one large Department is solely concerned. I can mention cases like this where discharge certificates have been drawn up and written on, in many cases both by the employers and by the workmen. That has happened, but you cannot deal with nearly a million and a half workers under these conditions without that kind of thing sometimes occurring. But what I want to make clear is that, if this ease to which the hon. Member refers had been brought to our notice, we would not have sanctioned that. Still, it is nothing new. A grievance like this is not the fault of the Ministry of Munitions. It has happened that men have been discharged because they were unionists before the Ministry of Munitions existed—before even there was a war. There is nothing new about it. The Ministry of Munitions has dealt fairly with these matters and have maintained on the one hand that it is wrong to strike against men coming into the works who are non-unionists, and we have prosecuted certain men who went

  1731
  out because some soldiers came in who were non-unionists. On the other hand, an employer in the Eastern Counties who dismissed a number of men because they were trade unionists was prosecuted, and we supported the prosecution against him on the ground that his action would have the effect of limiting the output of munitions. Not only that, but we required that the men should be reinstated, and they were reinstated. That is the only case in which the principle has been challenged so far as I know, and in that case we upheld the right of the men to the last, right up to the Appeal Court. We have never recognised that it was a proper course to dismiss men because they were trade, unionists, nor have we ever recognised that it is a proper course for men to go out on strike because men working there were non-unionists. The hon. Member asked me two questions, the second of which, I fear, I did not quite catch, but to which I shall give him an answer later. As to the first question, he asked on whose representation it was when badges and certificates are withdrawn? The procedure is that an officer makes a scrutiny of the works, and reports, not to the employer, but to the Minister of Munitions, to whom ho gives the man's name and reports whether he should have his badge and certificate withdrawn. None of these badges and certificates are withdrawn unless the cases have been scrutinised and sanctioned by the officers at the Ministry and reported to the Minister of Munitions. The badge and certificate are given together. Neither the badge nor the certificate can be withdrawn without our consent. It is the certificate which really matters to the man. himself, and this can only be annulled on the direct instruction of the Ministry of Munitions. As to the second question, as I said, I cannot give an answer at the moment, as I did not get the wording of it down.
  I will deal with the last charge the hon. Member made—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is somewhat involved in it—namely, the action of the Ministry of Munitions in connection with the employment and "sweating" of women. We all know that it is a very heavy task to organise a gigantic machine like the Ministry of Munitions without there being some inequalities, and to get it to act regularly as clockwork. But what I want to know is: Where are the cases to which the hon. Member referred? Where
  1732
  are the women who are sweated? We hear a good deal of vague charges, but I want definite information. Give me the names of the employers that do it, and then we will deal faithfully with them; but we cannot do anything until we have got the facts. Let me have the facts. The hon. Member said that in a certain case women were put on a twelve-hour working shift. As a matter of fact, it is not a twelve-hour working shift, and never was longer than a ten and a half-hour working shift. The Labour Committee of the Ministry of Munitions recommended that, so far as possible, the work of the women should be conducted on the eight-hour shift principle.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: It was eight hours.
  7.0 P.M.
  Dr. ADDISON: I know that is so. That is the policy which we support, and we are doing our best to get it adopted. In this particular case, and in others which I could mention, it arose out of the fact that the firm to which reference has been made was opening new shops in which mostly women were to be employed. They are in the Woolwich district, and anyone who knows the conditions down there knows perfectly well that the tram lines and the railways, and whatever the means of conveyance may be, are so hopelessly congested that it is almost an impossibility to carry more workers than are carried. The result of it is that a large number of workers who work there and who have to come from a very great distance, spend a long time on the trams and on the omnibuses before they can reach their work. So great has been this congestion that we have provided housing accommodation for 5,000 workers in that district. In the particular case to which the hon. Member referred the employer wanted to staff the other shops, and we were led to try the experiment of spreading some of the labour from this shop over the other shops. It has now been gone into by the Labour Committee, and we have limited the hours to fifty-four hours a week during the day. I think anyone who listened to the hon. Member for the first time would have thought that the Ministry of Munitions were some unsympathetic and soulless bedy that had been allowing women to be employed anyhow without any proper organisation or supervision of their employment. What are the actual facts? Before this case occurred at all, what had we done? We had set up a separate organisation limiting as far as possible Sunday labour, and there is a

  1733
  group of gentlemen whose business it is, with the Ministry of Munitions, to check Sunday labour. We did that before any Member of the House of Commons ever mentioned these cases. We set them up and had them working months before any mention of these matters occurred. The next thing we did was to set up an organisation for watching over the welfare of the workers. We laid down that firms which employed women must make certain arrangements on their behalf. In a number of cases it came to our knowledge that women so employed had to refer to male foremen in regard to certain questions, but, in order to put matters on a proper footing, we provided that women supervisors should be appointed, and from that day to this we have had a staff of women supervisors going round the munition factories of this country to see that so far as possible arrangements for the proper and necessary comfort of the women workers are carried out. It is not so easy to do that. The hon. Member, with his friends, can easily find cases where there are unsatisfactory conditions; I could find him twenty in five minutes quite easily. But they existed before the Ministry of Munitions came into being at all. It is not the Ministry of Munitions who are responsible for them. We have really tried to improve matters. I could give him numbers of cases where women have had to get their meals, as have the men, under most disgraceful conditions, but we had the Canteen Department organised before those complaints were ever voiced in the House of Commons at all. We know well enough the disgusting conditions in which a large number of workers got their meals. By our encouragement employers throughout the country have studied the health of their women workers, and canteens have now been set up where the workers can get their meals—of course they pay for them—in decency and comfort. Five hundred thousand munition workers get their meals in these canteens every day, and the number is growing rapidly. I think it is right that the House should know that the Ministry of Munitions is not an unsympathetic and soulless Department, but that it is one which takes care of the workers. We have devoted ourselves, and so have a large number of single-minded persons associated with us, to improving the conditions of these workers, and it is not fair of the hon. Member to come down here and refer to us in the way he does when he
  1734
  knows perfectly well that we are doing all these things for the comfort of the workers. The same applies to our men workers. I undertake to say that we have brought about more control of excessive hours of labour than has been accomplished by any other Department by direct action for the last twenty years. We have reduced the hours of labour in numberless instances. I do submit to the House that all these things about which complaint is made existed long before there was any Ministry of Munitions, and do not let it be thought that it is the fault of my right hon. Friend, and of this Government that women have been employed for long hours at sweated wages. Bad conditions existed before many of us were born, and we are doing something to improve the conditions. The hon. Member went on and used a phrase which I think I heard before. He accused us of adopting "Elizabethan principles." Let me mention to the House all the various organisations for dealing on "Elizabethan principles" with the welfare of the munition workers. There is the Sunday Labour Organisation, and there is the Welfare Organisation, and the committee which deals with industrial canteens, which has spent over £350,000 in the provision of canteens. There is the committee which deals with excessive hours of work. We have a special organisation which deals with diseases, or affections arising in filling factories, explosive factories, or in other dangerous occupations. We have actually helped to provide crèches where married women can leave their children.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Do you give a grant for them?
  Dr. ADDISON: Certainly we do.
  Mr. CROOKS: You have not in Woolwich.
  Dr. ADDISON: It was never asked for.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: We have asked, and it has been refused.
  Dr. ADDISON: I know of no application from Woolwich in connection with? a crèche.
  Mr. CROOKS: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that our application for £800 to establish a crèche has been in for three weeks?
  Dr. ADDISON: All I say is, I have never seen it. However, I will look it up I come to the last part of the hon. Member's

  1735
  charges, and that is as to the question of wages. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War said that if he could prevent it, or words to that effect, he would not have people sweated in munition works. The hon. Member was good enough to come to me at the Ministry, and we had a very profitable hour on the subject. He criticised this circular which has been issued. It is true that it does not contain all the findings of the tribunals, but it does contain the findings of the tribunals in respect of the rate of wages. The rate for women and girls on time work of eighteen years and over is 4½d. per hour, which is designed to bring in £l per week. The hon. Member seemed to suggest that that might be used by employers to bring down the wages of anybody who was already receiving more than that rate.
  Mr. ANDERSON: No, I did not.
  Dr. ADDISON: If the hon. Member suggests he did not mean that, it did not mean anything.
  Mr. ANDERSON: I did not suggest that. What I did suggest was this: It is not a question of bringing down the wages of those who have got higher wages, but that this wage is really going to be in fact a maximum wage, and that it is altogether insufficient.
  Dr. ADDISON: My point is that it is not in the least a maximum wage. As a matter of fact paragraph 8 provides that the foregoing shall not operate in the case of anyone who has better terms and conditions. In deference to the representations made to us by the hon. Member and the Federation of Women Workers we have drawn up—I saw the draft of it yesterday—an instruction specifically pointing to paragraph (8), and informing employers that where a woman has been receiving a higher rate of pay than that mentioned in the circular, that it will be a contravention of the Order to reduce it. What the Order docs provide is that this shall be the rate of pay per hour for persons on time, namely, 4½d. It is designed to provide £l per week. They are not allowed to be paid less. Yesterday there was a representation in to me from a large group of employers objecting to the Order, and on what ground? Was it on the ground that we were reducing the payment of Women? It was on the ground, inter alia, that they had concluded bargains with the trade union represented by the hon.
  1736
  Member below the Gangway, with the Workers' Union and other unions, which were satisfactory, or had been accepted any way by beth parties, for a lower rate of pay than is provided in this circular, and the objection was that the application of that circular would mean an increase of from 35 per cent, to 40 per cent, in the rate of wages. The hon. Member knows just as well as I do what the conditions of employment are in the case of a large number of women. He knows perfectly well that that circular will do more to improve the rate of pay of women than any other document ever issued by any Department of the State. It applies not to women who are doing men's work, but to women who are doing women's work, and there has never been a document issued by any Department of State which secures to women doing women's work a wage of £1 a week, or anything like it. I quite agree that the circular is open to criticism in some respects, and there are various points with which we hope to deal when we propose to amend it. But it is not fair, and that is why I have risen at this early stage, for the hon. Member to come here and make a speech and lead the House, which has not the full facts before it, to think that, this circular is something which is going to propagate sweating. As a matter of fact—and the organisers of Labour below the Gangway know that what I am saying is true—it will improve the wages of tens of thousands of women in this country, and it could not have been done without the instrumentality of the Ministry of Munitions. I quite agree with the hon. Member that in a revised Order it would be well to deal with Sunday labour and night shifts, and there is going to be a further circular providing that there should be additional pay for that class of work.
  It is true we have not yet applied the circular to every workshop in the country. I think that is to some extent a complaint against us, but I will tell the House why we have not done so. We have not done it, in the first place, because in a good many districts you have small munition works, where the rates of pay and other conditions of labour are so entirely dissimilar from anything contemplated in this Order that we have had to exempt them for the time being, pending inquiry as to what modifications ought to be introduced. We have applied it to all the national factories and to all the large munition areas, and we have already,

  1737
  I believe, brought within the Order far more than half the women employed in munitions outside the national factories—in which case they are automatically included. We have extended it to ammunition, arms, machine tools, shipbuilding, textile, engineering, motor and cycle manufacturing, constructional engineering, and many other trades. There are a few trades, such as electrical engineering, to which it has not yet been applied, because there are some points with regard to wages which we must have cleared up before we can apply it. We are applying it as rapidly as we can throughout the whole country, and we intend to apply it in the spirit and the letter of the undertaking of the Secretary of State for War. I do not think there are any other points dealt with by the hon. Member. I apologise if sometimes there was a touch of warmth in some parts of my reply, but I do feel that, with all the difficulties and burdens of our work in providing glycerine, iron, and the thousand-and-one things which are required, and with all the interests and perplexities with which we have to deal from early morning till late at night, that it is not fair to come down to the House of Commons and issue to the country, to the embarrassment of our work, a statement which will prejudice us in the eyes of the workmen, and which is not correct, and which will lead them to think that we are treating the workers unfairly and not acting up to our pledges and keeping them in the letter and the spirit. I admit that you can find a case here and there, and I could find a great many more than the hon. Member, in which we have not yet been able to do, or even been able to seek out many of the things which require to be dealt with. Rome was not built in a day. The Ministry of Munitions has only had twelve months of life in dealing with these things, and it is doing as well and as vigorously as it can. The right way for the hon. Member to help us is, when he finds a case where he thinks the conditions are not fair, to send on the particulars to us, and not to come to the House of Commons and attack us in general terms, to the prejudice of our work.
  Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I did not intend to join in this Debate, but I am induced to say a few words owing to the very admirable speech of the new Minister of Munitions. If I may, I desire to congratulate him on the grasp and thought he has managed to
  1738
  display in his new Department in which he has been Minister only for a few weeks. It is very true that his predecessor, the present Minister of War, has borne the burden and heat of the day, and did it very well, and that he has handed over to his successor a going concern. It is going very efficiently in the interests of the country, and he said very truly that his work was not completed, that the output must still increase, and go on increasing for some period, so that we may not only produce munitions for our own forces, but for those of our Allies who require them perhaps more than we do. The right hon. Gentleman gave us, in the first part of his speech, a very accurate history of the War, so far as munitions are concerned. He told us what is the truth, that when war broke out we were not prepared. We were only prepared with two things, and those two things saved the country. What were they? The supremacy of the sea by our Navy, and a small Expeditionary Force of 160,000 men. But that little force was able to be sent across the sea in very quick time, and, in my opinion, with the French, that little force stopped the onward rush of the Germans. The right hon. Gentleman gave to the House a very accurate history of his Department. It was a very marvellous record of what has been done during a period of twelve months. I do not think any other country in the world could have done it.
  We found out, after a few months of war, perhaps six or seven months, that this was going to be a trench war. The generals in the field found that out, and we were not prepared for a trench war; and until the right hon. Gentleman took it up and organised the country to produce heavy artillery and heavy shells, we were not prepared for trench warfare. And that is why the War went against us so much at the beginning. Fortunately, things are now different. We have not yet got enough heavy artillery and shells on every part of our line. The right hon. Gentleman said he would not be content until he had sufficient heavy artillery and shell to cover the whole of the British line in the same way as the line of the Somme is covered now. That will be our task Just a word with regard to munition factories. I happen to be acquainted with some of them, some of the most important, and I can tell the House this, without giving any information which would be of use to the enemy, that the way in which these national factories have been put

  1739
  down and grown is simply marvellous. I have got in my mind one of them, I will not say where it is. A little over twelve months ago the place where that factory is now was a swamp, it had to be covered up with cinders, ashes and concrete, and now on thirteen acres of land a factory has been built which is producing two kinds of large shells only. It is not working at quite its full capacity, but it is getting on that way. When I was there the other day I found that half of the workpeople in this factory were women working on big shells. We at first thought that women would not be able to work on large shells, 6 inch and 9.2 inch shells. But may I tell the House how it has been done? It has been done by machinery. The shells have not to be lifted by the women at all, the lifting is done by machinery. Little motor cranes running through the long lines of the building are worked by women who ride on them. These little machines manipulate the shells, carry them to the benches where the women are working, deposit them on the lathes, and all the women have to do is to see that the lathes work properly. It is simply marvellous the way in which these women are working, with the greatest heartiness, with no complaint as to wages; these women are always able to make good wages. It is a new thing for these women to earn the wages they are getting at this moment.
  In connection with the work of making shells and guns, I should like, as an employer of labour, to add my testimony to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the very marvellous way in which we have been supported by labour. What we have done could not have been done without that. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, trade unions from the very beginning behaved most admirably. They dropped regulations which they valued greatly and were willing to give them up at the request of the right hon. Gentleman. They submitted to conditions being put into an Act of Parliament which brought them under the control of the State, and willingly gave up many principles for which they had fought for so many years. I should also like to pay another tribute to the work of the women. I went into one workshop the other day where they were not making shells but were making munitions, but it was work which women had never done before, and which I should not like to see women continually engaged on. It was heavy, hard and dirty work.
  1740
  I went up to one strong woman and asked her how she came to be working there. She said, "My husband wept to* the War. He left me at home with my children. I am a strong woman, and I did not like to be doing nothing. I heard of this job and offered my services." But this is the point of my story. "But, Sir, I dare not tell my husband what I am doing." That is the spirit of the women of England which is going to win the War. Here is a woman doing her very best and doing a thing which she says would hurt her husband's feelings if he heard of it, and so she will not let her husband in the trenches know that she is doing it. The right hon. Gentleman ended his speech by making some remarks as to what is to become of these national factories and controlled firms after the War is over. It is a problem which is giving us a very great deal of thought. There will be a sudden stoppage in the making of shells and guns. What are you going to do with the workpeople, the women and the men? I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman summed up the situation, and we shall want his help and the help of the State to do this thing. It is too big a thing for an employer of labour to do by himself, but it is a question which the State can help us in, and I hope when the War is over, which I sincerely trust may be soon, that we shall have the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman or his successor, and I am sure we shall have the sympathy of the Minister for War, in doing our best in trying to secure that we shall have no labour problem after the War, and that we can utilise these splendid buildings for the purposes of peace.
  Mr. BARNES: We have heard several very notable speeches to-day characterised by a large degree of social consciousness, from which I adduce that after the Waive are not again going to revert to the wretched, miserable industrial squabbling that obtained previously. We have had two very notable speeches from the Front Bench. The first one, if I may venture to say so, was a comprehensive review, not only of the Munitions Department, but a speech characterised by a large vision with regard to the social and political aspect of the country after the War. There are two very notable features of that speech, apart altogether from the Ministry of Munitions, one with regard to women, into which I cannot enter, but which was very welcome to me, and the other with regard to labour. The

  1741
  right hon. Gentleman said that he thanked organised labour for what, I think, he called their statesmanlike position during the War. I welcome that statement, and I think it is only due that that statement should have been made on an occasion of this character. It is perfectly true that labour has given up a great deal for which it had fought long and strenuously. As the hon. Member who has just sat down has said, I hope and believe that these concessions are temporary. The conditions after the War will be such that you cannot go back to exactly the same position as we occupied before, but that there will be a fair and square dealing and that we shall start better than ever before. There are some things that I think experience has taught us during the War have been a great deal better for every body concerned. For instance, there is the question of piece-work. Prior to the War there were variations in piece-work prices, but the variations were always downwards. During the War we have found that piece work can be conducted with advantage without these variations downwards. I believe that if this work after the War is safeguarded in such a way that piece-work prices shall be, I will not say fixed, because there should be no fixing of anything when there are constant improvements of machinery and method, but that some machinery could be devised whereby rates might be fixed and adjusted or where employers would guarantee that a man should be paid some percentage over and above his day's work rate of wages where he was at piece-work on prices fixed by the employer. If those two principles were carried out after the War, piece-work, I believe, would be the best method of industrial remuneration, because it would give a man added interest in his work, would lighten his day's toil, and would increase production to his advantage and to the advantage of the employer and of the community.
  I congratulate the Ministry of Munitions upon the wonderful achievment of turning out an increased production—66 times, I think it was—and upon the fact that we have placed ourselves in a position of meeting, as he says, all the War Office demands, and that in a very short time we will be able to supply the Allies more than we have done in times gone by. I congratulate him upon having reduced prices from America—I think he said about 15 per cent.—and of Canadian products 12 per cent. I trust something may be done
  1742
  in regard to food. In reply to a query by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, the right hon. Gentleman said that that was not his Department. I hope it will become some Department of State before long, and that this collectivist method of adjusting prices and generally supervising industry will only have begun, and will not finish with the Ministry of Munitions. I was very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Enfield management, in regard to the production of rifles. I happen to know something about Enfield. The superintendent of Enfield is an old fellow worker of mine of many years ago when he and I were making an honest living by toil. I am glad to know that his ability has been recognised, and that he has done so well for the State, not only at Enfield, but in the co-ordination of other rifle factories throughout the country. I come to the speech of the right hon. Member who last spoke, on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions. I think he was rather rough on my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe. After all, what are we here for—to hold up the hands of those who work by manual toil? I think my hon. Friend's case was a good one in some respects. It is quite true that the women are getting a great deal better wages in the Ministry of Munitions than they were before.
  Dr. ADDISONmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. BARNES: My right hon. Friend knows that the co-operative movement of this country has not the resources of the State nor the blank cheque which he has, and it has had a minimum wage for women, amounting to 17s. a week, in operation for the last ten years. Before the War, certainly when prices were a great deal less than they are to-day, this voluntary organisation, existing largely upon workmen's wages, paid a wage of which he speaks. How does the right hon. Gentleman pay that £1 a week, or whatever it may be? I happen to know something about it. Take the Manchester district. It is carried out in Manchester in a spirit of meanness. The work in Manchester, generally speaking, is fifty-three hours. There are variations ranging from forty-seven hours a week to the fifty-three. Mather and Platt, Masseys, and Hans Reynolds, among others, only work forty-eight hours a week. Therefore you cannot say conclu-

  1743
  sively the working week in Manchester is fifty-three hours, though you may put it at that. What did the Ministry of Munitions do in regard to the question of the minimum wage for women? The men in the engineering trade, if they work forty-eight hours in a forty-eight hours per week establishment, or if they work forty-seven hours in a forty-seven hours per week establishment, get the standard rate of wages of the district in just exactly the same way as the man who works fifty-three hours. The Ministry of Munitions do not adopt that principle. They have adopted it with the engineers, of course, because the engineers would not work for less. But what do they do with the women? They give the women forty-eight fifty-thirds of £1. The Ministry of Munitions are professing to-day to set up a standard of £1. They say their rate is £1, but they do not pay it. You are introducing at this moment the forty-eight hours per week in the National Munitions Factory in Manchester. You are making three shifts instead of two. Where these women are only working forty-eight hours a week, and where they are practically working short time as a result of the changes brought in by the Ministry of Munitions, their wages are reduced from the rate of the fifty-three hours to that of forty-eight.
  Dr. ADDISON: I think the hon. Member is not quite correct.
  Mr. BARNES: If I am wrong I apologise, but I am told that by one of the duly accredited officers of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, whose men are working alongside these women, and are getting their standard rate of wages, while the women are getting less. If it is not true he has misled me, but I do not think he has. Just a word or two about the deportations. The hon. Member who spoke last on behalf of the Ministry of Munitions had a great deal to say about the iniquities of these men, with which I agree. They were very foolish. "Foolishhess" is the word best applied to them, but resubmit that they have purged their offences. They have been away, many of them, for seventeen weeks. The Ministry has recognised that some of them at all events may come back. While you are doing a handsome thing you might as well do it handsomely. The trade unionists in the district now at all events are making common cause with
  1744
  these men. The other day it was stated from that bench that they had had representations from the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and other societies concerned; therefore we may take it that although the men had been in revolt against the trade unions just as much as against the Ministry of Munitions—they are against society from my point of view, and I have no sympathy with them—the trade unions now have overlooked it. They are in the trade union, and I think that to keep them away now from their homes will appear vindictive, and that the best possible results will be achieved by allowing the men to go back and earn their living and maintain their family, as they desire to do. I am not speaking about the men who are in prison, but only about those who were deported. I want to make that perfectly clear.
  My last point is about the disorganisation and lack of proper inspection in some places. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he had the nucleus of a satisfactory and efficient system of inspection so far as artillery was concerned. I know something about that. I have had to work to within one three-thousandth part of an inch, and I think it is a great pity they have not the same nucleus of an efficient system of inspection so far as the laying out of machinery is concerned and the setting up of factories. I happen to have had some information during the last month or two about this matter, and I know there has been tremendous waste. Shafting has been put up about half a dozen times and taken down. Machinery has been bedded down in some places, and then taken away, and bedded down again in other places. Men sometimes have stood idle for long periods together. I put a question to the Prime Minister some time ago. He would not believe me. He doubted my information as to men who had nothing to do being kept hanging about. He asked me to give him some definite information. At this moment, or, at least, a day or two ago, there was an establishment where men had been hanging about doing absolutely nothing for two or three weeks on end. I have a letter from a friend of mine who is engaged in a manufactory somewhere in the Manchester district. He tells me an extraordinary tale as to how things are worked t-here in regard to the matter of which I speak. A factory, he writes, was to be erected. I am not complaining, he says. I went there with a sincere and loyal intention of being useful,

  1745
  and so on, and he says that, with the exception of five or six second-rate fitters, there was no engineer on the ground. One of these men and himself were the only two persons who appeared to be able to read a drawing.
  He goes on to tell me of an extraordinary condition of things, where the factory had been demolished and the whole place—I do not know whether he means by the factory the bricks and mortar—but the machinery that had been in the factory was shifted 25 miles away, where it was to be re-erected. That machinery, parts of motors, parts of engines, parts of the most delicate machinery, were dumped there in the mud where the new place was to1 be erected, and where it was only with the greatest possible difficulty that they could be extricated and put together again. I happen to know that if you want to take a machine down and put it up again that you ought carefully to mark and number all the parts. That was not done in this case. I am told that it has not been done in many other cases. I trust this will be one of those details which may be taken into account by the Ministry of Munitions, and that the more efficient inspection that now goes on with regard to artillery will be carried out as speedily as possible in regard to the laying down of plant, and so on. I would only again congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who first spoke for the Ministry of Munitions to-day on the splendid achievement of which he spoke. We all acknowledge, and also welcome, the statement that he made on behalf of the Ministry as to labour. So far as I can voice the views of Labour, Labour looks forward to a time after this War when it will cease to be a mere dead commodity, bought and sold like boots and shoes. Labour is looking forward to the time when it will be taken into active and intelligent co-operation with the Departments of State, in order that we may have a better system of industry than we have had in times gone by. Labour looks forward to the time when every man and every woman will have a decent standard of living, and be taken into intelligent citizenship.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps I may be permitted, as the late Minister of Munitions, to join those who have taken part in the Debate in congratulating my right hon. Friend upon his lucid and very eloquent speech. I have only intervened because of two or three statements which
  1746
  have been made in the course of the Debate. The Ministry of Munitions, I think, has a good right to felicitate itself on the absence, on the whole, of criticism after twelve months of very strenuous work which has interfered a great deal with industry and with both employer and employed, and which, naturally, in the course of such work must have thrown a good many things out of gear. The first thing which I should like to challenge—it has been effectively challenged by my right hon. Friend (Dr. Addison)—is the statement by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. It was a challenge of my action—personal to myself. The hon. Member for Attercliffe quoted a pledge which I gave earlier, and soon after the formation of the Ministry, that so far as the work of the Ministry was concerned we would not permit women's sweated labour in any work done by the women for them. What was the action we took to carry out that pledge? First of all, we set up a Labour Supply Committee, which contained representatives of the trade unions themselves, including the Women's Labour movement. That Committee adopted unanimously a recommendation in the form of a circular to all the works in the Kingdom, and that circular was accepted by the Ministry of Munitions without a single alteration. What is still more, that circular was carried out.
  Mr. BARNES: Prices were different then.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I carried out every recommendation that came from the Labour Supply Committee. If that Committee thought that the change in prices justified increasing wages, it was for them to make the recommendation to that effect. Every recommendation that came from, them was adopted. I want to call attention to one fact, that Miss Mary McArthur, who, I believe, is challenging the action of the Ministry of Munitions, is a member of that Committee. If there is a single case in which that circular has not been carried out, I want to know why it has not been brought to the notice of the Ministry of Munitions? It is no use making general charges against a busy Department. These cases ought to be brought to their notice. How was it they were never brought to the notice of the Ministry? It is not fair to-make charges in the House of Commons, and to send articles to newspapers arraigning the conduct of the Ministry of Munitions, when not a single case was

  1747
  brought to their notice that was not redressed. Where are those cases? I am not complaining of my right hon. Friend. He brought a case to the notice of my right hon. colleague. I have no doubt it will be seen to. He acknowledges that, through the action of the Ministry of Munitions, the wages of women have been put up far beyond what they were before. There is a great difference between that and the strident criticism, or, rather, strident nagging, we are getting accustomed to from the hon. Member for Attercliffe. If he has any grievance, let him bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend. He never brought a grievance to my notice without having it attended to, and I am perfectly certain the same would apply in the case of my right hon. Friend. I venture to say that the action initiated by the Ministry of Munitions to humanise the conditions of labour in the course of twelve months will tell a tale that will effect an industrial revolution in the course of the next few years. Things have been done which are just beginning to improve conditions of life in the factory, and I think those things at any rate deserve one word of commendation from those who specially claim to represent Labour in this House, and do represent it in this House. It is not fair where criticisms have been passed that one word of recognition should not be given to the volunteers, men who have given up their work during these twelve months in order to improve conditions in the workshop. I think they deserve one word of encouragement, and I was very glad to hear what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Black-friars Division of Glasgow.
  The pledge which I gave with respect to women's wages has been kept. If it has not been kept, I ask why the cases in which it was not kept were not brought to my notice? Wherever they were brought to my notice, they were set right. I cannot help thinking the real grievance is the absence of grievance. There was no cause at all for complaint, and it was very difficult to keep the organisation going under these conditions. That is the real grievance—that we carried out, through the instrumentality of a Government Department, conditions which have been fought for for years, and even generations, with regard to women's labour. My right hon. Friend referred to the co-operative movement, where there was a minimum wage of
  1748
  17s. a week. The minimum wage set up by the Ministry of Munitions was 20s. a week.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Seventeen shillings before the War.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not know at all whether that 17s. has gone up to 20s. in the co-operative movement; perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me.
  Mr. HODGE: There has been a war bonus.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: How much?
  Mr. HODGE: I cannot tell you.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Perhaps my right hon. Friend can. I should be very much surprised if it is 20s.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: There is all the difference in the world in the work.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can only assure my hon. Friend of the fact that women have never earned such pay. And to talk as if women were only getting 20s. a week! There are places where they are earning, not merely 30s. to 35s., but are running up to £3 and £4 a week. Women have never earned so much, and the complaints are not coming from the women, but they are complaints manufactured on their behalf. They are working under conditions such as they have never worked under before, and they are very delighted with the work—work which this country will never forget. I should like to say one or two words with regard to munitions. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Colonel Archer-Shee)—I have nothing to say about the tone of his criticisms—said there was still a good deal of improvement which could be effected both in quality and quantity. That is quite clear, but if he knew the improvement which has been effected in both I believe he would be amazed. I can tell him one thing about quality. There is no harm in saying it now. My right hon. Friend in his speech said that we have always had troubles with "prematures" and "blinds." First of all, you have the "prematures" which burst the gun, and then you have to put in delaying action in order to prevent a "premature" inside the gun or just outside. That resulted in a "blind." The delaying action had the effect of preventing the shell exploding until perhaps some time after it had dug itself into the earth,

  1749
  when the explosion became a perfectly harmless one. That would happen. At the battle of Loos the "prematures" were so bad that we had to give up firing such high-explosive shells as we had. You have nothing of the kind now. I have just come back from the front, where I had a very long conversation with the general in charge of the Artillery, and he spoke in the highest terms of the improvement in the quality of the shell. The "prematures" had been very few, notably in the bigger and heavier guns.
  You will always have "prematures"; you cannot avoid them. Every Army in the world has got them. At first the French Army and the Russian Army, and, from information we have got, the German Army, suffered very severely. It was a very serious state of things in all those Armies at one time. Why? The use of high explosives was a perfectly new thing for all of us, and it was a very uncertain quantity. They never knew quite how they would operate, and the result was that in all the Armies there were very serious premature explosions which destroyed the guns. We had to go through that process as well, but we began our high explosives very much later than they did, and, therefore, our "prematures" came very much later than the French and German "prematures." They had their "prematures" in February and March, 1915. We hardly fired any high explosives until late in that year because we had not got them, and therefore our "prematures" came months later than those of the French, the Russians, and Germans, and we had to go through the same process of gradually eliminating the dangerous element. Now that is a thing of the past. Our "prematures" are so few that the number is almost negligible. There is no danger from that point of view. We are still coping with the "blinds," but that is a matter which is gradually and steadily improving. With the old ammunition you had more "blinds." You have steadily fewer and fewer as the process of manufacture improves, and what is still more important is that the kind of fuses and the filling improve.
  8.0 P.M.
  The House must remember we had to improvise a hugh organisation and get workmen who had never seep a shell in their lives. Anybody who sees a shell with a fuse knows what a delicate business it is and how many parts there are
  1750
  You have to fill I do not know how many—something like sixty or seventy parts—little bits of things you can barely see. If any one of those goes wrong you have cither a "premature" or a "blind." You had girls, and very often managers, who had never seen a shell before. They go through the process of acquiring experience and knowledge, and the things they turned out at first were by no means their best. The first output was bound to be deficient or inadequate. They are mastering their trade; they are getting better and better. The old stuff which has accumulated in France is the worst. They have fired most of that off. Now you have the newer and the better stuff. The fuse is improved and is continuing to improve, and I venture to say in a very short time the ammunition which will be fired from the British guns will be about the best ammunition in the whole area of the War. The hon. and gallant Member talked about the German shell as if it were perfect. It is nothing of the kind. A friend of mine happened to find a shell in a trench which had been fired at with the German 5.9. About a dozen of these shells fell quite near him—uncomfortably near him. Out of the twelve, five were "blind." That is a very high percentage—about forty-five. No one ever imagines that our percentage is anything approaching that. Luckily for him, the one that fell nearest him was also a "blind," otherwise he would not have been there to tell me the story. I met another friend of mine the other day who saw sixty German shells fired into a village close by. The vast majority of them were blind. Probably the reason for that was that that particular village was not near the battlefield, and the older and inferior ammunition was used there, the better ammunition being reserved for the battlefield. They are suffering from the same difficulties as we are, and they are probably reducing this difficulty, and we are doing the same thing. With regard to quantity, as my right hon. Friend said, we are able to supply now week by week. We are able to supply now week by week the expenditure, and the amount of shell which has been sent is increasing week by week, notably in the heavier natures, and that is the important point. That is perfectly right. The number of guns is increasing very rapidly, and, as the number of guns increases, the quantity of ammunition required for them

  1751
  must also increase. It is increasing steadily; and my right hon. Friend is looking forward to a very rapid and a very considerable increase on a very gigantic scale. The national factories set up during the autumn have not approached anywhere near their maximum output. In setting up factories the first thing you have to do is to get the machinery; you have to get the tool-makers and the machines to make the guns, and then you have to make the shells. We have ordered as many machines as we can get from America. Now these factories are beginning to fill up with machinery, and you have to get the labour, but the organisation is getting complete, and before the end of this year you will have an output of heavy shells which will be quite adequate to the enormous increase which has been effected in the guns of the larger calibre. Not only that, but I think we shall be able to spare a very considerable quantity of both for our Allies. We have already supplied a very considerable number of guns to our Allies, as well as ammunition of a heavy nature. We hope to be able to do this on an even larger scale early next year, and they are looking forward to our redemption of that promise.
  From the point of view of quality and quantity we have not yet reached the maximum. The Ministry of Munitions is working very hard improving both the quantity and the quality. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has said is absolutely correct, for it would be fatal to say, "Here we are, we have done our best, and we can do no more." We shall have to go on improving and increasing our output until victory is secured. From what I know is going on, I may say that I have never seen men at the front so satisfied, especially men who last year were so full of doubt. The House would be simply appalled to hear of the dangers we had to run last year. We always assumed that we are the only people who make mistakes. That is the only way for us to improve. But when I think of the chances the Germans had last year, and which they did not take, well, I am full of gratitude, and when they get to know it, it will make them feel very unhappy, as unhappy as they deserve. Those who know the conditions last year with regard to big guns and shells and our reserves, and how now the munitions are pouring
  1752
  in at a prodigious rate, will be extremely grateful to those in this country who have taken part in supplying munitions to the Army. They will be grateful to the employers and the men, and especially to those volunteers who gave their time to improve the output of our munitions.
  I wanted to say something about shields, but I do not know that it is a question that can be discussed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he had invented a shield. There is no difficulty in finding a man who has invented a shield. I am very glad of it, because it is an indication of the feeling that there is a real heed for something of that kind. Most of our poor fellows who have been stricken down by machine gun fire have a feeling that something might be done to protect them when they are advancing to the attack. The first difficulty is that if you have a shield sufficient to protect a man it is too heavy to carry, but I do not think that is a difficulty which is insuperable. The second difficulty in this respect is that of the men themselves; they have such a prejudice against them because they have enough to carry already, and when you know the amount they have to carry with them you will not be at all surprised that they should object. At first they felt that the helmet was an encumbrance, and it was only when they realised what a protection it was, how many lives it, had saved, and how many wounds it had spared them, that they changed their opinion, and now the helmet of the soldier is inseparable, and they will not now go anywhere near a trench without it. They like it now that they have got accustomed to it, and they regard it as a friend, and I cannot help thinking that once we begin the custom, they may feel the same thing in regard to shields. That is a matter which we will undoubtedly consider.
  On this question we are negotiating and organising, and we have to do so in such a way as to save the lives of our gallant fellows as much as we possibly can. I believe our heavy artillery has accomplished that to a large extent It is amazing the trenches they carry now with a comparatively small loss of life. Trenches which last year would have cost thousands of lives and tens or thousands of casualties, now they are able to carry hundreds of yards, and sometimes a mile of trenches, with a comparatively small loss of life, and

  1753
  this is largely due to our tremendous artillery preparation. The House, I am sure, will be delighted to know that our men at the front are full of spirit and confidence and eagerness. I have never seen men so cheerful; it is not the cheerfulness of ignorance, but it is the cheerfulness of men who have been through it. They are full of confidence and determination and hope, and they have a sense right through from one end to the other that victory is certain. I am perfectly certain that the work which my two right hon. Friends are undertaking, and which has enabled my right hon. Friend to give such a report of will be welcome to these fine soldiers of ours, which our French Allies spoke of with an enthusiasm which would have warmed your hearts. As a rule the soldier requires two or three years' training, whereas many of our soldiers have only had six months' training. They are amazed by their skill and their valour. It is almost impossible to conceive that humanity could face such terrible perils so cheerfully and calmly. What has surprised our Allies and everybody else is that men with only six months' training should behave as if they were veterans. These soldiers have the making of men who will win the battle for our country, and I am heartily glad that my right hon. Friend has supplied them with such a magnificent equipment of guns and munitions which will enable them to beat their way through without undue loss.
  Mr. PRINGLE: As during the last twelve months I have been a critic of the policy of my right hon. Friend, perhaps he will not think it amiss if I now offer him my congratulations upon his achievements in the office of Minister of Munitions. I am sure we are all gratified to recognise that the greatest achievement of all, namely, the increase of our heavy artillery, is solely due to the right hon. Gentleman who is not a professional soldier. I regret, however, that my right hon. Friend had nothing to say in response to the appeal made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Black-friars Division (Mr. Barnes) on the question of the deportees.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the difficulty was that they could not get back without being found something to do. "Satan finds some mischief still for idle hands to do," and the temptation might have been too strong for them if they had nothing to do. I understand that arrange-
  1754
  ments have now been made to find work for them in one of the Government factories and that five of them will come back as soon as possible.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement, but that leaves one recalcitrant unaccounted for. I think even now it would be well for the Government to show clemency towards them all. I can understand that there are differences in the circumstances of the individual cases, but surely the long time these people have been removed from their homes is sufficient to purge any offence they have committed. The House should remember that they have never been accused of any offence up to the present, and no charge has ever been stated against them. Surely deportation for the period the5' have been deported is a sufficient punishment for a charge which cannot be formulated in a Court of law. Apart from the considerations regarding their alleged offences, I think this is a case where the Government would be well advised in allowing all the men to come back. I do not think any injurious results would ensue. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division is well qualified to speak for the orthodox trades unions, and he has informed the House that the unions are now making common cause with the men, and surely it is in the interests of the Ministry of Munitions to make this concession when it is sought for by the official organisations to which in the past the Minister of Munitions has always paid attention. When we are speaking of clemency, it might be worth while in the near future to consider clemency in the case of some of the men who have been put on trial and sentenced. I am of opinion that at the present time the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in relation to some of these men would certainly do-good. I know two of the men who were put on trial and convicted, and I have been assured that it would be regarded as a graceful act on the part of the Minister if at this stage the Royal Prerogative was exercised in their favour. I hope that my right hon. Friends will take this consideration into account when they come to a decision. There is only one other point with regard to the speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions and of the Secretary of State for War to which I would like to allude, and that is their singular sensitiveness to

  1755
  criticism. After all, both right hon. Gentlemen have admitted that in this matter of women's employment they are heartily desirous of improving the conditions. It is one of the main objects which the Ministry of Munitions have set before them in this vast extension of the employment of women. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Department has admitted that there are many cases where they have to deal with recalcitrant employers. Surely it must be an aid to them, in dealing with these recalcitrant employers, to be able to point to the criticism which is taking place in this House as a lever for obtaining further improvement. I think that every Department which is interesting itself in obtaining improvements, instead of deprecating criticism in this House, should welcome it as a means of facilitating the improvements which they think so desirable.
  Mr. HODGE: The Minister of Munitions painted a very glowing picture of what the Ministry has done, and my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division (Mr. Anderson) said that he would endeavour to put in the light and shade, and well he succeeded. May I say, as one representing a very important industry in which, although very few women are employed, there are a great number of general labourers, that whenever we have had cause to complain that employers were treating the men harshly when they had asked for advances of wages as a consequence of the great increase in the cost of living we have always found the Ministry of Munitions most sympathetic towards those low-paid men. It is only fair, when we condemn them for their misdeeds, that we should praise them for their good deeds. My hon. Friend complained of the slowness of arbitration cases. Unfortunately, I have had a great many cases where we have been in dispute with employers respecting increases of wages and where we have had to go for arbitration. The delay has not been with the Ministry of Munitions, but with that Department of the Board of Trade who are in charge of this particular aspect of labour difficulties. When we have agreed with employers upon war bonuses, I have always found that the Ministry of Munitions have given their decision very promptly. We had two cases in South Wales not so very long ago. A joint recommendation came from two Conciliation Boards with respect to an increase of the war bonus, and within fourteen
  1756
  days the Ministry of Munitions had given their sanction with the addendum, "Do not do it again!" The greatest trouble has been the delay in getting Arbitration Courts appointed, and thereafter in getting the Arbitration Courts to consent. If the Ministry of Munitions could bring any influence to bear upon that particular Department they would do a great deal of good, because, in my own personal experience, these delays have a most exasperating and irritating effect upon the workmen, and in a great many instances so dishearten the men that the output is not so good as otherwise it would be.
  I should like to deal with the question of holidays. The Ministry of Munitions have had a very difficult task to perform in connection with the proposal that holidays should be taken by relays. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the Committee that was set up, and of pointing out how impossible the relay system is so far as the iron and steel trades are concerned, and that it ought to be done by units. I am afraid that, while they have in the various Departments of the Ministry of Munitions men who are practical steel makers, they have not men with the practical knowledge which the workman possesses, and as a consequence they have not been able to bring to bear on this particular phase of the question that knowledge which is absoluely essential for the proper handling of it. I have had the opportunity of pointing out that if in the larger works they were to put complete units off at a time, then, so far as the output is concerned, it would be increased. There is one instance in the West of Scotland where the holidays ought to have taken place in the second week in July. The firm work up to that particular time, looking to it for the purpose of general repairs, general cleaning up, and the cleaning of the flues. Good furnaces, as that particular time comes on, begin to lag behind; moderate furnaces become bad; and bad furnaces become hopeless. The result of working past that time has been that the output has absolutely gone down. A thousand tons less pig-iron were requisitioned for August than for July, whereas if the cleaning had taken place at the proper time the requisition would have been for 1,000 tons more instead of 1,000 tons less. That shows that the Department is not so efficiently equipped with practical men as it ought to be, and I would suggest that if a committee were appointed from both employers and workmen to co-operate

  1757
  with the Department they would get a great deal of useful and valuable information.
  We all know that at the present moment the great thing is steel, more steel, and still more steel. During the last fortnight complaints have come from various employers as to the quantity of pig-iron supplied to them for August being reduced by 75 per cent. One firm, in particular, working on shell steel says that a third, if not 50 per cent., of the furnaces must be damped down. The quantity has been reduced so low that to make shell steel becomes almost an impossibility, and, at any rate, they cannot make it so efficiently as they could if they were getting the proper quantity.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, except to tell him that the Committee that he suggests is about to be appointed.
  Mr. HODGE: Well, I have written to the Department about that enormous reduction in the quantity of pig-iron by which those two particular firms have been cut down. But, in my opinion, a matter of that kind should be dealt with much more promptly than seems evident. I have written to the right hon. Gentleman, suggesting that I was prepared to come down and talk matters over with him so that he could deal with practical things, and leave the theorists to plan and letting the practical men carry out the work.
  Dr. ADDISONmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. HODGE: I am talking about the Minister of Munitions; I am talking about your chief, now. I know that when the Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions has any question to ask respecting the iron and steel trade he is always ready to consult either myself or my assistant, and I believe we have been able to give very real assistance to the Department. That is what we desire. We want to be of real value, and that is the reason why I am seeking to impress on the Ministry the necessity of trusting less to the theorists and more to the practical men. Again, I want to make a grumble about the methods of payments so far as holidays are concerned. We in the trade with which I am connected have never in the past been asked to work on holidays save on very rare occasions. When these rare occasions have been presented to us we
  1758
  have always made our own arrangements with the employers with regard to what we are going to receive for working in the holidays. We are not like the engineers or the various other trades, which start on Monday morning. Take the case of the Bank holiday, for example. Our men have to work on the Sunday, on the Sunday night, on the Monday and the Monday night, and on the Tuesday and on the Tuesday night, but the holidays for the other people was supposed to be Monday and Tuesday. Yet they put us off, who sacrificed all these days, with the Monday and Tuesday. There is no question of either the Monday night or the Sunday night. There, again, you have people dealing with a problem which they do not understand. I see the chief sinner under the Gallery. We have tried to communicate to them how unfair the treatment is as compared with other trades, and there is this much to be said, that there has been no body of workmen in the whole country so loyal as the iron and steel workers have been. They have never given you any trouble, and that is probably the reason why you cut them down to a bare quarter for two paltry days when they had to give up their Sunday evening and Monday night. It seems to me that people who make the most noise get the most out of you. I want that changed, and I want the Department to pay very much more attention to the protests which we have sent them than they have so far done. As a general rule, I come down to the Department and fight these things out. But I am taking the opportunity on this occasion of showing that although I do that the time does come when it is necessary to do some shouting inside this House. I believe it will do good to the Department as a whole, because if we were all to keep quiet they might become too angelic in disposition, and think they could do no wrong. As a matter of fact, they would think so much of themselves that it would be necessary to take their coats off to see whether or not their wings were beginning to sprout. So my hope is that the criticism to which the Department has been subjected to-day will be of very great advantage so far as the Department itself is concerned.
  I only want to say one word more, that is about the women workers. So far as the iron and steel trade is concerned, we have had very little trouble in that respect, but there was one firm employing women which was breaking L 2 circular

  1759
  Unfortunately, the women did not know the conditions which existed previously to their undertaking this task. When they made an appeal to me I appeared before the Supply Committee, and was able to give them such information that a decision was given in the women's favour. There is only one other point, namely, the question of the soldiers being utilised in a steel works in South Wales. The information that I have got was that the men were utilised in general labour there. We have between 600 and 800 soldiers working in the steel trade, and in only three single instances have we had any trouble about the men being denied their civilian rights. That was in a works where the firm would have had all their workmen as soldiers under military discipline if they could. But immediately we made representations to the Ministry of Munitions the matter was put right, and the men were given their full civilian liberty. So it appears to me that in a good many instances where soldiers are being badly treated it is the result of the lack of effective action so far as their trade union is concerned, or is an instance, unfortunately, of the men having no trade union to back them up. But I feel confident, in a case of that kind, however mighty the individual to whom representations were made, that if they had gone direct to the Ministry of Munitions they would have received the same satisfaction as we have had in every instance when we have placed these matters before them.
  Sir W. ESSEX: We have had two or three very glowing and interesting speeches from the Front Bench dealing with this Vote for the Ministry of Munitions, and I do not doubt that all those Members of the House who have been privileged to hear those speeches can have hardly failed to have drawn some small degree of comfort from the statements made by the three Ministers. I suppose that never in the history of the world has so gigantic an enterprise, or anything approaching it, been launched with such surprising suddenness upon a people, or has attained within so comparatively short space of time such unparalleled efficiency and success. I am not going to say that I, for a moment, would claim for the Ministry of Munitions perfection in all its doings. But the more I see of its work—in going up and down the country, as I have been privileged to do, and in taking stock of or in endeavouring to form a conjecture of the
  1760
  great difficulties that have had to be surmounted and the problems that have had to be solved—the more: ready do I find myself to excuse any apparent shortcomings, in view of the enormous achievements in the face of the great difficulties and obstacles which have had to be overcome. I made up my mind to say a few words on this Vote to-day, more particularly because of the complaints made by one or two of my Friends in this House about the women's labour and the conditions affected.
  I hope I am not unpatriotic when I say that, apart from the more direct question involved in the War, the business which more than any other engrossed my attention and stimulated my imagination was this new departure of the State in the employment of women. I have not been altogether unfamiliar in my life with factory organisation and methods, but I am bound to say I felt myself an old-fashioned person when I have been able to go up and down some of these gigantic factories and to see women of all classes standing up to jobs in foundries, in forges, in factories, in chemical laboratories, and in many other industries, and undertaking work where it had seemed to me it was quite impossible a woman could profitably put forth her energies or enter into any useful labour. Women may be seen by the hundred to-day standing up in our munition works in front of gigantic lathes. I have a picture in my mind of women each in charge of a couple of big drills turning out huge shells, and doing it apparently thoroughly well, tranquilly and easily, and, if it be not treason to say so in the presence of some of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, doing it not only with an efficiency equal to that of their predecessors in the job of the male sex, but, in many cases, largely exceeding their prewar out-turn with similar machines. The army of women so employed, we have been told to-day, amounts to no fewer than 400,000. The figure is a staggering one, and that so slight and slender a set of charges can be brought in this House against the whole treatment of this newly-formed organisation of the present system employing these 400,000 women is, to my mind, the most splendid testimony that could possibly be offered to the successful working out of the many questions involved in this most intricate of all problems.
  It may be stated, without the slightest possible fear of contradiction, that at

  1761
  least 98 per cent, of these women had never been in the workshop before in anything approaching the conditions as to labour which they meet with there. The materials which they have to handle, to say nothing of the tools with which they deal, were entirely unknown to them and beyond all possible experience they could have had. While they have been brought there and organised, the very fact that they are women has introduced a lot of difficult problems which will have to be solved concurrently with the organisation of their labour and the provision of the necessary things to make it more efficient. To show more clearly how eagerly solicitous the Department has been, as far as possible to make the utmost endeavour to secure the comfort, and well-being of these women and to enhance the ease and the general good ordering of their lives under these new conditions, I may say that I was passing through a very large chemical factory, and a brilliant young woman doctor came to me. I had to put to her a number of questions—that was my mission— to whether there were any shortcomings upon which she could put her skilled finger, so that we might have them remedied. She pointed out one or two small unimportant things. Then she said there was one thing which had been revealed to her—she was a woman of high scientific attainments—that was the action of a certain chemical upon the women's teeth. Some of these diabolic compounds which go to the composition of these explosive powders and concoctions had within them a chemical which brought about a decay of the teeth, and this woman doctor who had charge of about 1,200 women was getting very anxious about this matter. In less than a fortnight after bringing the matter before the Minister of Munitions we had the satisfaction of knowing that proper steps had been taken to obviate in the future any peril to any woman from this cause, if she would herself take any reasonable care, and not only as regards these 1,200 women so employed in this particular factory, but also as regards their sisters similarly employed in the enormous chemical industries in which they are working up and down the length and breadth of the land.
  Then there came the trouble of clothing. There we had to find out one or two difficulties and present them to the Ministry of Munitions. For women wheeling coke or standing up stoking furnaces, the
  1762
  ordinary garb was quite unsuitable: indeed, that women should be employed at all in such work would strike many persons as a thing not to be thought of. Immediately they were put to that work, which they were eager to undertake, it was found that their clothing was unsuitable, and a whole string of experiments had to be made for this mysterious creature woman to fit her for her new duties and to help her to discharge them efficiently. They must have spent a very considerable amount of trouble in going into this matter. It seems to us, as men, a simple thing, but at any rate they seem now, from all I have heard, in these particular Departments to have solved that trouble. The women's uniforms up and down the country vary of course, according to the duties they have to undertake, and they must strike all who have observed them not only as useful and comely, but also as reflecting credit on the fatherly care which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions has exercised over the many thousands of the daughters of Eve who look to him as their protector. I will not labour that question further.
  There was one point of discomfort or disquiet to my mind in the statement made by the Minister of Munitions when he spoke, in an aside but in a significant and thought-provoking way, about the German progress still going on in the amount of munitionment for its Army. That was followed by some remarks which fell from the hon. Member for the Gorton Division (Mr. Hodge), and led me to ask myself whether the Ministry is doing all it might to avail itself of steel supplies from outside countries. If the Germans are still increasing their munitionment and the ratio is growing with them as we are glad to believe it is growing with us, we have to remember that we are under one great disadvantage, namely, that our Allies, to a large extent by the adroitness of the Germans in choosing their fields of action, have been robbed of their steel-producing areas. Whether it is in the Polish district, in Belgium, or in Northern France, those are all swept away and go to swell the German opportunity of production. Something was said by the Minister of Munitions about his hoping presently to be independent of American supplies with regard to large shells. Knowing, as I do, that there is a constant clamour coming from one part of the country and another for steel billets

  1763
  for shell making, I wondered whether he might not possibly be under the perilous temptation of hesitating to import steel as freely as possible from America or elsewhere, even though it might seem to be beyond his immediate requirements or needs, and even though he might feel his present needs were amply supplied by the home product. For there is this to be said about it, that steel in billets can hardly be looked upon as the finished product of the shell. If, of course, the War were to end to-morrow, the steel would be of value to us in this country—a depreciated value, of course (because the market would be lessened) and the shells would not. I hope, inasmuch as it is generally agreed, I fancy, that many of the American mills are turning out most excellent steel, we shall not hear the complaints that reach many of us from one factory after another that there is a shortage of steel. As one manufacturer said to me the other day, "After putting up three big stamps, I have only been able to keep one employed throughout the whole time I have had a contract in hand for making munitions." There is, of course, a side-line of comfort in that statement. If his experience is like that of many others and he is only working one-third of his capacity, we have foreshadowed there a large margin of possible addition to the already gigantic output of the Department when once we have speeded them up.
  I got very great comfort from another statement that came from the Minister. It had to do with factory costs. In going up and down the country and noticing the great townships of factories—they can hardly be described in any other way—which the titanic energy of the previous Minister of Munitions had erected pretty nearly everywhere, I have often said, "What is to be done with these hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of pounds worth of buildings when the War is over?" But when he to-day said that the very fact that we have gone in so wholseale a fashion into the building of factories for munition products would not ultimately be a loss to us but that the splendid buildings would actually be paid for in a sense by so increasing our competition with foreign production as to compel them to lower their prices to us. I felt greatly helped because this had seemed to me to be a tremendous expenditure which looked as though there could be no off-setting advantage to look forward to in any way, I
  1764
  do not know whether I make myself clear, but that is just how the matter presents itself to me. Side by side with that thought came this: As an old Liberal I have been one of those who all my life have shouted out against war expenditure, and when in my tours up and down the country I have gone into some of our old factories—Woolwich, for instance—and have contrasted these antique structures with the modern equipment which the Ministry has given to this country, I have felt that, to a large extent, we have been penny wise and pound foolish. Any man who goes through some of these old ordnance factories to-day, not to enlarge the list of factories and works having to do with military and naval needs, must have been struck with their out-of-date character and the extravagance that is necessary in their working owing to the fact that they have been put together in piecemeal fashion, and have been added to from time to time in a parsimonious and niggling way, and machinery has been allowed to stand which, in many cases, must have cost more to work in a very short space of time than would a new and more efficient machine had it been put in its place. Possibly, however, some of these old factories are doomed. I hope they are. Certainly they cannot hold their own with many of the new ones, and I take it that at least out of this War we shall come with the determination that what war we have to do or to provide for we will, at any rate, see it is carried on in a workmanlike way.
  I think the Minister—although he gave us a long speech—it was not a minute too long; a good sermon is never too long for me, and his was an excellent one—might have gone on and claimed for the country something as a by-product out of this orgy of expenditure. What are we going to have out of it at the finish? We are going to have peace; we are going to have security, and the gain of liberty for the peoples. All that we know. But in the hard matter of pounds, shillings and pence is there nothing more coming to the country? I think there is. I think the byproducts of this Armageddon are going to be real and substantial. I know the price we shall pay for it will be enormous, but we shall not begrudge it, or a tithe or a hundredth of it, but a great by-product will be that our mechanical industry and our chemical industry, and all the industries which are touched—and hardly an industry is not touched more or less intimately—will have been revivified, modernised, and invigorated to an incredible-

  1765
  degree, and that must of necessity react on the whole industrial work of our Empire, and will not only maintain but enormously enhance all the advantages which as a manufacturing nation we have hitherto enjoyed. I heard the hon. Member (Mr. Hodge) speak just now about theorists, and say that the Minister was wrong in consulting them. Does he not know that in the Ministry of Munitions to-day the energy of the previous incumbent of the office has laid hold of some of the very ablest organisers of industry which this country has got? There is not one of the allied trades with which the Ministry has to do, any in which we have not, whether as engineers, civil or mechanical, or as chemists, or what not, or in the mere organisation of industry, some of the very ablest men the country can provide; and when England puts herself to work to put upon the floor of a factory or an office the ablest business man or the ablest mechanic, there are not many countries which are going to beat us at that, and some of the finest in the world are in the service of the Minister of Munitions to-day.
  That is not enough. These men are going up and down, week in and week out, month in and month out, energising the thousands of factories which are under the control of the Ministry of Munitions, bringing them up to date in their workshop methods, making them acquainted in many cases I know with tools, the like of which they had no previous knowledge of save by hearsay, bringing them up also to new methods, new systems and organisation until—this is the common testimony of many of the proprietors of these factories—"We did not know our business until we got linked up with the Ministry of Munitions." You are able by this aggregation of the manufacturing industries of the country here employed to level up the whole, and that, I take it, would be a byproduct of incalculable value to the industry of this country, and must enormously affect it for good and make for our advantage in the future competition with other races of the world. Out of this, at any rate, we shall emerge, I am perfectly certain, with a capacity and a knowledge and an efficiency which will give us not the slightest room for fear of any German methods that we may have to meet. The comforting thing with which the whole oration closed was in the reflection, put in language hardly to be surpassed, of a nation's uprising to a national cause and
  1766
  the outflow to an unparalleled degree of patriotism of the noblest order. The sacrifice of men and women of all ranks and of all classes, from the highest to the lowest, from the eldest to the youngest, has been magnificent. This Department is the greatest of all the Departments of the State to-day, the greatest and, I believe, one of the most efficient, although it is one of the youngest. Working with its kindred services, the Army and the Navy, it has shown that this old country, turning aside from the slumbering methods of peace, has plunged into this gigantic business of war, and the reshaping of the world. May God bring us out of it possessed of benefits, gathered even from this bloody tree, and may we be enabled to find out of all this welter of expenditure, heart-ache, and sorrow, something which shall come not merely as the fruit of bitterness only, but as the product of a time which shall make our race still higher and still worthier of the pre-eminence which in the days gone by our forefathers struggled for and won.
  Mr. TYSON WILSON: I was very surprised at the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He has spoken as one who has had some experience of organising labour, while I have had experience of the organising of workshops. I do wish he could get into touch with some of the practical men who are working for some of these munition factories, and hear what they have to say, men who know how to work machines and how to utilise them to the best possible advantage. If he only heard what they say with regard to the method of supervision and organising of these workshops I am quite certain he would change his views in regard to what they are now. At any rate, I must say this, that speaking as one who has had something to do with organising workshops and the control of workmen, I think his knowledge of organising is of the most elementary description that can possibly-be imagined. I gather from what has been said during the time that I have been in the House that we have had the whitewash bucket here, and that we have had the brush, which has applied it pretty freely with regard to the Munitions Department. I should like to say that when it comes to dealing equitably and justly with the men who are doing the work in the Munitions Department, the Ministry of Munitions, and the Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, have not given

  1767
  that consideration to the claims of the men they might have done. To my own knowledge these questions ought to have been, and would have been, settled if they had been left to a committee composed of the men and the employers. I know that the Ministry of Munitions is sheltering itself behind the Committee on Production. I do not want to say anything harsh about the Committee on Production. They have not that practical knowledge required for dealing with, I will not say the demarcation, but the allocation of certain work. Let me give a case in point. I believe that at the Falkirk Ironworks Company, which is a controlled establishment, they have men employed in making munition boxes. The local people made certain arrangements with the representative of the company with regard to the wages that ought to be paid to the men when they were employed on munition boxes. By the way, a great deal of skill is not required for the making of munition boxes. Some skill is required, and some knowledge of the use of tools is required, but they approached the managers or the directors of the Falkirk Ironworks Company with regard to the wages to be paid. The wages paid by the company to the men in their employment previous to the manufacture of munition boxes was 7½d. an hour. They came to the conclusion that, seeing that other firms were paying 10½d. an hour, they could not pay less to the men engaged on munition boxes. They were employed on munition boxes at 10½d. an hour, and as time went on the orders for the boxes fell off, and three or four men employed on these boxes were transferred to the ordinary work of the department.
  9.0 P.M.
  I want the House to remember that while they are working on munition boxes they are using certain tools and certain material, and when they are turned off the munition boxes on to the ordinary work of the company they were still using the same tools and the same material. To their surprise, however, at the end of the first week on the ordinary work they found their wages reduced from 10½d. an hour, which had been agreed upon as the proper rate for work on munition boxes, to 7£d. an hour, 3d. less than they were receiving on the making of the munition boxes. They did not like this. They approached the Munitions Department, and they were
  1768
  referred to the Munitions Act, which said that if a demand for a higher rate of wages was made it would be referred to the Board of Trade. The matter was referred to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade referred it to the Committee on Production. The Committee on Production met and, very solemnly, went into the whole circumstances of the case, heard evidence, and said, "Very well, we will communicate with you when we come to a decision on the point." Some seven or eight days after, the secretary to the men's association was written to as follows: "We have considered very carefully the evidence submitted by you and the representative of the company, and have come to the conclusion that you have not made out a case for the payment of the 10½d. rate while working on the firm's ordinary work. Therefore, you are not entitled to anything more than the 7½d. an hour which you receive at the present time." A more ridiculous position it is impossible to imagine. If a body of practical men, with full knowledge of the skill required and of the work the men were doing for the company outside the munition boxes, would not have hesitated to say that they were entitled to the 10½d., because 10½d. was the wage paid in the district to the men doing similar work for other employers. If the Munitions Department had had any practical knowledge—
  Dr. ADDISON Dr. ADDISON rose—
  Mr. WILSON: I know, I quite agree that it is impossible to expect the Munitions Department to have practical knowledge of the work done by all workmen, but the Committee on Production has not that knowledge either, and I am going to suggest that the hon. Gentleman might bring some pressure to bear on his colleagues in the Government to agree to the appointment of a Committee which has a practical knowledge of the skill required in doing certain work. I suggest that to him, but I do say that a decision like the one to which I have referred causes an enormous amount of dissatisfaction and discontent among the workmen employed. Let me give another case. I had a letter only yesterday in which the writer said, "For God's sake say what Department I can apply to who is responsible for the manufacture of aeroplanes and seaplanes. I have written to the War Office, the Munitions Department, and the Admiralty, and each has turned me on to the other, and I do not know what to do."
  Dr. ADDISON: I have told the hon. Member myself absolutely definitely that the Ministry of Munitions have nothing whatever to do with the supply of aeroplanes.
  Mr. WILSON: I quite agree that the right hon. Gentleman told me that, but if I produce correspondence where they have attempted to deal with the matter, surely the men who have written to me are justified in asking what they are to do?
  Dr. ADDISON: I thought the hon. Gentleman said they could not get an answer.
  Mr. WILSON: No. I did not say that they could not get an answer. I said the Department shifted the writer from one to the other. I have told him that, generally speaking, the War Office is responsible for aeroplanes. The Admiralty is to some extent, I know, controlled establishments, whether making aeroplanes or shells, should deal with these matters in a businesslike way, and the Munitions Department are responsible for controlled establishments. I am trying to save the Department correspondence and trouble. If they would explain in districts like London, Leeds, and Manchester that they have nothing whatever to do with the manufacture of aeroplanes it would save me, as well as the Department, trouble. There is plenty of room for better organisation and for co-ordination in connection with certain Government Departments. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman, by regulation or instructions, or something else, will make public through the Press to the people interested that the Munitions Department have got nothing whatever to do with the manufacture of aeroplanes, but that it is the War Office.
  I am extremely sorry that the Munitions Department did not make the question of pay quite clear when they appealed to the working men of the country to work during the holidays. Personally, I believe that they did make it clear that all holiday work should be paid for in accordance with the rules and customs of the districts in which the work took place, but this day I sent the hon. Gentleman a case in which the employer said, "Unless we have got instructions from the Munitions Department to pay time and a half, or double time, or whatever it may be, we are not going to pay." Employers should not be in the position of saying they will not pay. It ought to be made clear to them by circular, or in some other way, that they
  1770
  must pay the extra time allowed for holiday work in a district where the holidays fall on a certain day. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman even now to make it quite clear that the holiday rates of the district should be paid irrespective of what the employers may say. The more simple the instructions issued the better they would be understood by the working people of the country, and the less confusion would be caused. That being so, I think that any Department sending out instructions should make quite clear what their intentions really are, and not employ obscure language. I have not the least doubt but that in every Department of the State a considerable amount of confusion is caused by the ambiguous language used by the Department when it issues instructions
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions 93 to 114 read a second time, and agreed to.

  PERSONNEL FOR SHIPBUILDING.
  Resolution 115 read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I make no apology for referring to this question again tonight, because it affects the interests of a great many men employed at Rosyth, and up to the present we have not had much opportunity given us by the Government to draw attention to this important matter. I asked my right hon. Friend this afternoon whether be could explain why it is that men who have been taken from England to work at Rosyth received greatly increased wages, as compared with men who have come from other parts of Scotland, or who have been engaged at the arsenal for some years. We are fully aware that in the great rush of work which has taken place there owing to the War, it was necessary to get as much labour as possible from wherever it could be got. My right hon. Friend, I think, was mistaken this afternoon when he denied what was supposed to be a view which I do not take at all, that there was any antagonism towards Scotsmen at Rosyth. Such a feeling has never existed. The only feeling that does exist is one of injustice at the fact that men working side by side doing the same kind of work in some cases get 5s. or 6s. per week less than men who have been brought from different parts of England to work there. I submit to my right hon. Friend that there

  1771
  is a distinct grievance. In the first place, the men who have been imported are getting 2s. more than the local men. They are also getting a 4s. bonus as against 3s. They are allowed a travelling allowance of 6d. a day or 3s. a week for travelling some distance to their work. Take my own Constituency. In one street you have a workman, some individual who has been brought there to work and has been there for some years. But the man who has been brought in recently gets 3s. a week extra for travelling from my Constituency to his work, whereas the local worker gets nothing at all, although he travels the same distance. That is a grievance, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will not shut his mind to further inquiry on that point, and that he will endeavour, if possible, to meet it. It makes altogether, I am safe in saying, 5s. difference between the local man and the man brought in.
  We do not object at all to what the latter is paid or to these men who are brought in being well treated. They get a payment, in addition—I believe nearly £40 in some cases—for the removal of their furniture from England, and they also receive a subsistence allowance for a certain period. I am bound to say that the Government have treated them generously, and I do not deny that there is something in the point made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, that some little attraction has to be offered to men who are asked to leave, with their families, their own part of the country and all the associations connected with it. I do not deny all that, but what I demand, or what I respectfully request, is that my right hon. Friend should level up and not level down. I think that if my right hon. Friend will regard the work which is done by the local man, and by the imported man, he will see that there should not be this great difference of 5s. or 6s. a week between them. Of course, this would not last twenty-four hours if there was not a war going on. I guarantee that every man affected would be out to-night, and would have been out some time ago, but for the fact that at the present time you cannot have strikes. The Munitions Act has placed them entirely in the hands of my right hon. Friend, and therefore we should not take advantage of that, from the point of view of the Government, because the men have voluntarily, as a re-
  1772
  sult of their patriotism, to waive their rights as trade unionists. I submit that this could not exist for one day if we were in a time of peace, and my right hon. Friend ought to once again look into this matter with a view to meeting these men.
  I am sure that he has nothing but praise for the work they have done; but even the best workmen, and the greatest patriots, will consider that they are suffering an injustice when they see day after day, and week after week, men doing exactly the same work, some of them not as much used to it as they are, and getting 5s. and 6s. more a week. I know of the case of a South African who has come all the way from South Africa in order to do his bit in this War; I know that men have come from different Colonies, throughout the War, and they are engaged at Rosyth; yet the men who have come from the South of England get 6s. more a week than those who have come from Manitoba or other parts. I submit it is an injustice, and there is really deep feeling in this matter among a great many of the workmen; and whatever my right hon. Friend may say with regard to the other point, I submit that there is no possible answer on this one. I urge in the interest not merely of meeting the demand of the men, but, what is much more important at a critical time like this, in the interest of getting the fullest advantage of their production, and in the interest generally, at least, of Rosyth, that the right hon. Gentleman should review the decision that he announced this afternoon, and go once again fully into the genuine grievance which I submit these men have at the present time.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I desire to associate myself with the question that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel). Like him, I must say that I was greatly disappointed with the answer which was given by the right hon. Gentleman to the question which was put to him this afternoon. I can assure him that there is a great amount of dissatisfaction among the workmen at Rosyth regarding this matter. It is perfectly true, as he pointed out in his reply this afternoon, that there was another matter some time ago which caused some dissatisfaction, and which was dealt with at the time. As he is perfectly well aware, the dissatisfaction regarding that question has largely disappeared. But with regard to this question of the difference in wage between the men who

  1773
  are entered locally and those who have been brought from the southern yards, the dissatisfaction is growing stronger every day, and I make no question that the amount of dissatisfaction is increasing. At Rosyth you have workmen engaged in the same class of work, performing the same duties, possibly having more experience than these men brought from the southern yards, and yet they are paid 5s. per week less than the men who are brought in. What is the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman for this distinction. He says that 2s. of the 5s. per week given to the men from the southern yards is paid to them on the ground of their having been transplanted from their homes, the towns where they lived, at the call of the Government, to take up duties at Rosyth in the North. With the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, I have no objection to the wages paid to the men who have been brought from the south. I do not think that they are paid one farthing too much.
  But I want to point out—as I endeavoured to do with great difficulty at Question Time; when it is not very easy to raise a matter of this kind through the medium of question and answer—that in bringing in these men you, in the first place, paid their removal expenses, and, in the second place, you have paid these men 23s. a week maintenance allowance for at least three months, if I am correctly informed. I have gathered my information in support of my argument from men whom I am meeting frequently in my Constituency. He was paying, for at least three months, to those men maintenance allowance at the rate of 23s. 4d. per week. There might have been a little dissatisfaction regarding this matter so far as Scottish workmen are concerned until they understood the question properly, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that now that the matter is understood properly by the local men, that there is not a particle of dissatisfaction regarding it. They think that the men brought from the South were entitled to receive this maintenance money in view of the fact that in many cases they had to maintain their homes until they could find housing accommodation in the North. But so far as the 2s. distinction in wages is concerned, the locally entered men say, and I agree with them, that they ought to be paid at the same rate as the men who have been brought up from the South, and they see no good reason for
  1774
  the difference in wages and why that difference should be made on the ground stated this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman. I put this to the right hon. Gentleman: Does he intend for all time to come that there is to be a difference of 2s. per week in the wages paid to the men who have come from the southern yards and the men entered locally? The second ground on which this difference of 5s. per week exists as between the men from the South and the local men is for travelling money of 3s. per week granted to the southern men. What are the circumstances? There is no housing accommodation for the men entered locally or those from the South in the immediate vicinity of the dockyard, and men have to travel to Edinburgh, Dumfermline, Kirkcaldy, and other places in order to find housing accommodation. The Admiralty provides trains for those workmen free of cost, and, in addition to that free travelling, the men from the southern yards are paid 3s. per week under the name of travelling money, while the men locally entered, who are travelling exactly the same distance, are paid nothing. Can the right hon. Gentleman wonder that under those circumstances there is dissatisfaction existing amongst the locally entered men? The marvel to me is that that dissatisfaction has not made itself more manifest than it has done up to the present. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if this continues much longer the dissatisfaction may assume dimensions that neither he nor I, nor any of us, would like to see take place.
  There are two other matters with regard to wages which I desire to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's notice. Recently a bonus of 3s. per week was granted to the men employed in the Royal Dockyards throughout the Kingdom. I understand that in every case the men from the southern yards at Rosyth have been paid that bonus. In the case of locally entered men a distinction has been drawn, and in some cases 2s. has been granted to tradesmen, and in the case of hammermen I understand 1s. has been given instead of 3s. The other fact which I wish to mention is about the masons employed at Rosyth. While they get the 3s. bonus over and above the 10d. per hour, the recognised rates at the time the bonus was granted, they complain that although since the bonus was granted the district rate has been raised to 10½d. per hour, yet the Admiralty refuse to recognise that increase in the rate to the masons in the dockyard

  1775
  at Rosyth. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take these matters seriously into consideration, with a view to having some measure of justice served out to the locally entered men employed at this dockyard. I think the right hon. Gentleman has stated before, and that he will agree with my right hon. Friend and myself, when we say that the locally entered men are as willing to render as loyal service as any other section of workmen, and are prepared, and I believe are qualified, to do quite as good work as men brought from any other part of the United Kingdom. I hope that our effort to obtain justice for them will not be in vain.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I make no complaint, and I have no right and no wish to do so, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) should have raised the question of the conditions of labour at Rosyth Dockyard. They say that there is a real sense of grievance and injustice. If that is so, let us look into it, and see if it is really based on any solid foundation, and if it is, by all means let us remove it. My right hon. Friend dissents from the suggestion, which was made at one time, that what we were doing was to stock this yard with Englishmen to the prejudice of Scotsmen.
  Mr. ADAMSON: I confess I brought that to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, but I also stated that it had been put right.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The statement was made. I wish to say it is nonsense. Of course we do not show any prejudice against Scotsmen. We have had far too valuable service from Scotland in all branches of the Navy, whether in supplying the needs of the dockyards or the work of the Navy generally, to make it possible for anybody to think that this great Service would be so stupid as to have any prejudice against Scotsmen. That was, however, said in certain quarters. I would like to say it is a very curious fact, in view of that alleged prejudice against Scotland, that in this particular case the highest position in the yard is occupied by Commodore Bruce. The suggestion now is not that we have a preference for Southerners, but that when they go North
  1776
  to Rosyth we do them better, to put it popularly, than we do the locally entered men, whether they are Scotsmen or whoever they may be. That is the case made. These are the facts. Rosyth being an entirely new yard, we were bound to get the nucleus of officers and men to start there from amongst men who were closely acquainted with our dockyard procedure, practice, and work. Therefore we had to ask for volunteers from our Southern yards. I may say this, in order to remove any suspicion that might remain, that we are only too glad to get as many local men as we can. There are a great many shipbuilding and engineering works in Scotland, but it is not so easy to get the men. Subject to what I said as to a nucleus necessarily from our own yards, from amongst men acquainted with the routine of our yards, we shall certainly hope to enter local men as far as we can. The real grievance of the case is this—not that we have overstocked the yard with Southerners, that is given up, but that we have treated the transferees so well that the local men have got a grievance. The local entrants have no doubt looked rather jealously—after all, they are only human—at certain concessions we have felt bound to make to the men who have severed their old associations, left their old friends, and cut themselves off from their old society, in order to go to Rosyth. My hon. Friends would be the first to support that, and they make no complaint now of what we have done. What they say is, that we really ought not to make the concessions in such a way as to give a sense of grievance to the men who do not get them. They put the case of the local man who, when he looks at the 2s. a week special pay, the subsistence allowance, the leave with pay given while the men are trying to find houses, the removal expenses, and the 6d. a day for travelling, says, "What about me?" I quite understand the situation. I will only say this: Supposing we had to take some of these locally entered men who are now in our service and send them to Devonport, so that they had to leave their wives and children and sever all their local associations, we would certainly do what we could for them in order to meet the special circumstances of the case. If the day should ever come when I or my successors have to ask such men to go to Devonport we will give them similar consideration.
  Attention was called to the bonus. We are told that an Englishman gets 4s. and

  1777
  a Scotsman 3s., and the question is asked, "Why this differentiation" Really that is not a fair way of looking at it. Some of these so-called Englishmen have come from Scotland. It is not a question of Englishmen and Scotsmen. The reason why some men are getting 3s. is that the local time rate which they were being paid was 1s. beyond the ordinary rate for the dockyard. Therefore they get 3s. instead of 4s. It is really as broad as it is long. My hon. Friend made a good point, however, when he said, "You refused the bonus to bricklayers because they were getting above the local rate, but since that time the local rate has been raised." If that can be established the men have a case for the same bonus as the others. To the extent that the local rate has been levelled up they should get such part of the bonus as was withheld on that ground. My right hon. Friend particularly appealed on the question of the 6d. a day granted to transferees in respect of the time occupied in travelling. This is the position: There is not enough housing accommodation in the district, and the men who live at Dumfermline and Kirkcaldy in the one direction, and the men who live at Edinburgh in the other, whether they are local men or transferees, get free railway facilities. The transferees in addition to that, in the circumstances I have mentioned, get 6d. a day. My right hon. Friend contends that that gives a real sense of grievance. I will go into that matter again. I cannot give an undertaking; it does not rest with me; I am only one member of the Board, and in any case the Treasury must be consulted. But if it is conceded, it must be on this understanding: Directly there is housing accommodation at Rosyth, and I hope to live to see the day, if these men desire to live at Kirkcaldy, by all means let them; it is a free country; but in that case they will have to give up the 6d. I think that is perfectly fair. I will undertake to look into the matter again on that understanding, and if my right hon. Friend cares to put down a question for early next week I will give a definite answer one way or the other on that point. Beyond that I cannot go at the present time.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. ADAMSON: There is one point the right hon. Gentleman has failed to notice
  1778
  —the case of men who are getting only 2s. a week bonus and the case of men who are getting only 1s. a week bonus.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If that is so, it is because they are receiving in our employment a time-rate more than the local rate, and to the extent that that is so their bonus has been reduced. If my hon. Friend can show me that that is not so, that they are not getting more than the local rate, they must get the full bonus.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Subsequent Resolutions read a second time, and agreed to.
  Postponed Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY [9th AUGUST].
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1910–17.
  Resolutions reported,
BOARD or AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND—
  Class II.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £43,959, be granted His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, including certain Grants in Aid."
  SCOTTISH LAND COURT.—Class III.
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,853, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Scottish Land Court."
  PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.—Class IV.
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,544,742, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for Public Education in Scotland, and for Science and Art in Scotland."

  NATIONAL GALLERIES, SCOTLAND.—Class IV.
  4. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,522, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge

  1779
  which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, and the Museum of Antiquities."

  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND'S OFFICE.— Class II.
  5. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,493, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's Secretary for Scotland and Subordinate Offices, Expenses under the Inebriates' Acts, 1879 to 1900, and Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899."
  FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND.—Class II.
  6. "That a sum, not exceeding £11,969, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."
  GENERAL BOARD OF CONTROL FOR SCOTLAND.—Class II.
  7. "That a sum, not exceeding £18,568, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the General Board of Control for Scotland."
  REGISTRAR-GENERAL'S OFFICE, SCOTLAND.
  8. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,096, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registrar-General of Births, etc., in Scotland."
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.—Class II.
  9. "That a sum, not exceeding £16,924, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board for Scotland."

  LAW CHARGES AND COURTS OF LAW, SCOTLAND.—Class III.
  10. "That a sum, not exceeding £53,746, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Lord Advocate's Department, and other Law Charges, and the Salaries and Expenses of the Courts of Law and Justice in Scotland."
  Resolutions agreed to.

  SUPPLY [8TH AUGUST].
  Resolution reported,

  STATUTORY COMMITTEE OF THE ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND CORPORATION.—Class VI.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,150, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending-on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salary of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation. [NOTE.—£600 has been voted on account.]
  Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [3RD AUGUST].
  Resolution reported,

  COLONIAL OFFICE.—Class II.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £35,850, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including a Grant-in-Aid of certain Expenses connected with Emigration.
  Resolution agreed to.

  BRITISH SHIPS (TRANSFER RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. WHITLEY in tie Chair.]

  CLAUSE 3.—(Interpretation, Duration, Construction, and Short Title.)
  (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference to a ship shall include a reference to a share in a ship.
  (2) The principal Act and this Act shall have effect during the continuance of the present War and a period of two years thereafter, and Sub-section (2) of Section three of the principal Act is hereby extended accordingly.
  (3) This Act shall be read as one with the principal Act, and the principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the British Ships (Transfer Restriction) Acts, 1915 and 1916.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the word "two" ["and a period of two years thereafter"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
  I only desire to raise this small point for the consideration of the representative of the Board of Trade. I congratulate him on having introduced this Bill, and was sorry he was unable to be here at an early hour this morning when we passed the Second Reading of the Bill. We have not had time to put Amendments on the Paper. This is the only one I intend to move. I think that as it is a good Bill it ought to continue for more than two years after the War. In the first place, what is meant by the end of the War? It is not fixed in the Bill. It may mean when the War closes or when peace is signed. I imagine that peace negotiations will probably take three or four months, or perhaps six months or more. I, therefore, suggest the hon. Gentleman would be on the safe side by accepting this Amendment, which, I think, is a reasonable one.
  10.0 P.M.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): I quite appreciate the reason given by my right hon. Friend for carrying this Bill on a little further. Of course, that applies not only to this Bill, but also to the Act passed in 1915, upon which this Bill is based; and, if it is the opinion of the Committee that it is wiser to take three years, I shall not resist the Amendment. I think, perhaps, on the whole, it is more desirable. The Committee will understand it does not mean that no transfer can take place either for two years or three years, but that if it is desirable there should be a transfer within that period it can be granted. Under those circumstances I shall be prepared to accept the Amendment, and I beg to thank the House for having passed the Second Reading last night in my absence.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported.
  As amended, considered.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of the British Ships (Transfer Restriction) Act, 1915.)
  Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  I move this formally. There has been an Amendment, which I do not doubt is all right, and I did not oppose it, but it is an Amendment inserted in an extremely empty House, and I really do think the Report stage ought to be taken tomorrow. The Amendment was not on the Paper. I think it is a right Amendment, but there ought really to be some little regard for the old procedure of the House, and, having obtained the Second Reading when my hon. Friend was not here, and having obtained the Committee stage tonight, I think we might take the Report stage and Third Reading to-morrow.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I hope my right hon. Friend will not persist in this. I do not I wish to resist any determined request to I postpone the Report stage, but this is purely war legislation, and cannot be I regarded at all on the lines of our ordinary legislation. The Amendment inserted makes no alteration whatever in the structure of the Bill, but merely prolongs its operation for three years, instead of two, after the War. It is, after all, something that we should not be required to spend time here when work can be done elsewhere, and, if my right hon. Friend sees no valid objection, I hope he will allow this purely war measure to proceed to its remaining stages.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I will not press the Amendment, but I really think we ought to be more careful. There are a great many things introduced which are not war legislation—I do not say this is one of them—which would not have been introduced if it had been known what they would do.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

  RETIRING ALLOWANCES AND GRATUITIES.
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, in certain cases, out of the

  1783
  Revenues of India of a Retiring Allowance to the Auditor of the Accounts of the Secretary of State for India in Council and his assistants and of a Gratuity to the legal representatives of the said Auditor and his assistants under any Act of the present Session to amend certain enactments relating to the Government of India."
  Resolution agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (AMENDMENT) BILL.— [Lords.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Elections and Nominations for Legislative Councils, 5 and 6 Geo. V., c. 61.)
  (1) In Section sixty-three of the Government of India Act, 1915 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act"), shall be inserted the following Sub-section:
  "(6A) Rules made under this Section may provide for the final decision of doubts or disputes as to the validity of an election.
  (6B) Subject to any rules made under this Section, any person who is a ruler or subject of any state in India shall be eligible to be nominated a member of a legislative council."
  (2) In Sections seventy-four and seventy-six of the principal Act corresponding Sub-sections shall be inserted, and shall be numbered (4A) and (4B) in Section seventy-four and (3A) and (3B) in Section seventy-six.
  (3) This Section shall apply to and shall validate rules and nominations made as well before as after the commencement of this Act.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Does this Bill deal with a case that has actually arisen?
  Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): This is a Bill to deal with certain doubts which arose when the Consolidation Act was passed last year. The existing provisions of that Act probably do already provide for the possibility of electing a ruler or subject of any State of India to the Legislative Council. A doubt was expressed about it. There have been several instances in which the power has already been utilised, and this Clause legalises what is already the practice.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clauses 2, 3, 4, and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Transfer of India Stock by Deed.)
  (1) India Stock may, if registered for the time being as stock transferable by deed in manner provided by Regulations made under this Section, be transferred by deed.
  (2) The Banks of England and Ireland respectively, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State in Council, shall provide by Regulations for a separate stock register being kept for India Stock which is for the time being transferable by deed, for the conditions upon which stock is to be entered in or removed from that register, for the mode in which the transfer by deed is to be carried out, and for the payment of any fees in respect of the entry or removal of stock in or from the register and the carrying out of any transfer of stock by deed.
  (3) The provisions of all enactments relating to India Stock which are in force at the commencement of this Act shall apply to stock transferable by deed in pursuance of this Section as they apply to stock transferable in the books of the Banks of England or Ireland, or of the Secretary of State in Council, except so far as express provision is made to the contrary by this Section or by the Regulations made thereunder.
  [(4) No Stamp Duty stall be payable in respect of any deed of transfer of India Stock or any dividend warrant or register certificate relating to India Stock.]
  (5) In this Section the expression "India Stock" means any stock created and issued, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, by file Secretary of State in Council under the authority of Parliament.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I formally move that the words which are already printed in the Bill as Sub-section (4) and underlined be inserted in the Bill. This measure originated in the House of Lords, and, of course, it is only within the competence of the House of Commons to deal with the question of Stamp Duty. This proposal simply follows the practice in reference to all India stock and repeats the legislation which has been the rule in a number of Acts dealing with India stock. In order

  1785
  to preserve the privileges of the House of Commons, it is necessary to insert the Clause in this way.
  Sir H.DALZIEL: I understand in regard to Bills passed by the House of Lords which take the initiative in regard to financial matters it is necessary to draw the attention of the other House to that matter. I think a Rule of that kind exists.
  The CHAIRMAN: A Bill of that kind generally comes down with a blank,

  Section 7 (1).

  FIRST SCHEDULE.

  Further Amendments of the Government of India Act, 1915.

  Enactment to be Amended.

  Amendment.

  The Government of India Act, 1915 (5 & 6 Geo. 5, c. 61)

  Section 3 (3)

  The word "British," where secondly occurring, shall be repealed.

  Section 13 (1)

  For this sub-section shall be substituted the following subsection:—

  "(1) Where an order or communication concerns the levying of war, or the making of peace, or the public safety, or the defence of the realm, or the treating or negotiating with any prince or state, or the policy to be observed with respect to any prince or state, and a majority of votes therefor at a meeting of the Council of India is not required by this Act, the Secretary of State may send the order or communication to the Governor-General in Council or to any Governor in Council or officer or servant in India without submitting it to a meeting of the council or depositing it for the perusal of the members of the council or sending or giving notice of the reasons for making it, if he considers that it is of a nature to require secrecy."

  Section 13 (2)

  The words "or any of the matters aforesaid" shall be substituted for the words "or the levying of war, or the making of peace, or negotiations or treaties with any prince or state."

  Section 21

  At the end of this section shall be added the words "Provided that a grant or appropriation made in accordance with provisions or restrictions prescribed by the Secretary of State in Council with the concurrence of a majority of votes at a meeting of the council shall be deemed to be made with the concurrence of a majority of such votes."

  Section 26

  The words "twenty-eight days" shall be substituted for the words "fourteen days."

  [Section 27(10)

  The words "or retiring" shall be inserted after the word "superannuation"; the words "and their legal personal representatives shall, for the purposes of gratuity" shall be inserted after the word "allowance"; and the words "the auditor and his assistants" shall be substituted for the word "they."

  Sections 28 (1) and 30 (1)

  The words "or personal" shall be inserted after the word "real," where secondly occurring, and the words "or otherwise" shall be inserted after the word "mortgage."

  Section 28 (2)

  The word "two" shall be substituted for the word "three."

  Sections 63 (3) and 74 (2)

  The words "any office of profit" shall be substituted for the word "office."

  Sections 64 (3), 75 (3), and 78 (2)

  The words "or when questions are asked" shall be inserted after the words "any matter of general public interest."

  Sections 67 (3) and 80 (3)

  The words "or when questions are asked" shall be inserted after the words "at any such discussion."

  Section 86(1)

  The words "and a Lieutenant-Governor in Council" shall be inserted after the words "a Governor in Council."

  Section 92 (3).

  The words "or special duty" shall be inserted after the words "is absent on leave."

  because we do not recognise matters relating to finance from the other House. These words which are underlined are only inserted in the Bill for the information of hon. Members, and then this House by a Resolution can put them into the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Enactment to be Amended.

  Amendment.

  Section 94

  …

  The words "or special duty" shall be inserted after the words "absence on leave," and the words "absence may be permitted" shall be substituted for the words "leave may be granted."

  Section 99 (1)

  …

  The words "in British India," where secondly occurring, shall be repealed.

  Section 106

  …

  In this section shall be inserted the following sub-section:—

  "(1A) The letters patent establishing, or vesting jurisdiction, powers or authority in, a high court may be amended from time to time by His Majesty by further letters patent."

  Section 107, proviso

  …

  The word "law" shall be substituted for the word "Act."

  Section 109 (1)

  …

  The words "any British subject for the time being within" shall be substituted for the words "Christian subjects of His Majesty resident in."

  Section 110 (1)

  …

  The words "lieutenant-governor and chief commissioner" shall be inserted after the words "each governor," and the words "the executive council of the governor-general or of a governor "or lieutenant-governor" shall be substituted for the words "their respective executive councils."

  Section 114

  …

  At the end of this section shall be added the following subsection:—

  "(S) On the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of advocate-general, or during any absence or deputation of an advocate-general, the Governor-General in Council in the case of Bengal, and the local Government in other cases, may appoint a person to act as advocate-general; and the person so appointed may exercise the powers of an advocate-general until some person has been appointed by His Majesty to the office and has entered on the discharge of his duties, or until the advocate-general has returned from his absence or deputation, as the case may be, or until the Governor-General in Council or the local Government, as the case may be, cancels the acting appointment."

  Section 120

  …

  The words "Secretary of State" shall be substituted for the words "Chancellor of the Exchequer"; the words "Madras or Bombay" shall be inserted after the words "Bishop of Calcutta," where thirdly and fourthly occurring; and the words "to be paid quarterly" and the word "British" shall be repealed.

  For the Fifth Schedule shall be substituted the following:—

  "Section 131 (3).

  FIFTH SCHEDULE.

  Provisions of this Act which may be repealed or altered by the Governor-General in Legislative Council.

  Section.

  Subject.

  62

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Power to extend limits of presidency cowns.

  106

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Jurisdiction, powers and authority of high courts.

  108 (1)

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Exercise of jurisdiction of high court by single judges or division courts.

  109

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Power for Governor-General in Council to alter local limits of jurisdiction of high courts, etc.

  110

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Exemption from jurisdiction of high courts.

  111

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Written order by Governor-General in Council a justification for act in high court.

  112

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Law to be administered in cases of inheritance, succession, contract and dealing between party and party.

  114 (2)

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Powers of advocate-general.

  124(1)

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Oppression.

  124 (4)—So far as it relates to persons employed or concerned in the collection of revenue or the administration of justice.

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Trading.

  Section.

  Subject.

  124 (5)—So far as it relates to persons other than the Governor-General, a governor, or a member of the executive council of the Governor-General or of a governor

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Receiving presents.

  125

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Loans to princes or chiefs.

  126

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Carrying on dangerous correspondence.

  128

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Limitation for prosecutions in British India.

  129

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  …

  Penalties."

  The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Colonel YATE: At the end of Section 3 (3) to insert the words:

  Section 3 (4)

  "and shall be permitted to retain the title of 'Honourable' borne by the Council of the Governor-General in India."

  The CHAIRMAN: There are a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Melton (Colonel Yate). The first one is out of order, because permission to retain the title of "Honourable" is a matter of the Royal prerogative, and I am afraid I cannot allow the hon. Member to usurp that power.
  Colonel YATE: I beg to move, at the end of Section 13 (2), to insert

  "Section 17 (2)

  before the words 'Civil service,' to insert the word 'Indian.'"

  The Committee will see that I have a considerable number of Amendments on the Paper, but I may say that they are not so formidable as they look. They are largely consequential, and those I shall move are the main ones, which I hope will raise the status of the Indian Civil Service and make it more upon an equality with the Colonial Service. This is nothing new, because I have spoken on this matter before on the Indian Budget. I raised the same questions in the Debate on the Government of India Consolidation Bill, and Lord Loreburn decided that I should present these Amendments to the House in the amending Bill in the following year. I have now an opportunity of doing so. I am glad to say that of late years there has been a great disposition, on the part of the India Office, to employ officers with Indian experience more often than they did before. In the Foreign Office we see members of the Diplomatic Service called in to serve, and I want the
  1790
  same principle applied to the India Office. All I wish to point out is that I think all the Civil Servants paid by India, whether employed in India or England, should pass the same examination and be placed on the same footing. The India Office passed a Regulation to say that conscientious objectors are not in future to be eligible for the Indian Civil Service, and I think it would be a little short of a farce if they should not be eligible for the Indian Service, and should be allowed to serve India at the India Office. I insert these words to make sure that all men paid by India should be on a perfect equality, both in India and at the India Office.
  Mr. ROBERTS: The hon. and gallant Member wishes to assimilate the conditions of the establishment of the Secretary of State at the India Office with those that govern appointments to the Indian Civil Service. So far as I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's main object, he desires the same examination for each service. That is already done. But if he goes further and asks that clerks at the India Office should be exactly on the same level and under the same rules as to their appointments to junior situations as those who are going into the Indian Civil Service, he is really asking for one or two extra tests which are quite unnecessary in the case of the India Office. For instance, he would require that every clerk at the India Office should go through a riding test which is not necessary. Again, they would have to go for a year on probation, and would have to learn an Oriental language. All you require is that the clerks at the India Office shall be under Civil Service rules and regulations, and that was the object of the original Clause reproduced by Section 17 of the Act, while to insist upon all the conditions which govern appointments in the Indian Civil Service would, I think, really be going on a false track, and I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
  Colonel YATE: After that explanation, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Colonel YATE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph "Section 13 (2)," to insert the words "Section 17 (3); 'and arrange for the transfer of officers from the Government of India.'"
  This Amendment is simply to make it easier for the Secretary of State whenever he wants to employ a man from India in the India Office. I move it in order that he may not have to wait until the man has retired from the Service and to enable "him to employ such a man at any time during his service. The Amendment will make it more easy for him to get a hold upon any man at any time. It is advisable that the Secretary of State should have the benefit of the service of any man he wants at any time, and that he should not have to wait until that man retires before he can employ him in the India Office.
  Mr. ROBERTS: In substance there is no quarrel whatever between the hon. and gallant Member and myself, but at the same time I really would ask him not to press these words. There is no difficulty at present in the Secretary of State transferring officers and officials from the Indian Civil Service to his establishment at home. In the case of senior appointments that can be done and it is done. The Secretary of State has full power to do it now. The hon. Member said that this power in recent years has been used more frequently, and therefore I do not think that there is any very strong case for pressing for this Amendment. In proper cases the Secretary of State has the power at present, but I am afraid that these words do a good deal more. They also apply to junior appointments. At present the Secretary of State, if he increases his establishment at the India Office, has to get an Order in Council which has to be laid before Parliament. There is, therefore, a Parliamentary check. At the same time these junior appointments are filled up after the ordinary Civil Service Examination. If these words were inserted—they really are not necessary at all—they would enable a Secretary of State, if he wished, to get rid of the Parliamentary check upon the size of his establishment, and at the same time to get round
  1792
  the necessity of appointing Civil servants subject to the ordinary rules of the Civil Service. I do not mean to say that those difficulties could not have been overcome by another form of words, but the words that the hon. and gallant Member has put forward will show him that it is rather undesirable to fetter by any statutory language the power of the Secretary of State to do what he wants. Under the circumstances the Secretary of State would be very glad if the hon. Member would leave him with his unfettered discretion as at the present time.
  Colonel YATE: I gladly accede to that request.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: At the end of paragraph "Section 26" "Section 27 (10): The words 'or retiring' shall be inserted after the word 'superannuation'; the words 'and their legal personal representatives shall, for the purposes of gratuity' shall be inserted after the word 'allowance'; and the words 'the auditor, and his assistants' shall be substituted for the word 'they.'"— [Mr. C. Roberts.]
  Colonel YATE: I beg to move, at end of paragraph "Section 28 (2)," to insert "Section 36 (l), and shall not be eligible for appointment to any further office in India by the Governor-General."
  This question is a very old one, and the necessity for this change was first brought forward by Sir George Chesney in 1870, in his book on Indian Polity. In his second edition of that work published in that year after dilating on the bad effect of promoting Councillors to be Lieutenant-Governors, he ended up by saying that the difficulty might be
  "obviated, either by placing the Councillors on the same footing of emolument as the Lieutenant-Governors, or by a special enactment declaring them to be ineligible for further advancement in India."
  I am recommending both. The question of emolument comes later on. Meanwhile my Amendment is by this special enactment to declare members of the Governor-General's Executive Council ineligible for further advancement in India. I only wish Sir George Chesney could have been alive and back again here in this House to have had this opportunity of moving it himself, and I should like hon. Members before deciding on this question to read

  1793
  for themselves what that great authority said upon the subject.
  In 1894 Sir G. Chesney published the third and final edition of his book, bringing it up to date, and on page 133 of that edition he says as follows. I cannot read it all, but he commences with "it is inconsistent, etc.," and ends up by saying "it does seem, etc." "Chesney's Indian Polity." 3rd Edition, 1894. House of Commons Kdition, p. 133.
  "It is inconsistent with the actual state of things that the position of a member of the Governor-General's Council should bo inferior in precedence and emolument to that of a Governor or Lieutenant-Governor. It is unquestionably the more important."
  it does seem desirable that the position of a member of the Governor-General's Council should be recognised as and made the highest in India under that of Governor-General, to which an Indian public servant can rise, and beyond which he should have no preferment in India to look forward to."—p. 184.
  The objection raised to this by Lord Macdonell on the Joint Committee was that he was a member of the Governor-General's Council before he was a Lieutenant-Governor, and that he felt sure the experience gained by him in Council made him a better Lieutenant-Governor than he would have been without it. He spoke from the purely personal point of view of a man who had gained by being promoted by the Governor-General to a Lieutenant-Governorship. On the other hand, my personal point of view is that having been appointed Chief Commissioner of Baluchistan without having been a member of the Governor-Generals Council I am perfectly certain that the experienced gained by me as the Governor of a Frontier Province would have made me a much more valuable member of the Governor-General's Council than if I had not had that experience. We cannot look on these things, though from the personal point of view we must take the greatest good of the greatest number, and Sir George Chesney's views have now been long known and approved in India. The question has been ventilated for nearly half a century. The opportunity has at last arisen of obtaining the special enactment that Sir George Chesney longed, and I ask the House to give India the benefit of that enactment I now propose. I beg to move.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am sure that I and the Committee must recognise that the Amendments which the hon. and gallant Member puts forward are the product of his very
  1794
  wide and long experience of the conditions in India. Therefore I need hardly say that his suggestions have been very carefully considered by the India Office.
  Colonel YATE: What is meant by "considered by the India Office"?
  Mr. ROBERTS: By the Secretary of State, who has asked me to take charge of f the Bill.
  Colonel YATE: The Secretary of State alone?
  Mr. ROBERTS: They were put forward some time ago. They were put forward in connection with the Consolidation Act of last year, so that there has been plenty of time fully to consider them. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not think our attitude towards them has been lightly taken up. The whole matter has been very carefully considered.
  Colonel YATE: By the Secretary of State?
  Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, for whom I am speaking. I must tell the Committee that all these Amendments were put forward before the Joint Committee, consisting of s eight Members of this House and eight from the House of Lords, most of whom, I think, had a good deal of Indian experience one way and another. The hon. and gallant Member is strictly within his rights in putting them before a Committee of this House, but I must say that the Joint Committee was not disposed to accept them and that this particular Amendment encountered very strong opposition on the part, at all events, of one of the Members of that Committee who had had considerable Indian experience.
  Colonel YATE: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that they were never discussed at all. Lord Loreburn decided that they should be deferred until this Bill was introduced this year. This was only discussed for two minutes, when half the members of the Committee had left and when Lord Loreburn again decided that they should not be put before the Joint Committee this year, but should be left to be put forward in this House. The member of the Committee who objected was one of the members who stayed.
  Mr. ROBERTS: The Committee was not disposed to accept it. I am afraid that on this particular Bill we cannot deal with matters upon which there is not general

  1795
  agreement. This Bill was designed to deal with doubts and difficulties which had arisen in the course of the process of consolidation. When you get points of this kind on which there is not general agreement—in fact, on which there is strong opposition—I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to be content with this opportunity of ventilating the subject. This is not by any means the last opportunity upon which questions relating to Indian administration will come before the House of Commons. Clearly at the close of the War there will be many questions of that kind which this House will have to face and which will be considered then. That is the time, not now, when this particular Amendment and other Amendments of the same nature should be considered.
  Sir H. CRAIK: I cannot consider that the hon. Gentleman's answer to the Amendment moved by my hon. and galland Friend is sufficient. In the first place, he says that we must not proceed with it because there will be other opportunities of discussing Indian affairs. This is a proposal of a definite kind, and it is no use saying that it will be met by future discussion on Indian affairs some time after the War. Then the hon. Gentleman tells us that we must leave this to be considered and adjudicated upon by those who have Indian experience. After all, human nature is the same in India as it is elsewhere. The point aimed at by this Amendment is that there should be no dependency upon and no looking forward to patronage from the Indian Members of the Council, and that they should not be tempted to shape their opinions by their hopes of future promotion. This is not a matter, the hon. Gentleman will admit, for purely Indian experience. It is a matter to be dealt with according to the ordinary rules of human nature. There used to be—I am sorry to say it is now gone—a very general feeling, founded on constitutional principle, that it was an unsound thing to promote a puisne judge to any higher judicial post. That was not founded upon any special legal experience but upon the fact that a man is more independent and less likely to be biassed if he is perfectly free from any thought of promotion in his career as a judge. I do not think the mere perfunctory raising of this question in a small composite Committee, or the fact that Indian questions may hereafter be raised, is a sufficient answer to the broad contention
  1796
  which lies at the foundation of this Amendment—namely, that members of the Council should be absolutely independent.
  Mr. ROBERTS: The hon. Member has stated a case for this proposal. There is another case against it. This Bill was promoted on the understanding that you should deal with the points on which there was no strong controversy. This is a point which is controversial. The one point in the Bill on which there was strong controversy before the Joint Committee was dropped in deference to strong expressions of opinion, and I think I must ask the Committee to stand by me in maintaining that decision that questions which are of a controversial character should not be hastily decided at this moment. After all, many of these questions of Indian administration have been examined by the Public Services Commission, the report of which is completed but has not yet been published, and I think it would be a great mistake merely because a particular controversial question is put before the Committee that the Committee should accept it when it is controversial.
  Colonel YATE: I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's reasoning at all. The whole of the Schedule is matter that is put into the principal Act the same as these are, and there is nothing particular in this point, and as to the reasons he has given they are entirely insufficient to put this away. He says there are further opportunities. I have never had a chance of raising it and neither had Sir George Chesney, and I see no chance in the future. I spoke in the Budget Debate, but I might as well speak to the moon as in the Indian Budget Debate. I am sorry I cannot quite grasp the reasoning and I must take this to a Division.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not thoroughly understand what is taking place, and I had an opportunity of discussing the Bill with the hon. Gentleman before it came into the House. So far as I can gather, this is a controversial question. I am not at all sure—it has nothing whatever to do with the War—that now that we have had an admission that this is a controversial question it ought to be pressed and proceeded with at the present moment, when the arrangement to which we have come, that all controversial measures should be postponed until after the War, is still in force.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I did not intend to suggest that the Bill was controversial. What I intended to suggest was that the Amendment was controversial.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I am speaking with a little difficulty, because I admit quite frankly that the point was new to me; but I understand what my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Yate) desires is that the independence of the members of the Council should be preserved in order that they should not be influenced by the idea that if they take a certain view some preferment will be given. It is a very wrong thing that anyone should be influenced by that, but it is a thing which I have known in this country, and if as a matter of fact there is a real controversy upon this question. I am not at all sure that the matter ought to be proceeded with.
  Mr. ROBERTS: It is very undesirable that the Amendment should be proceeded with. The status quo surely ought to be preserved. The Amendment ought not to be pressed if it is a matter of controversy. We are simply keeping the existing order of things. The hon. and gallant Member suggests himself that the matter was first raised thirty or forty years ago. It has been a rule in Indian administration, and surely the arguments which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of Loudon (Sir F. Banbury) has put forward would apply against the Amendment His whole argument was against the Amendment and in favour of leaving the existing status quo.
  Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman give an opportunity for discussing this? Will he name a date when we can discuss it and promise to give an opportunity?
  Mr. ROBERTS: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will get his chance.
  Mr. KING: It seems that this Bill ought not to have been introduced if it raises a question of long-standing controversy, and if when it is passed there will probably be no opportunity for a generation, at least while none of us are here, will an opportunity again offer of raising this very important question which has been brought before us by the hon. Member for Melton Mowbray (Colonel Yate)? I must say that I have listened to the discussion with some distress. I should like to support, the Government, and to carry
  1798
  through legislation which is wanted, but I should also like to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in carrying through a reform which has been urged again and again for many years. What am I to do? I suggest that the Government postpone the measure altogether, and let us go home.
  Amendment negatived.
  Colonel YATE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph, "Section 28 (2)," to insert the following words, "Section 36 (3), leave out" ["at least of them"], and insert "members at least out of five or four out of six."
  Section 36 (3) reads as follows:
  "Three at least of them—"
  that is, the members of the Viceroy's Council—
  "must be persons who, at the time of their appointment, have been for at least ten years in the service of the Crown in India, and one must be a barrister of England or Ireland, or a member of the Faculty of Advocates of Scotland of not less than five years' standing."
  Sub-section (2) says:
  "The number of the ordinary members of the Council shall be five, or, if His Majesty thinks fit to appoint a sixth member, six."
  Six have been appointed. The alteration I make is that three at least out of five, or four out of six, should be members of ten years' standing in the service of the Crown in India. I think the hon. Gentleman will probably agree to that.
  Mr. ROBERTS: On this matter I am unable to agree with the hon. and gallant Member. On the Viceroy's Council there are members for commerce, law, and finance. Each one of these may be members for whom the presented residence in India is not absolutely necessary, and if you extend the number of those for whom this residence in India is prescribed you would undoubtedly experience difficulty in some cases in getting the best men to take charge of commerce, law, or finance. For that reason, I ask the Committee not to impose that additional fetter upon the discretion of the Secretary of State, who obviously wishes to obtain the best men for service upon the Council.
  Amendment negatived.
  Colonel YATE: I beg to move, at the end of paragraph, Section 28 (2), to insert,

  "Section 53

  Headline, leave out 'Lieutenant-Governorships and other,' and insert 'Governorships and Chief-Commissionerships of.'"

  The question which I am raising on this Amendment is the putting of the Indian Civil Service on an equality with the Colonial Civil Service, by which the Governors of provinces in India should for the future be called governors and not merely Lieutenant-Governors as they are called now. The description Lieutenant-Governor as applied to India is entirely a misnomer. The question is one of nomenclature. I ask for no new establishment or higher pay, but merely that the man who is the Governor of a province shall be called what he is and not named a Lieutenant-Governor. This was proposed by Sir George Chesney as long ago as 1870. I myself raised the question on the Indian Budget both in 1012 and 1913, but there has never been a chance of raising it in Debate. In 1912 when I raised this question I referred to the levelling up of Lieutenant-Governorships and Chief Commissionerships in India to the status of Governorships. I pointed out why I recommended this, and went on to say:
  "We ought to do everything we can to maintain the dignity of our people. In Ceylon we have a Governor and the Lieutenant-Governor there is simply the Colonial Secretary of Ceylon; and to put the ruler of a vast province like the United Provinces or the Punjaub on an equality with a Lieutenant-Governor is a misnomer. Ceylon has an area of 25,000 square miles and 4,000,000 of population, while the United Provinces has an area of 107,000 square miles and a population of 47,000,000. You have a Governor of the Straits Settlement at Singapore, with a population of 2,000,000, and the Lieutenant-Governor of Burma, with 12,000,000 of population and an area of 236,000 square miles. Is it fair that a vast charge should be called a Lieutenant-Governor and that the colonial official at Singapore should be called a Governor? I claim that India ought to be treated with equality in this respect. I do not propose that they should be put on an equality with the Governors of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay. That would require an Act of Parliament, but I ask that the names should be raised from 'Lieutenant-Governor' and 'Chief Commissioner,' and that the man who is Governor in India shall be called 'Governor.'"
  I said that on the Indian Budget in 1912, and in 1913 I referred to the second edition published in 1870, Sir George Chesney's book entitled "Indian Polity," in which he said:
  "From whatever point of view the Government is regarded, whether as to population, area or revenue of the country, the magnitude of the public establishments employed, or the extent of the power possessed by the Government, the title of Lieutenant-Governor seems
  1800
  altogether inappropriate for the head of the administration, and opportunity should be taken to make the titles of these high officials more consonant with their position."
  Further on he said that:
  "It seems very desirable that the title of Governor should be conferred on officers tolding these important positions, and exercising greater iniluence over the fortunes of their fellow men that is probably possessed by the tiller of any colony."
  In the third edition of his book published a quarter of a century afterwards, in 1894, by which time he had left India, and had become a Member of Parliament, he rewrote his chapter on the Provincial Governments, and, after describing the magnitude and importance of the North-West Provinces, the Punjab, Central Provinces, Assam and Burmah; and on page 109 he gives his reasons why
  "the head of all these administrations should be called-what he already is in everything but the name-a governor."
  Since that date, two further Provinces have been formed in India: namely, the North-West Frontier Province in the Province of Baluchistan. We have therefore added these Local Governments to his list. Anyone who is interested in the subject will I hope read Chapter V. of Sir George Chesney's book for himself. The reasons given by him for the change of name will, I think, be found convincing. Objection has been taken to the proposal on the ground that if you once change the name of Lieutenant-Governor or Chief Commissioner, to that of Governor, the Home Government will at once annex the appointment and put it on the same list as the Governors of the Residencies of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, but this danger is entirely imaginary, and I would ask the House to look at the principal Act. By Section 46 (2), of the Act, Governors of the Presidencies of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, are appointed by His Majesty by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual. By Section 54 (1), of the Act, the Governor and Chief Commissioners of Provinces are appointed by the Governor-General, with the approval of His Majesty, and nothing can alter that but a fresh Act of Parliament—and that can be passed in the one case just as well as in the other. The law can be changed by Parliament at any time, whether the man is called a Governor or a Lieutenant-Governor, but till it is so changed he is just as safe when called Governor as he is when called Lieutenant-Governor. If I thought for a moment that by any change of name the appointment of Provincial Governors would be taken out of the hands

  1801
  of the Governor-General, I would not on any account change the name, but there is no danger of that in the present Bill. Sir George Chesney saw no danger of it, nor do I. I believe there would be no danger whatsoever of these appointments being taken away from the Governor-General and handed over to the Home Government in the event of my Amendment being accepted. I remember seeing one of these high officials in the street, and a man asked, "Who is that?" and the reply was, "Oh he was something in India." That was the remark about a man who had ruled 50,000,000 of men, that he was "something in India." I want to raise the status of these Lieutenant-Governors and to have them called Governors where they really are so. Take the case of Singapore on one side of Siam with a Governor, while on the other side you have Burma, which is twice as big as the United Kingdom, with a Lieutenant-Governor. What is the King of Siam to think. In India, and in the East generally, you have got to exalt your officials and not to lower their status. We all know that in the East they have high sounding titles. In Persia, for instance, you have Governor-Generals, and in China you have Viceroys. When a man is really a Governor he ought to be called a Governor.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not think me impracticable if I cannot accept the fifty-four Amendments which he proposes. This may seem a mere matter of nomenclature, but there is something more behind it. I do not think it is the appropriate place to deal with it in this Bill. There is a real reason for the difference in nomenclature which exists at present. Governors are appointed by the Home Government. They are often politicians from here sent out to Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, while Lieutenant-Governors and Chief Commissioners are appointed by Viceroy, and that difference of name corresponds with the real thing. It is true, as the hon. and gallant Member says, that the mere change of name will not by itself carry with it in its train an alteration in the method of appointment, which would be, of course, a serious alteration. But he must know, and I, at all events, know perfectly well, that there is a very large body of opinion in India which would like to see the Governors in these various Provinces appointed by the Home Government, and not as Lieutenant-Governors are appointed
  1802
  at present. I think if you change the name you will very much encourage that desire. It is true that Sir George Chesney recommended it, but he recommended that it should take place at a time while administrative changes might be under consideration. He also pointed out that there would be what he called some trifling additional expense. I imagine if you give a new status to the head of those Provinces that that would require a little extra establishment to keep up the extra dignity. That also must be considered. I think the main point is that this is one of those questions which may properly be considered when the time comes for considering them.
  Colonel YATE: When will that time come?
  Mr. ROBERTS: At the end of the War, I imagine. The hon. and gallant Member shakes his head. I know that it was said on the Consolidation Bill that we should never see an amending Bill. I ventured to disagree. Here I also venture to disagree. I think it will be necessary for those responsible for the government of India to fully consider the changes which are certain to come in the future in India. Though I cannot anticipate, I do venture to say that the changes which the hon. and gallant Member proposes in this long series of Amendments may doubtless be quite properly considered at a time when substantial changes may be taking place, and when, as many would like to sec, there is proposed an increased measure of decentralisation in the Provinces. That may be the right time, but I do not think it is appropriate to this Bill, and for that reason I must ask the hon. Member not to press it.
  Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the matter will be brought forward?
  Mr. RAWLINSON: It must strike the House that this is not a very satisfactory way of legislating. This matter has been mooted for a long time. This particular Amendment merely gives a certain verbal status to people who certainly deserve it. It is not proposed to alter the way in which the appointment should be made. The Statute makes it perfectly plain that the Governors or Lieutenant-Governors shall be appointed in a particular way. My hon. Friend does not seek to alter that in any way, but he seeks to make an alteration which does count very largely in India. Names go much further in India

  1803
  than in England. What is the position? The Government bring in a Bill making amendments in the law. I am not complaining of that. But if the Government do that, why should not private Members have an opportunity of bringing in a reform which is very much needed? If the matter does not press, why have the Government brought in a Bill at all? Surely it is not a satisfactory way to deal with the House of Commons, to bring in a Bill very late in the Session without giving us an opportunity of dealing with one or two of these matters. This is a very simple question, and the Government might really deal with it. After all, we are a legislative assembly, even if we do sit after eleven o'clock on an August night, and when a strong case has been made out for an Amendment of this kind, the necessary time should be given to it. Either there is urgency for this Bill or there is not. I have not heard any suggestion of urgency. This is an amending Bill, and I submit that some of my hon. Friend's Amendments should be dealt with, and, if the Government think right, accepted.
  11.0 P.M.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Everyone is ready to recognise the validity and strength of the argument that controversial questions should not be raised. But may not that argument be pressed a little too far? What have the Government themselves done? Only last Session they passed an Act covering whole questions of this sort. But they proceeded with such timidity—I suppose from the excessive urgency of not introducing anything which by any chance could be controversial—that they now, within twelve months, have to introduce another Bill, and they refuse to consider questions for the consideration of which this is a favourable opportunity, questions which have been pressed by the highest authorities on India for more than a generation past, which are desired by a very large proportion of the Civil servants in India, and which are of importance in order to improve the prestige and influence of the rulers in India. The hon. Member tells us that this would introduce a new precedent. Does he remember the case of Canada? There are five provinces in Canada, and the Governor of each of them is called "Governor." They are not appointed by the Home Government; they are not appointed out there. The Governor-
  1804
  General is, of course, appointed from Home, but the Governors of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and so on, are appointed out there and are called Governors. That really, as the hon. Member put it, is a matter of enormously less importance than the posts to which the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend refers.
  Colonel GRETTON: My hon. and gallant Friend deals with this matter from a lifelong experience. We are met here by the plea that, everything put forward is controversial. The Government can make anything controversial. The Amendment is one of substance, and has not received any really serious consideration. The Under-Secretary is, of course, only carrying out the instructions which have been given to him, and is left without that discretion which the Minister himself would have. May I suggest that if we cannot get these matters really seriously considered that further consideration of this measure should be postponed and brought forward when we really can discuss it, and know where we are. Unless we get a more adequate reply—I am sorry to speak in this controversial way—it will be my duty to move, Mr. Whitley, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Mr. ROBERTS: I think the hon. Members who are pressing this point so strongly forget for the moment the real facts in reference to this Bill. If it were really a Bill to reform the government of India clearly it would be for the Secretary of State to take charge of the Bill. The only reason he asked me to take charge of it was because I was interested in the Consolidation Bill of last year. In deference to the wishes of the House that Bill was strictly confined to consolidation, with the understanding that there should be in a subsequent Session a minor Bill dealing with non-controversial points, and not raising the problem of the government of India; because if you are going to raise these problems, whether controversial or not, you are entering on an enormous task which certainly could not be undertaken now. The only thing which could be done was to appoint a Joint Committee, and to see in that Joint Committee what proposals were likely to meet with general acceptance. This particular proposal was strongly objected to

  1805
  in Committee. That is really the case. There was no chance of getting agreement for this Amendment on that Committee, which had on it representatives of large Indian experience. I ask the Committee to realise fully the conditions, and to leave the Bill what it really is—a means of removing the doubts which have arisen in the process of consolidation—and of
  The CHAIRMAN: With regard to the further Amendments of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Yate) on the Paper the next thirty-eight go out; the two dealing with the matter of pensions are out of order, because they involve a charge; the next ten also go out; the one dealing with the statutory maximum and 100,000 rupees also involves a charge on the revenues of India and is, therefore, not in order. I come down to the Amendment after "Marine" to insert "Foreign."
  Colonel YATE: I beg to move in Schedule III. of the Act, 1915, after the word "Marine," to insert the word "Foreign."
  This is an Amendment in the Third Schedule, and it is provided in Clause 1 of that Schedule that
  "secretaries, joint secretaries, deputy secretaries, and under secretaries to the
  dealing with these minor matters which are inevitable if you are dealing with consolidation. We should not attempt to deal with the larger problems.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 9; Noes, 78.

  Division No. 54.]

  AYES.

  [11.8 p.m.

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Hazleton, Richard

  Younger, Sir George

  Batcher, John George

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Stowart, Gershom

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Gretton, John

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Colonel Yate and Sir Henry Craik.

  NOES.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

  Higham, John Sharp

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Adamson, William

  Hill, James (Bradford, C.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher

  Hogge, James Myles

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rowlands, James

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Illingworth, Albert H.

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Shortt, Edward

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Jones, Leif (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Sutton, John E.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Jowett, F. W.

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Keating, Matthew

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  King, J.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Walsh, Stephen (Lance., Ince)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Layland-Barratt, Sir F.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Whitley, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Goldstone, Frank

  Pratt, J. W.

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Helme, Sir Norval Watson

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund

  Hendry, Denis S.

  Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

  Talbot.

  Hibbert, Sir Henry F.

  several Governments in India, except the secretaries, joint secretaries, deputy secretaries, and under secretaries in the Army, Marine and Public Works Departments."
  I propose to add the word "Foreign" after "Marine." This question has given considerable trouble in India. A generation ago, Sir Henry Durand was appointed Foreign Secretary in India. The other day we had Sir Henry MacMahon appointed to that office. Owing to this Statute the Viceroy had to refer the matter home, and he had considerable trouble in making the appointment. I think the Secretary of State will agree with me that the Viceroy and the Governor-General in India should be able to appoint as his Foreign Secretary the man that he considers best fitted for the post. The late Viceroy selected Sir Henry MacMahon, whom we will agree was in

  1807
  every way suitable for the post. It is a great misfortune to curtail the power of the Viceroy in this respect, and I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to the addition of the word "foreign." I have quoted some instances which occur to me at the moment, and doubtless there are others. It is necessary to get the best man as Foreign Secretary in India. You require a man of great experience in all the countries in Central Asia, and whether he is a civilian or a military man who has done political duty you must get the best man available for the post.
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): I am sorry that I was not present at the earlier part of the discussion, but my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Roberts) I am sure has well represented the views of the Government of India and the India Office. He is, in fact, much better conversant with the details of this matter, with which he was associated before I became Secretary, than I am myself. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, who, if I may say so, has had a very handsome run for his money, will not think it necessary to divide the House on this or his subsequent Amendments. The hon. Member is really asking for something which is quite unnecessary. To deliberately change the Statutes would be to raise a question which would provoke considerable controversy. I am unwilling to do that, but if on a particular occasion it happens that someone is clearly the best man for the post who is not qualified under the ordinary rule, then under Section 100 of the principal Act the appointing authority has power to go outside that rule and appoint that man to the position. It is not therefore really necessary for any practical purpose to make the change my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, and I hope that he will not press it.
  Question, "That the word 'Foreign,' be there inserted," put, and negatived.
  Colonel YATE: I beg to move at end of paragraph "Section 120" to insert,

  "Schedule III.

  …

  Leave out 'Accountants-General.'

  Schedule III.

  …

  Leave out 'Commissioners of Customs, Salt, Excise, and Opium.'

  Schedule III.

  …

  Leave out 'Opium Agent.'"

  1808
  The rest of the appointments with which I am dealing, and which are reserved to the members of the Indian Civil Service, are those of the Accountants-General, and the Commissioners of Customs, Salt, Excise, and Opium. These appointments are all reserved to the Indian Civil Service, but is it really in accordance with the fact that the best accountant you can get in India must necessarily belong to the Indian Civil Service? If a man has been in the Accountants Department all his life, he ought to have the opportunity of rising to the top of the tree. An Indian Civil Servant may not necessarily be an expert in any of these matters, but any man, for instance, who has served all his life in the Salt Department ought to have a chance of rising to the top of that department. By this Statute you absolutely debar any man in any of those departments in India from rising to the top of his own particular tree. That is very hard lines. It gives men to hope. If a man goes into the Salt Department—it is a very uninteresting department—it seems to me very hard lines that he should be absolutely debarred from rising to the top of it. These men ought to be given the chance of rising to the top if the Viceroy and Governor-General sees that they are fitted for the position. Under the present rule it is absolutely impossible for them to do so. In these circumstances, I beg to move.
  Sir H. CRAIG: I have given my assistance, so far as I could, to my hon. and gallant Friend, but in regard to this Amendment I am bound to say that I entirely disagree with him. I think that the privileges of the Indian Civil Service are great enough as they are.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What my hon. and gallant Friend says shows that he does not appreciate what I said before. He is raising a controversial question which I am unwilling to stir up at this moment. He speaks as if we were enacting a new exclusion. We are doing nothing of the kind. He is asking us to proceed to the revision of the existing law, and this is not the time when we ought to do that which would involve a great deal of controversy. There were provisions in the Bill as originally introduced, or one provision, which would have involved a very great deal of controversy, and to which the Government of India attached very great importance. But, under the circumstances, and in view of the controversy which would have been

  1809
  provoked and the opposition which would have followed, we felt bound to withdraw it, and we did so. I cannot now go out of my way to introduce other contentious matters. Beyond that, I have nothing to say, except in repetition of what I said just now. If I repeat myself it is because my hon. and gallant Friend is BO obsessed with his own opinion that he really does not pay attention to the answers which he solicits. If he will read Section 100, he will find that the case is not as he suggests. There is a strong presumption that these appointments are to go to the Indian Civil Service. But if the case is as he states, namely, that there is some other man who is clearly in the public interest the right person for the position, and he is not a Civil servant, this appointing authority, under Section 100, can put on one side the ordinary practice and, under these special circumstances, appoint the man who, though he does not fulfil the ordinary qualifications, is the best man in the public interest.
  Amendment negatived.
  Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed with Amendments.

  MUNICIPAL SAVINGS BANKS (WAR LOAN INVESTMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  This is a Bill to provide for one particular form of War saving. The House generally will agree that it is desirable to adopt many measures for securing savings for all classes of the community for the purpose of providing the Government with the necessary money for the prosecution of the War. Experience shows that different methods appeal to different classes of the community, and even to people in different districts of the country. This particular Bill has been suggested by the Corporation of Birmingham, and the idea of it is to provide machinery by which members of the working classes willing to contribute small sums of money weekly through their employers may find a means of so
  1810
  employing that money and contributing it for the purposes of the Government through a municipal savings bank. This savings bank is only to be carried on during the War, and for three months from the expiration of the War. All the money will be invested through the National Debt Commissioners in certain securities specified in this Bill.
  When a similar Bill was introduced some little time ago the bankers took certain exceptions to it. The Bill was altered to meet their objections, and at the end of June we received a letter from the Bankers' Clearing House saying that their Committee had considered the new draft of the Municipal Savings Bank (War Loan Investment) Bill, and in view of the fact that it had evidently been drafted with a view to meeting the objections of the bankers to the original Bill, they decided not to oppose its introduction. I cannot conceive that the Bill in its present form is at all detrimental to the interests of the bankers. It is evident that this particular business is not likely to be undertaken by bankers. It never has been, and is never likely to be.
  I hope the House will take the view that it is our duty to provide as many avenues as possible by which the savings of the people may flow into the Treasury. If the Corporation of a great City like Birmingham asks for a particular method for the period of the War, without interfering, so far as I can see, with any other business, I hope the House will meet their wishes, because they are, after all, performing a patriotic duty. I do not think I need dwell upon the details of the Bill. They are perfectly simple. The whole of this money will be used for national purposes. The arrangements will be under the control of the Treasury, and the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Birmingham believe that there will be a successful collection of money by this method in Birmingham. Whether or not other great towns choose to take up the same method is a matter for themselves. There is one point in the Bill to which I might refer, that is that it is confined to towns with large populations. It is not desirable that there should be a number of these banks for small savings. It is really a method more suitable for large towns than for small places. I hope the House will allow this experiment to be tried and will accede to the wish of the Corporation of the City of Birmingham.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has had certain communications some few weeks ago from the secretary of the Bankers' Clearing Committee. There was some misunderstanding about that communication. It should never have been made in that form, and, secondly, it was overridden by a communication which was made to the right hon. Gentleman verbally about ten days or a fortnight ago.
  Mr. MCKINNON WOOD: Since the date to which the right hon. Baronet refers, I have had an opportunity of seeing representatives of the bankers of London, and they inform me that they had no intention of going back upon the letter to which I have referred. That is the last news I have heard.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know that it is any use pursuing this controversy. I have had an opportunity of speaking to the Secretary of State for India. There has evidently been a mistake, but my statements are correct. I had an interview in the presence of my Noble Friend (Lord Edmund Talbot) last Wednesday with the representative of the bankers.
  Mr. MCKENNA: He is not the representative of the bankers.
  Sir F. BANBURY: He was asked by the bankers to make a report to the Governor.
  Mr. MCKENNA: I can assure the right hon. Baronet I have put that specific point to the Chairman of the Committee or the Sub-Committee of the Clearing House Banks, and he assured me that that was a mistake. Of course, the Governor of the Bank of England does not represent the bankers.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The bankers requested him to represent them at a meeting at the Bank of England. The whole of the Bankers' Clearing Committee were present, and they unanimously made that request. I have told the right hon. Gentleman this before, and I am sure he is not questioning my veracity, as I Was present, and know exactly what occurred. However, the real subject before us is whether or not it is advisable to pass this Bill, and whether or not it will do what the right hon. Gentleman said was the primary object of it, namely, collect money for the purpose of the War, and hand it over to the Government. There are two objections, to my mind, to this Bill. One is a
  1812
  financial objection. The idea of the Bill is entirely wrong, because what it does is to take money which is repayable at seven days' notice and to invest it either in Treasury Bills or in any sum which the Treasury is authorised to issue out of the Consolidated Fund under any Consolidated Fund or Appropriation Act. That might be a five-year bond or a longer bond, and the consequence is that the money which the Corporation would receive, and which they would be liable to repay to the depositor at seven days' notice, might be locked up in five-year or longer bonds, and consequently they would be unable to find it in order to repay to the depositor what he had deposited. There have been certain institutions which have done something of this sort, though they have generally invested the money for longer periods. Anyone conversant with the City will know the institution to which I am referring, and it has always ended in disaster—because they have not been able, their money being locked up, to find the money, if there has been a run on them, which it is necessary to find for their depositors. In the years gone by, when money was very cheap, it was not an unusual thing for certain people to borrow money for a few days, and with that borrowed money to invest in longer-dated securities. So long as everything went on well that was quite cautious and answered; but when there was anything like a panic, or money became dear, the invariable result was that these people all lost their money.
  The rates of a town are not meant to be used for proceedings of this sort. Financially, it is wrong, and if it results in a loss the ratepayers have to pay. The rates of a town were never meant for proceedings of this sort, and if we are to have municipal banking, there is no reason why we should not have municipal banking or brewing, or municipal anything else, of which, no doubt, some hon. Members are in favour, but to which I certainly am, and I believe a good many hon. Members of this House are, opposed. What about the effect of this Bill, and as to whether or not it will result in obtaining the savings of the working classes? I am glad that one or two—I only see one or two representatives of the Trade Unions are present. I would call their attention to a meeting which was held in Birmingham on the 12th of May of this year, and I am reading from a report of the "Birmingham Daily Post." The paragraph is

  1813
  headed: "Municipal Savings Banks. Opposed by Trade Union Officials—Resolution of Support Withdrawn."
  This was a meeting of trade union leaders and secretaries which was held "at the Birmingham Council House last night"—that is on the 11th May—"to discuss the Municipal Savings Bank scheme initiated by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham. The Lord Mayor presided, and was supported by the following Members of the Committee"—whose names I need not read. Then the scheme was outlined, and it was supported by the Lord Mayor and others. Now comes Mr. Shakespeare, representing the National Union of Railwaymen, and he opposed the Bill. He said that his great objection to the scheme was the question of the employer, though that objection had to some extent been minimised by the explanation that had been given. What was meant by that was that this scheme—the right hon. Gentleman did not say so—the money which was to be invested in this bank, and I call the attention of the hon. Gentlemen to this, was not to be deposited by the workman themselves, but by their employers, and Mr. Shakespeare, representing the National Union of Railwaymen, objected to it on that ground. Then Mr. Crump, representing the Corporation Tramwaymen, asked how the City Council employés with their present wages could save, and said that as a Council employé he could not see his way to adopt the scheme. Another delegate declared that no scheme could be a success where the employer had any idea what a man was saving. Then, Mr. Cook, of the House and Ship-Painters' Union, said that at a meeting of his society called to discuss the scheme every man disagreed with the idea of letting the employer know how much he was going to save. Mr. Merrill, representing the Gas Workers' and Corporation servants, said that a majority felt strongly that it was impossible to do anything in the way of putting anything aside, and a representative of the Electrical Union while wholeheartedly supporting the scheme (Hon Members "Hear, Hear,")— that is the first one—voiced the same view in regard to his fellow-workers, The result of all this was that the resolution was withdrawn. That would look as if the workmen of Birmingham were hardly likely to support the scheme. It is financially unsound because it proceeds in the wrong way, and it is evident that the workers do not support it. Even if
  1814
  they did the only result would be that their savings, instead of going into the Government savings bank, would go into this bank. I do not know what the interest is going to be.
  Sir FRANCIS LOWE: Three and a-half per cent., free of Income Tax.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That is very nearly 5 per cent. It is a much larger rate of interest than is given by the Post Office Savings Bank, and the result would be that savings would be taken out of the Post Office Savings Bank and put into this bank. What earthly good that would do the Government I do not know. When I say 3½ per cent., free of Income Tax, I observe a smile on the face of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The question is whether the income is liable to Income Tax and Super-tax.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know what wages workmen in Birmingham are getting at the present moment, but under the Finance Bill that was passed a year ago the limit was reduced to £120, and there must be a great number of workmen in Birmingham who are receiving certainly £3 a week and would therefore be subject to Income Tax on a certain portion of their income. I think that this is quite a novel principle, and there has been considerable objection to it. In fact, the first Bill has been dropped, and it is not right to bring on a second Bill for Second Reading without warning. I did not know until I got down here to-day at 3.15 that this Bill was going to be taken. There is a considerable number of Members who think with me upon this question. Suppose that this Bill is going to do what the right hon. Gentleman says, yet we have been at war for two years and there can be no hurry about this Bill. I really do not think it quite fair to take it at a quarter to twelve o'clock on a night like this without the slightest notice having been given that it was coming on.
  The right hon. Gentleman said this is going to be limited to the duration of the War. There is a Clause to that effect, but is that the intention of the promoters? I have here a report of the Finance Committee of the Corporation of Birmingham, presented to the Council on the 4th April, 1916, of their proceedings upon this Bill. The report says,
  "There is no doubt direct advantage but very little risk. There will he some additional labour, but if

  1815
  those of the working-classes who are now spending practically all their earnings can be induced to save a portion of them by means of this scheme, undoubtedly the country will stand to gain after the War, when employment may be irregular."
  There is nothing there about the State gaining, or money going to the Government; it is the city which is going to gain after the War. But this is what I want to call attention. We have been told by the Financial Secretary that this is a temporary measure for the duration of the War, but this report says,
  "In addition, this scheme might become a permanent part of municipal administration."
  Sir F. LOWE: That is not in the Bill, which is temporary.
  Sir F. BANBURY: This is the recommendation of the Finance Committee of the City of Birmingham. Of course, it is not in the Bill; it would not be allowed to appear in the Bill, for the Bill would not go through if it did. This is not a temporary measure for the War; it is to get a little advantage under the guise of a temporary savings measure, which will promote saving during the War.
  "In addition, this scheme might become a permanent part of municipal administration—"
  although it is now only suggested as a war-time expedient,
  "and it must exercise n highly beneficial effect in educating the people who have never saved before."
  I think I have shown, first of all, that the Bill is based upon unsound financial principles, and, secondly, that if it is anything at all, it will only take the money out of the savings banks, and therefore takes it out of one pocket belonging to the Government and puts it into another. The whole Bill is not a genuine Bill; it is an attempt to introduce as a near measure something which will be permanent. A very large number of the people of this country are strongly opposed to it. There was a Division earlier, 9 against and 68 for—that meant 77 Members in the House.
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: There were 81.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We will not squabble about the number, but at any rate there were under 90 Members present very nearly an hour ago. It will be useless to divide, for there is a strong body of supporters of the Government here: I shall therefore content myself by making my protest. But I must ask that the Committee stage shall be taken at a reasonable hour and with proper notice, so
  1816
  that those of us who are opposed to the Bill may come down and state our opinions and take what action we think right upon it.
  The SECRETARY Of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): I am deeply interested in the Bill as a Member for Birmingham, and as a relative, a near relative of the Lord Mayor of that city, who is deeply interested himself in this subject, and to whose efforts the adoption of the project, in the first instance by the Corporation, and now the presentation of this Bill by the Government, are largely due.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend that as regards the attitude of the bankers there has been a misunderstanding. Nobody who knows my right hon. Friend would accuse him, nor would I any of the other gentlemen concerned of wilfully misleading anybody with whom they were negotiating or discussing any of these matters. But we can deal as a body only with the formal expression of the opinion of the bankers which they or their officer addressed to us. I agree that it would not be very useful to pursue that subject now. My right hon. Friend has often led me into the Lobbies of this House; once or twice in our comparatively long House of Commons careers he has been good enough to follow me. But I am certain he will not persuade me to-night, and I am afraid I shall not persuade him, because I think he has to this Bill a rooted objection which is connected with his whole outlook on political questions, and is not based on the particular arguments that he addressed to the House, a large portion of which I must say came with singularly ill-grace from my right hon. Friend. He impressed upon the House, in the interests of the supposed interests of the bankers, that this Bill would promote their being subjected to competition, which I think would merely stimulate their business by encouraging habits of thrift among the people and really cause them no danger whatever. He quoted with approval a statement that even at the present time no working man can save, and he gave his authority or countenance to the suggestion that no working man is safe if his employer knows he is saving.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was merely reading the statement; I was expressing no opinion.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman was merely quoting for his

  1817
  own purposes; that is what I said. My right hon. Friend says that this is unsound finance, that the money is to be taken for short periods, and may be invested in long-dated securities, and that that is a most injudicious banking practice which has led certain institutions with limited resources and a limited clientele to disaster. My right hon. Friend has really misread the Bill. In the first place, the money is to be invested through the National Debt Commissioners, and it is to be invested as those Commissioners think fit. The dangerous Corporation in question cannot fling the money about as it pleases. It is to invest it in accordance with the directions of the National Debt Commissioners, either in Treasury Bills or in Ways and Means advances. That is the meaning of the rest of the Clause. It would not admit of investment in a new War Loan. It is not conceivable, as the bank is to be wound up as rapidly as may be after the War, that the Commissioners would authorise a long-dated investment when they know that all the securities must be realised at, whatever period the War may last, a comparatively early time. I venture to say, therefore, that the finance is not as unsound as my right hon. Friend thought.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I quite admit that long-dated securities cannot be taken, but the actual words are these:—
  "All sums.… shall be invested through the National Debt Commissioners in such of the following securities issued for the purposes of the present War as those Commissioners think fit, that is to say, either in Treasury Bills or in advances to the Treasury of sums which the Treasury may borrow for the purpose of raising any sum which they are authorised to issue out of the Consolidated Fund under any Consolidated Fund Act or Appropriation Act."
  That would include Exchequer Bonds.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am advised not. I did raise the objection. I am advised it means Ways and Means advances. But I really do not rest my case upon whether these words mean Ways and Moans advances and nothing else or whether they do not. I rest my case on the fact that in the first place the Corporation of Birmingham are not fools, whatever my right hon. Friend thinks.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say they were.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: And that really, in the second place, the National Debt Commissioners are not fools and are not going to invest money which on the face of it is to be released at an early date in a security which has a very distant date. They will not do so and they will not allow it to be done. My right hon. Friend said that banks of this kind were undesirable. He may be thinking of institutions which have come to grief and which had no other resources but their depositors' funds and which, on a sudden run, had investments not easily realised or not realisable. My right hon. Friend admits that in this case the bank would have the rates to go to. The ratepayers will look after that. They have very complete control of the Corporation of Birmingham; they have some trust in it and some knowledge of it. They can hold their representatives to account. How are they to make a loss. The Corporation might have, under the circumstances which my right hon. Friend imagined, and which I think extremely unlikely, to advance money for the account of the bank, but the securities will be perfectly good security and they will recover the whole of the money in a very short time and will make no loss except, at the outside, a small loss of interest. We come to the objections which my right hon. Friend, without endorsing, culled from the report of a meeting presided over by the Lord Mayor, and at which a resolution was proposed in support of this Bill and was withdrawn. The meeting took place a good deal of time ago.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On the 27th May, I think.
  12.0 P.M.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the subject is better understood now, and I do not think that the same result would follow on the calling of a similar meeting to-day. There was not a single representative of any of the munition works of Birmingham present at the meeting, and the objections there were that the working men had no money to save. We know they are saving. I know one firm which collected from its employés and invested in Government funds on their behalf a sum of £10,000. It is a trifle compared with what we are borrowing, but it is a trifle worth having. That sum has been invested in War Loan by the employés of that firm which made facilities for its people to do so. Then the right hon. Gentleman said objection was taken at that meeting to the

  1819
  employers knowing the amount standing to the credit of their workers, but infinite trouble was taken by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, in conjunction with the workmen, to devise a workable scheme. They never know what a man has to his credit, for they never know what he has withdrawn at any moment. The right hon. Gentleman said that that objection had been very largely removed, from what he heard. I think it has been wholly removed. The right hon. Gentleman said further that the employer makes the deposit on behalf of the workman. What does the employer do now when he has a large number of men to pay? He sends to the bank for so much gold or notes, so many half-crowns, so many two-shilling pieces, so many shillings, and so forth. If this Bill comes into force he will add to his list so many coupons, and the bank will send them to him. Then he will pay the worker—let us say a man earning £2 a week—a sovereign and a half sovereign in notes, eight shillings in silver, and a two-shilling coupon. That is what the right hon. Gentleman calls the employer making the deposit on behalf of the workman.
  Sir F. BANBURYmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend is really unreasonable. That is a security put into the Bill in order to protect the bank against undue competition with their present business, and this Bill is limited to getting the class of business which they do not get now, which nobody gets now, and which it is very much in the interests of the State and of the workpeople that we should get in some way or another. My right hon. Friend said you will only withdraw savings from savings banks. That is guarded against by the very provision to which my right hon. Friend now takes exception. It is put in to afford protection against that. You have got to deal with a man in receipt of wages subscribed through his employer, though precautions are taken, as I have said, that his employer shall not know the amount standing to his credit at any time. Being thus limited, if it attracts anybody it will attract people who do not now go to the banks and make deposits, who do not to any large extent go to the savings bank and make deposits there. We put in the Bill a Clause limiting the amount standing
  1820
  in any man's name in order to give the same protection to the banks against competition as there is in respect; of savings bank deposits. You have considerable numbers of working-people making bigger money than they ever made before. We know that it is in the interests of the State now to stop unnecessary expenditure and to secure the loan of all available money. It has been said that if the workmen spend the money, at any rate the shopkeepers will deposit it with somebody else. What happens in the meantime? So much labour is being employed on unnecessary work when necessary work is undone for want of it. So much money and so much effort has been wasted that might have been saved. More than that. My right hon. Friend quoted in condemnation of this statement of the Finance Committee that it would be in the interests of the City, that when the War is over and had times came, large bodies of working men would have accumulations to their credit. I am quite sure my right hon. Friend does not understand the meaning of what he quoted, or it would have his hearty sympathy instead of his condemnation. Clearly it must be in the interests of the City that instead of having citizens who have nothing with which to face a rainy day it has citizens with something in reserve after that rainy day? If in the crisis of this War, when thrift is being preached on all hands, as it is being preached, and that by thrift the working classes not only can help their country but learn habits of thrift by aiding this, you not only do something to serve the immediate interests of the War but something to promote a most desirable social—revolution I call it! At any rate a great social change for the better. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that if the experiment is successful it might be permanent. That is for a future House of Commons to decide. Hon. Members are net asked to make the thing permanent now. On the contrary, we are asked to say that it is for the War, and for the War only, and it has to come to an end as soon as may be afterwards. That can only be reversed by a new Act of Parliament. My right hon. Friend complains that the Bill is taken now at this late hour. The Bill was introduced—and experience has proved that we were right—with good reason to think that we had banking approval. My right hon. Friend opposed it, and in deference to his wishes it was withdrawn. The

  1821
  matter was hung up for a long time, all the good that it might do being jeopardised. A new Bill was then brought in designed to meet the objections of my right hon. Friend. Again it was postponed at his request. Now he complains, after all the way we have tried to meet him, that we are taking it in the closing days of the Session.
  Sir F. BANBURY: What I said was that I thought we should have had a couple of days' or so notice.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend knows how legislation is dealt with at the end of the Session. But it is scarcely to the point that he should complain of the lateness of the Bill when it has been proposed as it has at his desire! He has made his protest and I hope he will not persist in his opposition to a scheme that I really believe to be in the immediate interests of the nation, and for the purposes of the War; to help those who at present are making good wages to make provision for bad times, and so save themselves and their families much trouble.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: I have been intensely interested in listening to the two speeches which have just been delivered. The speech of the Secretary of State for India was particularly pleasing, for it was in the best traditions of civic development, associated, as the right hon. Gentleman deserves to be, with an honourable name in the development of municipal activity. The note which the right hon. Gentleman struck, indicating that he at least was not going to commit himself to opposition to the development of this idea, seemed to me to be quite praiseworthy. The same thought occurred as to how significant some recent developments have been arising out of a state of war. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London is now posing as the champion of trade union interests.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No!
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: At any rate, he is prepared to put forward what they say. The right hon. Gentleman is usually a little more acute. He did not disclose to the House that not a single objection was raised by a trade union leader in Birmingham to the principle underlying this Bill. The two main objections have already been indicated. First of all, there is the inadequacy of the money available for savings in respect of low-paid wage-earners; and the second is a very deep-
  1822
  rooted objection to the employer knowing the amount that a man is putting by. Not a single exception was taken at the meeting quoted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the principle of the Bill, and I am sure that if a resolution were put to any trade union conference advocating the setting up of municipal banks it would be carried with scarcely a dissentient. As far as trade union opinion is concerned, it is emphatically in favour of the establishment of municipal banks with the credit behind them that the rates can provide. The right hon. Gentleman is quite prepared to have national credit behind joint stock banks in an emergency, and to use the taxes to save joint stock concerns. What difference is there in principle between that and the municipal banks? I understood at the outbreak of war the banking position was saved because of the national credit which was guaranteed by the Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Surely the Bank of England was guaranteed, and the whole of the State credit was brought behind the banking movement and the banking interests to safeguard it. The Moratorium was granted to benefit the banks.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Certainly not.
  Mr. GOLDSTONE: It was intended to preserve their credit. The right hon. Gentleman is much concerned when dividends and the directors who take fat fees are affected, but he opposes legislation when it is a case of the people taking the business into their own hands because there is a possibility that certain monied interests will suffer and have work taken from them which they think is their legitimate concern. I regard this movement with approval, and if I have a criticism to make it would be that the rate of interest in the interests of the banks is kept so low that any municipal bank shall not enter into successful competition with joint stock concerns. At every point in this Bill the interests of the great banks of the country are concerned, and the thing is so hedged about with limitations that if this proves a success, having regard to the limitations imposed, it would seem that it would justify a very wide extension in post-war days.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I am not going to enter into the quarrel with regard to the financial aspects of this Bill. I would only like to say that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London with regard to his views

  1823
  on municipal savings banks. There are, however, just one or two things in this Bill which I do not understand. Section (a) is a very curious provision, in view especially of the arguments we have heard from the Treasury Bench in advocacy of this Bill. It says that the banks shall not receive any deposits except from persons in the employment of some other persons and made through their employers. That is in itself a very curious provision. I do not say that I am opposed to it, although I do think some objection could be urged to that proposal as it stands. If the anxiety of the Treasury is very properly to get as much money as they can for war purposes and to utilise the savings of the people in every way, why do you, in a Bill of this kind, make it impossible for anybody else to invest their savings in these municipal banks except through their employers? Why should not anybody be free to do so. [An HON. MEMBER: "To oblige the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London."]
  Sir F. BANBURY: I had nothing to do with the drafting of the Bill.
  Mr. HAZLETON: That is a point I do not understand, and I should be glad to hear some explanation of it. The only other point on the merits of that Sub-section is one which I am sure the Labour leaders have looked carefully into, and no doubt they can give us some assurances I that this is not a Sub-section which can be I unfairly used by employers against their I employés in order to make deductions from their wages which the employés did not I themselves feel reasonable and voluntarily; able to make. I am sure that question has been considered in Birmingham. I did not know if this was a Bill which applied only to the Municipality of Birmingham whether it would be introduced as a public or a private Bill. As introduced, it applies only to England and Scotland. That is the way legislation of this kind is so frequently handled by Government de-
  1824
  partments and brought before this House. We had an illustration of this kind of thing only this morning in connection with the War Charities Bill. Here we have another illustration, and to my mind a much less defensible one, for whatever arguments there might have been in connection with the other Bill, this is a voluntary Bill. Any municipality over a certain population that chooses to do so can put this Act into operation, and start these municipal savings banks; but although you are quite willing to tax Ireland to the full extent by means of war taxes, if there are any advantages in this Bill, you are not willing to extend them to Ireland for these war savings. I do not say that Ireland wants this Bill. I know perfectly well that there are only a couple of municipalities in Ireland to which this Bill could apply, because of the population limitation you have imposed; but even for those few municipalities, if this Bill is a good one likely to have a beneficial effect, and is going to help the Government, you might by making a slight alteration give these few municipalities the option of saying whether they will come into this Bill or not for the time of the War, and I shall raise that question again in Committee.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Wednesday).—[Mr. Rea.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.