Commons Sitting of 20 December 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
LIGHT RAILWAYS ACTS,
  1896 AND 1912.
  Copy presented of Report of the Proceedings of the Board of Trade up to the 31st December, 1915, and of the Proceedings of the Light Railway Commissioners up to the same date [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 146.]

  POLICE (METROPOLIS).
  Copy presented of Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for the year 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

  1. Adjournment Motions under Standing Order No. 10. Return relative thereto [ordered 19th December; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed. [No. 147.]

  2. Business of the House. Return relative thereto [ordered 19th December; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed. [No. 148.]

  3. Private Bills and Private Business. Return relative thereto [ordered 19th December; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed.

  4. Public Bills. Return relative thereto [ordered 19th December; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed.

  5. Public Petitions. Return relative thereto [ordered 19th December; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed.

  6. Select Committees. Return relative thereto [ordered 19th December; The Chairman of Ways and Means]; to be printed.

  1422

  7. Sittings of the House. Return relative thereto [ordered 19th December; The Chairman of Ways and Means].

  8. Supreme Court (Rules). Copy of Provisional Rules of Supreme Court (Costs), 1916, dated 5th December, 1916 [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    NEUTRAL VESSELS (RIGHT OF LEAVE).
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the claim is maintained by this country, or instructions have been given to naval commanders, that neutral vessels on voyage between two neutral countries may be stopped and searched with a view to the removal of British subjects, or the subjects of Allied countries, and to be followed by the conveying persons so taken under custody to this country?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Neutral vessels are stopped and searched in accordance with the belligerent rights of visit and search. If in course of such search in territorial waters British subjects, or subjects of Allied Powers, are found on board who there is reason to suppose have committed an offence against our laws, it is manifestly within the rights of the Navy to remove such persons with a view to their being prosecuted for such offence.
    Mr. KING: Can my right hon. Friend point to any place in the Manual of Military Law where this right is recognised?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I accept it on the advice of my advisers.
    Mr. KING: Is my right hon. Friend aware that international lawyers very much question this right?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; I am not aware of that.
    Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Russian subjects

    1423
    have been removed from a Danish ship on voyage from Norway to the United States; if so, how many; whether such action has been taken on instructions issued from the Home Office, the Foreign Office, or from the Russian Government; and whether any charges of a criminal character have been made against persons so apprehended?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Four Russian subjects were removed from a Danish ship on their way from Sweden to the United States in possession of papers which authorised them to leave England for the purpose of returning to Russia. As their papers were obtained by false statements, they were consequently arrested in order to be charged with an offence under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

    EXHIBITION OF GERMAN SUBMARINE.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether steps have yet been taken to distribute the proceeds from the exhibition of submarine U C 5; and, if so, what institutions have received grants?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The number of persons who paid for admission to view the submarine at Temple Pier and at Chatham was 320,041. The total receipts amounted to £3,945 8s. 1½d., and the total expenses to £307 3s. 8d., thus leaving available for distribution a net amount of £3,638 4s. 5½d. An amount of £504 17s. 8d. was received from the Director-General of Voluntary Organisations, representing a contribution from the Government Servants' One Day's Pay Fund, Colombo, for distribution to Naval charities. It was decided that this amount might properly be added, for the purpose of distribution, to the receipts from the exhibition of the submarine, thus bringing the grand total to £4,143 2s. 1½d. Of this amount the sum of £143 2s. 11d. has been handed over to the Metropolitan and City Police Orphanage, in recognition of the services rendered by the police in connection with the exhibition. The sum of £2,000 has been handed over to the Board of Trade for distribution among institutions established for the benefit of the mercantile
    1424
    marine. The remaining £2,000 has been distributed in the form of grants to the following institutions:

    £

    Royal Seamen and Marines' Orphan Schools, etc., Portsmouth

    250

    Royal British Female Orphan Asylum, Devonport

    250

    Royal Naval Depot Orphanage, Chatham

    150

    Sailors' Orphan Girls School and Home, Hampstead

    100

    Royal School for Naval and Marine Officers' Daughters, Twickenham

    200

    Royal Dockyard Orphan Asylum, Devonport

    100

    Queen Adelaide Fund

    80

    British Seamen Orphan Boys' Home, Brixham

    80

    Nazareth House, Southsea

    40

    Naval Disaster Fund, Portsmouth

    400

    Royal Naval Scholarship Fund

    30

    Port of Hull Society and Sailors' Orphan Homes

    50

    Training Ship "Warspite"

    20

    Trafalgar Orphan Fund, 1916

    150

    St. Bartholomew's Hospital

    50

    Chatham Nurses' Hospital

    25

    Gillingham Nurses' Association

    25

    £2,000

    CONSCRIPTION IN AUSTRALIA (REFERENDUM).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will ask the Australian Government to publish as soon as possible the actual numbers of soldiers voting for and against Conscription?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Long): No, Sir; this is entirely a matter for the discretion of the Commonwealth Government.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    REJECTED MEN (RE-EXAMINATION).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that G. D. Roberts, who was examined at Wrexham on the 10th September last, and whose card is marked "Rejected," and therefore excepted from military service, is again called up for medical examination; and will he say on what authority this is permissible?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): Inquiries are being made, and the hon. Member will be informed of the result in due course.

    19TH COUNTY OF LONDON VOLUNTEER REGIMENT.
    Captain BURGOYNEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. P. Basden, Adjutant to the 19th Kensington Battalion, County of London Volunteer Regiment, who has recently been dismissedfrom the firm of Messrs. W. Walkerdine and Company; whether he is aware that a director of the firm, Mr. Walkerdine, junior, told Mr. Basden that he would either have to give up the volunteers or leave; whether he is aware that Mr. Basden stated he could not give up the volunteers if he wished to and would not if he could; and whether, following this answer, the manager of the firm was directed to pay Mr. Basden off; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am having inquiry made as to the facts of his case, but I cannot make any statement to-day.

    WALKERDINE AND COMPANY (MR. COWPER).
    Captain BURGOYNEasked whether a clerk in the employ of Messrs. Walker dine and Company named Cowper, who had been passed initially for duty abroad, obtained, at the request of Mr. Walker dine, junior, a three months' exemption as a measuring surveyor for the Dover contract; whether Cowper is registered as a builder's clerk; whether in effect he has been near the Connaught Barracks, Dover, and, if so, when; whether, on being called up at the end of his three months' exemption, a medical board rejected him as medically unfit for the Army; what were the grounds for this rejection; and whether, in the view of the War Office, the original exemption for this man was obtained under false pretences?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: This man was passed in March as fit for Home service only, and his calling up was postponed in view of the fact that he was at work on quantity surveying, etc., on the contract for the Connaught Barracks, and on other Government work. The time had not arrived when it was necessary to do any actual measuring at the Connaught Barracks. In October he was called up for
    1426
    service, and on examination by a medical board was rejected. The postponement of this man's service was not obtained under false pretences, since he was on essential work in connection with Government contracts.

    KIT THEFTS.
    Major Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that numerous complaints are still being received of articles of value being stolen from officers and men on the field or in transit to hospital, after they have been either killed or wounded; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The Commander-in-Chief has given his close personal attention to this matter, and I hope that we shall receive fewer complaints in future.
    Major Sir C. HUNTER: As this matter is very unsatisfactory, I beg to give notice that I shall draw attention to it on the Adjournment of the House on Friday.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of a conscientious objector, named A. E. Dightain, who has been allocated to the 3rd Battalion, West Yorkshire Regiment, and who was sentenced to two years' hard labour by court-martial, to be served in a civil prison, for alleged refusal to obey an order to appear on parade; and whether, having regard to the fact that, apart from Dightain's lifelong objection to the carrying of arms and to military service in any form, he is not physically fit for service he will be released and granted complete exemption under the terms of the Military Service Act providing for such cases as that of Dightain's?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will have such inquiries as are necessary made, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

    LONDON AMBULANCE COLUMN (DRIVERS).
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether all the men of the London Ambulance Column have been exempted from military service in order to continue in their employment as ambulance drivers; whether it has been decided that women are not to be employed in this work in England, although numbers of English women as well as French are driving ambulances in

    1427
    France; and whether he will reconsider this decision and take steps to employ women as ambulance drivers so as to set free for combatant service the men now so employed?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The men who are fit for general service have been gradually withdrawn, and the process will be completed in the case of the few remaining in the course of the next few weeks.
    Mr. McNEILL: Does that mean that women will be employed?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say. All I can say is that men who are fit for active service will no longer be employed in ambulance work.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of employing women and thus freeing men for active service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I will lay that proposal before the proper authorities.

    MILITARY POLICE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of utilising the services of older men in the military police and so release the number of younger men now being employed in military police work for active service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir.

    COLOURED TROOPS.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Under-Secretary for War, whether he is aware of the desire of many of His Majesty's coloured subjects throughout the Empire to take their place in the fighting line along with white soldiers; and whether arrangements will be made to enable them to do so forthwith?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am aware that the fighting spirit has been roused amongst many of the coloured races of the Empire, and serious consideration, as my hon. Friend knows, has been given to the right method of turning it to the best advantage, but difficult considerations arise and premature action which would ignore these considerations would not necessarily achieve the object aimed at.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is now over two years since I first called the attention of the War Office to this important question,
    1428
    and in view of the great drain upon the white men of the Empire, will he not urge the authorities to take immediate steps with regard to these men?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has pressed this subject from the beginning of the War. I will endeavour to press the subject before the proper authorities.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked what proportion or percentage of coloured men formed part of General Mangin's troops in the recent advance from Verdun?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir, I am unable to state whether any proportion of General Mangin's troops were coloured troops.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this brilliant French General, the hero of Verdun, is a great believer in the fighting qualities of the French coloured troops I Have we not equally good fighting material in the British Empire?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked whether the War Office will arrange that a company of coloured troops under white officers will be attached to every white battalion in the British Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir, I can only undertake that any coloured troops raised will be employed in the places best suited for their employment, regard being had to climatic and other considerations.

    SOLDIER UNDER AGE.
    Mr. MEAGHERasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that Thomas Boyle, son of Patrick Boyle, of Blanch-fieldstown, Dunbell, county Kilkenny, is being retained as a soldier either in the Hussars of the line or the Northumberland Yeomanry, although a birth certificate has been sent to the authorities concerned showing him to be only fifteen years and three months of age; can he say by what authority this boy is being detained against the consent of his father, who is doing everything possible to obtain his release; and whether steps will be taken to send this boy back to his home?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made, and the hon. Member will be informed of the result in due course.
    Mr. DEVLIN: By what legal authority is this boy retained?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not a fact that I have Supplied the hon. Gentleman with the birth certificates of several boys showing that they are tinder sixteen years of age?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe it is true that my hon. Friend sent me the birth certificate in two cases when I was in an unofficial capacity. I will have inquiries made into this particular case.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is there any power to retain these boys under sixteen? Is there any legal authority? I must press for an answer.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must have notice of that.
    Mr. LYNCH: If inquiry should show that the facts alleged are borne out will this boy be released at once?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must have notice of that.
    Mr. DEVLI N: Did I not send birth certificates to the hon. Gentleman in regard to these boys showing that they were under sixteen years? Why are these boys retained? Is it legal to retain them?
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it not the case that the War Office have issued an Order which begins to affect boys only at seventeen years, and that therefore they have no right to retain any boys below that age?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I must know the circumstances of each individual case. I believe it is true that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Devlin) did send me the birth certificates in certain cases. I know that the law once was that if a boy of fifteen years of age had his birth certificate sent to the officer in charge of any regiment to which he was attached, in that case the boy would be released; but since then I understand the recruiting authorities have varied that Order.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether the military authorities, by their own act, can supersede the law of the land?
    Mr. J. O'CONNOR: Is it not the fact that the War Office have misused the King's press damnably?

    MEDICAL FITNESS.
    Mr. DORISasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Patrick Noble, No. 54283, I Company, 3rd Battalion, King's Liverpool Regiment, an Irish migratory labourer, who was forced to join the Army in England, has suffered from a diseased hip during the past seven years and is permanently lamed; if he will state how long Noble has been confined to hospital since his compulsory enlistment; whether he has been passed for active military service abroad; and whether it is proposed to retain him in the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As the hon. Member has already been informed, this man was not forced to join the Army, but presented himself for enlistment. Inquiries are being made as to his being in hospital, and the hon. Member will be informed of the result in due course.

    NON-COMBATANT SERVICE.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that John Bennett, of Blackburn, was given a non-combatant certificate by the local tribunal, which was afterwards withdrawn by the Appeal Tribunal; that he was arrested and taken to Preston, thence to Plymouth, court-martialled, sentenced to 112 days' imprisonment with hard labour, which was served at Mutley civil prison; and that he afterwards appeared before the Central Tribunal, and was returned to Gilford Camp, Plymouth, at the expiration of his sentence; whether he has been deemed not genuine by the Central Tribunal; whether he was again court-martialled and sentenced to one year's imprisonment with hard labour; and, if so, will he say on what grounds?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I regret that I am not able to trace this man. If the hon. Member will give me his number and regiment, and, if possible, the date of the court-martial, I will have inquiries made, and will communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

    SOLDIERS IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked whether any soldiers have been or are being transferred to Class W of the Reserve; and, if so, whether the effect of such transfer is to impose upon such men liability to be called up again at any time,

    1431
    and also to deprive them and their dependants of any pay and allowances and to postpone indefinitely any claims they may have for pensions or gratuities?
    The hon. Member added: As this is a singularly gross case may I have an answer?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): A man in Class W receives no Army pay or other Army emoluments. Men who have a claim to pension are not passed to Class W, but to Class P (unless discharged), in which case they are paid as pensioners. If a man has wrongly been transferred to Class W, he should apply for his case to be reconsidered.
    Mr. BARLOW: Is it the fact that a man transferred to Class W is retained by the Army, and he may be ill but he gets no pay, no pension, and no separation allowance?
    Mr. FORSTER: That is the present rule. I am having the question gone into. My hon. Friend called my attention to a case in which a man had fallen sick on account of wounds. Owing to his having been placed in Class W he was unable to get treatment in hospital or separation allowance for his wife. I am having the question carefully reviewed. I think that in those circumstances we ought to restore the man's status either by calling him up or by some other means, so that he may receive hospital treatment and separation allowance can be made.
    Mr. BARLOW: In view of this answer, I will raise this question, if possible, between now and the Adjournment.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Have any men been transferred to Class W under paragraph 392 of the King's Regulations?

    NURSING ORDERLIES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why, when volunteers for nursing orderlies for hospital work are called for abroad, men from the Regular Army are always preferred to men from the Territorial Force?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no question of men volunteeing for service abroad. When the forces overseas demand men, men of the Regular Army are sent to units of the Regular Army, and of the Territorial Force to units of that force.

    DENTAL CORPS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a Return was asked in June or July last from field ambulances of how many men in these were qualified as dental mechanics, with the view of transferring these to the Dental Corps; if so, will he say why the men so returned have not been transferred; and when it is proposed to do so?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: A Return of dental mechanics serving in combatant corps who were willing to transfer to the Royal Army Medical Corps was called for last summer. Requirements have been fully met by the transfer of men selected from those who volunteered.

    INDIA (TAXATION).
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the possibility of raising extra revenue from India by increased taxation, seeing that the greater number of authorities are of the view that this could be easily and expeditiously done without imposing undue burdens on the people of India?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): Additional taxation, estimated to yield £3,650,000, was introduced this year. This was expected to provide for this year's needs and to leave a reasonable surplus. My hon. Friend will not expect me now to discuss next year's Budget.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Captain BURGOYNEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any knowledge of an enemy alien by the name of Stumm, living at Caterham, originally an agent for the firm of Krupps in this country; whether he is naturalised; and, if not, why he is not interned?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The person to whom the hon. and gallant Member apparently refers is a naturalised British subject, whose correct name is Stamm. He was naturalised more than twenty-one years ago, and is not known to be otherwise than perfectly loyal

    HAY PURCHASES (QUEEN'S COUNTY).
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in October, 1915, the district purchasing officer for Queen's County requisitioned a quantity of hay from Mr. John Kennedy, of Ballyreilly, Ballybrophy, at a contract price of £4 per ton with a promise to pay an extra allowance of 5s. per ton per month during the period the hay remained on Mr. Kennedy's premises; that the hay was not removed until the 24th January, 1916, when a claim was made by the vendor for the extra 5s. per ton, which was refused; that according to the contract note Mr. Kennedy was to receive an advance of £60 on account in October, 1915, but no payment was made until 24th March, 1916; and, as Mr. Kennedy has suffered financial loss, both as regards the non-payment of the extra 5s. per ton and the withholding of the purchase money for five months, whether inquiries will be made with a view to granting him adequate compensation?
    Mr. FORSTER: Full inquiries have been made into this case, and I am informed that Mr. Kennedy has been paid everything to which he was entitled under the contract referred to.

    EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many officer prisoners were lately removed from Donington Hall en route for a neutral country; were there amongst them the captains of the "Emden" and the "Blucher," and a German officer who was on Zeppelin L 15 which was brought down in the Thames Estuary; can he say who in the Foreign Office is responsible for these exchanges; and what officers did we get in exchange for those released?
    Mr. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): Twenty-one officers, among whom were the captain of the "Blucher" and an officer of L 15, but not the captain of the "Emden," were recently removed from Donington Hall for transfer to Switzerland. We have received the names of twenty officers who have reached Switzerland from Germany within the past few days, and I have just heard that others have arrived, but I do not yet know their names. The responsibility for these selec-
    1434
    tions in either country rests, under an agreement effected with the German Government, with a commission composed of Swiss and British or German medical officers, respectively.
    Major HUNT: Were the German officers sent from this country unwounded, and were the officers sent from Germany unwounded too?
    Mr. HOPE: In neither case are these officers fit for service. In both cases they are examined by this medical commission, which reports them as being, by reason of their disability, suitable for internment in Switzerland.
    Mr. FABER: Were the Admiralty and War Office consulted before this arrangement was made; and, further, were the prisoners returned by us of the same or greater value than the prisoners returned by Germany?
    Mr. HOPE: This arrangement was made a long time ago—before I was concerned with this question—and I cannot answer the first part; but the whole root idea of the arrangement is that they are prisoners who for the rest of the War will have no further fighting value.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    COUKTS-MABTIAL.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the names of all the persons convicted by field general court-martial in Dublin last May for complicity in the insurrection in whose cases the convictions were obtained on the evidence of only one witness for the prosecution, and state the sentences in those cases; and whether he is aware that, while in this country a person charged is a competent witness in his own defence, Section 2 of the Defence of the Realm Amendment Act, 1915, expressly deprives persons charged in Ireland of that advantage?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: No, Sir; I am unable to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. The latter part of the question is perhaps rather for the Law Officers than for me to answer, but I understand that the rules of evidence in Ireland under the Defence of the Realm (Amendment) Act comply with the ordinary rules of evidence in Ireland.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman say why he is not able to give this information, and when and where it may be obtained; also whether convictions and sentences obtained by this process will be reviewed at an early date?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the last part of the question to the Attorney-General.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will ascertain and state whom Sir John Maxwell consulted last May, if any person, on the legality of trying persons not subject to military law by field general courts-martial, held in camera, in capital cases, and on the legality of having some such persons executed and others sent to penal servitude in pursuance of sentences of such courts; whether he was, or is, aware that this procedure is unprecedented; whether he was, or is, aware that there is no law authorising it; and if he will specify the law on which Sir John Maxwell was acting?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Obviously I have not been able to consult Sir John Maxwell since the hon. Member put this question yesterday, nor, in view of the statements which have already been made and in particular of that made by the late Home Secretary on 3rd July, can I think that the hon. Member is really ignorant of the course which was followed as regards consultation of legal authorities?
    Mr. GINNELL: Having regard to the comment made by the Leader of the House yesterday, I beg to ask now whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that the law expressly requires trial by field general court-martial to be held in open Court; whether he is aware that execution not in accordance with the law is murder; and whether a public servant, if he has illegally executed fifteen men and illegally sentenced 130 to penal servinude, is not to be asked under what law he is supposed to be acting?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
    Mr. GINNELL: I would point out that this question, under one form or another, has been running on the Paper since last July, and I would respectfully ask you, Sir, to observe that it involves the charge of murder against a public servant.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will consider that when I see it in writing.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Home Secretary whether women enduring penal servitude by sentences of Irish courts-martial are receiving the same concessions as have been announced for men; and under what authority are such sentences being enforced in England?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, the authority is Sections 58, 59, and 62 of the Army Act, 1881, as applied by Section 1 (4) of the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are two Irish ladies interned in Aylesbury; that they are without trial and have been there eight months; will he consider their case and allow their release before Christmas?
    Sir G. CAVE: That question does not arise.
    Mr. BYRNE: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why questions are being refused in regard to these two ladies, who are interned without trial?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not refusing any questions.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The reason the questions are refused is because the hon. Member has asked the same question, I will not say a hundred times, but getting on that way.
    Mr. BYRNE: I have asked the question thirteen times, and as that is considered an unlucky number, perhaps you will allow me to put it the fourteenth?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is convicting himself.

    PRISONERS' TELEGRAPIC COMMUNICATIONS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was by his direction the camp authorities at Frongoch recently prevented the transmission of a telegram from Thomas Daly, an untried Irish prisoner there, whose wife had just died in Dublin, asking his brother to look after his home and children; and what is the official reason for this treatment of an untried man?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am informed that a telegram signed "Daly" was offered for transmission by another prisoner, and that he was told to inform Daly that he must himself hand in any telegram he wished to send. The Secretary of State had given no direction in the matter, and I am inquiring into it.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of letters and telegrams have been sent during the last three or four days to prisoners, dealing with the sickness or death of various persons, and that the prisoners have not been allowed to reply to them?
    Sir G. CAVE: That is a matter which will be taken into consideration in the Home Office inquiry into the whole matter.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us by whose instructions Daly's telegram was returned.
    Sir G. CAVE: I assume by the commandant. But that, again, will be one of the subjects of the inquiry I am making.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire why any communication that the commandant desired to make to him was not made to him through the usual channel recognised for all other purposes?

    FRONGOCH CAMP.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the name of the medical officer at Frongoch Camp who refused to give the necessary professional attendance to one of the untried Irish prisoners there whose knee was dislocated by a fall on snow, except under a condition having no relevance to the injury or to the medical officer; whether this doctor is being retained in the public service; and whether his conduct has been or will be reported to the British Medical Association?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am informed that there has been no such case. One man injured his knee; and he, although refusing to give his name and number, was admitted to hospital, treated, and cured.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to say how many of the untried Irish prisoners at Frongoch are to be released before Christmas; whether
    1438
    they will comprise all who suffer from lung trouble or other infectious disease contracted there, and all youths under twenty years of age; whether any of the Irish political prisoners sentenced to penal servitude by secret court-martial will be released on this occasion; whether all of them still retained will be given any amelioration of their condition; and whether those of them accustomed to literary work will be left wholly free to pursue such work having no relation to politics, and allowed to receive such books and material as they may require for their purposes?
    Sir G. CAVE: With regard to the release of the Irish prisoners at Frongoch, I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 15th December to the hon. Member for Dublin Harbour. No lung trouble or other infectious diseases have been contracted at the camp. With regard to the Irish prisoners sentenced to penal servitude, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my predecessor on the 14th November in answer to a question by the hon. Member for North Galway. Prisoners in perial servitude accustomed to literary work will be supplied with note books and will be permitted to receive any books of a non-political character which they may require, subject, of course, to their good conduct in prison.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what amelioration as to punishment is to be extended to the Countess Markievicz for Christmas, in view of the fact that there are two Irish ladies interned there with whom she would associate, but there are no other women except thieves and prostitutes?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid that I cannot accept the last statement. I have already answered other questions as to this, and I cannot add to any statement I have made.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of J. Wilson, tried by field general court-martial held in camera in Dublin on 4th May, 1916, on the two charges of taking part in the insurrection and of attempting to cause disaffection; whether the prisoner was acquitted on the second charge, and convicted on the first charge and sentenced to two year's imprisonment with hard

    1439
    labour, but recommended to mercy on account of his youth; whether he is aware that the prisoner was then only seventeen year of age; whether he is aware that General Maxwell confirmed the sentence, ignoring the recommendation to mercy; if he will state under which Sections of the Defence of the Realm Regulations the two charges were laid in this case; and whether the remainder of the sentence will now be commuted?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made in this case.
    Mr. GINNELL: In view of the fact that this man has been seven months in prison, why do the inquiries take so long? I will repeat this question to-morrow.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the evidence at a recent court-martial on untried Irish prisoners at Frongoch; that the commandant declared that if he had nothing in the camp but dead bodies he would maintain discipline there, and to the evidence that what the commandant means by discipline is that untried prisoners must betray their comrades; whether the Government sanctions this discipline and this method of enforcing it on untried prisoners; and, if not, what action is to be taken in the matter?
    Sir G. CAVE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question, and I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for the Harbour Division on 14th December. My inquiries into the conditions at Frongoch are not yet completed, and I hope I may be allowed to postpone my full answer to this question until they are complete.

    INQUIRIES (REPORTS).
    Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister (1) when the Report of the evidence given at the Commission of Inquiry into the murders at the Portobello Barracks will be issued; and (2) when the proceedings of the Dublin courts-martial will be issued?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I am making inquiries with regard to these matters.

    MILITARY HOSPITALS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that a number of beds in our military hospitals are occupied by men who in the case of a civil hospital would be regarded as outside patients; and will he consider the advisability, in view of the demand on the beds in military hospitals and on the time of the doctors, of dealing with minor ailments among men in the Army in a different way to the existing system?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I can assure my hon. Friend that the importance of
    diminishing by any legitimate method the demand on the beds in military hospitals is fully realised.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not my own view, but the view of medical men?

    SOLDIERS' LEAVE.
    Colonel BURNasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in some commands at home it is understood that only 10 per cent. of the men serving in each regiment are allowed to proceed on leave during the Christmas holidays; and will be issue an Order making it clear that only 10 per cent. Of the men of home-serving regiments may go on leave at one time, but that these may be followed by another 10 per cent. when the first return to duty, and so on?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid Christmas leave must be limited to the Christmas period. The answer to the latter part of the question is therefore in the negative.
    Major RUNT: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether all week-end leave will be stopped after this? Will men be allowed any leave after Christimas?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have already stated that I am afraid week-end leave must be stopped.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) if he is aware that soldiers on active service in France are complaining of unfairness in regard to the granting of leave in the letters they send home because officers are being granted leave far more often than other soldiers, many officers being allowed

    1441
    leave three or four times in the course of twleve months whilst other soldiers cannot get so much as one leave in twelve months; if he will make inquiries with a view to sharing the opportunities for visiting their homes more fairly as between officers and other soldiers; and (2) if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among those soldiers now on active service in France who have been there more than twelve months since they had their last leave, on account of the fact that soldiers who have only been in France four, five, or six months altogether are being given their first leave before their turn comes as compared with soldiers who have had no leave for twelve months; and if he will make inquiries with a view to removing the cause of this dissatisfaction?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am prepared to admit—what must obviously be the case—that there may be inequalities, or what appear inequalities, in the grant of the privilege of leave in different cases. It is obviously impossible to place 1,500,000 men on a roster and to observe mathematical precision in following such a roster. I can only again repeat that it is the desire of the Commander-in-Chief to give all the leave that can possibly be given. As is known the facilities have been increased. I am sorry that my hon. Friend raised the question of the amount of leave given to officers and men respectively. I can assure him that the interests of officers and men in this matter are both of equal concern to the military authorities.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS (FIELD AMBULANCE SERVICE).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether a scheme for associating a field ambulance service with the Volunteers has been prepared by the War Office; and, if so, when it is likely that it will be published?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

  FOOD SUPPLY.

    SUBSTITUTES FOR FARM LABOURERS.
    Sir FRANCIS BLAKEasked whether before lists of soldiers considered suitable substitutes for farm labourers
    1442
    liable for military service are prepared and sent to substitution officers, any steps are taken to ascertain that the families of such proposed substitutes are still living in the districts where the men enlisted?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Names of men available for substitution are sent, not to the area where a man enlisted, but to the area where he was formerly employed. If the man's family are no longer there, his name can be sent to the area to which they have removed.
    Mr. FABER: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the families for substitutes are to be provided with housing accommodation in the places where the substitutes will be working, seeing that in many cases the families of farm labourers who have joined up are allowed to remain in occupation of their cottages?

    FARM LABOUR.
    Sir F. BLAKEasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that many farmers in the north-east of the country are not ploughing their lea land on account of the uncertainty which exists as to the amount of labour which will be available for sowing operations next year, thus decreasing the acreage hitherto under cultivation; and whether he can bold out any hope that a sufficient number of farm workers will be left to enable farmers to put their land to the fullest and best use?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The Board are aware of the general position both in the North - Eastern counties and elsewhere in regard to agricultural labour, and they hope to make such arrangements with the War Office and in other directions as will give to agriculture as many labourers for next year's work as in the present prevailing conditions is possible.
    Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: When will the matter be settled and cleared up?
    Sir R. WINFREY: It is a matter for the War Office as well.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he is aware that farmers are being continually harassed by their men being called up and time after time getting short exemptions, and that farming under such conditions is impossible;

    1443
    and if he will take into consideration the expediency of giving farmers the opportunity of stating to the Board of Agriculture the number of men they have and the number required, so that the Board of Agriculture could state their case before the tribunals and not throw on farmers the stigma of want of patriotism?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I can assure the hon. Member that the Board are fully aware of the conditions referred to. An announcement on the subject of agricultural labour is being made by the President to-day.

    INSURANCE RATES (MAIZE).
    Mr. KEATINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the demand for insurance of increased value on maize is such that the rates at Lloyd's have advanced to 10 per cent. on steamers and 20 per cent. on sailing vessels, although the original rate for the insurance of this food stuff when put afloat was only 1 per cent. under the Government insurance scheme; and whether he will consider the more equitable basis of requisitioning all maize lying in British ports, and to arrive at the price stated on the importers' original invoice, plus landing charges and rent, and a profit of 2 per cent. to the present owner?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Roberts): I am aware that the rate in the open market for the insurance of increased value has risen, but increased value as such can be insured at the War Risks Office at the Government rate prior to the sailing of the vessel, and there is no hardship in leaving the increased value which accrues after the sailing of the vessel to be insured in the open market. It does not materially affect the selling price of the commodity. The second part of the question should be addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food.

    SUGAR.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the dissatisfaction felt with the arrangements for the distribution of sugar in Ireland, of the fact that the office in London dealing with this matter is undermanned, and that Irish merchants and others who have complaints to make in person have to cross to London, he will appoint a resident sugar controller for the whole of Ireland?
    Mr. ROBERTS: As was stated yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Limerick, the Food Controller is in touch with the Royal Commission on sugar supplies in regard to the general distribution of sugar, and my hon. Friend's suggestion will certainly be considered.

    DEER FORESTS.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has taken any steps to ensure that during the continuance of the War grazing in all deer forests shall be available for cattle and sheep?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): The Board of Agriculture for Scotland is issuing a circular to landowners in which the importance of making the suitable parts of deer forests available for the grazing of stock is emphasised.

    GAME PRESERVATION.
    Mr. KINGasked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, whether his attention has been called to the amount of maize and other foodstuffs given to raise pheasants and other wild birds; whether he is aware that hay and other feeding-stuffs are often given to deer, some of which are in a wild state; and whether steps will be taken to prevent extravagance of this kind?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The first part of the hon. Member's question was answered on 18th December. As regards the latter part, I understand that already voluntary action on the part of owners has resulted in the diminution of their herds of deer. Probably further reduction will have to be made.
    Mr. KING: Where the landowners and great peers have not reduced their herds, and have still herds of thousands of animals, is nothing going to be done?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think we can safely trust this matter to the Food Controller, who will take any action necessary.
    Mr. PETOasked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, whether he can indicate the nature of the powers to be sought in respect of the restriction of game preservation, and particularly whether it is intended to abrogate the right of property in game or to make illegal the feeding of game birds with grain; and, if the latter, whether the prohibition will extend to domestic poultry?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The Food Controller is taking power to specify in regard to any article of commerce certain uses to which it may not be put. Under this an Order will be made, prohibiting the feeding of grain to game birds. There is no ground for extending this prohibition to domestic poultry.
    Mr. PETO: Will the hon. Gentleman answer definitely the part of my question which asks whether there is any intention of abrogating the right of property in game, or only dealing with the question of feeding; and is he not aware that you can produce greater results from poultry when in a semi-wild state than when poultry is penned up?
    Mr. KING: Before my hon. Friend answers this question, may I ask whether he is aware that there is no right of property, strictly speaking, in wild game?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am very much obliged to my hon. friend for improving my knowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) had better put his question again to my hon. Friend the Member for Wilton.

    MESOPOTAMIA EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.
    Mr. BROOKESasked who is in command of the British forces in Mesopotamia; and whether these are now thoroughly fitted out for all eventualities?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Major-General (temporary lieutenant-general) F. S. Maude, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., is in command of the Mesopotamian Expeditionary-Force. No effort has been spared to equip this force in a satisfactory manner.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will say in how many cases the Victoria Cross has been conferred on officers or men for services in Mesopotamia; and in how many cases has service there been rewarded by the following honours, Distinguished Service Order, Military Cross, Distinguished Conduct Medal, or other decorations?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend's question suggests a basis for the distribution of the honour of the Victoria Cross on which, if he will allow me to say so, it is hardly possible to act. This may not be equally true of the other distinctions
    1446
    mentioned, in regard to which I can say—although I cannot give him the figures for which he asks—that the consideration he has in mind is not lost sight of.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Is the scale of honours in Mesopotamia as liberal as in France, and will further consideration be given to the matter?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My impression is that the scale of honours is as liberal in Mesopotamia as it is in France. Of course, the proportion of troops is not the same.

    CENSORSHIP OF LETTERS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he has issued an Order that letters to Members addressed to the House of Commons shall be opened by the Censor; if so, whether the same rule affects Members of the House of Lords or members of the Government; and whether he can give the reason for this Order?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The correspondence of Members of both Houses is liable to censorship. Members of the Government are exempt so far as their official correspondence is concerned. As regards the reasons for the censorship, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for North Islington.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that letters are very often opened, and that they are not marked as having been opened?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My own impression is that the rule is being kept that if a letter is opened it is duly marked as having been opened by the Censor.
    Mr. LYNCH: How can this rule give any protection against secrets being known through the post by the enemy?

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will say why Margaret Howell, mother of the late Private James Howell, No. 19299, H Company, 3rd Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers, has been refused a pension or allowance, seeing that while at home in Tatnafree,

    1447
    Brookeboro, county Fermanagh, he gave most of his earnings to his mother, who had an allotment of 3s. 6d. per week from him until he was killed in action in France on or about 2nd November, 1915; can he state why this allowance to her was stopped immediately after his death; and will he have her application for a pension reconsidered?
    Mr. FORSTER: No application for pension appears to have been received, but I am having inquiries made, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.
    Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will say why No. 1122, Sergeant F. Carney, 5/4th Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, has been refused a pension or allowance on being discharged from the Army as no longer physically fit; is he aware that ex-Sergeant Carney is the son of a fisherman aged over sixty years who finds it impossible to support an invalid son who is unable to work, and that his only brother, No. 7830, Sergeant J. Carney, Royal Inniskillings, who contributed to the support of the home, was killed in Callipoli, having served through the African campaign and been dangerously wounded in France when he won the Russian Cross of St. George; and will he, in the circumstances, have ex-Sergeant F. Carney's application reconsidered and a pension granted to him if possible?
    Mr. FORSTER: This man's disability, bronchitis, had existed for several years before he joined the Army, and was not aggravated by his military service (which was all at home). He is therefore not eligible for a pension. I am inquiring about the other son.
    Mr. HOGGE: Was the man accepted as medically fit?
    Mr. FORSTER: Presumably.
    Mr. HOGGE: If he was accepted as medically fit, why did the War Office refuse a pension?
    Mr. FORSTER: No one knows better than my hon. Friend the rules under which we have to administer pensions at present.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Are all those passed as medically fit refused pensions if they leave the Army medically unfit?
    Mr. FORSTER: No. My hon. Friend is equally well aware of that.
    Sir C. HENRY: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to modify that?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument afterwards.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state what steps, if any, the Government will take to provide for the widows and orphans of soldiers whose death was caused by accident whilst in the service of their country; if he is aware that in one case in Dublin a soldier's widow and children are in receipt of Poor Law relief, and that the wife, who is in a delicate state of health, has to leave her three children, all babies, in the hands of strangers in a penny nursery whilst she goes to work, where she earns from 4s. 6d. to 7s. 6d. a week; if he is aware that her husband left his employment to answer his country's call and died whilst on active service; and if he will cause instructions to be issued to provide such dependants with the necessary means of existence without the aid of Poor Law relief?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend has informed me that his question refers to the case of Mrs. Flatman, widow of the late Driver J. Flatman, R.F.A., as to which he has already been in correspondence with me. I have already explained to him that Driver Flatman's death was caused by his own fault, and no pension or gratuity can be paid from Army funds.
    Mr. BYRNE: What provision is made by the War Office for the widow and children of this man whose death was due to an accident—being choked while eating a piece of meat? At the present time they are being provided for out of Poor Law relief in Dublin. Can I not have an answer to that very important question? Are the children to go hungry after that man meeting his death in the service of his country?
    Mr. FORSTER: No. I think not. I do not think that the children ought to go hungry. I think that that is a case in which the discretionary powers of the Statutory Committee might well be exercised.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will you make that recommendation?
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked if the inquiries as to the dependant's allowance payable to Mrs. Margaret Condron, mother of Private Michael Condron, No. 19875, Dublin Fusiliers, are yet completed; and, if so, what is the result?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have ascertained that a claim for separation allowance has not been made by Private Condron. A form of application has been sent to him through his Commanding Officer, and payment of any allowance admissible will be made in due course with effect from date of application.
    Mr. MEEHANasked if Andrew Dunne, of Drymaterrel, Ballinakill, Queen's County, has yet received dependant's allowance in respect of his son, Thomas Dunne, No. 11513, Irish Guards; and whether Andrew Dunne will receive a pension of 5s. a week in respect of his deceased son Patrick, No. 3450, Irish Guards, and a further pension of 5s. per week in respect of his deceased son William, No. 4390, Irish Guards, or only one pension of 5s. per week in respect of both?
    Mr. FORSTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, one pension of 5s. is being paid. I would remind the hon. Member that in these cases pension depends on the degree of dependence, and not on the number of sons.
    Mr. MEEHANasked if the inquiries into the case of the dependants' allowances payable to the dependants of Private J. Rowan, No. 9987, Irish Guards, and Private William Rowan, No. 11476, Royal Irish Regiment, are yet completed; and, if so, what is the result?
    Mr. FORSTER: Neither of these soldiers has yet made an allotment or claimed separation allowance.
    Mr. MEEHANasked if the inquiries into the case of Private William Foley, No. 2497, Leinster Regiment, are yet completed; and, if so, what is the result?
    Mr. FORSTER: This man's case has again been considered by the Chelsea Commissioners, and as his disability is regarded as aggravated to some extent by his military service, they have awarded him a conditional pension of 5s. a week for a year.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that in a number of cases soldiers, who previous to enlistment had disagreed with their wives and separated from them, but who have since become reconciled and are fulfilling all their duties and obliga-
    1450
    tions as husbands and fathers, are unable to claim full separation allowance under the Army Orders now in force, although they allot the same amount out of their pay as other soldiers do; and if, for the sake of the welfare of the families concerned, he will recommend the Army Council to amend the Army Orders so that where a soldier and his wife who were separated when the soldier enlisted are afterwards reconciled to each other separation allowance may be paid at the full rate?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is the established practice to grant separation allowance at the full rate in cases such as those described. If the hon. Member is aware of any case in which it has been refused, perhaps he will communicate with me.
    Mr. BUTLER LLOYDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will inquire into the case of Private Albert Fox, No. 17904, King's Shropshire Light Infantry, who died on the 8th April, 1916, as the result of inoculation; and if he is aware that this man was the main support of his mother, that she lived in the house of which he was tenant, and that since his death she has not received any allowance or pension for his loss?
    Mr. MEEHANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that Sergeant J. Hogan, No. 19776. Army Service Corps, recently discharged for service, claims that there is a sum of £41 13s. back pay due to him; and whether he will take any action in the matter and have a full statement of accounts furnished to Sergeant Hogan and all arrears paid him without delay?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am having inquiries made into these cases, and will let the hon. Members know the result.
    Mr. MEEHANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if the inquiries into the separation allowance payable to Mrs. Elizabeth Price, of Ballylincen, Queen's County, mother of Private James Price, deceased, No. 10962, Dublin Fusiliers, are yet completed; if so, what is the result; and whether the amount of pension payable to Mrs. Price has yet been fixed?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have ascertained that there are no arrears of separation allowance due to Mrs. Price, payment having bean made from date of application. The question of pension is not yet settled.

    ARMY COMPLAINTS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).
    Captain DOUGLAS HALLasked if, in view of Army Council Instruction No. 89V, of 1916, which expressly prohibits all ranks ventilating their grievances through Members of Parliament, an hon. Member can give the name and regiment of a soldier referred to in a question without subjecting the man to disciplinary action or otherwise prejudice him on account of having made a complaint through a Member of Parliament to the War Office?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir.

    HORSE PURCHASES (IRELAND).
    Mr. MEEHANasked if the accredited agents of Foreign Allied Governments are permitted to purchase horses in Ireland which are not required by our Government and which have been rejected by our Government buyers?
    Mr. FORSTER: Applications to export horses from the United Kingdom would be considered by the War Trade Committee on their merits; but I question whether the Allies are likely to desire to purchase horses which War Office buyers have rejected.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they tried to buy these horses last year and would not be allowed to purchase them?
    Mr. FORSTER: If anybody wants to buy these rejected horses and makes application the application will be considered on its merits.

    OFFICERS' ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. WHITTYasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether officers' allowances while serving in the field are not paid to their account until a month, and sometimes two and three months, after they have fallen due; and will he see that in future these allowances are paid to their accounts immediately they fall due?
    Mr. FORSTER: Allowances are paid monthly in arrear under the Allowance
    1452
    Regulations. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any cases where undue delay has occurred I will have inquiries made.

    SOLDIERS' WORK FOR PRIVATE EMPLOYERS.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the rate of pay that working companies or parties of soldiers receive when they are sent to work for private employers or contractors; whether a notice is posted up at the depot or on the job that the soldiers are working on showing the rate of pay that they are entitled to; and, if not, whether he will give instructions that such a notice is posted up?
    Mr. FORSTER: The soldiers composing a working party draw from the War Office their military pay and allowances, together with any excess of the local standard rate for labour of the class concerned over 3s. 6d. a day. The contractor in all cases pays to the War Office the local standard rate. I will inquire into the desirability of posting up notices as suggested.

    GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. PETOasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that in the Southern Command farmers are asked to pay the military authorities the full local rate of wages for any prisoners of war they may employ, and to provide sleeping accommodation for them; and whether, seeing that this course makes such labour dearer than British labour, and that this provision is acting as a complete bar to the employment of German prisoner-of-war labour, he will see that demands for payment are more in accordance with the prospective value of the labour, taking into consideration the difficulty of language and unfamiliarity with local and other requirements?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I have no information to show that farmers have been required to find lodging for prisoners without payment The question of terms generally is under consideration.
    Mr. PETO: Does the rule which has been made as to the rate which farmers should pay these German prisoners of war emanate from the War Office or from the Institute of Labour?
    Mr. FORSTER: I think that that sort of thing ought to be settled in consultation. I have consulted the Labour Adviser of the Government with regard to this and I propose to consult the Board of Agriculture.
    Major ASTORasked the Home Secretary whether farmers wishing to employ German prisoners, either military or civilian, have to obtain the sanction of the local police?
    Sir G. CAVE: As regards civilians, the answer is in the negative. The Home Office is not concerned with military prisoners. Fanners wishing to employ civilian prisoners of war in the production of food have only to apply to the Home Office. The Home Office uses its discretion as to consulting the police before the men are sent out, but invariably informs the police when they are sent, and requests them to return the men to the camp if they should prove unsatisfactory in any way.
    Major ASTOR: Can the police refuse to sanction the employment of such prisoners if the Home Office approve?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir.

    ST. KATHARINE'S COLLEGIATE HOSPITAL.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in connection with a new letting of the master's house at St. Katharine's Collegiate Hospital, Regent's Park, any additional land has been added to the grounds thereof and taken from Regent's Park; and, if so, what is the area thereof and what are the conditions contained in the new lease in respect thereof?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir Alfred Mond): No new lease has been granted, or agreed to be granted, and no land has been added, or is intended to be added, to the holding comprised in the existing lease, which is for a term of forty years from 10th October, 1889.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the name of the commandant of the Islington internment camp; whether the present commandant has held office since the inception of this camp; and how many aliens, distinguishing enemy and friendly aliens, and how many British subjects are now interned there?
    Sir G. CAVE: The answers to the several parts of this question are: (1) Sir Frederick Loch Halliday, C.S.I. CLE.; (2) Yes; (3) Some 700 alien enemies are interned in this camp as prisoners of war; thirty-nine British subjects and seven alien friends are interned there under the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

    RAID ON WORKING MEN'S CLUB (SOHO).
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on the evening of Sunday, the 26th November, a raid was made by police accompanied by soldiers against a working men's club in Soho, and that on this night about 200 soldiers paraded out side the club, and that many soldiers and civilians entered with other persons, drank the whisky and other liquors on the premises and, finding over 100 members of the club at the time, searched these members and took from then not only papers and official documents, but watches, rings, and other valuables, damaged the billiard table fittings and other furniture, and, when remonstrated with, replied that it was war time; and if he will say under whose authority was this action taken, who was in charge or command of the raiding party, and what reason or justification can be given for these proceedings?
    Sir G. CAVE: The action was, I understand, taken under the authority of the competent military authority for the London district, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the question which the hon. Member for Blackburn has addressed to the Secretary of State for War on the subject.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Are any steps being taken for dealing with those who are responsible for the stealing of the property?

    DESTRUCTION OF DOGS (LONDON).
    Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that hundreds of dogs are destroyed every week in the neighbourhood of London; and if he will consider if it would be possible to utilise the skins for the many purposes for which they are much needed and also the remainder for manurial purposes?
    Sir G. CAVE: The police contracts merely provide that dogs which are destroyed shall be killed as painlessly as possible. No doubt the contractors in their own interests make the most economical use of the carcasses, and I understand that they are, in fact, disposed of in the manner indicated in the question.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the clerks in the offices of factory inspecttors have participated in the 3s. war bonus awarded under the recent Treasury Order to all Civil servants established or un-established whose salaries are paid out of moneys provided by Parliament; and, if not, whether and when steps will be taken to grant such clerks the bonus?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Treasury have authorised the payment of the war bonus within the limits laid down by their circular to the whole-time personal clerks to the factory inspectors, and instructions have been issued to give effect to this decision.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Do I understand that there are clerks in the employ of the factory inspectors who are not giving their whole time to the work?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think there may be some clerks who are not giving their whole time.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Why not?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think that question should be addressed to the Treasury.

    CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY PROCLAMATION.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Proclamation declaring two days' extra holiday at Christmas will apply only to
    1456
    those working in controlled establishments or is it intended to apply to all trades and occupations; and, if so, will he state who is to recompense the workpeople for the time so lost?
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Prime Minister whether the Proclamation that before the 1st March next holidays are to be granted in lieu of those postponed makes it compulsory on all employers to close down their works; if so, whether these holidays to be granted must be paid for where it is customary in the trade to pay for the holidays which were postponed; and whether, in cases where it is not the custom to pay for holidays, it is to be left to the option of the workpeople whether or not they will take the holidays offered?
    Sir G. CAVE: The Proclamation of the 13th December does not declare two days' extra holiday at Christmas, but directs that all classes of employés who, by reason of the Proclamations postponing the Whitsun and August Bank Holidays, were deprived of holidays to which they were entitled, shall be given equivalent holidays before the 1st March next. The Proclamation applies to all trades and occupations except those specifically excluded.
    As these holidays are to be granted in lieu of the postponed holidays, it follows that the holidays to be granted should be paid for where the employe would have been entitled to be paid for the holidays which were postponed. If the postponed holidays would not have been paid for, no loss has been caused to the employé by the postponement, and no question of compensation arises.
    Employers are not authorised by the Proclamation to contract out of its requirements, and in the interest of the health and efficiency of the workers it is undesirable that any such authority should be given.

    BOARD OF EDUCATION (PRESIDENT).
    Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether the appointment of the President of the Board of Education has been made subject to Mr. H. A. L. Fisher becoming a Member of this House and on the understanding that Mr. Fisher will retain for the present his position at Sheffield, and retire from Parliament and return to Sheffield when the present Ministry comes to an end?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Mr. Fisher felt—and I may say that I entirely share his view—that it would not be proper for the President of the Board of Education to retain any official connection with an institution which receives grants from the Board. He has therefore resigned.
    Mr. KING: Does that mean he has resigned, not only for the period of the War, but absolutely?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As far as I know, his resignation is absolute, but I presume that will not prevent his going back.

    GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES (ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL).
    Mr. WILESasked the Prime Minister if he is now able to state when the Standing Arbitration Tribunal for dealing with questions arising as to remuneration and other matters between the Postmaster-General and other Government Departments and their Civil employés will be set up; and, if so, will he further state what will be the constitution of the tribunal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Stockport. I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if the Government can yet announce their proposals with reference to the increased separation allowance to be paid to soldiers' dependants; and if it will be paid before Christmas, and if Ireland is included?
    Mr. WINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of his promise to the Member for Houghton-le-Spring that increased allowances to soldiers' dependants were under the consideration of the late Government, he will say if such increase is being considered by the present Government, and when such increased allowances are likely to commence?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have been asked to reply to these questions. I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday.
    Mr. BYRNE: Can the hon. Member say whether the rule which is applied in England will also apply to Ireland?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes.

    SMALL NATIONS (INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether, in the interest of recruiting, he will state, for the information of small nations concerned, by what method the British Government intend, in the event of Allied success in the War, to afford to small nations an opportunity of realising the independence and integrity promised them in that event; whether it is a joint or common purpose of all the Allies or only a special purpose of each Power with reference to the small nations subject to itself; and whether the Government have considered the advisability of specifying the small nations to which the promise applies, so that they may know what it is that they are asked to fight for?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the speech delivered by the Prime Minister yesterday in this House.

    COAL (TRANSPORT).
    Mr. E. JONESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that South Wales mines are being thrown idle because of the accumulation of loaded wagons of coal and coke at Newport and Cardiff; whether he will issue telegraphic instructions for the coal to be dispatched to the large centres where industries and householders are suffering acutely from a shortage of coal; will he, if necessary, arrange for working parties of soldiers or German prisoners to discharge the wagons so that they may be returned to the mines without delay; and whether he will at once appoint a controller of mineral transport for South Wales so as to keep the pits going without further prolonged stoppages or intermittent idleness?
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am aware that shortage of tonnage has recently caused temporary stoppages at a number of collieries in South Wales. The Board of Trade, the Ministry of Munitions, and the Coal Mining Organisation Committee have done what they can, with the assistance of the District Coal and Coke Supplies Committee, to encourage the stocking of coal, both by consumers and colliery owners, in order to meet the situation as far as possible, but I am not

    1459
    aware of any district at present where it can be said that industries are suffering acutely from a shortage of coal. I do not think that the suggested appointment of a controller of mineral transport is necessary.
    Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: Arising out of that reply may I ask whether it is not a fact that both at Newport and at Cardiff industries are being dislocated for the want of coal?
    Mr. G. ROBERTS: I have given this matter some consideration this morning, and as far as the information available goes it proves that there is nothing abnormal in the existing circumstances, but the matter is being closely watched and every endeavour will be made to avoid an interruption of industry.

    SHIPBUILDING.
    Mr. ALDENasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the shortage of merchant vessels and the need for the completion of ships still on the stocks, he can see his way to secure that the completion of those unfinished and any further addition to the mercantile marine during the War should be placed in the hands of the Admiralty, and that all such ships should be taken over by the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Questions relating to the completion of merchant ships on the stocks and the building of new ships are being dealt with by the Shipping Controller, who is working in conjunction with the Board of Trade and Admiralty.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the mismanagement in the use of shipping by the Admiralty, and that the shortage of food and high prices is largely due to that cause?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am aware that charge has frequently been made. I am aware also that the Shipping Controller is doing his best to look into it.
    Mr. ALDEN: To whom are questions now to be addressed on that point?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it would probably be more convenient after the House reassembles, when there will be a representative of the Shipping Controller here, that they should be addressed to him.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the ships at the disposal of the Shipping Controller are likely to be reduced by the additional demands of the expedition to Salonika.?
    Mr. KING: Who will be the representative of the Minister in this House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That question had better be put on the Paper.

    PEACE PROPOSALS.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Tsar's declaration that he will never make peace so long as an enemy soldier is on Russian soil, and in order to counteract the possible mischief of the German pretence that they are willing to make peace in the interest of religion and humanity, he will consult the Allied Governments as to their readiness to make public a joint declaration that no overtures for peace or for a temporary cessation of hostilities will be entertained by the Allies so long as any territory of the Allies is in the occupation of the enemy, at the same time making it clear that no undertaking is implied that negotiations shall immediately follow the complete evacuation of Allied territory by the enemy nor as to the terms to be required by the Allies as conditions of peace?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The points raised by my hon. Friend were dealt with by the Prime Minister in his speech in this House yesterday.

    SPECIAL REGISTER.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked whether the Government intends to introduce proposals for setting up a Special Register, to include soldiers, sailors, and munition workers, for the purposes of the next General Election?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I fear I can add nothing to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Enfield Division.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware the question put yesterday is not the same as that put to-day?
    Mr. HOGGE: Has the Government any intention of giving votes to soldiers at any time?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: All I said yesterday was that we could not deal with the matter this Session.
    Mr. PRINGLE: As my question is not confined to the present question but is a question of general policy, can the right hon. Gentleman not give a reply?
    No answer was returned.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Just like the late Government!
    Mr. KING: Inasmuch as the Government came into office as a protest against indecision and delay, will they definitely say when they will have made up their mind on this subject?

    NEW MINISTERS.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Prime Minister if, for the general convenience, the Government will issue immediately a Parliamentary Paper giving a full list of the names of the new Ministers and heads of Departments, the names of their private secretaries, and the addresses of their respective offices?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly think that the issue of a Paper of the nature indicated would be justified. Full information as it becomes available is furnished in the usual Parliamentary handbooks.

    CONTROLLER OF SHIPPING (POWERS).
    Sir A. WILLIAMSONasked whether the Controller of Shipping has power to limit the waste of shipping by the Admiralty, War Office, and Government of India, and particularly to arrange for rapid loading and discharge of vessels used by these three Departments and the utilising of each vessel for the work for which she is suited?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is one of the main duties of the Shipping Controller to see that merchant tonnage is used to the best possible advantage, and the method by which he carries out his duties was explained by me in the House on Monday last.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Shipping Controller has charge of the acceleration of the dispatch of vessels at places such as Salonika and Basrah?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The duty of the Shipping Controller in all such matters is to examine into them, to satisfy himself whether there is any delay, if there is to arrange to end it if possible with either the military or naval authorities, and, if he fails, to come to the Cabinet and get a decision upon it.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Do I understand that his powers cover Salonika and Basrah?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: His powers include the right to look into the use of shipping in every form.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman call the special attention of the Controller to the large number of vessels held up in French ports? If they were released, that would give great relief to our shipping.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is necessary to call his attention to it, because I believe he is already aware of it.

    LUNATICS (DETENTION).
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Home Secretary if any lunatics detained under a finding of an English Court are confined in Scotland or Ireland; are any lunatics detained under a finding of a Scottish Court confined in England or Ireland; are any lunatics detained under the finding of an Irish Court confined in England; and, if so, why and under what authority?
    Sir G. CAVE: I am not aware of any lunatic confined in Scotland or Ireland under the finding of an English Court, nor of any lunatic confined in England or Ireland under the finding of a Scottish Court. There are several cases of men charged with criminal offences out of Great Britain and found by the Court to be insane who are confined in an asylum in England, including at least one who was tried in Ireland. The authority for this practice is the Criminal Lunatic Asylum Act, 1860.
    Mr. HEALY: What authority decides that an Irish criminal lunatic must be brought to England: are there any minutes on the subject to which we can turn?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is entirely a question of convenience. Broadmoor is the principal asylum for such cases.

  MUNITIONS.

    WORKMEN IN LODGINGS FROM HOME.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether workmen who have obtained employment in controlled establishments at a long distance from their homes, and are therefore compelled to live in lodgings, are allowed to deduct the cost of their lodgings from the amount they return for Income Tax purposes?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: An allowance in respect of the actual additional cost of lodging away from home, up to a maximum of 2s. 6d. per day, is granted in cases where, owing to exceptional conditions, mainly arising out of the War, weekly wageearners chargeable by quarterly assessment are employed at considerable distances from their homes and are, therefore, compelled to live in lodgings.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these amounts are often as large as the separation allowances of the women?
    Mr. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is only allowed in cases where the men are sent by the Labour Exchanges; when the men are sent and their fares paid by the trade union it is not allowed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that, and the answer given now does not bear it out; but I shall inquire into it.

    "COMBING OUT."
    Mr. C. WASONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that numbers of persons, after having been treated by tribunals with consideration, take refuge from military service by entering munition works; and if he will take into consideration the combing such persons out of munition works?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (Sir Worthington Evans): If my hon. Friend will furnish particulars of any cases of which he has knowledge my right hon. Friend will have them investigated. A general instruction has been issued withdrawing all war service badges and certificates as from 18th December from all men entered on the Employers' Register as semi-skilled and unskilled. This will enable the men affected to be called up as soon as they can be spared from, or replaced in, their present employment.
    Mr. C. WASON: Is that to be retrospective?
    Sir W. EVANS: It takes effect as from 18th December.
    Mr. T. WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the military authorities are calling out skilled men as well as unskilled men?
    Sir W. EVANS: This answer deals with unskilled and semi-skilled.
    Mr. ALDEN: Will the hon. Gentleman take care not to comb out men who are unfit for military service when they may very well serve on munition work?
    Mr. KEATING: Has the Government defined what is a skilled man?
    Sir W. EVANS: The Government have done their best in that direction.

    WORKERS' CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS (CHEAP RAILWAY FARES).
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is making arrangements whereby workers in and on munition factories that are considerable distances from their homes can travel on the railways at cheap rates and so enable them to spend their Christmas and New Year's holiday with their families?
    Sir W. EVANS: Arrangements have been made whereby cheap week-end tickets will be available for munitions workers covering the periods from Saturday, 23rd December, to Wednesday, 27th December, and from Saturday, 30th December, to Tuesday, 2nd January. Arrangements will also be made whereby these tickets will be available in the case of firms whose holidays do not exactly coincide with the dates already mentioned, subject to the proviso that no cheap weekend tickets will be issued after 31st December.
    Mr. BYRNEasked whether any arrangements have been made for Christmas holidays for munition workers; if any travelling arrangements for those desiring to go to their homes in Ireland have been made; and, if not, will special cheap excursion tickets be issued to men engaged on work of national importance?
    Sir W. EVANS: Arrangements have been made whereby two additional days' holiday will be granted at

    1465
    Christmas to establishments engaged on munitions work, with some necessary exceptions due to military exigencies. These arrangements will also apply to New Year holidays in cases where New Year's Day is the recognised holiday. Railway tickets at reduced fares will be made available accordingly and these will be issued up to 31st December for munitions workers travelling from England and Scotland to ports in Ireland. Owing to the fact that the Irish railways have only been taken over by the Government in the last few days, it has not been found possible to make arrangements for special facilities on these railways.

    BOYS IN FACTORIES (SUPERVISION).
    Mr. BROOKESasked the Minister of Munitions whether adequate steps have been taken to ensure, by control and supervision, the welfare of boys employed in national and Government-controlled factories; and, in that case, will he state the nature of the arrangements made, not only with reference to the health and education of these boys, but also with regard to the inculcation of the principles of thrift?
    Sir W. EVANS: Steps have been and are being taken by the Welfare Section of the Ministry to ensure the supervision of the welfare of boys engaged in controlled establishments. Supervisors have been appointed in a number of cases, and every aspect of the question, including the encouragement of thrift, is receiving full consideration.

    PARK ROYAL CARTRIDGE FACTORY (DISCHARGED WOMEN).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions how many of the 300 women discharged from the Park Royal Cartridge Factory have been found employment?
    Sir W. EVANS: One hundred and thirty-six women were discharged from the Park Royal Factory between the 14th and 16th December inclusive. Lists of all women under notice of discharge were sent to the Willesden Exchange, and the women were advised to apply to that Exchange for employment. Seventy-one women applied to the Willesden Exchange, and of these thirty-seven have actually started work at a neighbouring factory, and thirty-four will commence work on 28th December.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with regard to old age pensions in Ireland, he will take into account that 7s. 6d. nowadays represents less purchasing power than 5s. formerly, and will advise that the old age pensions be automatically increased, except in exceptional cases, where the pension officer can give good reason for advising otherwise; and whether the Local Government Board will take the onus of the proof?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to the recent Treasury scheme for the award of additional allowances up to 2s. 6d. a week to old age pensioners; I am of opinion that this scheme adequately meets the needs of the case.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would the right hon. Gentleman be more precise. Will this actually be the case in Ireland?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I should say so.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is it true, as stated in "Daily Express," that he is not granting the full 2s. 6d.?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is not so so far as I am aware.

    EXCESS PROFITS TAX.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the amount of money paid into the Exchequer from the Excess Profits Tax during the present financial year?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Up to the 16th instant the amount of Excess Profits Duty (including munitions levy) paid into the Exchequer was £73,699,000, as shown in the published weekly statement.
    Mr. SNOWDEN and Mr. G. FABER: How does that compare with the official estimate?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is a larger amount.

    INCOME TAX (SOLDIERS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if soldiers and non commissioned officers serving in the Army are liable to Income Tax; if so, at what rate they have to pay; and will he state if a man's pay, his allowances for wife and family, and any allowance made by

    1467
    his employers are all estimated as income on which tax is charged, less the usual allowances?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Soldiers and noncommissioned officers serving in the Army are liable to Income Tax, but under Section 30 of the Finance Act, 1916, reduced rates of tax, ranging from 9d. to 3s. 6d. in the £, are charged on the service pay, and, where the total income from all sources does not exceed £300, the pre-war exemption limit (£160) and abatement allowance (£160) still apply. The answer to the last part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. PETO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the concession to soldiers and sailors in the matter of Income Tax has been made practically inoperative owing to words in the Act just quoted that all deductions must be made from the final pay, and that, therefore, in the case of the smaller pays they all go away in Income Tax?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, I am not aware of that. I am sure that that was not the intention of my right hon. Friend who preceded me in this office. If the facts are as stated I shall look into them.

    GOVERNMENT STATIONERY.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Government Departments, including the Board of Trade, have been using sheets of foolscap paper and envelopes of foolscap size for short communications for which small sheets of paper and small envelopes would amply suffice; and if, in view of the shortage of paper and of the importance of the Government setting a good example in general economy, he will endeavour to put an end to such extravagance?
    Mr. ROBERTS: So far as the Board of Trade is concerned, paper of quarto and octavo size is in general use, and every effort is made to promote economy. Foolscap paper and envelopes have been used only from old stocks not yet exhausted. I am not able to speak generally for other Government Departments, but I am informed by the Stationery Office that there has been a large reduction in the supply of foolscap paper and envelopes.
    Mr. PENNEFATHER: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to send him the stationery which in the last few days I have received from the Board of Trade?

    LINEN TRADE (BELFAST).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has made any recommendation with regard to a minimum wage for the sweated workers in the linen trade in Belfast; if so, what is the nature of the recommendation; and whether, for purposes of comparison, he will state the average wages earned by the women workers in the linen trade in Belfast and the average wages earned by the women workers in the cotton trade in Manchester and Lancashire?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Under the Trade Boards Act the duty of making recommendations with regard to minimum rates of wages is imposed on the Trade Boards, and not on the Board of Trade. As regards the extension of that Act to the linen trade in Belfast, I can add nothing to the previous answer which I have given on this subject. I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of Volume I. of the Report of an Inquiry into Earnings and Hours of Labour in 1906, which contains very full information regarding wages in the cotton and linen trades. Since 1906 there has been an increase of 10 per cent. on list prices in the cotton trade, and there have also been increases in wages in the linen trade, particulars of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

    RAILWAY SERVICES AND FARES.
    Mr. BROOKESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the rising of the House, he will state the general intentions of the. Government with regard to the reduced railway services and the increases in fares; and whether he will permit any discussion on the subject?
    Mr. ROBERTS: A large reduction in the number of passengers travelling on the railways is necessary to enable the railway companies to cope with the demands on them for other traffic, both here and in France. With this end in view it is proposed to restrict the passenger train service on and after the 1st January, and also to increase ordinary passenger fares from that date by 50 per cent., leaving

    1469
    unaffected workmen's fares and season tickets for distances not exceeding 40 miles. I do not know what opportunity there may be for discussion, but I have to assure the hon. Member that some such steps as these are necessary in the national interest.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are a very large number of workmen in this country who travel daily to and from their work who are not in a position to purchase workmen's tickets. Will consideration be given to cases of this kind?
    Mr. WING: Will there be some consideration given or exemption made in the case of commercial travellers whose time is almost entirely spent on the railway? Will the hon. Gentleman receive a deputation to consider the matter?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The two points submitted to me shall be considered by the Department, and I have no doubt that any deputation that desires to interview the President or myself will be received.
    Mr. ASHLEY: There are many clerks quite as badly off—will their case be looked into?
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Will the matter also of the suburban traffic in the neighbourhood of large towns be considered; there is the question of clerks and others who travel at workmen's fares?
    Mr. ALDEN: Will school children be exempted—there are many thousands of them?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the hon. Gentleman make the rule concerning the 40 miles elastic enough to bring into consideration towns which might be just over 40 miles?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I will take note of the points submitted to me, and will consult my right hon. Friend the President of the Board in the matter.

    MINIMAX CONSOLIDATED, LIMITED.
    Mr. COWANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any Mini-max concern trading in Italy has at any time in 1915 or 1916 claimed to be a British-owned or controlled concern owing to its association with Minimax Consolidated, Limited, i.e., an undertaking enemy-owned and managed from Germany, hav-
    1470
    ing its main assets in enemy countries; whether any steps were taken to inform the British Consular officers as to the status of Minimax Consolidated, Limited; and whether, having regard to the conditions elucidated as to this company's enemy status, he would consider the advisability of preventing the future abuse of British prestige conferred upon any undertaking registered as a British company, by strengthening the existing enactments so that companies, enemy-owned and managed from enemy countries, could be wound up by the Board of Trade, even if not now trading in or having any considerable assets in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am not aware of any such claim having been made by a Minimax concern trading in Italy. No representations have been made to British Consular officers as to the status of Minimax Consolidated, Limited. This company is in liquidation, and, as at present advised, I do not think that any amendment of the trading with the enemy legislation is necessary to meet such a case.
    Mr. COWANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the judgment of the Berlin Court of October, 1915, which is being circulated in neutral countries indicates in its second paragraph that interests to the value of 300,000 marks (say £15,000) in the London Minimax concern, namely Minimax, Limited, and to the value of 500,000 marks (say £25,000) in the German Minimax manufacturing concern, had been transferred to W. Graaf, of Berlin, on the 9th November, 1914, so that the transfer of interests related not only to an undertaking in Germany, but also to one in England; whether it is a fact that there had been no change in the directors of Minimax Consolidated, Limited, in 1914 and 1915, and that the two German directors in Berlin, or one of them, had been given powers prior to the War to dispose of any assets of the company without consulting the two English directors in London; and whether he will consider the desirability of amending the Trading With the Enemy Acts in order to give the Board of Trade power to wind up companies which, although not actually now trading in the United Kingdom or having any considerable assets in this country, rank as British companies and can conduct business as such whilst in fact almost entirely owned and controlled by enemy subjects resident in Germany?
    Mr. ROBERTS: In the judgment of the Berlin Court, which I have seen, reference is made to the transfer of the interest of Minimax Consolidated in two German undertakings to W. Graaf, but there is no indication of any transfer of that company's interest in any undertaking in this country. No change has been made in the directors of the company since the outbreak of war except in so far as the offices of the German directors may have been vacated owing to the War. I have no information as to the powers of the German directors to deal with the assets of the company in Germany without consulting the English directors. The company is in liquidation, and, as at present advised, I do not think any amendment of the law is necessary to meet such a case, for no action taken in this country can prevent persons in Germany dealing with assets there over which they may have control.
    Mr. COWAN: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he has seen a copy of the Berlin judgment, and, if not, will he allow me to send him a photographic reproduction of it?
    Mr. ROBERTS: We have a copy of it in the Department, and I saw it this morning. It does not bear the interpretation, as I am advised, put upon it by the hon. Gentleman.

    HOPEMAN RAILWAY SERVICE.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade if the railway communication with Hopeman is to be stopped after 31st December; whether he is aware that fish landed at Hopeman is dependent for a market on railway communication with the South; and whether he will arrange for the continuance of a railway service even if reduced from that hitherto afforded?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am in communication with the Highland Railway Company on this subject, and will inform the hon. Baronet of the result.

    Council of India.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India how many representatives of the Indian Army were appointed to the Council of India when that Council was first constituted; and how many repre-
    1472
    sentatives of the Indian Army were serving on the Council of India in the years 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1907, and 1914, respectively?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of officers belonging to the Indian Army in the Council of India when the Council was first constituted was two; the number serving on the Council in the years mentioned in the question were:

    In 1870

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    1880

    …

    …

    …

    …

    5

    1890

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    1900

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    1907

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3

    1914

    …

    …

    …

    …

    2

    These figures include appointments made in the year to vacancies occurring within the year. In many cases these officers had passed their service in civil employment, and were appointed to the Council on account of their civil qualifications.
    Colonel YATE: Will my right hon. Friend continue the old rule of two officers specially appointed to the Council and does not the whole safety and welfare of India depend on the loyalty and efficiency of the Indian Army?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am the last man to underrate the importance to the Empire of the loyalty and efficiency of the Indian Army, but I do not think there is any such rule as my hon. and gallant Friend has spoken of. Take the case of the year in which there was the largest number of officers on the India Council—that is five. Only one of them had passed his life in the Army, and was appointed in his capacity as an officer of the Army. All the others had passed the major portion of their lives in civil employment, and were appointed as civilians.
    Colonel YATE: As there is only one officer now on the Council, and he has been ten years away from active touch with the Army, will my right hon. Friend not have a fresh officer appointed specially to the India Council who can advise him regarding the Indian Army?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No; the appointment of the gallant general to whom my hon. and learned Friend refers comes to an end in the course of a month or two, I am sorry to say, and a fresh appointment will then be made, but I have every confidence, and I think I have reason to have confidence, in my present military advisers inside and outside the Council.

UNTRIED IRISH PRISONERS.

  MOTION FOE ADJOURNMENT.
  Mr. DILLON(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Commandant of Frongoch Camp has yet been changed; whether the Government propose to continue the punishment of the prisoners now confined in the Southern Camp and to carry out the sentences inflicted by the courts-martial; and whether it is true that the doctor in charge of the camp has committed suicide, and, if so, whether he can state what led to this tragedy?
  Sir GEORGE CAVE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. In consequence of a number of complaints made by hon. Members from Ireland against the Commandant at Frongoch, and at the express request of the Commandant, I decided some time ago to institute a careful inquiry into the conditions at that camp, and my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Wigan, was good enough to undertake to conduct the inquiry on my behalf. The inquiry would have been concluded by to-day, but for an unfortunate illness which has kept him in London for a few days.
  As to the second part of the question, the circumstances attending the transfer of a number of the prisoners to the South Camp, not (as I understand) by way of punishment, but in order to separate them from the remaining prisoners, will be one of the subjects of the inquiry. The sentences imposed by the Military Court on certain of the men will expire on the 24th instant.
  With regard to the third part of the question, I deeply regret to say that the senior medical officer of the camp, who had carried out his duties very efficiently and had shown much kindness to the prisoners, was found drowned near Bala on the 14th December. I have asked for a full report of the proceedings at the inquest, and at present can only say that according to a brief report which I have received the medical officer had been much worried by certain unfounded charges made against him and his staff. A verdict of "Suicide while of Unsound Mind" was returned.
  Mr. DILLON: With reference to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer in which he says the men in the South Camp are not detained by way of
  1474
  punishment, but simply for the purpose of separating them from the remaining prisoners, will he explain why they are denied the right to receive letters and parcels and other privileges which their comrades in the North Camp enjoy?
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulty in regard to this camp. These men decline to give their names or answer the roll call, therefore their letters and parcels cannot easily be handed to them.
  Mr. DILLON: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the intentions of the Government in regard to the release of the Irish political prisoners still interned in Great Britain?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister promised to deal with this matter in a couple of days. Questions before the War Cabinet are occupying the Prime Minister's whole time to-day, and he will require part of to-morrow. I may say that the statement which has been promised will be made before the close of the Session, and it will be made in such a way as to leave an ample opportunity for discussing the question if a discussion is thought to be neeessary.
  Mr. DILLON: That is an exceedingly unsatisfactory answer, because, so far as I can gather, the so-called opportunity for discussion will be no opportunity at all, partly because all the Irish Members will be obliged to leave London tomorrow, or they will not be able to get out of London at all for Christmas. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because there will be no space in the trains, which will all be engaged by soldiers after tomorrow. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Government to release all the untried Irish political prisoners still detained in Great Britain.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I make an appeal to the hon. Member in regard to this matter. It is not the case that this matter is being neglected in any way, and it is obvious that the Prime Minister must attend to his day-to-day calls in connection with the War. The right hon. Gentleman has undertaken that if necessary, in order to enable a discussion to take place, he will have a Saturday Sitting.
  Mr. DILLON: I am very anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman, but I wish to state my reason for adopting this course. Two months ago I asked the late Prime Minister for a day, which he promised very kindly, and at the request of the late Government I adjourned the discussion of my Motion from day to day and week by week on the understanding that this matter was going to be settled in a favourable way. I was assured that it would be settled, and I think the House will agree with me that it is not fair treatment of the Irish party to ask us to be content with a discussion on Saturday, because, as I have pointed out, we cannot be in London unless we sacrifice the whole of our Christmas Recess. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we cannot get out of London. After we had pressed on the Government that if they would give us any indication of an intention to deal with this matter on the lines which we suggest, and which Ireland demands, we would abstain from a discussion altogether, not one single word came from the Chief Secretary or the Prime Minister yesterday indicating that they were giving favourable consideration to this demand. For what we know, on Saturday we may be met with a blank refusal or by the offer of the release of half of these men, which would be just as bad.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can do no more than appeal to the hon. Member, for obviously he has it in his power to take the time of the House, but I would point out that it is not really reasonable to make a Government which was only appointed a week ago yesterday responsible for anything that happened under the previous Government. I would also point out that he is proceeding on the assumption that a discussion would take place on Saturday, but, if necessary, it could take place on Friday, and the final stages of the Session could take place on Saturday. We are anxious, if possible, to meet the hon. Member.
  Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there are special train facilities arranged to enable the Irish Members to go to Ireland if it is necessary to sit on Saturday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, if necessary.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Could it not be arranged that the intention of the Government could be announced to-morrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that that may be so, but it is obvious that the Prime Minister cannot decide a matter of this kind by himself. He must have time, and obviously his day-to-day calls must claim first consideration.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that it will be taken to-morrow and an answer given tomorrow?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the Prime Minister is as anxious as anyone not to have any delay, but I know that tomorrow matters connected with the War must occupy to-morrow's sitting, and I cannot hold out any hope of a reply at Question-Time. Later in the day it may be possible.
  Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether it is not a fact that the late Government had this matter under consideration for two months, and whether it is not also a fact that the present Prime Minister was a member of the Cabinet as well as the present Leader of the House, and why are they not now in a position to give some information to the House as to what the intentions of the Government are instead of leaving it to the tail-end of the Session.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the hon. Member who has just put that question does not wish to be unreasonable, but he will see that, although the Ministers he mentioned were members of the late Government, their responsibility is quite of a different order now.
  Mr. BYRNE: Might I refer to the answer given by the Home Secretary in connection with the death of the doctor at Frongoch?
  Mr. DILLON: I am exceedingly anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman, but really the House must make an allowance for the way we have been treated. I notice that even as regards to-morrow the right hon. Gentleman has given us no promise nor even a strong indication that we shall get a definite answer on this question. Really this question, to my own knowledge, has been the subject of long and careful consideration, and something like an understanding between us and the members of the late Government had been arrived at; and when the right hon. Gentleman talks about the new Government not having had time to consider it, then I must remind him that it is a continuous

  1477
  Government to a large extent. This matter has been under discussion, it has been carefully considered for two months, many interviews have taken place, and we have been put off and put off from week to week. Even now, at the eleventh hour, we cannot get any certainty of a decision, therefore I am reluctantly compelled to proceed with this Motion, and I ask permission to move the Adjournment of the House.
  The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past eight o'clock this evening.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Second Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  Munitions (Liability for Explosions) Bill, without Amendment.
  Ministry of Pensions Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the National Gallery Act, 1856, and the National Gallery Loan Act, 1883."National Gallery Bill [Lords.]

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS BILL.
  Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow and to be printed. [Bill 144.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow (Thursday).
  WAYS AND MEANS. [19th DECEMBER.]
  Resolution reported,
  WAYS AND MEANS. [19th DECEMBER.]

    WAR LOAN.
    "That the Treasury may borrow in such manner as they think fit, on the security of the Consolidated Fund, any sums required for raising the supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and seventeen, and in addition a sum not exceeding two hundred and fifty million pounds, and that there shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund—

    (a) any sums which may be required to be so charged in the exercise in connection with any money to be so borrowed of any powers which were given by the War Loan Act, 1914, or the War Loan Act, 1915, or any other enactment in connection with money borrowed under the War Loan Acts, 1914 and 1915, or any other enactment; and

    (b) any sums which may be required for the expenses of the redemption of any securities issued for the purpose of money to be so borrowed or of money borrowed under the War Loan Acts, 1914 and 1915, or any other enactment; and

    (c) any sums which may be required for the remuneration of the Banks of England and Ireland in connection with the management of any securities issued for the purpose of money to be so borrowed or of money borrowed under Section fifty-eight of the Finance Act, 1916."

    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-General, and Mr. James Hope.
    WAR LOAN BILL,—"to make further provision for raising money for the present War and for purposes incidental thereto," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read the second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I would like to enter a respectful protest and to call the attention of the Government and the House to the conditions under which we are asked to consider these Amendments. This measure went to another place at the end of October. It only left that other place last evening. The Amendments could not be circulated with the Votes this morning. I myself, being interested in the Bill, have inquired for the Amendments at the Vote Office several times since the House met this afternoon, and it is only within the last hour that any Member, including myself, has been able to obtain a copy of it. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that these Amendments cover seven pages of print and are more than fifty in number. On the face of them, some at least are very important. It is impossible to say how many are consequential unless one goes through them all, co-ordinating them with the Bill, and there really has not been time for any Member, however industrious, and even if he had got them at the earliest moment which was a few minutes before half-past three, to do that necessary work of co-ordination for their consideration. I do not know what the Government propose to do. I know that the time is very short in view of the Prorogation on Friday, but I do think in arranging the business between the two Houses that matters might have been so arranged that these Amendments might have been available at the beginning of the Prorogation week. If we are asked to consider these Amendments before we have had time to go through them, it reduces the work of this House to a simple farce. It is an important Bill which took up a considerable

1503
time in this House, and these Amendments do really require something more than that formal and perfunctory consideration which can be given to them if they are to be proceeded with before the House has even had time to read them through. I do make a protest against one way in which things are proposed to be done if this is to be the way in which we are to proceed in such matters, it really seems to me that the conduct of affairs, to quote a phrase used by my right hon. Friend yesterday (Mr. Asquith), partakes more of the nature of bustle than of the nature of business.
Mr. ASHLEY: I desire to associate myself with the hon. Member who has just spoken. We approach this Bill from different points of view, but whatever view we take as to the merits of the Bill I do think the House has been treated very unfairly in this respect. I went to the Vote Office early to try and get the Amendments, but they could not be given to me. I went again at half-past two, and they could not be obtained then. I only got them at half-past three. There are pages of Amendments, and to my unlearned eye—I am not a lawyer—they are extremely complicated. How can the Home Secretary expect the House to consider these Amendments properly and intelligently when no notice of them is given on the Paper? Surely there must be some very bad management somewhere. There are some very important Amendments which I support, and with which probably the hon. Member opposite does not agree, and it is not giving the House that opportunity of discussion to which we are entitled to ask us to take them this afternoon.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I am very anxious to treat the House fairly, and I can assure hon. Members that it is through no fault of mine that these Amendments were not printed and available until a very short time ago. As a matter of fact, I do not think the discussion would occupy much time, because all the Amendments are either Amendments inserted at the instance of the Government, or Amendments accepted by the Government in another place. I quite agree, however, that hon. Gentlemen are entitled to examine them for themselves,
1504
and that being so, I propose to accede to the suggestion put forward. We will endeavour to deal with this Bill to-morrow, and I hope that it will not take long.
Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I would like to express my appreciation of the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Thursday).

NEW MINISTRIES AND SECRETARIES BILL.
As amended, considered.
NEW MINISTRIES AND SECRETARIES BILL.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Powers and Duties of Minister of Labour)
  There shall be transferred to the Minister of Labour the powers and duties of the Board of Trade under the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act, and the Minister of Labour shall have such other powers and duties of the Board of Trade or of any other Government Department or authority, relating to labour or industry, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise, as His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer to him, or authorise him to exercise or perform concurrently with or in consultation with the Government Department or authority concerned.
  Mr. R. MACDONALD: I beg to move, after the word "Trade" ["Board of Trade under the enactments mentioned"], to insert the words and the Home Office."
  I foreshadowed this Amendment in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. I listened with great attention to what the Home Secretary had to say regarding the point, and I am bound to confess that on further consideration I feel more keenly about this Amendment than ever. The Government is going to establish a Ministry of Labour by the first two Clauses of this Bill. It says that it is doing so in response to a thirty years' demand from organised labour. I know and I fully admit that the Government would be perfectly justified in starting now with a mere nucleus of this Department if it does not want, or if the War circumstances do not allow it, to establish a fully equipped department. I am bound to confess that so far as I am concerned I enter most sympathetically into the conditions in which the Government

  1505
  find themselves, but I do put in a plea, and this is the object of my Amendment, for something in this Bill which will be a complete and satisfactory guarantee that the intention of the Government is to make this a complete Department and to put under the control of the Ministry of Labour all those tremendously important powers and responsibilities which everyone who has ever been associated with the demand for a Ministry of Labour has connected with it. I select only one Department in order to raise the question. I select the Labour section of the Home Office. If hon. Members take the Schedule to this Bill and look at the way it is being worked, they will discover that on ninety-nine occasions out of a hundred when activities take place under these various Acts they are very irritating and very unpopular. The Minister of Labour will have to face dissatisfied and determined masses of men. He will have to force them hack into employment, and so on. The whole class of responsibilities imposed by these Schedules is just the most delicate, the most difficult, and I would almost say the most impossible, part of the work of the Ministry of Labour. If that is going to be done fairly, and if the man who occupies this position is going to have a chance with his fellow workmen, he must have some powers which will enable him to benefit the condition of labour. There is a point which I am not going to deal with except just by illustration. Part I. of the Ministry of Munitions Act is all the irritating part. Part II. is the constructive and smoothing part. Part II. remains under the control of the Ministry of Munitions. Part II. contains just those salves which a Minister can give to workmen when he asks them to do something which they are not going to do. It is really unfair to ask any hon. Member of this House to go down to a place where there is trouble and to say, Your duty is to make those people do unpleasant things, and I will not give you the advantage of enabling you to do pleasant things."
  Leaving the immediate difficulties out of account, I confess that my interest in this Department is a much more remote one. I want to see a really well-equipped Department which will dignify and honour the Minister who presides over it and who is responsible for its work. If hon. Members will cast their minds over the many ramifications now of labour
  1506
  legislation and the distribution of responsibility for that legislation over Departments, I think they will agree that the honourable part of it and the part which contains real authority rests with the Home Office. There you have the two tremendously big sections of responsibility, responsibility for factories and responsibility for mines, entailing the right to hold inquiries, make suggestions, appoint inspectors to see about accidents, hours of labour, conditions of employment—all that tremendously important set of responsibilities which I believe alone in association with the Ministry of Labour will make that Ministry worth having. That is why I move this Amendment. I do not think it is fair to ask labour to accept the Bill in its present form. The point was made on the Second Reading of the Bill that at the present moment it is impracticable to extend the work of this new Department. I am not moved by that consideration. I do not believe anybody who has been inside a Government Department will be moved by it. What happens? I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me. You can perfectly easily transfer this Department to-morrow. Not an officer is disturbed, not a letter is held over, not a decision is held in suspense. It is purely what we call in other departments of life a book-keeping transaction. I would not be satisfied if it remained there, but, taking into account the present exigencies, that is the situation which would arise if the Government were to say that the Factory Department and the Mines Department of the Home Office were to be transferred to the Ministry of Labour. They might remain precisely where they are until the War is over, or until the convenience of the Government is suited.
  If the Government is not willing to go that length—and I think we are justified in asking them to do it—they certainly should agree to put into the Bill a proviso such I propose, or, if it cannot be done here, give us a pledge that it will be done in another place before the Bill is finally passed. The proviso I suggest is that the powers now exercised by the Home Office, especially under these two sets of Acts—the Factory and Workshops Acts and the Mines Regulations Acts—shall be transferred to the Ministry of Labour, and that the transference shall take place as soon as may be convenient. I am quite content that the Government

  1507
  should adopt any strictly legal phraseology which the right hon. Gentleman may think proper so long as the object aimed at is attained, but I venture to say that unless we get that guarantee, Labour will be justified in being profoundly disappointed with what is being done. I am of course, prepared to accept anything the right hon. Genltleman may say as a full expression of his intention, but I think he will understand that that is not quite sufficient in this case. It is not quite good enough, particularly when it is so perfectly easy by inserting a phrase or two in this Bill to give a guarantee such as we can accept.
  Moreover, it is desirable from the point of view of the War itself. We were told at the time the Bill was introduced that the Ministry of Labour was going to have considerable responsibility placed upon it in connection with the mobilisation, and the many problems that must arise therefrom. I would point out that a Minister of Labour responsible for demobilisation could not accept that responsibility with the powers given him in the Schedules of this Bill. They are not good enough. They do not go far enough. Nine-tenths of the problems with which he will be called upon to deal will affect workshop conditions and hours of labour, and legislation will be necessary on matters which at the present moment are dealt with by the Board of Trade and the Home Office. Therefore, from the point of view of the Minister who has charge of demobilisation, this Bill must be extended so as to include not only Board of Trade authority but Home Office responsibility.
  The final point I want to make is this: I am all the more strengthened in my desire to press this Amendment by the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman that there really is some doubt whether the Home Office responsibility will be transferred to this Department. I do not quite know how far he really meant it, but, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman's words suggested to me that the desirability of transferring Home Office responsibility to the Labour Department must be a subject on which others will have to be consulted, and I am afraid that if those other parties decide against the proposal, and if the Government accept their decision, then the Labour Department will become the mere shadow or skeleton of a Department.
  1508
  I press the Government to create, by this Bill, a Labour Department which will really be satisfactory, and to put into the measure guarantees which will ensure its being a real Labour Department.
  Mr. SHERWELL: I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) indicated that there was a real danger that the proposals of the Bill, so far as they go in the direction of creating a Ministry of Labour, will be only a very limited realisation of a demand made with increasing force for at least a generation, as is always the case when any Government, whether in time of war or in peace time, indicates its intention of realising, in a legislative form, a demand which has been made for so long a time. I have not the least doubt, indeed, and there is much evidence already of the fact, that very considerable interest has been aroused in labour circles by the announcement of the intention of the Government to create a Labour Ministry. But I have serious misgivings whether, when the interest which has been aroused by the announcement comes to be concentrated on the actual proposals of this Bill, there will not be a danger of reaction and disappointment which may very largely prejudice the chances which this limited Bill might have under ordinary circumstances. I confess, so far as my own desires go, the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved does not satisfy me. I would not for one moment pretend to the House that even if this particular Amendment were incorporated in the Bill it would make it, in my judgment, a wholly satisfactory measure. But I, in common with other Members of the House, realise at once the impracticability under existing conditions of any Government, whether this or any other, laying before the House what we may fairly describe as a full and satisfactory scheme. Still I think my hon. Friend has sufficiently indicated the practicability of amending or enlarging the scope of this particular proposal in a direction which would make it more real in its effect.
  The Leader of the House, in a speech which he made earlier in this week, indicated his own growing sense of the peril confronting not merely this, but other nations in connection with the enormous wastage of young life. But there is a peril which is almost worse. Whatever

  1509
  may be the outcome of the present gigantic conflict, everyone knows that even a successful belligerent must emerge from the struggle with seriously weakened forces in its reserve of physical life, and any Member of this House who has been considering the reports published recently by special Committees appointed by the Minister of Munitions to investigate various stages of industrial life must have had great cause to see how much more terrible may be the consequences even of success in this present conflict if something be not done rapidly to prevent the loss and wastage among juvenile workers. There was a report published only the other day on the hours of juvenile workers in this country, and I am bound to say, having read that report with care, and being fully informed of the urgency of the present situation, any Government which allows the condition of things indicated therein to be maintained indefinitely is adding enormously to the permanent wastage which this nation may suffer as a consequence of the War. The condition of things is perfectly awful. Boys and girls of fifteen or sixteen years of age, and under, are being employed for the full adult hours of labour in our factories and workshops. I am satisfied that that condition of things is not necessary, and it will be the work of the Labour Minister to look into matters Of that character. Indeed, no branch of his work will be more important than the supervision of the administration of the Factories and Workshops Acts. I hope that the Government will extend the scope of the Bill by adopting the simple Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend. The Government is in the very fortunate position of being able easily to achieve this result. They are fortunate in having as Secretary for the Home Department a man expert in the conditions of mining life, and it would be a comparatively simple matter to transfer to the Labour Ministry the services of the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of the Home Department (Mr. Brace). In any case it is of such great importance to satisfy the workers of this country that this Labour Ministry is to be a real Department and a real reform, that we should have some record of the scope and intentions of the Government in this particular direction, that I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not think that either the Mover or the Seconder of this
  1510
  Amendment has done anything like justice to the position which the Government has taken up. They may not be satisfied with the powers which are transferred to the Minister of Labour by this Bill, but I think they ought to remember that this is the first Government which has ever proposed to form a Ministry of Labour at all, and that it is doing so within a very few days of its coming into existence. At any rate, we ought to have credit for that. Secondly, the House should remember that in this matter the Government has had the assistance of Labour itself in drafting the scheme. The Minister for Labour (Mr. Hodge), my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Brace), who has a special right to speak upon mining and other labour questions, and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Barnard Castle Division (Mr. Henderson) have all been consulted in relation to this matter, and I think the House should have some regard to their views as embodied in this measure.
  Let me now pass to the Amendment. It is possible, I agree, to make a good case in theory for transferring Home Office duties under the Factory and Workshop Acts to the Ministry of Labour, but it is a different thing to say that they should be transferred now at a day's notice. These powers have been exercised for years by the Home Office. They have been exercised by an exceedingly efficient staff which has gained the confidence of labour throughout the country. Indeed, I believe that not only the miners, but other persons connected with labour have often turned to the Home Office for assistance and advice in times of difficulty. But what is proposed now is that, in the middle of this great War, you should suddenly transfer all this work to a new Department. I do not think it right or wise to do it. I have not said a word against the ultimate transfer to the Ministry of Labour, and I do not intend to say a word which may be construed as an argument against that transfer, but I do assert most emphatically it would be a mistake at this particular time, at such short notice, to sanction the immediate transfer of these duties. We are forming a Department to which will be entrusted a very difficult and very important task, and that Department has to be built up from the beginning. To transfer to it too much work is to risk

  1511
  overwhelming it from the very commencement. I know that those who have studied this matter—and I have had conferences with many who are personally acquainted with questions that must arise—have come to the unanimous conclusion that it would be better not to transfer these duties at this moment. Therefore, I cannot consent to the Amendment before the House.
  Powers connected with labour matters will be transferred which enable the Department to render constant and daily service, and which will give them the full title to use that power with effect. But I said the other day, and I say again to-day, that before the Home Office powers are transferred we ought to consult those who are interested, especially as to the time and mode of transfer. The transfer will concern not only the miners but the employers, and they all have a view of their own. The miners have their own opinion about these matters, and we want to know what it is. We do not want to take this very important step without hearing their views and without knowing what they have to say about it. The same applies in fairness to the employers, the mine owners. We want to hear their views too, and we wish to take their views as to the mode and time of transfer, and as to whether the transfer might be made at all during the War. I am quite certain it would not be wise to press on this transfer at too short notice. This Amendment deals only with two branches of the work. We do take power under the Bill to transfer not only these branches, but other branches of work connected with labour. I hope that, as time goes on, we may see what other transfers may be made. After what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not desire to press the Amendment. It may delay and even prevent the passing of the Bill creating a Minister of Labour. If the Bill is to be passed it would be unwise and injurious to the Bill to pass such an Amendment as this.
  Mr. ANDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a very disappointing reply. The arguments he has used are not very convincing, or, if they are convincing, they apply equally to the powers that are going to be transferred from other Departments to the Ministry of Labour. For example, he tells us that before the mines or a similar Department could be transferred to the new Ministry of Labour, those directly concerned would
  1512
  have to be consulted. There is a large number of workpeople under the Insurance Act. Have they been consulted in regard to the transference of the whole control of national insurance to this new Government Department? The right hon. Gentleman says that he must not disturb what has been done very well up to the present time. But that disturbance will apply equally to the transfer of matters like Employment Exchanges to the new Departments. Why should you create a disturbance in the middle of the War by transferring to the new Department matters like the Employment Exchanges and the various other Departments which you are going to transfer? You must make up your mind to have it one way or the other. You cannot have it both ways, as the right hon. Gentleman would like to have it. It may be true, quite likely it is true, that this thing will have to be done slowly. Nobody suggests that it can be done at five minutes' notice. All that is asked is that you should take power to transfer.
  Sir G. CAVE: We do.
  Mr. ANDERSON: You ought to take express powers in the Bill to deal with these matters as far as the Home Office is concerned.
  Sir G. CAVE: We do take express power.
  Mr. ANDERSON: In one way you do, but not really or specifically. You have no real intention of dealing with the matter without having fresh legislation. Therefore, in view of the enormous importance of covering the whole field of mining legislation and factory law, which ought to be the very centre of any matter dealing with the Labour Ministry, they ought to be put specifically into the Bill, and I hope that those who have moved the Amendment will insist upon it, unless we get a more favourable answer. I hope we shall a more favourable answer from the Under-Secretary to the Home Office, but, unless that is forthcoming, I am afraid it will be necessary to press this matter to a Division and take the opinion of the House upon it.
  Mr. HAZLETON: It is quite true that in this Clause a general power is taken by the Government to transfer other powers to the new Ministry, but the House of Commons is entitled, when a

  1513
  new Ministry of Labour is being set up, to ask the Government to go further than merely taking vague general powers on a matter of this kind, and to invite from them an expression of opinion as to what their policy in this respect is going to be in the future. For my part, I certainly will support those who have brought forward this Amendment in order to get a wider and more general expression of policy from the Government on this matter. There is only one other question arising out of this Clause to which I would draw the attention of the House and the Government—that is, the relation of this new Ministry of Labour to Ireland. There is nothing in the Bill about that, and we have not been informed by the Government about it. It is very important, for the reason that we have had experience for many years in the past of the working of various Government Departments which especially presume to deal with labour questions, and the work-
  ing of central Government Departments here in London in connection with Irish affairs.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is hardly relevant to this Amendment.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I was going to suggest that broad powers should be taken in this Bill, either by way of a new Clause or some such method as that, to regulate on more satisfactory lines the relations of this new Ministry of Labour as compared with the existing relations either of the Home Office or of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I will propose an Amendment later on.
  Question put, "That the words 'and the Home Office,' be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 172.

  Division No. 67.]

  AYES.

  [4.55 p.m.

  Alden, Percy

  John, Edward Thomas

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Anderson, W. C.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  O'Doherty, Philip

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Grady, James

  Boland, John Pius

  Kelly, Edward

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  King, Joseph

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Byrne, Alfred

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Reddy, Michael

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Lardner, James C. R.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Clynes, John R.

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

  Snowden, Philip

  Cosgrave, James

  Lundon, Thomas

  Sutton, John E.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Lynch, Arthur Alfred

  Tootill, Robert

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Dillon, John

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Wardie, George J.

  Doris, William

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Watt, Henry Anderson

  Field, William

  Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

  White, J. Dunaas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Millar, James Duncan

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ginnell, Laurence

  Mooney, John J.

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morrell, Philip

  Wiles, Thomas

  Goldstone, Frank

  Muldoon, John

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Hackett, John

  Nolan, Joseph

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Hazleton, Richard

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Mr.Sherwell and Mr, T. Richardson,

  Holt, Richard Durning

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner. Sir James Tynte

  Brace, William

  Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Archer-Shee. Lt.-Col. M.

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Archdale, Lieut. E. M.

  Butcher, John George

  Denison-Pender, J. C.

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Astor, Hon. Waldorf

  Cator, John

  Dixon, C. H.

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Duncannon, Viscount

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Essex, Sir Richard Walter

  Barnston, Harry

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Faber, George Denison (Clapham)

  Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Fell, Arthur

  Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Cowan, W. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bird, Alfred

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

  Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

  Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

  Goulding, Sir Edward Alfred

  Blair, Reginald

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Bowden, Major G. R. Harland

  Currie, George W.

  Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

  Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Greenwood, Sir Hamar (Sunderland)

  Gretton, John

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter (Dewsbury)

  Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Rutherford, Sir John (Darwen)

  Gulland, John William

  Mackinder, Halford J.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Haddock, George Bahr

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Hanson, Charles Augustin

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Smith, Sir Swire (Keighley, Yorks)

  Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Hendry, Denis S.

  Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.

  Steel-Maltland, A. D.

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Stewart, Gershom

  Hewart, Gordon

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Morgan, George Hay

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

  Hinds, John

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas-Stanford, Charles

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Tickler, T. G.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Hunt, Major Rowland

  Newman, John R. P.

  Turton, Edmund Russborough

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

  O'Neill, Capt. Hon. H. (Antrim, Mid)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Illingworth, Albert H.

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Walsh, Stephen (Lanes, Ince)

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Jessel, Colonel Herbert M.

  Pearce, Sir Robert (Leek)

  Wlliams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

  Jones, Kennedy

  Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Ivor (Southampton)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Kenyon, Barnet

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Pratt, J. W.

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Lamb, Sir Ernest Henry

  Prothero, Rowland Edmund

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

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

  Lane-Fox, Major G. R.

  Radford, Sir George Heynes

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Younger, Sir George

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Robinson, Sidney

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord

  Lock wood. Rt. Hon. Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Rowlands, James

  Edmund Talbot and Mr. Beck

  M'Calmont, Col. Robert C. A.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Mr. ANDERSON: I wish to move an Amendment somewhat different from the last, namely, after the word "Trade" ["Board of Trade or of any other Government Department"], to insert "and of the Ministry of Munitions."
  I wish to draw attention to the fact that a very extraordinary situation is going to be created by this Bill, so far as the Ministry of Munitions is concerned, because if Members will turn to the Schedule they will find that one part of the Ministry's work under the Munitions of War Act is included, and is going to be transferred to the new Labour Department, and that the other part of the work is not going to be included. It will be seen that all this labour work under Part I. of the Munitions of War Act is going to be included in this new Department, but all the labour work under Part II. is to be excluded from the scope of the new Ministry. I want to point out what that means. An impression has certainly been created in labour circles that the work of the new Labour Department was going to include labour work hitherto done by the Ministry of Munitions, but, in point of fact, that is not so. Part I. of the Act has only to do with the settlement of disputes under a method of compulsory conciliation, and with efforts to extend the
  1516
  Act to those who in other circumstances are outside it, such as miners—that is to say, the most disagreeable part of the work under the Munitions of War Act of the Ministry of Munitions is handed over to the new Labour Department, but so far as all the other work is concerned, such as regulating labour conditions or dealing with labour conditions, or improving women's wages under the Ministry of Munitions, that is entirely and apparently very carefully excluded from the scope of the new Department. Part II. of the Act, which does not come within the purview of this Department, deals with the whole question of controlled establishments, and therefore deals with the questions of munitions volunteers and the sending of war munitions volunteers from one part of the country to another, and the conditions under which that should be done. Surely this new Labour Department should have something to say about that.
  Sir G. CAVE: It has something to say.
  Mr. ANDERSON: It has no power under this Schedule, and therefore I am very glad to hear the remark of the Home Secretary, because it means that he is going to accept the Amendment, or that he ought to mean to accept it. My second point is this, that all the difficult questions dealing with the leaving certificates

  1517
  of workmen in these controlled establishments are not going to be taken over by the new Department. It is going to be allowed to tell people who are on strike that they ought to go back to work, but it is not to be part of its work to deal in any way with the leaving certificates or with the special arbitration tribunals that have been set up under the Ministry of Munitions. Such matters as the pledges that have been given to women workers under the legislation known as the munitions legislation, and the rates of wages of women employed on munition work, skilled and unskilled, I say are matters which from the standpoint of a Labour Ministry are vital, and if it is going to be a real thing instead of mere window dressing, the power to deal with these matters should have been handed over to the new Ministry. All the Statutory Orders governing the wages of women ought to be part of this Labour Ministry's work. The question of L2 and the question of Order 4, Form 7, dealing with the wages of a class of women in controlled establishments who are doing a new kind of work, and in respect of which a fixed wage is supposed to be granted, are questions which should be placed under the Labour Ministry. It is highly important that the work of Part II. as well as Part I. of the Munitions of War Act should be handed over to the new Labour Department. There is a stronger case for this Amendment than there was for the last, because you are actually dividing up the Department, and that seems to me a very extraordinary position to take up. I do not know, but I should think that as matters now stand all that part of the Munitions of War Act which deals with the question of the restoration of trade union rules and conditions—matters of vital importance to labour—is not going to be handed over to the new Ministry of Labour. I am quite sure that this is a matter that ought to be looked into, and I am quite certain that if we are really going to get anything in the nature of an effective and real Ministry of Labour these powers must be conferred—the powers of dealing with munitions volunteers, of governing the wages of women workers, and not only of dealing with the tasks which may be very disagreeable to the new Minister of Labour, but also powers dealing with the conditions of labour and the improvement of those conditions where necessary. If that is not done there
  1518
  will be a suggestion that the employers, or some outside influences, have put pressure upon the new Department, and that those matters in which there is a chance of effective improvement or reform are not going to be transferred to the new Department at all. I hope that is not going to be the case, but that the Home Secretary will meet us in this matter and will see the reasonableness of including the whole labour work under the new Department. The impression conveyed to my mind was that that was going to happen, and I believe that was the impression conveyed to the minds of many trade unionists, and now we find that all the effective part of that is ruled out, and I certainly think we ought to press very strongly, and I do press very strongly, that Part II. shall be included as well as Part I., and that is really the purpose of the Amendment.
  Mr. WARDLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Sir G. CAVE: I said a case had been made out for the last Amendment, but I cannot say the same of this. I do not think this Amendment is defensible or in any way friendly to the Bill. Part I. of the Munitions Act deals with conciliation and the settlement of trade disputes. That part we propose to transfer to the new Ministry of Labour. Part II. simply deals with the Ministry of Munitions as a war Department employing labour, and the powers given to the Ministry by Parliament are given to it not at all as a body intervening as conciliator between employer and employed.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Oh, yes! Under Part II. there are the special arbitration tribunals set up governing wages, especially of the low-paid women workers, and that is a matter of very vital consequence, and it has a bearing on the relations between capital and labour.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think I am right in what I say. Of course, I am not saying if there are any powers in Part II. which are properly exercisable by the Labour Ministry we shall not transfer them hereafter, but the hon. Gentleman proposes to transfer at once to the Ministry of Labour the whole of the powers of the Ministry of Munitions under Part II. of the Munitions Act. It is perfectly absurd. Take, for instance, the first Section in Part II., which deals with regulating controlled establishments. That is

  1519
  entirely war work, and has nothing to do with the Ministry of Labour as such. You can go through Section after Section. "Work for the Minister of Munitions"—that is work for him in the manufacture of munitions. "Employment of persons who have left munition factories"—that is again a matter entirely concerned with the carrying on of the War. I should be the first to allow, if Part II. were at all on the same lines as Part I., that a good case could be made out for an Amendment of this kind, but it deals with a wholly different matter, and I do not think the hon. Member can have thought the matter out. He did not put the Amendment on the Paper. I am quite sure when he gets home and thinks his case over he will feel he could not reasonably expect us to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not quite considered the effect of his reply. After all, some of the proceedings taken in anticipation or with a view to the creation of this Department are now common knowledge to the public Press, and we all knew that the original intention in connection with this Ministry was that the hon. Gentleman who is now one of the Patronage Secretaries to the Treasury, and was formerly one of the Secretaries to the Ministry of Munitions, intended to be and "was designated by the Government as Secretary to the Labour Ministry, and it was publicly announced that the reason of his transfer from the Ministry of Munitions to the Ministry of Labour was that he would be able thereby to take over all the labour functions at present exercised by the Ministry of Munitions to the Ministry of Labour, and the very fact that he in his former office was performing these duties would make this transfer of duties to the new office extremely smooth and easy. I think in this case the first thoughts of the Government were much better than their second thoughts, and that it is extremely unfortunate for the right hon. Gentleman, in defending the present form of the Bill, that he himself was not familiar with the first thoughts of his superiors in this matter. Had he been so familiar he would not have poured contempt, as he has done, upon the Amendment. As a matter of fact, it is not true to suggest that the Amendment was only thought of at the last moment because it has not
  1520
  been put on the Paper. It occurred to many Members that this was a thing which ought to have been done. Considering the conditions under which this Bill is being pushed through the House, I myself decided to put no Amendment on the Paper, because I believe that with the Bill rushed through Parliament it was better that the Ministry should have the sole responsibility for it, and that the House of Commons should simply allow the matter to go through, and if there were any difficulty in its working, the House of Commons was free from any responsibility for it. You are transferring certain duties in connection with the Munitions Act to the new Ministry, and all the duties exercised by the Board of Trade under the Munitions Act are transferred. It is as simple a matter to transfer the duties which were exercisable by the Ministry of Munitions to the new Ministry as those functions of the Board of Trade. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman still maintains the official view that the second thoughts of the new Government are the best, it is useless to divide the House, but I think it is right that we should take this opportunity of stating on this point, as on the last Amendment, that we regard this as a mistake. We believe that the new Ministry, on the threshold of its career, is being shorn of some of the most important duties that it could possibly exercise, and that consequently you are diminishing its status, and by diminishing its status thereby derogating from the position which it will occupy in the opinion of the working classes of the country.
  Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I do not quite take the view of my colleague (Mr. Anderson). Nor am I satisfied in the least by the reply of the Home Secretary. I can see obvious difficulties in transferring the whole of the powers of Part II. to the Ministry of Labour, and it appears to me that the Home Secretary based his reply entirely upon the supposition that the whole of the powers of Part II. were to be transferred to the Ministry of Labour. I do not think that can have been the purpose of the Amendment. It appears to me that there are a number of powers in Part II. which really ought to be transferred to the new Ministry. To confine the operations of the new Ministry of Labour to Part I. is a great mistake, and when working men generally realise that the Ministry of Labour is so extremely hampered and curtailed in its

  1521
  powers there will be great and serious disappointment. If the Ministry of Labour is only to be called in in cases of conciliation, if it is only to deal with men when they are on strike, and may not take part in some of the other functions which can be transferred to it from Part II. of the Ministry of Munitions Act, such as local tribunals and questions of wages, you will make the Ministry of Labour extremely unpopular, and it will diminish the confidence which the working classes have in it. It is all very well to say that you want to give an instalment of power at this stage, and that you propose to enlarge the sphere of its operations later on, but it is, to say the least of it, very unfortunate that the powers you give it at the commencement are the unpopular powers, and the powers you defer for the present are the powers which would have made it more acceptable in the exercise of the larger functions. I think, therefore, though I am not prepared to support the Amendment, there is a great deal of substance in the argument my hon. Friend used, and I do not think the Home Secretary has at all considered the real point of the Amendment, a point which, I think, will be considered to be of very great importance by the working classes generally, and I suggest that he should see whether it is not possible to hand over some of the powers contained in Part I. to the Ministry of Labour. I do not for a moment suggest that the Ministry of Labour should take the place of the Ministry of Munitions an3 should run the controlled factories and employ labour, therefore I am not going to vote for the Amendment, but I suggest that the reply that the Home Secretary gave was not a sufficiently sympathetic reply to the main contention of the argument, which is that there are powers contained in Part II. of the Ministry of Munitions Act which, with great advantage to the public, could be transferred to the new Ministry of Labour, and which would give added confidence to the working classes, and would tend to make it more easy for the Minister of Labour to exercise many of the unpopular functions that this Bill proposes to entrust him with. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will devise some way, if not on this Amendment, at some later stage of the Bill, of adding to the powers of the new Ministry of Labour important portions
  1522
  of the duties contained in Part II. and exercised by the present Ministry of Munitions.
  Mr. CLYNES: I wish to say two or three words in support of the view which has been expressed from the other side. There seems to be no agreement as to what this Amendment means, and there is, therefore, great disadvantage in dealing with it now. If the Home Secretary is prepared to go as far as the intention of my hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson), that can be done by the Amendment being withdrawn and an undertaking being given to take the necessary steps on a later stage. I cannot myself, strictly speaking, support the Amendment because I do not want to place within the province of the new Ministry of Labour the work of dealing with the controlled establishments. I go-that far with the argument of the Home Secretary. But, on the other hand, having had some personal experience of the working of certain parts of Part II. of the Munitions Act, I think it highly advisable that the Government should agree to the sense and purpose of the Amendment. One of the most troublesome sides of our work in trying to adjust these differences as they arise is due to the fact that there are so many different State Departments, so many different authorities and persons to be approached and dealt with in trying to settle these questions, and it would certainly simplify the work, both of the State and of those who have to intimately concern themselves in trade disputes, if the purpose of the Amendment were met and this section of the work transferred to the new Labour Department. I agree that the Bill generally as it is now, without Amendment, goes a very long way to meet the aspirations of Labour as they have been expressed in the past. But this further step could be easily taken by the Government without doing any violence whatever to their professions and to their intentions in respect of the new Ministry. I should like, therefore, to join in the appeal which has been made that the Home Secretary should give an undertaking that the matter will be further considered and that he will see whether the parts of Part II. which are in the mind of the Mover of the Amendment can be further dealt with, and probably some Amendment brought forward at a later stage to meet his views.
  Sir G. CAVE: That is a very reasonable suggestion, but I think the hon. Member has not realised that the Amendment, together with the powers contained in the Schedule, covers the whole of the powers of the Ministry of Munitions under Part II. of the Munitions Act. If the Amendment is carried you will have a wholly impossible position. If there are powers which ought to be transferred to the Ministry of Labour we can easily transfer them by Order in Council within a very short time, and I can assure hon. Members, having regard to what has been said, that we will carefully go through the powers which are conferred by Part II. of the Munitions Act and see whether any of them ought fairly to be transferred by Order in Council to the Ministry of Labour. I cannot go beyond that.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There are some other Amendments which have been handed in in manuscript affecting Clause 2, but I think in all cases they should have been new Clauses.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Does that refer to the Amendment I have handed in that there shall be established in Ireland a branch of the Ministry of Labour, through which the work of the Ministry in Ireland can be transacted?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Yes, it does.
  Mr. HAZLETON: On a point of Order, I should like to remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Committee stage of this Bill was taken yesterday and the Report stage followed immediately to-day, so that we have had very little time to consider anything in the way of Amendments to the Bill, as it has been so much rushed by the Government. I am not complaining of that, but I am anxious that this Bill in its application to Ireland shall work as smoothly and as satisfactorily as possible. Therefore. I am desirous of setting up a branch of each of these two Ministries in Dublin, as has been done in the case of the Ministry of Munitions. For that purpose I suggest that Members ought to be allowed at the end of each of those Clauses to suggest to the Government the establishment of such branches.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot take any other course. Mr. Speaker ruled before he left the Chair that this proposition is clearly a subject for a separate Clause.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Powers and Duties of Food Controller.)
  It shall be the duty of the Food Controller to regulate the supply and consumption of food in such manner as he thinks best for maintaining a proper supply of food, and to take such steps as he thinks best for encouraging the production of food, and for those purposes he shall have such powers or duties of any Government Department or authority, whether conferred by Statute or otherwise, as His Majesty may, by Order in Council, transfer to him, or authorise him to exercise or perform concurrently with, or in consultation with, the Government Department or authority concerned, and also such further powers as may be conferred on him by Regulations under the Defence of the Realm Consolidation Act, 1914, and Regulations may be made under that Act accordingly.
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTT: I beg to move, to leave out the words "and to take such steps as he thinks best for encouraging the production of food."
  This Amendment raises an important question of principle upon which I hope the President of the Board of Agriculture may be able to make an announcement to the House. Clause 4 follows the same framework as Clause 6 about the Shipping Controller. My Amendment is to leave out the words of Clause 4, which give to the Food Controller the power to take such steps as he thinks best for encouraging the production of food, and also give to him the duty of doing that. The point upon which I hope we may have enlightenment from the President of the Board of Agriculture is this—is it intended by these words really to give the business of food production in this country to the new office of Food Controller, either to the exclusion of the Board of Agriculture or even concurrently with it? In the case of the Shipping Controller, the wording is identical in substance, namely, that it shall be the duty of the Shipping Controller to control and regulate shipping and to take such steps as he thinks best for providing and maintaining an efficient supply of shipping. In the case of the Shipping Controller, public announcement has been made already that upon, that wording it is the intention of the Government, as I understand, that the business of shipping should be handed over in fact to the Shipping Controller, and taken from the Board of Trade, where it now is. Similar phraseology is

  1525
  followed in regard to the Food Controller, and therefore it looks—I do not say it is—as if it is the intention of the Government that the business of agricultural development in this country during the War, and the whole business of increasing the supply of food should be taken from the Board of Agriculture and handed over to the Food Controller. If this were, in fact, the intention of the Government, as it appears to be in the phraseology of the Clause, I think the House would be unanimous in the opinion that any such course would be lamentable.
  You can take it two ways, either that the Board of Agriculture is to be deprived of its powers—those powers being transferred to the Food Controller—or that it is to be left with its powers. In either case I think you would have confusion—in the one case confusion and in the other case confusion worse confounded. What is essential is that the House should know what is the intention, in fact, on the part of the Government. I do not think there can be any valid objection to a mere enabling phraseology, enabling the Food Controller to have the question of food production within his purview, so that, should it be necessary at any time for him, through the Board of Agriculture, to take steps for encouraging the production of food, he should be able to do so. I do not think anybody would say such power was undesirable. But the phrase in the Clause which puts upon him the duty of taking these steps is apt to lead to misunderstanding, and unless there is a clear statement, I think that the public will continue to feel the apprehension which it already feels on this subject. I do not think it is necessary to enlarge on the proposition that all those who know anything about the farmers of this country are clear in their own minds that the proper authority to deal with the question of food supply during the War, and to work with the farmers and to help the farmers and, it may be, in cases to control the farmers, is the Board of Agriculture, with its present President, in whom every farmer in this country has complete confidence. To hand over that business to a man or a Department that the farmers have never had anything to do with would simply be to upset every farmer in the country. What we have to do at the present time for the crops of 1917 is, above all things, to remove from the minds of the farmers the sense of uncertainty as to their future which is so disturbing them
  1526
  at the present time. We want to call upon the farmers for their assistance, to rely upon the farmers, and to give them the assistance they need in regard to labour and other things necessary for the crops of 1917. To introduce any new control at the present time would merely be to dislocate and to disorganise an already disorganised and troubled business.
  I hope that it will be made quite clear as to what is the position of the Government, and that it will be made quite clear that the whole business of food production at home is to remain in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. It is a tremendous business that has got to be attempted. It is absolutely essential that the food production in this country in the summer season of 1918 should be as nearly as possible doubled. That means ploughing up some 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 acres of grass land. That is what it moans in order to double our food production, and that should be the aim of the Department at the present time. That is the business which I believe the present President of the Board of Agriculture, whom we all know, can do. I hope he will make it quite clear that he, and he only, will have the duty and the business of seeing to the increase of food production here at home. I raise no objection whatever to powers being given -to the Food Controller, because I believe that we can rely upon the practical wisdom of those two men to work harmoniously together, although it is necessary that the Food Controller should be in a position to call upon the President of the Board of Agriculture to tell him what supplies he can give of home-grown food and, it may be, to call upon the Board to do its best to increase that supply. I maintain that to go beyond that would lead to nothing but disorganisation and trouble.
  Mr. PETO: In rising to second this Amendment I shall be very brief, because of the loss of time the Government will incur this evening. The Government is very young, and has had only about a week to consider the establishment of these new Ministries and the relation between the new powers they are creating and the old existing powers. I think when the House really considers the position in regard to the powers of the Food Controller and the Board of Agriculture and other Departments, they will agree that it is a complicated and abstruse question as to what

  1527
  the powers of the Departments really are and as to which overrides the other. I think there are no less than five Departments of State who are concerned with this question of food production. There are the Food Controller and the Board of Agriculture in the first place. In regard to these two the Leader of the House of Commons, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made a statement on Monday regarding their operation. He said:
  "On the other hand, it is equally obvious that there are some points where the duties of the Food Controller and of the Minister of Agriculture overlap."
  That is a very candid admission when you are setting up a new Ministry in order to simplify procedure, to get to business and to avoid talking and the exchange of minutes. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "There is no shadow of friction, and if anything of the sort should arise, if there should be any difference of opinion, the obvious remedy, and the remedy which will be applied at once, is that they should come to the War Council, state their case, and the War Council will be the final arbiter on every question that arises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1916, col. 1160.]
  With all humility, I do ask the House whether that is a wise procedure. We know with what the War Council are going to be concerned. We know that this very question on which the Adjournment of the House was moved to-day—the question of the Frongoch Camp—cannot possibly be considered at to-morrow's War Council, because the whole of the meeting of that Council will be occupied with urgent military affairs. These are not questions of first magnitude; and is it really proposed to set up these two authorities in this way? I ask the House to realise that we have got in the present President of the Board of Agriculture—I will not say the greatest, because I do not want to make any invidious comparisons, but one of the greatest agricultural authorities in the country. I would like to support what my hon. Friend (Mr. Leslie Scott) said, and to say that his appointment was welcomed throughout the country and it will continue to be welcome the longer his appointment lasts. We have also the hon. Member for Wilton (Captain Bathurst), who is certainly only second to the President of the Board of Agriculture. I do not want to say which knows most about agriculture. Why are these Gentlemen not working together in this matter? Why is the hon. Member for Wilton to have one opinion on the question how to get most out of the land and the President
  1528
  of the Board of Agriculture to have another opinion, and then in the case of this difference of opinion we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the proper procedure is for these two Gentlemen to go to the War Cabinet, which is engaged with urgent matters of war policy, and to lay their differences of opinion before those Gentlemen, who know nothing about agriculture. That seems to be an extraordinary proposal.
  I pass from that. There is also the War Office concerned with this. I shall not deal with that in detail. I have another Amendment down dealing with it. But another obvious question is the supply of military prisoners' labour. The War Office still acts in consultation with the Ministry of Labour. Another Department comes in and says what rate of pay is to be given and the conditions under which prisoners of war are to be employed. This thing is bound, under the present conditions, to lead to an absolute stoppage of the employment of prisoners of war—at any rate in the Southern Command, which I know better. There are 5,000 prisoners of war who cannot be employed in the conditions under which they are offered to farmers. I want to know whether the hon. and learned Member for Oxford University, or the hon. Member for Wilton, is going to settle the conditions under which those prisoners of war are to be offered to farmers, or whether the War Office or the Ministry of Labour is the authority concerned? I have not finished my list yet. Yesterday we had in the Prime Minister's speech the announcement of another new Department, that of the Director of National Service, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Lord Mayor of Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Certain industries are regarded as indispensable—"
  Surely agriculture would come into that category at present!
  "and the Departments concerned will indent upon the Director of National Service for the labour which they require for those services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1916, col. 1352.]
  There we have it laid down that Lord Devonport, who is associated with the hon. Member for Oxford University, might say that a certain amount of labour is essential for agriculture to increase food production. What is he to do? He is not to say, "I am going to have that labour." He is to go to the Director of National Service and indent for that

  1529
  labour, and, possibly, the Director of National Service will say that there is something very much more essential than agriculture. We could not possibly have set up a more complicated and troublesome arrangement. I have the privilege of personal acquaintance with, and I hope the friendship of, the two hon. Gentlemen who are sitting there, who are designated experts in agriculture. Certainly if there are two men who can work without friction in the extraordinary position in which they are placed,* it would be those two Gentlemen. But I ask, is that any justification for setting up this extraordinarily complex machinery, at a time when we understood that we had a new Government, in order to simplify the procedure and give one person who knows his job supreme authority in his own Department, and minimise this incessant ebb and flow between Department and Department which always results in arriving at no conclusion and in endless delay? Therefore I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment. I echo the hope expressed by the hon. Member opposite that we shall now—because I do not think that the Government have had time—have some clear statement as to whether they will not even reconsider this extraordinary arrangement and settle on one or the other of those two hon. Gentlemen as the person who is going to have this matter in hand and have power to carry it out.
  Mr. BOLAND: The Amendment which has been moved appears to me to be extremely valuable because it brings into strong relief the question whether we can have control of food supplies and production of food supplies going on under the same hands. To me it seems to be very much more valuable, so far as the production of food in the country is concerned—I speak for the moment of Great Britain—that it should be in the hands of the President of the Board of Agriculture. I take this opportunity of congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment because during the last six months I have had an opportunity of serving with him on the Food Prices Committee, and his extraordinary knowledge of agriculture in England was of very great value of our Committee. But this matter has a further point with regard to Ireland. The production of food in Ireland is also to my mind completely different from the question of control of food in Ireland, and I had hoped later on this Clause to move a special Amendment to
  1530
  suggest that so far as control of production of food in Ireland is concerned that should be done by a branch of the new Ministry rather than be operated from England direct. But the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member opposite to my mind does raise the issue in a very crucial way. It is of far greater advantage, when we are all desirous of getting the greatest amount of food produced both in this country and in Ireland, that the Ministers charged with it should not be men who are more concerned with controlling food. It is of far greater advantage that the Departments, the Board of Agriculture in England and the corresponding Department in Ireland, should be put specially in charge of the production of food. If this Amendment does nothing else than bring that issue directly before the House I think that the hon. and learned Member will have done a very valuable service in moving it.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: I agree entirely with the intention of the hon. and learned Member who has brought this Amendment before the House, but it is because I wish to see the food supply of the country increased that I support the Bill as it stands. The hon. and learned Member said very truly that we want to double the cultivation of the land of this country, double the supply of food produced here. But the fact is that instead of having double the supply you will probably have three-fifths of the supply, because the labour has been taken from the land. There is no use in all these pious opinions being expressed here or elsewhere. We cannot produce wheat or oats without labour, and labour is vitally essential for land at the present moment. And when my hon. and learned Friend talks of doubling the cultivation then he must double the labour supply available for farmers at present and during the War. I have no doubt that the Board of Agriculture have been animated by the best intentions, but there is a certain place paved with good intentions, and that is where agriculture always seems to be going just now. The War Office has proved too strong for the Board of Agriculture, and there is grave uncertainty in the minds of the farmers as regards labour supplies. Over and over again questions have been asked from this side of the House, of the late Government and the present Government, as to the necessity of getting rid of this uncertainty. How can you expect a farmer to crop his land

  1531
  and plough it up when he does not know whether there will be sufficient labour available to harvest it or not? The War Office are taking men who are absolutely necessary for the cultivation of the land. There is really no use talking about these matters. We get the most admirable pledges. We get opinions expressed that might be expressed by bishops, but they are not carried out in the country. The military representatives seem to have absolute control of the tribunals, and the tribunals take the men.
  I now come to the point why I wish the Food Controller to have some authority in the production of food. We know that the Noble Lord who has been appointed is a man of great resolution and great decision, who is not afraid to risk popularity. Therefore I am very glad that he will be associated with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture, whom I heartily congratulate on his appointment, and of whom I re-echo everything that has been said by other speakers, that there is no man who knows the agricultural problem better or who has the confidence of farmers to a greater extent than he. I am glad that the Food Controller is to be associated with the President of the Board of Agriculture in standing up against the War Office, which wants standing up against in this matter. If we do not mind there will be famine stalking through the land in the months of May and June. I see it very clearly coming with the submarine menace, which is becoming daily more threatening, with the lessened amount of food production here, and with the partial failure of the harvest abroad. It is essential that there shall be a strong authority to stand up in favour of the increased production of food at home. I want, in this matter, to make my position perfectly clear. I am not suggesting that the farmers should have more labour in order to increase their profits. It is simply with me a matter of increasing the home production of food. I would say to my right hon. Friend—give the farmers as much labour as they can use, compel them to plant the crop that the Government think most essential, compel them to produce food, and commandeer the food when it is produced at a fair price to the farmers. Wheat at 10s. a bushel and meat at the prices at which it is now mean the infliction of intolerable hardship upon tens of thousands of people in the country who are not enjoying war prosperity. I do
  1532
  not speak as a farmer or as representing farmers; I speak simply and entirely from the point of view of one who sees what danger is coming through the scarcity of home-produced food, and I therefore support the Bill as it stands, that the Food Controller shall be associated with the Board of Agriculture in increasing the home-grown food supply of our own country.
  6.0 P.M.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): I am very grateful indeed to the Proposer and Seconder and the other Members who have spoken on this Amendment for the very kind way in which they have referred to me. I feel, if I may address myself in the first place to the point raised by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool, as to the insertion of the words which associate the Food Controller with me in the production of home-grown food, that, of course, it was perfectly plain to anyone, when it was announced that the Food Controller was associated with me, not only in the distribution but in the production of food, that there might be a conflict of jurisdiction—a friction. I have been for many years a business man, and though I cannot claim the same experience as the Food Controller I at once said to him, "Let us meet and let us arrange and define our respective spheres of duty." We met on the very first day we could, and had a talk and arrived at certain conclusions, and the Food Controller said, "Put that in writing," and that is our charter. I took the arrangement down in writing. There are four lines only, but it quite defines my position. It gives me all the powers I want, and it enables me to use the great powers which are conferred upon the Food Controller for the improvement of agriculture. I dare say some hon. Members might say that what I had put down should have satisfied official dignity. As far as I am concerned, official dignity is a very insecure perch, and, i: I am to stand on anything, I should like to stand on something more substantial than my official dignity. My position is this: In every matter affecting the production of food the Food Controller is bound to act, under our arrangement, on my advice. That secures me to all that I want. If the Food Controller does not agree with my advice, and if my hon. Friend of many years standing, my old fellow fighter for agriculture and I

  1533
  cannot come to an agreement, if the Member for Wilton (Captain Bathurst) cannot come to an agreement, then, as has been pointed out, we shall go to the War Council, and if we go to the War Council on a question of technical agriculture, I have not the faintest doubt that the War Council would uphold my opinion, if I may venture to say so, against that of the Food Dictator. I will be speaking of what I know, but he will be speaking of what he does not know—it is no use beating about the bush; he admits it himself—but I must say that I do not believe there is the slightest chance of any friction. We are on admirable terms, we know exactly where we each stand, and I think each of us has got what he wants.
  May I put the other point? In a great deal I find the need of the Food Controller. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton said, the advantage is, I think, enormously on my side. The Food Controller has huge powers; they extend in every direction. If, for instance, a question arises of providing agricultural machinery, without the Food Controller the Board of Agriculture is powerless. We cannot get the material, and we cannot get any implement factory released from control and set to work upon machinery; we cannot get the men exempted to work on the implements which we want to have made. But now that I have got the Food Controller I can go and represent to him that I want so many machines, and he can use powers which I have not got. The same advantage runs through everything else. Questions arise of feeding stuffs, fertilisers, and other matters which bring me into conflict with other Departments. In dealing with these Departments I should be powerless, but the Food Controller, acting on my advice, can do more, a great deal more, than I ever could hope to do by my humbly going and entreating other Departments to give me priority. Therefore, as I say, I think the President of the Board of Agriculture, apart from that small question, as it seems to me, of official dignity, has gained everything and lost nothing by those words being in the Bill. That is my opinion.
  I do not know how far I ought to follow other Members who have spoken into the rather wider subjects which they have touched. I myself asked the Food Controller to-day the very question the hon. Member opposite has now asked—how his
  1534
  powers affect Ireland? "Well," he said, "I will tell you quite frankly. I should be a fool to try and put my powers at work in Ireland from London; in all probability I should have to work through a branch." That is exactly what the hon. Member wishes. Although, of course, I am repeating perhaps what passed in ordinary conversation between the Food Dictator and myself, I think it is so obviously a matter of common sense that I should think the hon. Member may be perfectly satisfied on the point. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) spoke on the question of labour. Labour, in my opinion, is the crux of the whole question. We either have our labour and you have your produce, or we do not have the labour and you do not get the produce. It is no use blinking the fact.
  We have in the Secretary of State for War an agriculturist, a man who knows farmers, farmers' ways, and farmers' needs, and, of course, I feel that he will do for us everything that he can, though there are, I confess, very great difficulties. He has agreed that none of the men who were called out under the arrangement of 1st January shall be called out until the present arrangements are completed. That is something. But I must say, from the farmers' point of view, that it is nothing near enough. The present system of obtaining exemption through Appeal Tribunals or local tribunals has produced a want of confidence among the farmers and a spirit of unrest among the labourers. Let the House consider what this means. Hundreds of labourers, day after day, week after week, and month after month, have been pottering about the local tribunals. Whatever system is adopted, war needs must to a certain extent be paramount; yet I think that we ought to realise, the War Office ought to realise, and the whole country ought to realise, that we are a beleagured city. It comes to that. I also think that, unless you find your food at home, we may be in the greatest possible difficulty. This is a point which in my very brief career in the House I have several times impressed upon hon. Members—the necessity of taking care of our home-grown food supply. I find myself now faced with most tremendous difficulties, and, among the difficulties, the labour difficulty is one of the greatest. The only way in which I can hope to deal with it is by carrying with me the support of the farmers in this country and by

  1535
  obtaining from the War Office, in some form or another, some supply of labour. But as to this particular Amendment I do not think it ought to be pressed, because it refers to powers which may be of infinite value, and it is my sincere conviction that it may be on the cornfields and potato lands of Great Britain that victory in this great War may be lost or won.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: My hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture knows as well as any man in the House, if not better, the troubles and dangers that are inflicted on farmers every day. Only last week there was a case in my own county where men had been swept off the fields to the recruiting station, and there is no doubt that farmers, in view of the continual drafting of men, have lost all faith and confidence in the military tribunals. I know that my hon. Friend is anxious in regard to this matter, and I would point out to him that whatever is done should be done at once. We cannot brook delay; we cannot stand any further depletion of men; and I impress upon the hon. Gentleman—For I know he wants, as we all want, to increase the food supply of this country—that we need more men, and not only more men, but we must also have back some of those who have been already taken. Some localities have been swept bare of men; in others there are sufficient men, with the addition of such female labour as it is possible to employ. There is no doubt that we must stop this depletion, and it should be done at once. Apart from the necessity of there being no further depletion of the ranks of farm labourers, it is necessary that some method should be found by which skilled labour should be restored, if possible, to the localities now denuded of that labour.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I am sure Members in all quarters of the House will congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the first speech which he has made in the office to which he has been appointed. Indeed, many of us, I must say, would wish that he held a position of even greater distinction and authority, and that he were a member of the War Council; because, if we were sure that the views and sentiments which he has expressed in the House to-night were views and sentiments which would carry weight in that body, we should have a greater feeling of confidence in the future of this country and in this War. I agree with the hon. Gentle-
  1536
  man in the view he takes of this Amendment. I think the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment are needlessly alarmed as to the possibility of friction between the hon. Gentleman and the Food Controller. I believe that in this matter of production the interests of the Food Controller and the interests of the President of the Board of Agriculture are one. It is not friction between these two Ministers that we need to fear: it is the friction between them and other Departments which will make demands upon the agriculture of this country that are inconsistent with the welfare of this country and the successful prosecution of the War. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the matter of agricultural machinery. Well, undoubtedly the interests of the Food Controller and the interests of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture are one. But I understand that the question of agricultural machinery is now decided in a room in the Hotel Metropole by a Committee called the Priority Committee of the Ministry of Munitions. Well, as things are at present, the question of agricultural machinery will be decided by this body, whose main interest is the provision of machinery for munitions. Undoubtedly, under these circumstances, the first conflict on agricultural machinery will be between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture and the Food Controller as against the Ministry of Munitions. Then the arbitration is left to the War Council. I think we should all be greatly relieved if we knew that on this question the War Council would have the same high opinion of the views of the President of the Board of Agriculture, as they would undoubtedly have on any agricultural question. I am quite sure that when the right hon. Gentleman the President speaks on agriculture they will say that nobody knows as much as he does, and that he is right, but when it comes to a conflict between him and the Ministry of Munitions, I am not quite so sure that he will have his way.
  Then, let us take the question of food production. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devonshire (Mr. G. Lambert), as well as the right hon. Member for Essex (Colonel Lockwood), has put very clearly the view with regard to labour. There is no doubt that in many areas in this country labour has been depleted from agriculture to an extent which makes the production of food to satisfy the reason-

  1537
  able demands of the country quite impossible. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite that some people said that when the Military Service Act was passing through this House, but we were told that there would be tribunals, and everything in the garden would be lovely. We now see how lovely is the garden, when the President of the Board of Agriculture comes here, and says we are a beleagured city, and that the question of the fate of this country will be decided on the cornfields of Great Britain. I think it would have been well if these things had been thought of when, in a burst of military enthusiasm, we were hastily and light-heartedly passing the Military Service Act. But we have to take the fruits of that, and what we now desire is that in these matters the hands of the President of the Board of Agriculture and of the Food Controller should be strengthened in their conflict with the War Department against the unreasonable demands which are now being made in view of the reckless military commitments to which this country has been pledged. What after all, have we to remember? The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture is powerless; the Food Controller is powerless. Why? Because decisions committing this country have been made by the War Council; and it is because of those decisions that I believe it is possible that peace will be forced upon this country within six months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
  Mr. SHERWELL: I think the House will universally agree that the President of the Board of Agriculture has made what may frankly be called a greatly reassuring speech. That reassurance would have been greater on my own part if I had thought that the particular drafting in the Bill, and the precise powers that are given to the Food Controller, were what they were on the assumption in the right hon. Gentleman's, the President's, mind. I have no doubt that the President of the Board of Agriculture may so present the urgent claims of agricultural men as to make a great impression on his right hon. colleague the Food Controller. But, as a matter of fact, while this Clause says explicitly that the Food Controller may take such steps for the production of food as he deems necessary, in a later portion of the Clause it is expressly provided that these steps may be authorised by Order in Council. Now I would point out that it is neither the President of the Board of
  1538
  Agriculture nor the Food Controller who have the determination or the framing of these Orders in Council, and it by no means follows, as a matter of course—and the whole history of the War, so far as it has gone, is conclusive on this point—because the particular Minister responsible for the particular Department holds a strong and certain view on a particular need that these who have to decide the policy or the strategy of the War will necessarily follow the advice he may give. It is precisely because the President of the Board of Agriculture himself, and the Food Controller, will have no power over the framing of the Orders in Council, which are the real hope upon which this House depends, that I am not able to feel so completely reassured as I would have like to have been from his speech. After all, it is obvious to everybody, even to those of us who are most remote in our remind the right hon. Gentleman that much of the present misfortune of the country—for it is a real misfortune, a real element of weakness in our national organisation and life—that practically the whole of that arises from the shortage of labour needed to produce the food that might otherwise be produced; and although the President of the Board of Agriculture intimated to us that the Secretary of State for War is himself a practical agriculturist, and is therefore not likely to be out of sympathy with any demand that he might make, I must, nevertheless, remind the right hon. Gentleman that hitherto our trouble has not arisen speci-ficially from the Gentleman who has been the Secretary of State for War. The whole of his confusion and muddle has arisen through the action of subordinates in the employment of the War Office, who have not followed the specific instructions or statements made by the Minister on the floor of the House. I hope in the future, especially so far as the distribution of labour is concerned, that the right hon. Gentleman will get from the War Council an assurance that any arrangement made by him through the Secretary of State for War shall be honestly fulfilled by those who are subordinate to the Secretary of State for War.
  Mr. MONTAGU: I would just like to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman. In order to avoid competition by the placing of different orders on behalf of different Departments for the same industry, the late Government arranged that the Board of Agriculture and the

  1539
  Food Controller should indent on the Ministry of Munitions, who would be responsible for the provision of such agricultural implements as from time to time the Board of Agriculture were of opinion were necessary. That arrangement was designed to cope with the difficulty of competition between the Food Controller and the President of the Board of Agriculture in what was absolutely essential for the tilling of the soil of the country. I was not quite sure, from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, whether the present Government propose to adhere to that arrangement or to depart from it.
  General Sir IVOR HERBERT: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, might I put one question, which I think would relieve the minds of a good many in this House. I, like most others, feel very considerably reassured by the very clear and straightforward statement which the right hon. Gentleman made, but I think that feeling of reassurance would have been carried still further if he had given us the actual terms of what he called the Charter drawn up between himself and the Food Controller. We know that right hon. Gentlemen come into their offices with the very best possible intentions; but there is an impelling force behind them which induces them to fight for their Departments when questions arise involving various different Departments of State. That is a thing which is inevitable in public life. I should like to know exactly how the right hon. Gentlemen have managed to draw up an alliance, defensive and offensive, against all those other Departments who would be involved in the various questions which must arise, such as that question, which has been dealt with many times, in regard to the provision of labour, upon which a great many Departments will have a say. The provision of labour is, of course, as has been already said, of vital importance to the production of food. You cannot produce more food out of the land of this country unless you have more men to till it, and that will not be a question that will arise with either of those Departments which are concerned specially in the Amendment now before the House. I do not wish to detain the House over this question, but I feel that, generally, we have been entirely reassured, and I hope that, in replying, my right hon. Friend will give us a little information on this point.
  Sir J. SIMON: I should like, if I might be allowed, to tender my own congratulations to the President of the Board of Agriculture on his speech. I am sure the whole House has reason to be very well satisfied with the choice which has been made, both as regards the filling of the post of President of the Board of Agriculture and as regards another office with which he will necessarily be closely associated. My reason for rising at this moment is to remind the House that the President of the Board of Agriculture quite recently expressed in the House, in a private capacity, views very similar to those which he has now spoken of with his official authority; and it is encouraging to all of us who desire to see the past mistakes corrected to know that, in holding the great office which he now holds, he is holding office still retaining opinions which he expressed when a private Member. I remember, and others here will remember, how not so long ago—hardly more than a month ago—in the Debate which took place on food prices on the occasion when my right hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Runciman) made a speech which we all greatly valued, the new President of the Board of Agriculture also spoke. I will take the liberty of reading to the House one sentence of his speech. He said:
  "The Board of Agriculture have appealed to farmers to pool their labour. The farmers are quite content to do that. Indeed, they are glad to do that. What happens? The military representative before the tribunal says Farmer A claims this man as indispensable. How can he say that when he has sent him to Farmer B?'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1916, col. 878, Vol. LXXXVII.]
  Now that was the right hon. Gentleman's own exposure just a month ago, of the perfect absurdity with which the claims of agriculture had been met when a claim has been made to retain absolutely indispensable men. I am sure everybody hopes, now that the right hon. Gentleman is in this high position of authority, that he will be able to point out with even greater force how injurious to the public interest such procedure is, and how necessary it is that it should be stopped at once. There is another Minister on that Bench now, whose appointment has been received with general approval, and who will also be closely connected with these questions of food; I refer to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Controller (Captain Bathurst). He also made a speech on this occasion, only a month ago. This is what he said:—
  "In most parts of the country, certainly in agricultural districts, the Appeal Tribunals are operating entirely under the threat of the military representa-

  1541
  tives, inspired by the new policy of the War Office. That is not a tribunal. It has ceased to be a tribunal. There is no object in having a tribunal if it is not going to exercise the duties of a judicial body but is going to act solely in accordance with the mandate of a Government Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,15th November col.910, Vol. LXXXVII.]
  I feel certain that we shall have good cause to congratulate ourselves and the country upon the fact that these two eminent authorities, who spoke in the language of such severe criticism a month ago, are now in a position to see that this grave mistake is corrected. In my judgment, there is no point at all in time of war in going back on the past simply for the purpose of saying that mistakes have been made—none at all! But it is necessary to go back into the past in order that we may avoid such mistakes in the future. It will be indeed a very great relief to many in this country, and, I believe, a direct contribution towards our national strength, if the right hon. Gentleman can really secure two things: The first is that, so far as may be, the men who have been taken from the mistaken view that that was the best way to use their strength, should be brought back; and, secondly, that without further delay that this vicious system should really stop.
  Colonel Sir H. GREENWOOD: I want to intervene for only a few moments, for, I am bound to confess, I cannot allow the few remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat to pass without one word of protest. The tribunals to which he refers were set up by colleagues of his own. They are democratic in essence. They are representative of the farmers in their district, and the other districts from which it is alleged the labourers have been taken. The military representative is not a member of the tribunal. He cannot vote in the decision. I do not believe—my own experience as an inspector of these tribunals leads me to speak with intimate knowledge of them—there is one tribunal, or at any rate more than one, in any given military area that has subjected its decision to the threat of any military representative. I know it is very easy to criticise these tribunals because of the duties they have to carry out. These duties are very heart-breaking to them. The duties are very drastic to those who have to come under them, and under the law which the tribunals are carrying out. But they are the laws and regulations passed by this House, approved of and agreed to by the right hon. Gentlemen seated beside the
  1542
  right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow. In those circumstances I think that the least that can be done is to speak fairly towards those civilian members of the tribunal who are not military representatives.
  Sir S. COLLINS: These were the words of the Ministers opposite.
  Sir H. GREENWOOD: These were the words of Ministers who occupied a position of no responsibility, but were critics of the last Coalition Government. They are Ministers now. I have long since ceased to look upon a man, because he is a Minister, as necessarily in any way superior to anybody else. The laurel wreaths fell from the brows of Ministers on the first day of the War, so far as I am concerned. My point is that, no matter what he said, if the hon. Member who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Food Controller—and I am bound to confess that no better selection could have been made—if he said that the Appeal Tribunals were operating entirely under the threat of the military authorities, then all I can say is that that is the one, and, I hope, the only time, in which he made a misstatement in reference to the work of the tribunal. The mere fact that he is a Minister now does not affect the case. I hope there is no apology necessary for my intervention in this way. I think it is a great disservice to the tens of thousands of self-sacrificing, unpaid civilians throughout this country who are carrying out the duty specially imposed upon them by the late Government to treat them in the way they have been treated this after noon.
  Mr. PROTHERO: May I, by leave of the House, answer the questions which have been addressed to me? In relation to the question as to the Ministry of Munitions machinery being done away with altogether, I may say it has not. The hon. Baronet asked me if I could supply him with the terms of our four-line agreement. In doing so he asked me something which I am hardly able to give, because, I must confess, that I have not got the matter all off by heart. But the point is this: I am the technical adviser of the Food Controller. He cannot take any steps for the production of food without consultation with me, neither can I without consultation with him.
  An HON. MEMBER: If you do not agree?
  Mr. PROTHERO: If we do not agree we go to the War Council, and I am afraid I must repeat what I said before, that I have no doubt the War Council, on a question of the sort, will agree with me; I should be dealing with a subject which my hon. Friend does not know, and does not pretend to know, and which I am, at all events officially, supposed to know. As to the question raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow, I myself think that the local and appeal tribunals have, on the whole, done very good work and with very great fairness and ability, and I should like to add my testimony to that which has just been given as to the infinite pains and the infinite trouble which the members of those tribunals have taken. They are utterly unpaid, and I think their work does them very great credit. They may have made mistakes. What tribunal that has ever sat did not? Yet I think their work was well done. I did say that there was a peculiar danger in the case of the farmer who lent his man to somebody else, for he laid himself open to a claim from the military representative to take the man. But—I am speaking from recollection—I do not think that I said they got the man—that makes the whole difference!
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The statement by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down may, I am afraid, give rise to some misunderstanding. I desire to put a question to him so that he may take the opportunity of making the matter a little clearer. He said that the Food Controller could take no action in regard to increasing the supply of food without his concurrence as President of the Board of Agriculture. This, it seems to me, is perfectly right.
  Mr. PROTHERO: Home-grown food!
  Mr. SAMUEL: Because clearly it is a matter for the technical advisers of the Government in matters of agriculture to decide as to the manner in which an increase of the food supply can best be managed. He went on to say that the President of the Board of Agriculture could also take no step for increasing the home-grown supply without first consulting and securing the assent of the Food Controller. Presumably the hon. Gentleman means that there will be no large departure of policy from the existing methods without consulting and securing the assent of the Food Controller. But
  1544
  surely he does not wish us to understand that there can be no routine measures undertaken or minor measures in the day-to-day action of the Board of Agriculture for increasing the home-grown food supply carried forward without first going to the Food Controller and securing his consent? Surely the Board of Agriculture is not going to be turned into a Department of, so to speak, two chambers, where nothing can be done along lines which, it was generally agreed, were obviously desirable to increase the homegrown food supply without securing the assent of a House of Lords in the shape of the Food Controller? The observations of the hon. Gentleman give rise to some uneasiness. I hope he will not lead us to understand that under the new regime the previous freedom of the Board of Agriculture has entirely disappeared and that it is now fettered, and can do nothing without presenting those measures, no matter how detailed they may be, to the approval of another Department.
  Mr. HOHLER: The question of labour on the land is undoubtedly a most important one. I should not have ventured into this discussion this afternoon were it not that I myself have some practical knowledge of the subject. I heard the Member for Lanarkshire make attacks upon the tribunals in a characteristic speech which, in my judgment, carries no weight whatever with agriculturists. Speaking for myself, I find no fault with the military representative of the tribunal in my own district. I do not pretend to have general knowledge of other tribunals, but I do know there they have almost invariably, though if not in every case, given relief in the matter of agriculture. What we are really suffering from in Kent is quite a matter of another sort. The fact is that in agriculture there were more men employed over the age of forty-one, and aged men, than in any other industry in this country. What has been the result? In the county of Kent relief has been given to men of military age since the Military Service Act came in force who are still on the farms. It is said that in other districts, and from pleasure gardens, men have been taken for military service. They have also been taken from the roads. What is the result? Men in the private enjoyment of the luxury of gardens have probably now men who were perfectly content to earn a good wage on the land. They have left that employments—I refer to men of over

  1545
  military age—and have gone into the private gardens. The same thing has happened in building operations, and in the brewing business. Milkmen, shepherds, cowmen, have all gone in the same way. That is the real difficulty with which, in my judgment, we ought to deal.
  I should think, speaking from what I know from actual experience, that we ought to get some machinery which should say that men suited for a particular class of work shall stay at it, and that the luxury of private gardens should be cut down, so preventing rich men attracting away men from essential occupations. In my own district I have knowledge of men past military age who were engaged in agriculture and who are now working upon the roads. Why? Because the rural district councils could give any wage that they could possibly desire. I do not consider wages in that district are at all bad, running as they do from 25s. to 36s. in haying and harvest, with cottage rents, I think, running only between 2s. and 3s. 6d. Therefore it is not, thus far, a question of wages or housing, but the result of what I have described is that directly labour is taken for essential purposes the men left on the farms, over military age, are attracted away; hence the shortage! The evidence of the intentions of the new Government were contained in the speech of the Prime Minister yesterday when he said that it was one of the early proposals of the Government to deal with this question. That is the real question that ought to be dealt with. These attacks upon the tribunals simply serve the purpose of those who, when these Acts were before the House, such as the Member for Lanarkshire, always talked about the conscription of labour. Now he talks upon a subject he does not fully understand, and gives us a very gloomy picture of the future.
  Sir WALTER ESSEX: I should like to have a word to say in response to the remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Colonel Sir H. Greenwood). There is nothing like leather. At the time when these tribunals were set up, I believe the hon. Baronet was himself at Whitehall, engaged in duties there which, I have no doubt, he discharged with his usual thoroughness and ability. But I rise to say a few words so that his statement may not be regarded as the final statement on this question, notwithstanding his experience of the action of tribunals
  1546
  on the military side. My hon. Friend, who gave us a very valuable contribution in his remarks about the diversion of labour from agriculture into other pursuits, also said that his experience had been, on the whole, that the military action of the tribunals had been fair. My observation of several districts is the entire opposite of that. I have found the military representatives overbearing. I can give cases where farms have been stripped needlessly. The hardship comes from the very fact that, while it is true in some districts the tribunal has acted fairly and considerately, a violent contrast is set up in others, where you have everyone who comes forward to seek exemption browbeaten, his claim ignored, and he is rushed off into the Army. Those of us who are employers of labour know how this thing operates, and I should not have spoken now, having already referred to this matter, were it not that the principle is going to be widely extended to a very considerable degree under provisions associated with this Bill. Other tribunals will be called into being, and let it be understood clearly, without any doubt, that if many of the experiences which are causing heart-burning and smarting up and down the country from the action of the military representatives on tribunals, should be repeated to any extent in any tribunals that may be set up to deal with the conscription of labour which is proposed, there will be trouble in this country, which will make the difficulty of the Government and the difficulty of carrying on the War well nigh insuperable. It is well we should have regard to these things in time, and remember there is a limit beyond which you may not put a strain upon the people of this country.
  Mr. L. SCOTT: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, being satisfied with the declaration made by the President of the Board of Agriculture.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. PETO: I beg to move, after the word "him" ["by Order in Council, transfer to him"], to insert the words "and particularly all the powers of the Secretary of State for War in relation to the employment of prisoners of war in agriculture."
  I asked a question this afternoon with regard to the employment of prisoners of war, and I was told by the Financial Secretary to the War Office that he had no information to show that farmers were required to find lodgings for prisoners of war without payment. That is a very

  1547
  small part of the matter. I want to tell the House what is going on at the present moment to show how unsuitable the War Office is for dealing with this question of the employment of prisoners of war in agriculture. The House has been greatly interested for the last hour and a half in the question of labour raised by the last Amendment, but undoubtedly in the direction of prisoners of war we have one of the most fruitful fields for recruiting agricultural labour, if properly handled. I submit that is an essential thing which should be transferred at once from the War Office authorities to the Controller of Food, and my reason is this: Only last week there were meetings in various parts of the Southern Command, particularly in Wiltshire, which I know best, when the General Officer Commanding, Southern Command, announced the conditions under which these prisoners could be employed. The conditions were as follows: The two important ones are:
  "The rate of pay to be paid for the service?: of the prisoners of war would be the same as the current rates for similarly skilled English employés.
  The arrangements for the feeding of the prisoners and their guards would be made for them by the military authorities; the lodging arrangements by the farmers."
  There is not a word there to show that the military authorities would pay for the lodgings. It is obvious that, what with the difficulties of language and their being unaccustomed to our English ways, even if they are very willing, those men cannot at first, and I should think for a very long time, be anything approaching the value of English labourers, and yet the War Office insist that the full rate should be paid. The result is that none are employed, and the whole thing is hung up.
  Therefore, I want somebody like the hon. Member for Wilton, who would act in this matter under the Food Controller, who knows what the value of agricultural labour is, who knows from his own practical experience what the difficulty would be of using on a farm half a dozen or ten foreigners. One farmer said, "We should be half the week chasing the beggars over the farm." Their labour could easily be offered cheaper at first, and then the authorities could put up the price later when the men were worth it. That is not the only sphere in* which the War Office are treading on the toes, so to speak, of the Controller. The Government appear to have no lack of experts. There was an announcement in yesterday's "Times" of
  1548
  Mr. Trustram Eve's appointment. He is appointed by the War Office to take steps to increase the production of oats for Army requirements. Mr. Trustram Eve is going off on a tangent, in his own direction, to produce more oats for the Army, and there is the Food Controller dealing with the whole question of food production of all sorts for man and beast. I do beg that the right hon and learned Gentleman, the Home Secretary, will accept this very simple little Amendment. Let us show that, so far as the employment of labour in agriculture, so far as the matters that directly concern the Department of the Food Controller are concerned, we shall eliminate one, at any rate, of the five authorities who are working concurrently to carry on the same work. I do want the Food Controller to have the first and last say in that, matter. He is the only person who can tell what the labour is worth, and unless worth the wages it will not be employed, though it is most important it should be employed. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept these words and give us a proof of his good intentions of making this Bill as simple as possible.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I beg to second the Amendment. I think that this Amendment is one of very considerable importance, and one which ought to receive the very careful consideration of the Government. We have had some very interesting and instructive speeches during the last hour and a half, and, if I may say so, some very alarming speeches, as to the position of our food supply. The burden of all these speeches has been that we must, by some means or other, have more people to work on the land, whether it be by keeping labourers on the land who are there, or by bringing back labourers from the Army, or by using women labour, but more labour must be got if we are to increase the food supply of this country, which is a vital matter. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) has brought this question up, because we have here put into our hands a very large supply of adult able-bodied labour which we can use, which all other nations who are at war have used, but which we, for some unaccountable reason, have neglected to utilise to the best advantage. How many thousands of prisoners we have I cannot say, because it is a matter of common knowledge that they are not all in this country.
  Mr. PETO: There are 5,000 in the Southern Command alone, and none of them employed.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. ASHLEY: As my hon. Friend says, there are 5,000 in the Southern Command, many being at Dorchester, which is a very central position. I do put it to the House and to the Home Secretary that the War Office is, from its very nature, not the office which should have the distribution and the laying down of conditions under which these men should be employed. These men are available, and we ought to use them at once. It is criminal neglect on the part of the late Government that these men have not been used at all, and the proper people to utilise them are the responsible officials who have charge of agriculture and food supply. Whether it be the President of the Board of Agriculture or the Food Controller I am not going to decide, but it ought to be somebody who is connected with the food supply. And yet we have those men left in charge of the military authorities, which might be right so far as prisoners' camps are concerned, but the whole arrangements of offering them to the farmers and landowners of the country are left in the hands of the military authorities. The consequence is that the military authorities do not push the matter. It does not matter to the military authorities officially whether we have any food or not. All that they have to do is to see we have enough soldiers, and Armies equipped to meet the enemy. Officially they do not care where the food comes from. It is obvious that the War Office will not take any active steps, unless they are pushed, to put these prisoners out on the land. Therefore we have the ridiculous position in the Southern Command that the farmer has to pay these exorbitant rates, and provide lodgings for these prisoners of war, and also, I presume, provide lodging for the non-commissioned officers who will come with the men. It is evident that, even if those men were able to do the work and were able to speak English, they would cost more than the English agricultural labourer. Surely it is ridiculous, on the face of it, that for a German prisoner of war, who naturally is not going to over-exert himself more than he can possibly help, who very likely has not been an agricultural labourer to begin with, and has got to learn his job, to whom an order has to be given through an interpreter, the farmer should be asked to pay the same price as for an able-bodied
  1550
  adult English agricultural labourer. Whether or not the Government accepts this Amendment, which I regard as a very great improvement, and as going direct to the root of the matter of supply of labour, I do ask that they should take steps at once. I see the Secretary for War here, and I put it to him whether this Amendment is accepted or not, that he should impress upon the Southern Command that the rates of pay they lay down are ridiculous, that the provision of lodgings by the farmer, without some contribution by the State, is absurd, and that it is essential at once in the Southern Command and in the counties he has mentioned to do this, otherwise a very serious injury will be done to the country.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I have been associated with one or two Departments dealing with this question of prisoners of war, and my right hon. Friend has asked me to say a word or two on this matter. There is a good deal of force in some of the criticisms which have been made, and undoubtedly the regulations already made will, in some particulars, have to be reconsidered. I think, however, that some of my hon. Friends have fallen into a misconception as to the number of prisoners now available. The number of military prisoners not employed, or already arranged to be employed, on works of national importance is not more than 6,000. With regard to civilians they come under a different category of national law, and I am speaking only of military prisoners. Of these the reservoir is by no means so great as my hon. Friends suppose. Within the last day or two this matter has occupied the very close attention of the Secretary of State. Hitherto these subjects have been considered and as far as possible dealt with by the Committee of which my hon. Friend was the Chairman, but obviously now that Committee will have to be reconstituted. I hope that will be done and the Committee reconstituted with a somewhat wider scope in a very few days, and then they can consider the applications made from different parts of the country and advise the War Office upon them. Of course, as to leading decisions it may be necessary to refer to the War Council. I ought to say that it is not from agriculture that all the demands come for these prisoners, for there have been demands from the docks and for other matters.
  Mr. PETO: Who decides whether these demands are of military importance?
  Mr. HOPE: Those are matters which my hon. Friend's Committee have considered and they are what the Committee, which is being reorganised, will have to consider. They will have to get a ruling, if necessary, from the War Council itself. That I hope will put the matter into proper shape. With regard to this Amendment it will confer powers on the Controller which ought not to belong to him. The War Office is necessarily the custodian of these prisoners, and to give power to another body to take the prisoners out of all these camps and employ them as they wish would lead to the very greatest friction. Therefore, I submit that this is not a practical proposition. If such power ought to be given to anybody, it should be given to the Board of Agriculture. It is not, however, only agriculture that makes these demands, and other Departments are concerned. To give these extensive powers against the War Office to other Departments is really not practical politics, and I am sorry that the Government cannot accept this Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I beg to move to leave out Clause 6.
  I make this Motion purely formally with the object of obtaining from the Home Secretary an answer to one or two questions which I venture to address to him as to the powers of the Shipping Controller. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position to tell me whether the Shipping Controller will have control of all shipping to the extent of the supply of transport for Army purposes; whether it will rest with the Shipping Controller to decide whether or not those vessels which are being used by the Army and by the Navy are being put to the best use—that is to say, whether there is any waste or lack of economy in the use of the tonnage? I think it is important that we should know whether he would have the power to withdraw from the naval or the military service vessels which are not being put to the best use. I should also like to know whether the Shipping Controller is to have the power to exercise the functions now performed by the Marine Department of the Board of Trade? For instance, I would like to know, would the mercantile marine offices be under him? Would the construction branch of the Marine Department be under the Shipping Controller or
  1552
  would it remain under the President of the Board of Trade? Would the technical officers who represent the Marine Department in the various shipbuilding centres be subject to his control and instructions or would they be subject to the Board of Trade? Might I also ask if the administration of the Merchant Shipping Acts will rest with the Shipping Controller? For instance, would it be open to the Shipping Controller by his own decree to raise the load-line of vessels which go to sea, whether in winter or summer, or would that have to be done by the Board of Trade? Might I also ask whether the working arrangement which has existed informally for certainly the last eighteen months between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade with regard to new construction is to continue as between the Admiralty and the Board of Trade, or whether there is to be any reallocation or resorting of the duties?
  Finally, I should like to inquire whether the Joint Committee of the Admiralty and the Board of Trade which has been dealing with shipbuilding labour and shipbuilding material, and which, I believe, was responsible for putting merchant shipbuilding material at the head of the priority list, is to continue as part of the shipbuilding branch or remain as part of the duty of the Board of Trade? When the Bill was introduced no information was given, and it may be that my right hon. Friend is not in a position to answer all these categorical questions. I ask these questions now in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman may give us some guidance, and because of the very natural anxiety in shipbuilding and shipping circles outside as to the functions which will be performed by the Shipping Controller, because they naturally wish to know whether they are going on having their dealings on these purely technical points with the Board of Trade or the Shipping Controller. The Committees which have been principally responsible for the control of shipping, I suppose, will go on as before. They are the Shipping Control Committee, the Licensing Committee, and the Requisitioning Committee, and there is also the Port and Transit Committee. I presume these will all go on as before. Some doubt will arise as to the position of the Port and Transit Committee. The Board of Trade has always been the authority for dealing with matters concerning ports and harbours.

  1553
  Will the Port and Transit Committee be under the Shipping Controller in the future or under the Board of Trade? I do not put these questions to consume time, but with the object of getting as much information as possible as to the functions to be performed by the Shipping Controller.
  Sir G. CAVE: I am very desirous of responding to the questions which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I regret that some Amendment in his name does not appear on the Paper. If I had had the least idea until five minutes ago that I should be asked these questions, I should have armed myself with information that would have given a full answer to the right hon. Gentleman and the House. As things stand, I must be careful and not give a reply on some of the points until I get further information. I will not now attempt to answer in detail the questions which the right hon. Gentleman has very naturally put to me. I would, however, ask the House to remember the purposes for which the Shipping Controller is to be appointed. He has to deal with the maintenance of shipping and the use of all the available shipping. I understand the Order in Council dealing with this matter has not yet been officially framed. I believe, however, that the ordinary work of the Board of Trade in connection with shipping will not be disturbed, and the powers to be transferred to the Shipping Controller are powers which he may use for War purposes during the War. The ordinary administration of the Merchant Shipping Act I should think would remain with the Board of Trade.
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question relating to the load-line?
  Sir G. CAVE: I do not think it possible that the powers of the Board of Trade in that resepct would be taken away. If it became necessary for the purposes of the War for the Shipping Controller to make any changes in the load-line, the Controller could make arrangements with the Board of Trade. Such things as working arrangements between the Board of Trade and the Admiralty would be within the power of the Shipping Controller. So would such questions as the continuance of the Committees mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman for War purposes. He would deal with such questions as the waste in the use of tonnage. In all matters involving
  1554
  the use and supply of shipping which is of great moment for War purposes the voice of the Shipping Controller will be very weighty indeed. I do not wish to commit myself, but, subject to what I have said, the desire would be to leave untouched the ordinary powers of the Board of Trade. I am sorry I cannot answer all the points raised by my right hon. Friend, but I shall be glad to supply him later with the information.
  Colonel YATE: Yesterday I was informed, in reply to a question, that there were no less than fifty British vessels trading between neutral ports. I would like to know if the Shipping Controller has power to utilise those ships for the purpose of bringing food and raw material to this country instead of trading between neutral ports?
  Mr. PRINGLE: I would like to make a few observations upon the new office which is being created under this Clause and upon the powers conferred upon the holder of that office. It seems to me that the most important thing in connection with the Shipping Controller is that he should really control shipping. One of the misfortunes from which we have suffered during this War is that the civilian department which had control of shipping had only a very limited influence with the Admiralty in securing the economical use of such shipping as was being employed for military and naval purposes. The House therefore will desire to know that in the new arrangement which the new Government have in view the Shipping Controller will certainly be more powerful than the Board of Trade has been in seeing that British shipping will not be wasted as it has been in the past. I do not know exactly how the new Shipping Controller will be able to exercise his authority. In the past there has always been a right of appeal to the War Council. One could see from the public prints day by day that the late President of the Board of Trade, although not formally a Member of the War Council, was frequently in attendance and could thereby make his voice heard on that Council. Will the new Shipping Controller be equally powerful? Certainly the former holder of the office could have some influence on policy, and, after all, it is upon policy that the use of shipping mainly depends. Here we have a Shipping Controller who, as a mere Departmental head, is going to have no control over policy whatever. He may see thousands

  1555
  of tons taken away from his control by a mere stroke of the pen of the War Council and not have the right to raise a word of protest. The late President of the Board of Trade could at least have some influence upon policy. The new man has none. Consequently, it is all the more important that the new Shipping Controller should have greater powers in respect of the Admiralty use of tonnage than was enjoyed either by the Board of Trade or by any of the existing Committees. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an assurance to the House that in respect of the economical use of shipping the Shipping Controller will not be simply a name, but will be a reality.
  Sir G. CAVE: I think the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Yate) is "Yes."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Establishment of Air Board.)
  For the purpose of organising and maintaining the supply of aircraft in the national interest in connection with the present War, it shall be lawful for His Majesty to establish an Air Board, consisting of a President appointed by His Majesty, who shall hold office during His Majesty's pleasure, and of other members who shall be appointed in such manner and subject to such provisions as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct. The President of the Board shall act with the advice of the other members of the Board.
  For the purposes of this Act the President of the Air Board shall be deemed to be a Minister appointed under this Act and the Air Board a Ministry established under this Act.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
  I move purely formally to leave out this Clause in order to ask what will be the powers of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Air Board which it is proposed to appoint. We shall probably have a whole day after the House reassembles for discussing the constitution and powers of the Air Board. It was promised us by the last Government, and I am quite sure that the present Government will keep that promise. Before we go off for the holidays I wish the right hon. Gentleman could give us some indication what will be the
  1556
  powers of this Parliamentary Secretary and what he will answer for, what the composition of the Board will be, and what his powers will be. I am glad to say that the Board has now been turned into an Air Ministry. I suppose it is the work of the right hon. Gentleman, and I thank him that we have at last got an Air Ministry, if only in name. I want to know whether their duties will be entirely advisory, or whether they will have executive power. Up to now the Biard has consisted of a Cabinet Minister, a Member of the other House, a Member of this House, and representatives of the Army and the Navy. I want to know whether a representative of the Ministry of Munitions is going to be added to this Board. I would lay great stress on that, and, if it has not been so decided, I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman whether the matter could not be reconsidered. After all, nothing can be done, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, without the Minister of Munitions. He has absolute control over all the men and the materials in this country, and this Air Board must come up against the Ministry of Munitions whatever it does. Unless, therefore, there is a representative of that Ministry on the Board I am afraid that there will be great trouble.
  There is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, an International Commission in this country which lives at India House, and which buys aircraft material for our Allies. Great power is being given to the Air Board, far greater power, I hope, than it had before, and I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be advisable to put on the Air Board a representative of that International Commission; otherwise they will be in a very difficult position in supplying the needs of our Allies. They will have no say at all in the getting of the material, and we may find that our Allies are not properly supplied as they should be. Finally, will the powers of this Air Ministry continue after the War, or will they cease when the War is over? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to make the Ministry permanent. We are told that the Labour Ministry is going to continue. Why should not the Air Ministry continue? It is perfectly obvious that aviation in the future must be of far greater importance than it has been in the past, and why the Ministry should cease—in the case of the Under-Secretary, six months after the end of the

  1557
  War, and in the case of the Ministry as a whole, twelve months after the War—I cannot see. Surely it would be better to let it remain on and make any alteration in its composition or powers which may be necessary after the War.
  Mr. LYNCH: I wish to offer a few remarks on this Clause. I think, perhaps, they would be more in order on the new Clause. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in the course of some very valuable remarks has addressed himself to a question which appertains more closely to the new Clause. With my hon. Friend I would like to know a little more about the constitution of this new Air Board or Ministry, or whatever it may be called. I would like to lay stress upon one point particularly. The Minister responsible should have a seat in this House. If he is a representative in another place he is far removed from our sphere of action and the greater mental activity which prevails in this House, and really we have no control over him whatever. We have no control, moreover, over his representative, because in nine cases out of ten he simply replies that he will consult his Noble Friend. He has no authority to give a definite reply to any important question whatever. It seems to me, therefore, not only an important point, but an essential point, that the Minister responsible should be in this House.
  We were never able to obtain any definite information with respect to the last Air Board. It seemed to work in the dark, and we were certain only of one thing, and that was that it never produced any valuable result at all. It left the question of air supremacy pretty much where it took it up, and its only effect was that it acted as a sort of breakwater to public opinion and to the opinion of this House in order to delay the solution of this most important question. I hope, therefore, that with the change of Ministry there will be also a change of methods—more activity and more real work, more energy and more determination to produce something definite and concrete than has yet been shown by the Board. Failure was stamped on that Board from the very beginning, because, instead of being a real workmanlike Board full of men of great brain power and with great capacity for producing really valid and bold plans, its composition reminded one of the ornamental names which fill the directorships of
  1558
  showy city companies. Now is a time when we do not want ornamental names or titles or frippery of that sort. We want brains; in fact, I could emulate the Prime Minister yesterday and say three times the same thing. We want brains, brains, brains, and not one tithe of the brains which this country commands has been utilised even in this great new forward Government. Now is the time to watch the composition of this Air Board very closely and to take it as a kind of touchstone showing the real value of this new Government, and how much the country has gained by this great change. Up to the present all the signs have been disappointing. I leave the matter at this stage, to return to it with greater force and with the intention of offering perfectly definite concrete suggestions later.
  Sir G. CAVE: With regard to the composition and powers of the Board, as my hon. Friend will understand, the matter has not yet been finally settled. It is still under consideration, and I am afraid I cannot give him a final answer to-day. I have reason to believe that it is proposed that the Ministry of Munitions shall be represented on the Board, but with regard to the other body mentioned by the hon. Member I take a different view from him. I think there would be an objection to having it represented on the Ministry. The proposal is that the Ministry should be created for the War and should continue for a year after the War. That will leave ample time, and I have no doubt that the question of continuing the Board will be taken into consideration as soon as the War comes to an end.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the head of the Board be in this House?
  Sir G. CAVE: I cannot say.
  Mr. MONTAGU: Has any decision been come to yet by the Government as to the means of supplying aircraft?
  Sir G. CAVE: That is under consideration. It will be considered in a few days as part of the arrangement for setting up the Board.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Suspension of Limit on Number of Parliamentary) Under-Secretaries of State.)
  (2) Notwithstanding anything in any Act, an additional Parliamentary Secretary under-Secretary may be appointed to

  1559
  the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and to the Secretary of State for War, respectively; and it shall also be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to any special authority or board constituted in connection with the supply of aircraft for the present War.
  Amendment made: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "and it shall also be lawful for His Majesty to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to any special authority or board constituted in connection with the supply of aircraft for the present War."—[Sir G. Cave.]

  CLAUSE 11.—(Seal, Style, and Acts of Minister.)
  (1) Each Minister appointed under this Act may adopt an official seal and describe himself generally by the style and title in the case of the Minister of Labour, of the Minister of Labour; in the case of the Minister of Food, of Food Controller; and in the case of the Minister of Shipping, of Shipping Controller; and the seal of the Minister shall be officially and judicially noticed, and shall be authenticated by the signature of the Minister or of a secretary or some person authorised by the Minister to act in that behalf.
  Amendments made, in Sub-section (1), leave out the word "and" ["Food Controller; and"]. After the word "Controller" ["Shipping Controller"] insert the words "and in the case of the President of the Air Board, of the President of the Air Board."—[Sir G. Cave.]

  CLAUSE 12.—(Ability of Minister and Secretaries to Sit in Parliament.)
  (1) The office of a Minister appointed under this Act, or of secretary in a Ministry established under this Act, shall not render the holder thereof incapable of being elected to, or sitting or voting as a member of, the Commons House of Parliament, but not more than two secretaries in each Ministry shall sit as members of that House at the same time.
  (2) The office of a Minister appointed under this Act shall be deemed to be an office included in Schedule H of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and Schedule H of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, and Schedule E of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868.
  (3) A Minister appointed under this Act shall take oath of allegiance and official
  1560
  oath, and shall be deemed to be included in the first part of the Schedule to the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868.
  Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "two secretaries" and to insert instead thereof the words "one secretary." I move this in order to give effect to the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. McKenna), and I think it is quite a proper Amendment to make.
  Mr. McKENNA: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for accepting my Amendment, and to intimate at the same time that I do not propose to move the other Amendment to the Clause standing in my name on the Paper.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), leave out the worn "members" ["as members of that House"] and insert instead thereof the words "a member."—[Sir G. Cave.]

  CLAUSE 13.—(Cessation of Ministries of Food and Shipping.)
  The offices of Food Controller and Shipping Controller and the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Shipping shall cease to exist on the termination of a period of twelve months after the conclusion of the present War, or such earlier date as may be fixed by His Majesty in Council, and then any appointments made under the powers conferred by this Act shall be determined, and any powers or duties which have been transferred to the Food Controller or to the Shipping Controller under this Act shall, without prejudice to any action taken in pursuance of those powers or duties, revert to the Department or authority from which they were transferred.
  Amendments made: After the word "Controller" ["Food Controller"], insert the words "and of the President of the Air Board."
  After the word "Shipping" ["Ministry of Shipping"], insert the words "and the Air Board."
  After the word "Controller" ["transferred to the Food Controller"], insert the words "or to the Air Board."—[Sir G. Cave.]

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.
  As Amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND BODIES (LOANS) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The object of this Bill is to ease the position of local authorities in the matter of borrowing. In the last two years the Government has very properly desired to conserve, as far as possible, the resources of the country, and has consequently put a bar on borrowing by local authorities. There has been very little capital expenditure by these authorities during this period, and it is not possible that much capital can be spent until the War is over and peace declared. But the natural consequence of that is that there are very large arrears of work awaiting completion, and many undertakings will have to be put in hand immediately after the War is over. It is thought advisable, therefore, that certain powers should be given to the local authorities to enable them to borrow money for necessary expenditure and to clear away all the difficulties in the way of local authorities raising that money in neutral countries. It is quite true that there is no practical restriction on borrowing in the United States at the present time, but there are difficulties no doubt which might easily be raised, and it is as well that they should be completely removed and that it should be possible for local authorities thus to raise money. This Bill gives power to the local authorities to raise money for the purpose of discharging any outstanding loan of the council or for the purpose of replacing any sinking-fund money or other sums which may be used for purposes for which they had power to borrow or for the purpose of raising any further sums which the appropriate Government Department may authorise, with a view to prospective capital expenditure. No local authority is able to indulge in capital expenditure unless it obtains the sanction of this House by means of legislation or the sanction of the appropriate Government Department. That sanction will still
1562
have to be obtained, but money may be raised, and we hope will be raised, in the United States and elsewhere, although none of it can be spent until sanction is given for its expenditure. Clause 2 of the Bill shows that the local authorities to whom these powers will be given are the county councils and municipal boroughs, and other public bodies, such as water boards, drainage boards, and harbour boards. There will be power given to these local authorities to raise money for capital expenditure or of replacing any sinking-fund money or other sums which have been used for purposes for which they had power to borrow. These powers will be very necessary as soon as peace comes, and if any of these moneys can now be raised in the United States it is obvious it will help the exchange, it will help the Government, and, in so doing, it will help the War. The city of Paris and other great cities have already found it possible to raise substantial loans in America, and I see no reason why the securities of our great municipalities may not also find favour amongst American investors; if that should happen, again I say it will help the exchange, and it will help the Government in carrying on the War. I hope that the House will accept this as a war measure and will enable us to carry it through all its stages to-night, so that we may take advantage of such facilities as are being offered in the American market at the present time.
Mr. McKENNA: I, too, hope that the House will give a Second Reading to this Bill and enable it to be carried through at once. The right hon. Gentleman has fully explained the purpose of the Bill which, I may say, is needed, and I can only express a strong hope that the House will give these powers to the local authorities.
Mr. NIELD: I only desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill whether it is by accident that these powers are not given to urban councils as well as to borough councils? In the last few minutes my attention has been called to this matter, and—
Mr. HAYES FISHER: I propose to put in an Amendment to add the words"or any urban council."
Mr. DEVLIN: I want to raise a point with regard to the retention in the Army of boys under fifteen years of age—
Mr. SPEAKER: We are now dealing with the Public Authorities and Bodies (Loans) Bill.
Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time.
Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. Pratt.]
Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
[Mr. DICKINSON in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Further Power of County or Borough Councils, etc., to borrow.)
(1)The council of any county or of any municipal borough may, during the continuance of the present war and a period of six months thereafter, borrow, with the consent of the appropriate Government Department, on the security of all or any of the funds or revenues of the council for the purpose of discharging any out standing loan of the council, or for the purpose of replacing any sinking fund money or other sums which have been used for purposes for which they had power to borrow, or for the purpose of raising any further sums which the appropriate Government Department authorise them to raise with a view to prospective capital expenditure.
The application and use of any sums borrowed under this provision shall be subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the appropriate Government Department whose consent is given to the borrowing.
(2)During the continuance of the present war, and a period of six months thereafter, the council of any county or municipal borough may, with the consent of the Treasury and subject to such conditions as the Treasury may impose, borrow any sums which they have power to borrow for the time being by means of the issue of bearer bonds on other securities to bearer, whether within or without the United Kingdom, and, if thought fit, in any foreign currency.
Any such bonds or securities shall rank, as respects other securities issued by the council, in the same mariner as if the sum borrowed by means of those bonds or other securities had been borrowed by means of the issue of stock.
(3)The council of any county or of any municipal borough may re-borrow under the powers given by this Act for the pur-
1564
pose of paying off any money borrowed under those powers; and the limitation on the exercise of those powers to the continuance of the present war and a period of six months thereafter shall not apply to any such reborrowing.
(4) Any power given by this Section shall not derogate from any other power of borrowing, and may be exercised notwithstanding anything in any Act.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "borough" ["any municipal borough"], insert the words "or any urban district."
After the word "funds" ["of any of the funds"], insert the word "property."
In Sub-section (2), after the word "borough" ["county or municipal borough"], insert the words "or of any urban district."
In Sub-section (3), after the word "borough" ["of any municipal borough"], insert the words "or of any urban district."—[Mr. Hants Fisher.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill."

CLAUSE 2.—(Extent, Interpretation and Short Title.)
(1) This Act may be applied to any local authority, other than the council of a county or of a municipal borough, and to any other public body on the application of that authority or body, by the appropriate Government Department; and if so applied, shall be construed, with any necessary modification as if the authority or body to whom it is applied were substituted for the council of the county or of the municipal borough.
(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
The expression "appropriate Government Department" means, in the case of the London County Council the Treasury, in the case of other authorities or bodies in England and Wales the Local Government Board, in the case of authorities or bodies in Scotland the Secretary for Scotland, and in the case of authorities or bodies in Ireland the Local Government Board for Ireland;
The expression "sinking fund money" means money for the time being standing to the credit of any sinking fund, redemption fund, or fund of a like nature; and

1565
The expression "municipal borough" means, in the application of this Act to Scotland, a Royal, Parliamentary, or police burgh.
(3) This Act may he cited as the Public Authorities and Bodies (Loans) Act, 1916.
Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "borough" ["of a municipal borough"], insert the words "or urban district."
At end of Sub-section, add the words "or urban district."
In Sub-section (2), paragraph 2, after the word "fund" ["redemption fund"], insert the words "depreciation fund."—[Mr. Hayes Fisher.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

SUPPLY.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. DICKINSON in the Chair.]

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 1,000,000, of all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, in consequence of the War in Europe, for the year ending on the 31st day of March,1917."
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): So far as this Vote is concerned, I should like to explain to the Committee that no question of policy arises. The Vote is on the Paper because our Colonial troops are here and are incorporated in the Forces of the Crown. This incorporation puts us over our legal or legitimate number of 4,000,000, and it is in order to regularise this that I ask the Committee to give us this Vote.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
Lords Amendment considered.

CLAUSE 4.—(Short Title and Interpretation.)
(1) This Act may be cited as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, and the
1566
Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, and this Act may be cited together as the Prevention of Corruption Acts, 1906 to 1916.
(2) In this Act and in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, the expression "public body" includes, in addition to the bodies mentioned in the last-mentioned Act, local and public authorities of all descriptions.
(3) A person serving under any such public body is an agent within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, and the expressions "agent" and "consideration" in this Act have the same meaning as in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, as amended by this Act.
Lords Amendment: Leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3) and insert:
"(2) In this Act and in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, the expression 'public body' includes, in addition to the bodies mentioned in the last-mentioned Act, any local and public authorities of all descriptions.
(3) A person serving under any such public body is an agent within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, and the expressions 'agent' and 'consideration' in this Act have the same meaning as in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, as amended by this Act."
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Sir G. Cave.]

DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

  UNTRIED IRISH PRISONERS.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Mr. DILLON: I endeavoured to explain at Question Time to-day the reason why I felt constrained to refuse to assent to the appeal of the Leader of the House not to bring forward on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night the question of the release of the interned Irish political prisoners in this country. I need not therefore go over that ground again, with the exception of this one point, that this matter has been under the consideration of the Government constantly for two months, and when the late Government

  1567
  left office we were under the impression—I do not for a moment desire to say it was anything further than that—for which we had good ground, that the policy of immediate release would prevail. When the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to me to-day, based his appeal on the fact that the new Government had only just come into office, and were wholly unable, in the time which had elapsed, to deal with this question in face of the many important questions which we all recognise confronted them, I replied, I think with great force, that the case of this new Government could not for a single moment be judged to be on all fours with that of an ordinary Government coming into office after the defeat of another Government by an opposing party, who might be presumed to have on this question new minds and probably a different policy and therefore, naturally, would be entitled to demand some time to consider what action they would take. In this particular case you have a Government of which the leading Members are the same. They have not come into office as the result of any conflict of parties or the defeat of one particular party in the House, while the men who undoubtedly would be mainly concerned in arriving at this decision, namely, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, have all been in the late Government, and have all taken part—an active part—in considering this question for the last two months. Therefore, I am entitled to say that there is no force in that argument as a reason for not coming to any conclusion.
  As I have stated already, a Motion has been on the Paper in my name for two months making this demand. Many private interviews have taken place between us and Ministers, into the nature of which, of course, I am precluded from entering. Let me state in a sentence the nature of our demand. There are still in this country interned over 560 untried Irish political prisoners, against whom no charge has been formulated, and who, as I understand the law—I have heard it laid down very carefully by the late Home Secretary in Debates on the Defence of the Realm Act—can only be legally held in this country if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Home Secretary in every case—he specifically said that every case should be considered on its merits—that they are of alien enemy association. There
  1568
  is no other charge on which you can intern a man in this country unless he is an alien himself or is of alien enemy association. In this particular case the Defence of the Realm Act has been severely strained, strained far beyond the interpretation laid down by the late Home Secretary in those Debates. It would be impossible for the Home Secretary in each of the individual cases of these Irish prisoners, or in the majority of them, to say that they are actually of alien enemy association. It is a matter of very grave doubt as to whether, if a writ of habeas corpus was applied for in respect of these prisoners, they would not be released. I myself have been consulted on one or two occasions, and, judging from the proceedings that took place, I could not undertake the responsibility, in the present state of popular feeling in this country, of advising the resort to a writ of habeas corpus. In view of some of the dicta of the judges that I have read, I advised that it was better to trust to a better feeling arising in this country than that in the circumstances a writ should be applied for. If the Government to-day or yesterday had given us any substantial ground for the belief that they were favourably considering this matter and were going to settle it, I should certainly not have taken the course I am now taking. If it had not been for the fact that at Question Time to-day the Government, represented by the Leader of the House and afterwards by the Chief Seeretary, absolutely refused to give us any positive pledge that before the end of this Session a statement would be made, although it was indicated that it might possibly be made to-morrow evening, or on Friday, or that a Saturday sitting might be held—no positive pledge was given that before this Session closed a statement would be made on the subject of these prisoners—
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The hon. Member is entirely mistaken I read a positive pledge and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House repeated a positive pledge.
  Mr. DILLON: All I can say is that it is very unfortunate that that was not the impression conveyed even to myself or to any Members sitting on these benches. I believe I speak for all my colleagues. The impression left upon us was that no positive pledge was given, and that when the Leader of the House spoke of a Saturday

  1569
  sitting in the present conditions of transport to Ireland, it was really rather a piece of mockery. That is the reason why I raise the subject to-night. The truth of it is that it would be very difficult for us, after all that has occurred and after the encouragement which was spread in Ireland—spread abroad by rumour—I do not hesitate to say that by private letters of my own written to many of the anxious relatives of these people—that Christmas or the New Year would see them released, and I had good grounds for that belief, although I was not given any pledges, it would be impossible for us to go over this Christmas season and face our people in view of the belief as to the action of the Government without making some protest against the delays that have taken place. I want to disclaim, in the most emphatic language any intention of attacking the Prime Minister in this matter. From my long acquaintance with the Prime Minister and also from my knowledge of his own feelings, I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that if he were to exercise his own unbiassed personal judgment on this matter, and if no obstacles or difficulties to which I will refer in a moment were in his path, there would be no question about the immediate release of these prisoners. I was under the impression—again it is an unfortunate misunderstanding—that we should have heard from him on this subject in his speech yesterday. I came into the House under that impression, and certainly from the beginning of the Session I expected to hear from him some statement as to what the Government proposed to do. In that speech there occurred a sentence very significant, very important and which will be carefully scanned in Ireland. It was to the following effect:
  "That is why I have always thought and said that the real solution of the Irish problem is largely one of a better atmosphere. I entirely agree. I am speaking not merely for myself but for my colleagues when I say we shall strive to produce that better feeling. We shall strive by every means and by many hazards to produce that atmosphere, and we ask men of all races and all parties and all creeds to join us."
  8.0 p.m.
  When I read that language, which I think was very wise language and applicable to the present situation in Ireland, I expected to find it followed by a concrete statement of the action taken by the Government to improve the atmosphere in Ireland. What better action could have been taken to improve the atmosphere than to announce to the Irish people that all these prisoners at Frongoch and the gaols in England
  1570
  would be released by Christmas. Apparently the policy of delay and exasperation is going to be pursued or may be pursued in this matter just as it has been pursued in the last five or six months, with disastrous results not only in Ireland, but, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out yesterday, far beyond the shores of Ireland.
  So far as I know, the opinions and the feelings of Ministers on this subject there can be no doubt that all these prisoners will be released in the course of a few-months, but can anything be imagined more analogous than the policy pursued by the War Office, which the present Prime Minister described in this Houst as a policy of blundering so horrible that he was obliged to apply the words "malignant" to it—the policy which killed recruiting in Ireland. I am afraid the words may become applicable to this policy if it is pursued, as I fear it is going to be pursued, namely, to let these men out in driblets. What is the difference in policy between letting these men out now in a way that will conciliate Ireland and improve the Irish atmosphere and letting them out in the course of the next three or four months slowly, apparently reluctantly, in driblets or small groups in a way that will do little or no good and will convey to the people of Ireland that this concession has been dragged out of the Government, with the result that you will not obtain the good effect which might be obtained by bold and generous action of the moment.
  I say again my conviction is that, so far as the heads of the Government are concerned, their own view is this, that these prisoners ought to be released. The time has come when they ought to be released, in the best interests of Ireland and of this country also. I ask myself what is the nature of the obstacle, the mysterious hand, the hidden hand which is holding back the Government from this first act towards creating a better atmosphere in Ireland. I cannot conceive of any obstacle except what I may describe as the Castle gang in Dublin. I think the real obstacle which has to be overcome by the War Council and the Prime Minister before they can consent to release these men is to get the consent of Dublin officials. That is a monstrous thing, if true. I put it to this War Council who have such vast powers, are they going to allow this great question, which the Prime Minister described as an all-important War problem apart from the condition of Ireland—are they going to allow their hands to be tied,

  1571
  their judgment to be warped, and their instincts to be set aside and falsified by the advice of these officials in Dublin who have been largely responsible for all these misfortunes which have kept these two peoples apart and poisoned the relations between these people so long? If it is not the Dublin officials, who can it be? I cannot imagine any influence in the Government which has the power to prevent them embarking on this course. I would strongly urge upon the Government the vital importance of doing this thing in a way to strike the public imagination of the Irish people, and I warn them that if they refuse to do that and to allow 100 out to-morrow and 100 out after Christmas—actually allowing them out in groups—they will lose all the good effect which it is now in their power to achieve.
  The Irish problem is still a very difficult one, and it is one of those which the War Council, as the Prime Minister admitted yesterday, must face and must solve within the next few weeks. At all events, they must make a beginning. Three times since War broke out you have had an opportunity of securing the friendship of Ireland, of the overwhelming majority of the Irish people, and of securing all the recruits Ireland could possibly afford to give, and on each of the three occasions you have struck her across the face, insulted her, driven her back, and done everything in your power to encourage the forces of revolution and Sinn Feinery in that country. The Prime Minister himself characterised the action of the War Office in the early days of the War, when Ireland was only too eager to stand by your side and the whole country was enthusiastic from one end to the other, but you destroyed that condition of feeling by the operations of the War Office, an operation which we in vain appealed to the Cabinet of that day to correct and which the Cabinet itself was unable to correct because the War Office defied the Cabinet and carried out its own policy in absolute defiance of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. That was the first opportunity.
  The next opportunity you had was when the rebellion took place. We need not go into the cause of that rebellion, but it was another great opportunity. That was only a rebellion of about one-twentieth part of the people of Ireland. The rest of the people of Ireland were heartily with you. What was the result? If you had trusted us there would have been no rebellion, and
  1572
  if there had been we could have easily dealt with it ourselves without asking the aid of a single English soldier to cross the Channel. When the rebellion did come, only one-twentieth of the Irish people sympathised with it, and nineteen-twentieth of the Irish people were with you. You treated the entire population as if they were unanimous and put the whole country under martial law, swept into prison crowds of men who had no more connection with the rebellion than you had. You set the whole country mad, and people said the hand of friendship held out to you by Ireland has been struck and insulted.
  Now comes the third opportunity of July, when Lord Lansdowne destroyed the negotiations and again Ireland was thrown back. Now comes the fourth opportunity to undo all the blunders of the past. Yesterday the Prime Minister spoke of the blunders in Greece; they are very bad, shocking, incomprehensible. But not half so bad as the blunders in Ireland, and you have not lost so much by them. Now are we to see that again I That is the reason I think it necessary to have this Debate to-night. I make a last appeal to the Government, a strong appeal, nob to lose this fourth opportunity. The Leader of the House, when he listened to the admirable speech of the Member for East Clare (Major W. Redmond), which moved us all, spoke in a sympathetic spirit, and said his object was to improve the relations of the two countries. How can you improve the relations when this kind of thing is going on?
  Look at what is going on at this moment. Ireland is being deluged by letters from Frongoch prisoners. The camp is in a disgraceful condition. I was amazed to sec that the Home Secretary ordered an inquiry into the conduct of the commandant. Why, I thought his conduct was condemned. The camp was going on perfectly harmoniously. The men were under their own leaders, what are called but leaders. Then the War Office, the evil genius of Ireland, tried to get hold of five alleged Irish rebels to force them into the British Army to put on your uniform and fight for you, although they had been taken in Ireland against you—these enlightened military men who control the camp ordered five hundred and sixty men to turn informers in order to get their comrades into the Army. They regarded that—I do not express my own opinion—as an odious and detestable thing,

  1573
  just as if the Prussians had forced the Belgians to fight for them. What did the British Army stand to gain by getting these five men who are technically, I am told, liable under the Military Service Act? They have thrown the whole camp into the wildest confusion. I have myself got letters from prisoners smuggled out of Frongoch describing the sufferings of these men.
  You have three hundred men in punishment in the Southern Camp, which, in spite of what the Home Secretary said to-day, is not considered desirable for habitation. They have been put down into this Southern Camp and deliberately denied all their privileges—letters, parcels, etc. The food sent them from Ireland has also been allowed to rot. The Home Secretary says, no doubt in an answer manufactured by the commander, that the reason why they did not get food and letters was because the commandant could not identify them and they would not answer to their names. As if that is an honest answer, as if they could not send down to the hut commanders, their own leaders who had always acted for them, the food and parcels if they were in punishment—and I say they were in punishment, and it was admitted by their predecessor in the House of Commons that they were. Then there are other men sentenced to hard labour by court-martial for refusing to act as informers. Anybody who knows Ireland knows that they could not be expected to perform such an act. It is exasperating our people to think that they should be debarred from communicating with relatives and sending at this Christmas time letters to poor people in Ireland. They have many relatives, and relatives, mark you, who do not sympathise with them. There are many men in Frongoch to-day who have brothers, some of them two brothers, out in the trenches. It is quite common. These families are all divided. I have known several instances of men who were out in the rebel army and had one or two brothers fighting, and I remember an old lady of eighty years who came to me, broken down with sorrow, because her grandson, a very handsome boy, from the photograph she showed me, had been sentenced to ten years' penal servitude, and she told me she had two sons and three nephews in your Army and Navy.
  Mr. SPEAKER: In accordance with the custom of the House, I have to interrupt
  1574
  the hon. Member at a quarter-past eight. I presume he does not wish to recommence his speech now, but will be satisfied with the opportunity he has got of raising the question.
  Mr. DILLON: Thank you; yes. I have no desire to keep the House for a long period. I am quite satisfied with the opportunity given me by the ordinary hour. These are really serious considerations, which ought to influence the Chief Secretary. This irritation which I am complaining of, and which is now extreme, affects not only Sinn Feiners, but, far outside the boundaries of the Sinn Fein sympathisers, it affects hundreds and thousands of people in Ireland who have no sympathy whatever with their policy, and you are spreading all this trouble and making impossible the beginning of creating that better atmosphere which the Prime Minister so truthfully described as the really essentially thing in order to have an Irish settlement. I recognise that to be a difficult and troublesome task, though I trust the Prime Minister will give great proof of his courage, and he can give no greater proof, by tackling this question completely, because I know that nine-tenths of the British people will be deeply grateful to him if he takes hold of it firmly and settles it, and he is in a position of great power to do it now. But not only is he, by not meeting us in this matter rendering impossible the chance of a settlement of the Irish question, but it is ruining the chances of recruiting in Ireland. The question of recruiting in Ireland is a question of atmosphere and temper, just as much as the question of settlement. You cannot bully the Irish people into the Army. It cannot be done, and any attempt to do it will bring a condition of things that one shrinks from contemplating, and it will undoubtedly be one of the greatest disasters and hindrances to this War. If you want to bring about that condition of things which we brought about and maintained in Ireland, increasing day by day, and risked our whole political position and our political lives to maintain until the War Office crushed and destroyed it, it will take time, and you must make a beginning by treating people in a manner which will impress them as being generous and being somewhat of a spirit of reparation on your part.
  But this question and this issue have wide connections. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen the last copies of

  1575
  the Australian papers which have come over. Everyone now knows that it was the Irish in Australia who defeated Conscription for that country, and I am convinced, from what I have heard from private sources, that the majority is far greater than Australian Ministers have let the public know. Here is the really important thing, that when on the eve of that election Ministers made the most urgent appeals to this country to get the Leaders of the Irish party to come to their rescue, what did they do? I do not say that Ministers did it, but some of the wirepullers who were endeavouring to carry that vote in Australia. They put in all the Australian newspapers a Reuter's telegram stating that when Mr. Hughes, the Prime Minister of Australia, was in this country the Government of the day had withdrawn the Proclamation of martial law in Ireland, and the whole of the Australian Pres3 is now engaged in a controversy as to who forged that telegram. Is there not a great lesson to be read in that? I believe it is perfectly true that Mr. Hughes, when he was in this country, entreated the Government to withdraw the Martial Law Proclamation, but the Government would not do it, and we see the effect of it. I am told by friends of mine who have returned from Canada lately that you are losing hundred of recruits there because of the condition of exasperation amongst our people in that country, who were at the beginning of the War most loyal and most eager to rush into the ranks, as the Irish always are when they have got a fair show. The other day we Irish were deeply moved by the action taken very late in the day by the Commander of the Irish Division in France, after the magnificent deeds which those soldiers had achieved, winning to themselves the admiration of the Army, and of the French Army also. The Commander in France, I understand, has allowed them to wear a special badge with the same inscription as their forefathers wore when they served in the ranks as exiles in the French Army in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when 450,000 of them laid down their lives for France. These half-million men, from a population far smaller than Ireland is now, when they went to fight for France required no Military Service Act to bring them into the ranks. They went amongst men who appreciated them and loved them, and treated them as equals and honoured them,
  1576
  and I am glad to say—I think it is due to the fact of a genuine Irishman getting to the head of the brigade who knows how to deal with Irish soldiers—that he gave them that famous and immortal badge to wear, semper etubiquc fidelis, a testimony which they won on those bloody fields in France 200 years ago. If you want Irish soldiers—if you want to create a better atmosphere in Ireland and to settle the Irish question, and to win, by doing so, what was described by the Prime Minister lately and by other Ministers as one of the greatest victories that Britain should achieve in this War, treat the Irish people generously and show that you are now-anxious to make some amends for the way in which you treated us on those occasions to which I refer, and that you appreciate the Irish people, and when they hold out the hand of friendship again you will take it warmly and not throw it aside.
  Mr. DUKE: I think the hon. Member, who levelled so many reproaches against us, will concede to me that during all the period I have been in office at any rate I have endeavoured to promote that settlement in Ireland, and that settlement between Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, which he regards and I. and I believe all my colleagues, regard as one of the most vital interest to this country. I must not pretend to complain of the tone of his speech at all or of the occasion on which he has made it, or of there being discussions on this matter. I have always wished that this matter should come into the open and be understood, but I could not help thinking, during one or two passages in his speech, of the observation of the lady who in domestic quarrels found herself in a position in which this reflection occurred to her: "There is nothing good I say and there is nothing right I do." One would suppose if one judged the situation by the hon. Member's speech to-night, that that was his judgment upon the Government and upon those who are responsible for the administration of Ireland. He said, in a spirit which I entirely appreciate, that he was not making an attack upon the Prime Minister. If any man in these days could set himself deliberately to make an attack upon the Prime Minister in the situation in which he stands, and in face of the tremendous difficulties under which he has undertaken a task which would overwhelm an ordinary man, I confess that I could not discuss the attitude of mind of

  1577
  that man. This, we are assured, is not an attack upon the Prime Minister. The other person who is most concerned with these transactions is the Chief Secretary, and he is very glad to discuss this matter.
  I wish it to be publicly understood that there is no analogy which I can discover between the case of the 500 or so Irish prisoners who are detained in internment camps and the men who are fighting with such brilliant valour with the Irish Division at the front, or the Irishmen who fought with the same historic valour in the Irish Legion of the French Army which, as the hon. Member said, and he naturally said it with pride, rendered great and invaluable service to the Kings of France during a period of something like three generations. I want the House to appreciate, and I want the people of Ireland more particularly to appreciate—there is no need to stir up feeling in this country about a matter of this kind—what is the true position in regard to the men who remain interned in Frongoch, and why it is that grave deliberations have necessarily marked the conduct of those who had to answer the question, "Has the time come when these men can be released?" There were originally 3,000 arrests. These were arrests in the course of a rebellion which, as the hon. Member truly says, was regarded with indignation by nineteen-twentieths of the people of Ireland, but which was, nevertheless, a rebellion for which insidious preparations had been made from north to south and from east to west. It was a rebellion marked by an outbreak in Dublin, by an armed rising in various parts of Ireland, and by the preparation for a rising in various other parts of Ireland. Some 3,000 men were arrested, and there were, unhappily, shootings, and there were imprisonments under sentences of courts-martial. I deplored, and we all deplored, the necessity there was for that. When the people of this country said, "Stay, do not shoot; do not, unless there is no escape from it, maintain trial by court-martial; hold your hand," there were nearly 2,000 men who had been arrested upon what was regarded by those who were responsible for their arrest as evidence of direct participation in the rebellion
  Mr. T. M. HEALYmade a remark which was not audible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) spoke of the rebel part of the
  1578
  population as representing perhaps one-twentietn. The population of Ireland is more than 4,000,000. I do not want to aggravate these matters. I would have given much—although I would have liked to justlly the Administration—had it not been necessary to run the risk of reviving any old bitterness by discussing now this matter, which is on the eve of decision; when a decision has been promised. Of the 2,000 men or there abouts, nearly 600 were left, after the sifting of the cases by the Advisory Committee, which comprised a distinguished Irish judge, two distinguished English judges, and three Members of this House, one of whom was taunted with rendering service to his country and the United Kingdom when, on behalf of mercy and leniency, he sat upon that Committer. I deplore that he was taunted with it. I think it was a misfortune that such a thing should have taken place. That hon. Member's conduct to my mind—and I speak with humility in discussing the conduct of any hon. Member of this House—seemed to me to reflect honour upon the hon. Member and upon the party with which he acts, because he would not have been there except with their consent. He was taunted with being? here and I much regret that. I am thankful that he was there. I know the judges and the hon. Members of this House who constituted that Committee looked at the matter with every desire to release every man they could safely release. At the time when I took office the Committee had not completed their deliberations, and when they had completed their deliberations, 562 men were left, as to whom the Committee were unable to advise the Government that they could safely be released. I had not been in office one week—at any rate I had not returned as a Member reelected a week, before I had to deal with this matter. I got the best knowledge I could of the facts. I examined a great many of the cases. I discussed them with various people and I consulted my colleagues. I said this: "If there is any man in this party who is ready to give an undertaking, a simple undertaking, against acts of sedition during the War, his case shall be considered. If it is possible he shall be released on his own undertaking. If it is not possible to release him on his own undertaking, then if any decent neighbours of his would go surety for him to the same effect for the period of the War, his case again shall be

  1579
  considered." For a moment it looked as if that course, which I thought was probably the most lenient course ever taken in the world with regard to upwards of 500 men who were held by the Advisory Committee to be involved in actions of treason.
  HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
  Mr. DUKE: They were held by the Advisory Committee to be so implicated in the rebellion that it was not safe that they should be directed to be set at large. I thought it was a lenient course for me to suggest. I do not complain that, after consideration, there was a set determination not to make an undertaking. It really was, I think, an undertaking which a man might have given if he was in earnest in a declaration that he would not repeat or would not engage in any conduct which would hamper the prosecution of the War in which his countrymen were as greatly interested as any of us. It was a simple undertaking against future sedition, and I could not help feeling that when that was by common consent rejected it made the situation much more difficult, because the door in many of these cases was locked from the inside. Nevertheless, I got from the families of these people heartbreaking letters. I do not think I have ever read sadder letters than I got from the families of some of these men. I opened up communications with the men on the strength of the appeals their mothers, sisters, and other relations had made. No! They would do nothing. I am describing a state of things which began immediately I took office. I went to Ireland and I spent the Recess there, at work about this matter. I travelled through the counties which had been disturbed counties, and made inquiries upon the spot. I cross-examined people upon whose judgment this decision had been taken, and I came to conclusions of my own about it. I returned to London, and I think it was on the 18th October that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford demanded among other things the instant release of these men. I probably knew more about them individually than the hon. and learned Member did. I probably knew more than any other man about them—I am speaking of the collective body of them. I cannot conceive that there is any other man who has had the opportunity of examining these cases one by one, and I tell the House that I have examined the whole
  1580
  560 of them, or, at any rate, the 560 subject to the number by which that is diminished owing to releases which have taken place, because there have been releases, and this has been improving in the course of the last few weeks.
  Does anybody suppose that if I was in a position to say in reply to the appeal of the hon. and learned Member, "Unlock those doors; it is an act of public generosity and a pledge of goodwill to Ireland to release these men," that it would not be a thing which would give me almost immeasurable satisfaction to have done? My duty, as I conceived it, in Ireland has been to take care that order and peace in Ireland and the better atmosphere, without which a settlement in Ireland would be an utter impossibility, shall not be disturbed by any means against which I can take precautions. That is the spirit in which I dealt with this matter, coupled with a sincere desire that these men should be released, if possible. I had to say at that time, after travelling these districts and examining a great many cases, "in my judgment the time has not come when they could be indiscriminately turned loose on the countryside of Ireland with any reasonable expectation that their presence there would be consistent with public safety." I never ceased, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuel) who now sits opposite me knows, to exercise the most diligent care whenever a case was presented for consideration that it should be considered with the determination that, if it appeared that the fact of this man being at large would not clearly conduce to ill-order then he should be let go. I can appeal to my right hon. Friend. He and I very often discussed this matter. I am not committing my right hon. Friend to a defence of any conduct of mine; I am merely trying to explain to the people of Ireland what the situation has been, and was just over two months ago. I am happy to say that during the past two or three months there has been a steady course of improvement and appeasement in Ireland, which will always be a gratifying recollection, and hon. Members opposite did labour manfully that that should be so. Do not let me, because my conduct is impeached here, fail in justice to the hon. Member for Waterford, and those who act with him.
  Mr. DILLON: Give us a chance in our efforts.
  Mr. DUKE: In ways known to some extent to the public, and known even more to the House, the hon. Member for Water-ford and those who act with him have run great risks to their popularity in actions which they have taken with the steadfast view of arriving as soon as possible at these results which they have desired for a lifetime, and which many, I believe the great majority, of people in this country desire. There have been that improvement and that appeasement. I am glad to think that this course is not necessarily checked by anything that takes place here to-night. The hon. Member satisfied me as soon as he had risen that this course which he has taken was taken under a misapprehension. He thought that there had been no pledge to make a definite statement about this matter, on which I took the liberty of interrupting. This was the statement which I read. The hon. Member had given me notice of his question, and I had prepared an answer to it: "After consultation with the Prime Minister, the statement which has been promised will be made before the close of the Session, at such time as to leave opportunity for discussion, if discussion should then be thought necesary." There has been a manifest improvement in Ireland. I say it with satisfaction, because Ireland is bedevilled and slandered in part of the Press of this country—often—
  Mr. BYRNE: Always!
  Major NEWMAN: I thought we had a, censorship.
  Mr. DUKE: When I tried a month ago or so, and succeeded, in preventing the circulation of some of these statements by means of the censorship, I thought I might almost be impeached by the indignant advocates of freedom of the Press. But there has been that improvement. The last consultation I had with my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister, under whom I shall always be proud to have served, was with regard to this matter. With that freedom of approach that has always existed, and I hope always will exist, between Ministers and those who represent great interests in the country, hon. Members consulted with the Prime Minister, and it was necessary that he should speak with the Chief Secretary. If there had been no change of Government, some definite decision would have been arrived at probably within a few days. Then the change of Government took place,
  1582
  with a new Prime Minister. The present Prime Minister has been engaged in creating a munitions industry, in organising Armies, and in sending them forth. I did not take upon myself to go to the present Prime Minister and to say, "Secretary of State for War, what do you think about these matters?" I should have wasted his time. When he came into office my first consultation was with the Prime Minister on this subject. It was interrupted by an Army Council. While he was at that Army Council he fell ill. As soon as he was well enough I met him again. I met him before work this morning and I left him just before seven o'clock this evening. The responsibility of the release of 560 prisoners—
  Sir W. BYLES: Untried!
  Mr. DUKE: Who appeared before a lenient committee, and whose release the committee could not recommend, when one knows what Ireland was in April, what it remained during the summer, and what the improvement has been since then, is not a light responsibility. You cannot make a wholesale Order of that kind, which is irrevocable, without making sure of your ground. You cannot do it in that airy way to improve an atmosphere, or to make a pledge of conciliation. The peace of Ireland has to be considered. I left the Prime Minister, as I said, just before seven o'clock. The Prime Minister authorised me to approach this subject with the desire that these men shall be released. He said to me, "You approach this subject with the desire that these men shall be released." When I have told the House the chapter of events during my experience as Chief Secretary for Ireland, I am content, as I shall always be content, with the judgment of the House, but I do assure the House that I desired, and I desire, the release of these men. There is no effort I would spare to make sure whether or not it was safe that they should be released. The position in Ireland has improved. The Prime Minister will bring a new mind to this matter. I shall communicate to the Prime Minister honestly and fearlessly all the knowledge I have upon it, and a decision will be arrived at—I hope it will be arrived at, in fact, I am confident it will be arrived at—before this time to-morrow night. But I cannot help regretting that the risk has been run of magnifying once more the

  1583
  spurious reputation for heroism and martyrdom of a body of men who did one of the worst disservices to Irish Nationalism, and to appeasement between Ireland and Great Britain, that ever has been done in the chequered history of that country.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the few moments before the House adjourns I should like to say a few words, as all these men are interned under an Order made by myself when Home Secretary, and it will require an Order of the present Home Secretary to release them. At the same time, the matter has never been regarded as a Home Office question. These men are interned for the security of Ireland, and it has been for the Irish Government to speak the last word on the question. My right hon. Friend, who has just spoken, is well aware that for some time past I have myself expressed a very earnest hope that it might be found that the conditions in Ireland would allow of the release of these men. The House would gladly have welcomed a definite pledge from the right hon. Gentleman tonight on the subject, but I think it has gathered from the general tone of his remarks that he will certainly approach this matter in the most sympathetic spirit, and since he has told us that there
  1584
  has been a marked and definite improvement in the condition of Ireland, in appeasement, and in the attitude and demeanour of the population, we are not without hope that it may be found possible to release these men at the present time. There are about sixty or seventy men who were tried by court-martial and sentenced, not to penal servitude, but to twelve months' imprisonment. These men, allowing for remission of sentence, will be due for release next March. I cannot conceive that it will in any case be possible to keep in interment men who have not been tried for a longer period than the worse offenders who were presented for trial and sentenced to imprisonment by the Court. Taking these facts into consideration, I hope my right hon. Friend's examination of the matter will enable him to find that the conditions in Ireland permit, as a broad act of wise policy, the release of these men, and the closing of this chapter in the history of our relations with Ireland.
  And, it being one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February.
  Adjourned at Ten minutes before Nine o'clock.