Commons Sitting of 31 December 1916

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY (EXTENSION FROM BANAVIE TO MALLAIG).
Copy presented of Fifteenth Annual Report by the Board of Trade as to the condition and working of the Banavie and Mallaig Railway, the Rates and Charges for Traffic, and the Receipts and Expenditure of the Company in working the Railway, for the year 1915–16 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
Copy presented of Return of Amount payable on 5th January, 1916, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical Purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
HOUSING ACT, 1914.
Copy presented of Account showing the money issued out of the Consolidated Fund; the money borrowed and the securities created in respect thereof; and the expenditure of a capital nature incurred by the Local Government Board for Scotland and the Commissioner of Works, respectively, under the Housing Act, 1914, for the period ended 31st March, 1916, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 149.]

LAND REGISTRY (NEW BUILDINGS) ACT, 1900.
Account presented showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Land Registry (New Buildings) Act, 1900, and of the Expenditure; the Money borrowed and
1586
the Securities created under the said Act for the period ended the 31st March, 1916 (Final Account), together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 150.]

PUBLIC OFFICES SITE (DUBLIN) ACT, 1903.
Account presented showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Public Offices Site (Dublin)) Act, 1903, and of the Expenditure; the Money expended and borrowed and the Securities created under the said Act for the period ended the 31st March, 1916, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 151.]
NOTES COMMUNICATED BY UNITED STATES.
  MISCELLANEOUS No. 38, 1916.
  Copy presented of Note Communicated by the United States Ambassador, 12th December, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MISCELLANEOUS NO. 39, 1916.
  Copy presented of Note Communicated by the United States Ambassador, 20th December, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
  Copy presented of the Black Scab in Potatoes (Special Area, Ireland) Order, No. 2, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  AGRICULTURAL PRICES (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing, to the latest year available for Ireland as a whole, (1) the annual average Prices for each year from 1881; (2) the annual average Prices for each period comprised in the period from 1881 of five years, ten years, fifteen

  1587
  years, twenty years, and twenty-five years, and for the period of six years from 1909, such Prices to be compiled from the Returns of Prices of crops, live stock, and other Irish agricultural products heretofore published from time to time by the Irish Land Commission, or the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, or from other information in the possession of those Departments."—[Major Newman.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH SHIPPING BLACK LISTS.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the date on which the name of the steamer "Bratsberg" was placed on the British black list and the reasons for this action; on what date the name was removed from the black list and the reason for this removal; why this steamer was permitted for some seven months during this year to trade between River Plate ports and the United States carrying cargo for enemy or pro-enemy firms; and whether the principal agent of this steamer in the River Plate is a British subject resident in Buenos Ayres?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): It is very undesirable that discussion should take place in this House as to the reasons for the exercise of restrictive powers in connection with any particular case, and I trust therefore my hon. Friend will not press this part of the question. The trade between the River Plate and the United States, to which the hon. Member calls attention, formed the subject of representations to the firm to which the vessel was subsequently chartered, and as a result these proceedings were stopped. The vessel is now on charter to a British firm.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that much of the resentment felt by bonâ-fide neutrals in the United States and the Argentine and the friction created in connection with British black lists is caused by British subjects domiciled in
    1588
    these neutral countries being permitted by our Government to carry cargo for or on account of black-listed firms or individuals in neutral vessels chartered and loaded on the berth by these British subjects; and whether he is aware of the adverse comments made and resentment expressed in these countries on the favouritism shown to these British subjects while denied to neutrals; and will he state what action he proposes to take?
    Lord R. CECIL: From the information in the possession of His Majesty's Government, there would appear to be no foundation for the suggestions contained in the question.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I shall be very pleased to show the right hon. Gentleman some of the newspaper statements which he disputes.
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not deny that suggestions have been made but I say there are no foundations for them.
    Mr. KING: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that there is no irritation over the black list in America?
    Lord R. CECIL: I never said anything of the kind.

    IMPERIAL OTTOMAN BANK OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Salonika branch of the Imperial Ottoman Bank of Constantinople is still conducting business; and, if not, when and under whose authority was it closed?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Salonika branch of the Imperial Ottoman Bank has not been closed, and according to the latest information available it is still conducting business.
    Major HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this enemy bank is allowed to go on?

    IMPORTS INTO HOLLAND.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the increased imports of maize and linseed into Holland from North America, Argentina, and other countries; whether he state, the comparative quantities imported from 1st

    1589
    July to date as compared with a similar period in 1913; whether this surplus import goes into Germany from Holland largely in the form of beef, pork, and linseed oil; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent these additional supplies reaching the enemy?
    Lord R. CECIL: There has been, so far as His Majesty's Government are aware, no increased importation into Holland of maize or of linseed. Maize imports from 1st July to 30th November were 339,973 tons, as compared with an average import of 358,960 tons for five months during the years 1911–1913. Imports of linseed in the above-mentioned period have been 68,958 tons, as compared with a five-monthly average importation in 1911–1913 of 90,975 tons. The imports of both these commodities are limited to a fixed amount agreed upon with His Majesty's Government. The disposal of a surplus import does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures given are subject to any deduction; whether it is for home production only, or whether any other calculations have been made, as the figures do not agree with the figures that have been published?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid the figures we have very often do not agree with the figures that are published. I will talk over the matter with my non. Friend. It is rather difficult to deal with this subject by question and answer.

  GREECE.

    ALLIES AT SALONIKA.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Allies were unanimous in the decision to occupy Greek territory at Salonika uninvited; and, if not, which of them favoured that breach of neutral territory and which opposed it?
    Lord R. CECIL: The first part of the question is based on an entirely false assumption; the second part does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. GINNELL: Would it not be more convincing to announce the facts?

    ULTIMATUM TO KING CONSTANTINE.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
    1590
    an ultimatum has been delivered to King Constantine of Greece, or whether the communication is one of a series of Notes; and whether, if it be an ultimatum, steps will be taken on the expiry of the allotted time to recognise M. Venizelos and to extend his Government to the whole of Greece?
    Lord R. CECIL: No ultimatum has been delivered to the Greek Government beyond that accepted by them on the 14th instant.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has that been followed up by any definite action in accordance with the terms of the Allied Note?
    Lord R. CECIL: So far as the Government is aware, the ultimatum is being carried out.
    Mr. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this proceeding is to be a measure of their capacity for handling the War?

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    CIVIL SERVANTS (IRELAND).
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, to promote economy during the War, the Irish Government have taken steps to reduce the number of Civil servants of military age; if so, will he say how many of these young gentlemen have been dismissed; whether the hours worked in many departments of the Civil Service are no longer than those worked before the War and in the legal departments are 10.30 and 11 a.m. until 4 p.m., except during vacations, when the offices are open for two hours on alternate days; and is he aware that many of these half-employed young men are known to have taken a part in the recent rebellion in Dublin?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Facilities for enlistment and encouragement to do so are offered in all Irish Government Departments to Civil servants of military age subject to the exigencies of the public service, and a large number of Irish Civil servants have joined the forces. The positions thus left vacant are as a rule not filled up, the work being done by the remaining members of the staffs. Steps have been taken to effect retrenchments in all the departments of the Irish Civil Service as occasion occurs, but no members of the

    1591
    permanent Civil Service have been dismissed with that object. Longer hours have been worked in all departments where it has been necessary in consequence of the War. It is understood that the hours in the legal offices have not altered. I am not aware that any young men still in the Government service in Ireland took part in the rebellion.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can say what efforts have been made by the Civil Service authorities to replace men eligible for military service by discharged soldiers and women; and with what success?
    Mr. DUKE: In cases where Irish Civil servants have joined the forces their work is, as a rule, performed by the remaining members of the staffs. Where additions to the clerical staff have been necessary women have, where suitable, been employed.
    Major NEWMANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will grant a Return of all men of military age now employed in Irish Government Departments in Dublin, with hours of duty worked and particulars as to holidays?
    Mr. DUKE: The conditions as to hours of work and holidays in the Civil Service in Ireland are those prescribed by Order in Council, and are the same as in Great Britain. I think no useful purpose would be served by such a Return as is asked for.

    MERTON COLLECTOR OF TAXES.
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that one week before the Military Service (No. 2) Bill was placed on the Statute Book the Commissioners of Inland Revenue appointed Mr. R. L. W. Pitt, an unattested man, aged twenty-six, as collector of taxes for Merton, Surrey, his duties to commence the following September; whether Mr. Pitt was called up under the Military Service Act in June, and, on appearing before the local tribunal, was refused exemption; whether he then appealed to the Appeal Tribunal, and, on producing a certificate of exemption from the Inland Revenue authorities, was granted total exemption; whether the local advisory committee drew up a petition to the Army Council praying for an
    1592
    inquiry into the case, who replied that they had gone into the matter with the Board of Inland Revenue and that the latter body refused to release their official; will he say if Mr. R. L. W. Pitt is still on part-time employment as a collector of taxes; and, if so, will the Board set an example of patriotism and allow Mr. Pitt to take service with the Colours?
    Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): No, Sir; Mr. Pitt was appointed by the General Commissioners of Taxes for the District. The case has been the subject of communication between those Commissioners, the Man-Power Distribution Board, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and it has been decided that the temporary certificate held by Mr. Pitt shall be withdrawn.

    DENTISTS.
    Mr. PATRICK O'BRIENasked on what special grounds Lieutenant Bertie Black, of Dublin, a highly qualified dentist, has been repeatedly refused an appointment as Army dentist, sometimes for the reason of the list of candidates awaiting their turn for appointment; if this is so, will he explain why advertisements are kept in the Press in Ireland and England calling for dentists to serve in the Army; and if Lieutenant Black will not be appointed in Ireland, will the War Office grant him exemption from the Army Act to enable him to practise in Great Britain?
    The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Macpherson): Mr. Black was not selected for a commission. As there is a large field of selection. it does not follow that, when an individual applies for a commission, he will be selected. I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that advertisements for dentists have been inserted by the War Office in the Press. As regards the last part of the question, if the reference is to the Military Service Acts, the; answer is in the negative.
    Mr. O'BRIEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say if anyone has authority to insert these advertisements except the War Office, and, if not, by whose authority are advertisements now appearing?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The War Office gave no instructions whatever for the issue of these advertisements in papers for dentists.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick O'Daly, a conscientious objector to military service and formerly employed as a labourer in Kew Gardens, has been informed that, owing to his refusal to comply with the orders of the military authorities, he is to consider himself as discharged from the service of the Board; whether this treatment is in keeping with that meted out to other and higher-paid servants of the State; and whether, seeing that the man possesses agricultural knowledge and is used to working on the land, he will now be employed on agriculture instead of being detained in prison?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Richard Winfrey): The answer to the first two parts of the question is "Yes." As to the last part, the Board are not empowered to anticipate the finding of the proper tribunal or committee which will decide upon the merits of the case.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: But is it not within the province of the Board to make representations as to a man so highly skilled in agriculture being sent to prison, when his services are so urgently needed?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The Board is doing that.
    Mr. O'GRADYasked whether he is aware that Sidney Cooper, of 34, Waterloo Road, Leeds, a conscientious objector to military service, has suffered so severely at the hands of the military that he has now become wholly mentally deranged, and that he was removed on the 9th instant from his home to Beckett's Park Hospital, Leeds, and the following day sent to Lord Derby's military hospital at Warrington, Lancashire; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, the Secretary of State for War will order inquiries to be made, and, in view of the fact that a medical practitioner on the 24th instant certified Cooper to be suffering from acute insanity and had to give him sedatives, steps will be taken to give him a complete discharge from the Army?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If this man is suffering from acute insanity his discharge from the Army would follow as a matter of course. Details of this man's number and unit are not given, and I cannot, therefore, make any inquiry, but I must
    1594
    not in any sense be taken as accepting the suggestion of ill-treatment at the hands of the military.

    SHIP REPAIRERS.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Under-Secretary for War if he is aware that the military representative in the Liverpool district is calling up at very short notice, in many cases less than twenty-four hours, workmen engaged on ship-repairing work; and whether, in view of the urgent nature of this class of work and the shortage of workmen in this industry, he will instruct that officer to cease calling these men up until he is satisfied that their services are not necessary?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry that I am not yet in a position to answer this question, but I will send an answer to my hon. Friend as soon as I have the necessary information.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not an illegal thing to call up these men at less than fourteen days' notice?
    Mr. WILSON: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a great shortage of men engaged on ship-repairing work?

    WOUNDED SOLDIERS.
    Major Sir EDWARD COATESasked whether, when a wounded soldier in hospital receives notice of discharge from the Army owing to incapacity as the result of his wounds, he is to remain under the control of the War Office until he recovers; if so, whether the separation allowance to his dependants is to continue and, if so, for what length of time; and do the War Office contemplate retaining him under their control until he has learned a trade or profession which his condition permits him to learn?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which was given on this subject by my right hon. Friend on the 23rd November last, to which there is nothing to add at present.

    TIME-EXPIRED MEN.
    Mr. BYRNEasked whether time-expired soldiers who have completed their extra year will be allowed the privilege of doing munition work if they prefer it to going back to the trenches; and, if BO, will he see that this advantage will be

    1595
    given to Irish soldiers, and that they will receive the same benefits as those in other regiments?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If men, who would have been time-expired but for the passing of the Military Service Acts, are fit for general service, they cannot be enrolled as Army Reserve munition workers. No distinction is drawn between Irish and other soldiers.
    Mr. BYRNE: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a paragraph in the "Sunday Chronicle" some three weeks ago, with the name of the Prime Minister attached, to the effect that all time-expired soldiers would be offered munition work?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of that question.

    MEN OF NO MILITARY VALUE.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that numbers of men are still retained with the Colours who are of no military value or of only slight military value; and whether he will take steps to see that only men of definite military value are retained with the Colours?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; it is the fact that a certain number of men, who are in low medical categories and are surplus to military requirements, have accumulated. Instructions have recently been issued on this matter, and these men are being enrolled as Army Reserve Munition workers or registered for employment under the substitution scheme or discharged.

    MEDICALLY UNFIT MEN.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the decision of the magistrate at the South-Western Police Court on Monday that where a man's attestation card was endorsed with the words "Not accepted, medically unfit," he was not finally enlisted and therefore did not come into the Reserve; whether numbers of attested men who have been medically rejected are being called up contrary to this decision; and whether it is proposed to take any action?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Inquiries are being made into this case, which presents some unusual features.

    BOYS OF EIGHTEEN.
    Mr. RENDALLasked at what precise age a boy of eighteen, under the Military Service Acts and the Regulations made thereunder must leave his employment for military service?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Eighteen years and seven months is the age at which men are called up at present, where the precise age is known.

  FOOD SUPPLY.

    TILLAGE IN IRELAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is now in a position to announce the intentions of the Government with reference to the necessary increase of food production in Ireland in the coming year, especially releasing for tillage the grass ranches seriously deteriorated from want of cultivation, the supply of agricultural machinery to working farmers, and the supply of good seeds to small farmers and labourers; and, if legislation is essential for any of those purposes, whether it will be introduced without further delay?
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the urgency of the problem of food supply he will ascertain the number of acres in West Clare of good agricultural land now in the hands of landlords and lying untilled, but which, if made over to tenants, would soon become valuable as productive areas; and whether the Congested Districts Board will immediately take steps to make the transfer indicated with regard to all such estates or, if their mode of action be too dilatory, whether he will take other steps to meet the situation by which the tenants may enter into possession as soon as possible?
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will consider the advisability of steps being taken for breaking up the grass lands of Ireland for the purpose of food production; if so, will he see that the evicted tenants who are not yet reinstated in their holdings will get preference in any distribution of land; and if the Government will guarantee a supply of seeds for food production?
    Mr. DUKE: As I have stated on several occasions during the past few days, the question of food supply is being dealt with

    1597
    by the Irish Departments in consultation with the Board of Trade and the Food Controller. Such further action, including legislation, as may be considered necessary, will be taken with as little delay as possible.
    Mr. LYNCH: Would the right hon. Gentleman define the term "dealt with?" Is it not a fact that there are thousands of acres of available land which might be employed immediately for the production of food?
    Mr. DUKE: The matter is not one which the Chief Secretary can settle by waving a wand. It has to be done through consultation with practical people to give effect to what has been decided upon by those who understand the matter.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the Chief Secretary give a strong lead in the matter, or is it a case of "Dukus" a non ducendo?
    Mr. DUKE: If the hon. Member knew anything about the internal administration of Ireland I am sure his sense of fair-play would prevent his asking such a question.
    Mr. WATT: Is Yiddish forbidden in this House?

    FOOD PRICES (INCREASE).
    Sir J. AGG-GARDNERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give figures that would indicate how far the recent rise in the price of food has been due to increased consumption and how far to the decreased production and importation of food materials?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the FOOD CONTROL BOARD (Captain Bathurst): I regret that such figures as are desired by my hon. friend are not available.

    BLIND TEA AGENCY.
    Mr. WINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Sugar Commission can make some arrangement whereby the Blind Tea Agency, whose business is entirely with blind persons who sell tea for a livelihood, can have a share of sugar, as their inability to obtain sugar in any quantity handicaps the blind seller of tea?
    Captain BATHURST: In order to retain the trade in its usual channels the Sugar Commission has provided that the restricted supplies of sugar now available shall be divided amongst those traders who dealt in the article in 1915. I am informed that the agency referred to in the
    1598
    question has not in the past sold sugar, and I regret that I cannot hold out hopes of their being granted supplies.
    Mr. WING: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the position of so many blind men making a respectable living; would it not be wise to make at least some effort or devise some means whereby they can get as fair a share as their competitors?
    Captain BATHURST: I have every sympathy with this particular enterprise and similar enterprises, but it is quite impossible to discriminate between one sort of enterprise and another; and there would be simply no limit to the exceptions made if such a course were adopted.

    HOTELS AND CLUBS.
    Major NEWMANasked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, whether, to effect economy in food, light, and labour, it is the intention of the Food Controller to direct that, except to boná-fide travellers, no meal shall be served in clubs, restaurants, or hotels after 10 p.m.?
    Captain BATHURST.No decision to this effect has been reached by the Food Controller.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it being considered?
    Captain BATHURST: I should like to tell the hon. Member that as the Ministry of Food has yet neither staff nor offices decisions on such questions as these cannot very rapidly be arrived at.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not the fact that all these regulations about production, and the quantity taken at meals, are a legacy from the late Government?
    Captain BATHURST: I am not responsible for stating that the present Government are prepared to take over all the legacies of the past.

    EXPORT LICENCES.
    Mr. FELLasked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, if his Department will have control of the licences issued to export food from this country to neutral States; and, if so, if these licences for the shipment of such necessary articles of food as rice will be withdrawn and all supplies which reach this country retained for our own consumption?
    Captain BATHURST: Licences to export foodstuffs are only granted after careful consideration of each application, and the extent of the trade has been greatly restricted. I understand that the War Trade Department, which is at present responsible for the issue of these licences, will act in close consultation with the Food Controller, and restriction of the export of rice is in contemplation.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOUR.
    Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that the present high price of food is inflicting hardship on a large part of the population; whether farms are sufficiently equipped with labour to produce the maximum of home-grown foodstuffs; whether, if not, he will take steps to supply farmers with a sufficiency of labour on condition that the produce is sold not at excessive, but at fairly remunerative, rates; and, whether inquiry has shown that small pigs have been slaughtered because it will not pay to rear them on account of the high price of feeding stuffs?
    Sir R. WINFREY: My right hon. Friend will, I hope, find sufficient answer to his question in the speech delivered by the President of the Board yesterday. With regard to the slaughter of young pigs on account of the high price of feeding stuffs, I will refer to the answer given by me on the 19th in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Devonport.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the date when the proposed minimum price of 60s. per quarter for wheat will commence?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I am afraid I must have notice of that.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that young pigs are being sold in Norfolk at 61s., whereas a few weeks ago they fetched £l to £l 5s.?
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can, before the House is prorogued, make any statement to relieve the present uncertainty as to the recruitment of agricultural labour; and whether the policy announced by the late Prime Minister as to irreplaceable agricultural labour still holds?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I have at the moment nothing to add to the statement which was made on this subject by the President
    1600
    yesterday. A further statement will be made when the War Office have considered the analysis of the agricultural census which they have been taking.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Could the hon. Gentleman give us any idea when that further announcement will be made—it is most important?
    Sir R. WINFREY: We are doing our best.
    Sir T. WALTERS: In dealing with this question, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that large numbers of highly-skilled agricultural workers have only limited exemptions until the end of January, and in many cases substitutes have been asked for them? Will the hon. Gentleman consider the great loss of competent agricultural labourers?
    Sir R. WINFREY: These men are not going to be taken in January.
    HON MEMBERS: At the end of January!
    Mr. RAFFANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the anxiety felt by the farming community as to the depletion of labour from the land, he can now state what action is to be taken with reference to the number of men engaged in agricultural employment whose period of exemption from military service expires on 2nd January, 1917?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The Army Council propose shortly to issue a notice to the effect that men employed in agriculture who were to be called up on 1st January next and subsequent dates shall not now be called up until a complete review of the situation can be made in the light of the information disclosed by the analysis of the agricultural census. Such men will, therefore, subject to the conditions set out in the notice, be allowed to remain in their civil occupations until further instructions are issued.

    POTATO-SFRAYING MIXTURE.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether steps will be taken immediately to secure for next season an adequate supply of potato-spraying mixture; and whether, with a view to an increase of production of potatoes in Ireland, an adequate supply of spraying mixture will be reserved for Ireland and guarantees given to that effect?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The Board hope to be able to arrange for an adequate supply of copper sulphate for the spraying of next year's potato crop in Ireland as well as in Great Britain, and they are now in communication with the other Departments which can help them to secure this object. When they know definitely what the position with regard to supply will be, they will consider what steps they need take to ensure that that supply will be used to the best advantage. It is estimated that the amount required to spray the entire potato crop of the United Kingdom twice is roughly 13,000 tons. When the position is more definitely ascertained, further information will be supplied to the hon. Member.

    HOME-GROWN WHEAT (GUARANTEED PRICE).
    Lieutenant-Colonel CROFT(by private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the decision of the Government to fix the price of wheat at 60s. per quarter and the fact that this price is 20s. under the existing world prices in Great Britain, he will consider giving an undertaking that the Government will fix a fair minimum price for a period of years and thus give the only possible security to these farmers who are asked to break up new land in the national interest?
    Sir R. WINFREY: The contract price for the cereal year 1916–17 is 60s. a quarter for wheat, and is for this period only. The future policy with regard to guarantees is under consideration, and it is hoped that an announcement may be made shortly.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to publish as soon as possible when the guaranteed price of 60s. per quarter commences?
    Sir R. WINFREY: I will convey that request to the President of the Board.

    NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether for the past two years Irish national school teachers who have been appointed to the commission of the peace have sat on the bench and adjudicated without protest, let, or hindrance by the Irish Education Commis-
    1602
    sioners; what reason is given for the Commissioners' order of 10th October last prohibiting such teachers from performing the duties of magistrates; in what way the performance of such duties outside school hours is construed into a business or occupation inconsistent with Rule 88 (a); whether the order is really directed against a teacher recently appointed to the commission of the peace and whose championship of the teachers' claims made him obnoxious to the Commissioners; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he will use his influence to obtain the withdrawal of the order?
    Mr. DUKE: The Commissioners of National Education made no formal order with reference to teachers acting as magistrates until 10th October, 1916, but I am informed that they declared their disapproval of such action as early as August, 1915. The Commissioners have to administer the rules, and they have decided for reasons which I stated on the 14th instant, in answer to the hon. Member for Kerry (West), that performance by a teacher of the duties of a magistrate is, even outside school hours, a contravention of Rule 88 (a) of the Code, inasmuch as, in their judgment, it tends to impair the usefulness of a teacher by placing him in a position which may bring him into conflict with local parties and cause friction likely to injure the interests of his school. I have brought to the notice of the Commissioners the recent discussion in the House on this subject.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the hardships to Irish national teachers entailed upon the reduction of their salaries; due to the falling off in the attendance, he can make arrangements so that, pending the consideration by the Treasury of the proposals of the Commissioners of National Education, these teachers may receive their pre-war salaries?
    Mr. DUKE: I have no power to make such an arrangement as is suggested in the question.
    Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices in any way?
    Mr. DUKE: I have so many serious duties that if I were to go about endeavouring to use my good offices, I would generally find that I was wasting my time
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether a war bonus will

    1603
    be allotted in the case of Irish national teachers whose salaries exceed £3 a week; and, if not, whether, as some of these teachers suffer to the same degree as others on account of the general rise in prices, he will reconsider the matter?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not aware of any grant of war bonus in other quarters which would warrant the adoption of the hon. Member's suggestion.

    FLAX PRICES (IRELAND).
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether, in view of the closing of imports of Russian flax into Ireland and of the successful efforts of a ring of flax buyers in Belfast to cut down the price paid to Irish flax farmers to 21s. 10½d. a stone, as compared with 37s. 6d. paid for Dutch flax, and in view of the Irish Government's recommmendation to Irish farmers to grow flax, he will take steps to fix a minimum price for Irish-grown flax, so that the Irish flax growers may be safe guarded against the operations of the Belfast ring and be assured of the legitimate profits of their industry?
    Mr. DUKE: The Department of Agriculture have no information to show that flax buyers are keeping the price of flax down to the amount stated in the question. Prices up to 29s. per stone are being paid, and the price appears to be still rising. In the circumstances there does not appear to be a present necessity for the fixing of a minimum price as suggested.
    Mr. BOLAND: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that in practice the operations of the Belfast ring do cut down prices, will he consider further the suggestion of a minimum price?
    Mr. DUKE: The closest possible attention is being paid to this subject from day to day.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    COURTS-MARTIAL (EVIDENCE).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when it is proposed to print and circulate the evidence taken at the courts-martial of the Irish prisoners?
    Mr. DUKE: This is not a matter for the Irish Office.

    IRISH REBELLION (VICTIMS) COMMITTEE.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state the name, position in the Local Government Board for Ireland, and salary received by the person who has been appointed contrary to all precedent in Dublin as official shorthand writer to the Irish Rebellion (Victims) Committee; if he will explain how this shorthand writer will be able to discharge his present duties at the Customs House while he is acting as shorthand writer to the Committee mentioned; whether it is proposed to give him facilities for doing other work for outside bodies while in the employment of the Local Government Board; and, if so, whether his services to the Local Government Board are absolutely essential?
    Mr. DUKE: The Irish Rebellion (Victims) Committee have appointed, with the approval of the Local Government Board, Mr. R. J. Purcell, one of the shorthand writers of the Board, to take such notes as may be required. His salary from the Board is £3 per week. The time he may spend taking such notes will be counted against his leave. As his annual leave is twenty-one days in all, this employment is necessrily of a very limited character.
    Mr. BYRNE: Has it not always been the custom to employ journalists to do this kind of work?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not know that there is anything which can properly be called a custom. I am quite sure that those who have the distribution of such work in Dublin are very anxious that it should be fairly distributed. Those who were responsible for this appointment to do this work, arising out of the rebellion, took the course indicated, and I am not going to intervene.
    Mr. BYRNE: Has it not been the custom to employ journalists, and could they not leave these employés where they are?
    Mr. DUKE: I have nothing to add to the answer which I have given.

    FRONGOCH CAMP.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any official in Government service under the control of the commandant at Frongoch camp has committed suicide within the past ten days; if he will say when the

    1605
    present conditions at Frongoch Camp will cease; and if any of the Irish prisoners will be released before Christmas?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir George Cave): The first part of the question apparently refers to the suicide, which I mentioned yesterday, of the senior medical officer at Frongoch Camp, whose mind appears to have been unhinged by the false charges made against him and his staff. As to the second part of the question, I have already stated that I am inquiring into the conditions at Frongoch Camp. As to the third part of the question, I refer to the statement made yesterday on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    Mr. BYRNE: As regards this charge, has the right hon. Gentleman's Department received a letter from the prisoners asking for an inquiry? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prisoners are prepared to prove that the doctor's death was caused owing to the conditions laid down by the commandant?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir. I certainly have heard nothing of the sort; but the commandant has asked for an inquiry.
    Mr. BYRNE: Have not the prisoners asked for an inquiry?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not think so, so far as I have heard.
    Mr. BYRNE: I am informed that they wrote asking for an inquiry, and I ask that the communication should be read.
    Mr. GIN NELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this case is precisely identical with that which occurred at Tullamore a few years ago, when the prison doctor was forced to an act of cruelty towards a prisoner which resulted in the prisoner's death, and the doctor thereupon committed suicide? Is not that exactly what has been repeated at Frongoch?
    Sir G. CAVE: No.

    COURTS-MARTIAL.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister why the Reports of the proceedings of the courts-martial held in Dublin last May have not yet been presented to this House; and, if the Government have not determined to defeat by delay any
    1606
    rights that may exist in connection with those proceedings, whether he will accelerate the presentation of those Reports and say when they will be presented?
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Home (Secretary when the Reports of the courts-martial in Ireland promised by the late Government will be published?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is dealing with this matter. It involves a question of policy, and will have to be considered by the new Government.
    Mr. HEALY: I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say he could not give any answer on this subject for publication.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I said I could not give any answer now—before the House rises.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General, whether his attention has been called to the admission of the Judge-Ad vocate at a recent court-martial on untried Irish prisoners at Frongoch, in the case of Thomas Synnott, that the Royal Warrant under which the defendant was charged would have been illegal in time of peace, but is legal in time of war though the war is not in this country; and, if that ruling was correct, can he give a reference to any statutory authority for it?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith): This question was put down, I think on the 12th inst., for written answers, and was duly answered in writing on the 14th. I have nothing to add.
    Mr. GINNELL: The answer sent to me through the post did not appear in the papers so far as I saw. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Was not this court-martial held as an open Court to which the Press were admitted, and does the answer mean that the Press in this case issued a false report? That report had the special attention of the Censor: why did he not censor it originally?
    Sir F. SMITH: The hon. Member is asking me a series of fresh questions. His original question was as to whether my attention had been called to the admission alleged to have been made by the Judge-Advocate at the recent court-martial? My information is that no such admission was made by the Judge-Advocate at that court-martial, and I am not called upon to make any observations upon it.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the House the inconsistency of the quotation in the question having appeared in the "Irish Independent" and other. Irish newspapers after examination by the Censor—is it false?

    IRISH PRISONERS (RELEASE).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, as a first measure of reconciliation of the new Government towards Ireland, all those in prison on account of their connection with the Dublin rising will be restored to their homes under a general amnesty?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can only refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the adjournment of the House last night.
    Mr. LYNCH: As the right hon. Gentleman must inevitably release these prisoners soon had it not better be done when it can be done with suavity and grace?
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of the prisoners will be released before Christmas, and, if so, will an announcement to that effect be made public on Saturday.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend gave a promise yesterday that a statement would be made before the House rises. I hope it will be made this evening.

    POLICE RAID.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the officer in command of the military and police who raided and looted Kent's house, Bawnard Castlelyons, on 2nd May last have furnished him with a list of the valuable articles taken by them, including gold and silver prize medals won at athletic sports by the late Richard Kent, and also his gold watch and chain; whether he is aware of the restitution of the latter article through a solicitor by a Catholic police constable, the other articles having been taken by the military and not yet returned; whether he will have them returned forthwith; and, if not, what steps he will take to have them traced?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: The following articles were taken from the Kents' house by a search party consisting of military and police: one silver watch with gold chain, to which were attached a gold ring and a religious medal; three silver Gaelic medals.
    1608
    All these articles were handed over to the police by the officer in charge of the military and restored by them to Mr. Sheehan, Mr. William Kent's representative. I have no information as to the religious denomination of the police officer who handed over these articles.
    Mr. GIN NELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the articles mentioned in the question were handed over not in the manner he describes, but stealthily?

    2ND KING EDWARD'S HORSE (VINDICATION OF LIEUTENANTS LUCAS AND WORSWICK).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware that in consequence of the circumstances connected with the deaths of Lieutenants Lucas and Worswick, of the 2nd King Edward's Horse, during the recent rising in Dublin and the fact that evidence on behalf of these officers was not called at the court-martial held on Company Quartermaster-Sergeant Flood, an impression exists in the public mind that these officers of this overseas regiment were connected with or concerned in the Sinn Fein movement; and whether, having been urged thereto by the Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool, he is now prepared to do justice to the memory of these gallant gentlemen and thereby relieve the anxiety and grief of their relatives and remove a stigma from their regiment?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am more than surprised to learn that such an impression exists, and I only hope that it may not be widespread, as there is no justification whatever for it. I have read the proceedings of the court-martial, and I cannot see under what circumstances evidence on behalf of these gallant officers, then deceased, could have been properly admitted. There is nothing whatever in the proceedings to cause anyone to come to the conclusion that they were connected with or concerned in the Sinn Fein movement, and the general impression which a perusal of the proceedings leaves is that these two officers met their deaths under the most deplorable circumstances, due to the misunderstandings and the confusion which inevitably arose during the fighting in Dublin, and whilst gallantly and fearlessly carrying out their orders in a manner which redounds to their credit and to that of the gallant regiment which honours their memory.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great interest, not only outside but inside this House, which is taken in this subject, and will he give me an assurance that the War Office will officially write to the wife of Lieutenant Lucas and to the mother of Lieutenant Worswick, to assure them that these gallant and honourable gentlemen died in the performance of their duty to their King and country, and so help to assuage the mental anguish of these ladies?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am well aware of the interest taken in this question in this House, and more particularly by my hon. Friend, who has made this subject his own. I hope we shall be able to write to these relatives.

    "FREEMAN'S JOURNAL" COMPANY.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to his predecessor's undertaking that no public money should be spent on the founding or maintaining of a Government newspaper in Dublin, if he will explain the payment, in priority to duly vouched claims, of over £63,000 of public money to the "Freeman's Journal" Company for alleged destruction of property not valued or verified by any competent and independent person, including consequential losses disallowed to other claimants, such as £600 for rent ana £3,700 for loss of revenue; whether he will allow the particulars of the "Freeman's" claim to be examined; how is the "Freeman's" undertaking given for this special treatment affected by the change of Ministry; and whether, in addition to the £63,000, the "Freeman's" staff will continue, under the new Government as under the old, to be made recipients of positions of emolument at the public expense?
    Mr. DUKE: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The premises of the "Freeman's Journal," Limited, and all their contents were completely destroyed during the late disturbances in Dublin. A claim for the loss sustained was duly lodge with the Property Losses Committee and was reported on to the Government in the usual course after a valuation of the loss had been furnished by a competent and independent firm of assessor Applications for payments on account were received from many of the suffering, including the "Freeman's Journal," limited, and in
    1610
    each instance such a sum was recommended by the Committee as the valuation of the loss previously obtained from their assessors justified. In the case of the "Freeman's Journal," the payment on account so recommended was £20,000. As regards claims for rent and loss of revenue, no distinction was made by the Committee between the treatment accorded to the "Freeman's Journal," Limited, and that accorded to other claimants.
    Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered that part of the question asking him to allow an independent examination of the claim in this case?
    Mr. DUKE: The proper means promised for an examination of these claims has been used. I know no distinction between this case and a multitude of other cases, and I do not propose to be a party to setting up a separate examination as to either or all of these cases.
    Mr. GINNELL: Did not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls the proper means amount to means for hushing?

    MR. SHEEHY-SKEFTINGTON.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War by whose order Sir Francis Vane, having reported to the commanding officer in Dublin on 26th April last the shooting at Portobello Barracks and advised that Captain Bowen-Colthurst should be placed under arrest, was himself on 1st May ordered to hand over his own command to the said Captain Bowen-Colthurst; whether the officer who ordered this has been subjected to any form of trial; and where is he now serving?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am not aware that Sir F. Vane acted as stated in the early part of the question. On 1st May Sir F. Vane, who did not belong to the battalion in Portobello Barracks, was sent back to other duties by the officer commanding the battalion. Captain Bowen-Colthurst was ordered by the latter not to leave barracks, and was given charge of the barracks defences, in order that he might be* retained under the personal observation of his commanding officer, pending instructions from higher authority. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the part of the question of which he says he is not aware, has been repeatedly admitted by Ministers?

    TRAIN SERVICE (ABERDEEN).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the North British Railway Company's trains leaving Edinburgh for Aberdeen frequently fail to catch their Great North of Scotland connection at Aberdeen, and that passengers although booked through to destinations beyond Aberdeen are often stranded there for nights; that such occurred on Saturday, 18th November last, to the 3.10 train leaving Edinburgh; that in that case the passenger authorities at Aberdeen of the Great North of Scotland Railway Company were advised by telegram from Dundee that this train would be three-quarters of an hour late; that they declined to keep back their train although it was the last one on that night; that thirty passengers were in the Edinburgh train booked through to stations north of Aberdeen. a large proportion of them being soldiers and sailors on brief furloughs who had travelled continuously from Friday morning; and that these passengers were forced to spend Sunday in Aberdeen; and whether he will bring pressure to bear on this railway company to prevent men on short furlough being so treated in future?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. George Roberts): I have communicated with the railway companies concerned and have received a reply, from which it appears that the occurrence of 18th November, to which the hon. Gentleman particularly refers, was the first of the kind for many months, and was due to a combination of circumstances, including exceptionally bad weather, which delayed the 3.10 express from Edinburgh on its journey to Aberdeen by fifty-eight minutes. A rearrangement by which the train now leaves Edinburgh at 3 p.m., instead of 3.10 p.m., has been made, which should ensure the maintenance of the connection, except under abnormal conditions.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman impress upon the railway companies the importance of avoiding delay in reaching
    1612
    home, in view of the very short time which these soldiers have? Does the hon. Gentleman know what a punishment it is to spend a week-end at Aberdeen?

    BELFAST TRADE BOARD.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the names and qualifications of the members of the Belfast Trade Board; when were they appointed, and by whom; how many meetings they have held, and the dates of those meetings; what action they have taken with regard to the sweated workers in the mills and factories in Belfast; whether any correspondence has passed between them and the Board of Trade; and, if so, whether such correspondence will be published?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the Linen and Cotton Embroidery Trade Board (Ireland). The Trade Board, which was established on 8th May last, consists of seven representatives of employers other than sub-contractors, five representatives of sub-contractors, and twelve representatives of workers, together with three appointed members, who are impartial persons unconnected with the trade and appointed by the Board of Trade. The representative members were selected by the Board of Trade after considering names supplied by employers and workers respectively. The employers' representatives are all employers in the trade; of the workers' representatives ten are actual workers; one is the secretary of the Women Textile Operatives' Union, and one is president of the Lurgan Hemmers' and Veiners' Union. I am sending a list of the members to my hon. Friend. I am informed by the chairman that the Trade Board and its consultative committee have held seven meetings, the dates of which I will communicate to my hon. Friend. A formal proposal to fix minimum time-rates ranging from 2½d. to3¼d. per hour and also minimum piece-rates for certain operations will be issued by the Trade Board on 8th January. The majority of the workpeople affected are home-workers, of whom a very considerable number belong to county Down and county Donegal. There has been no correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Trade Board with regard to the work of the latter.

    RAILWAY FARES (COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the suggested increase in railway fares of 50 per cent. will impose an undue handicap upon commercial travellers doing business for firms that are controlled, and who have to sell the surplus of their productions, not required by the Government, to their ordinary customers; and, having regard to the fact that such controlled firms, under the circumstances, are not in the favourable position of those not controlled, will they be scheduled for special treatment so that their travellers can journey at fares now the rule?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I experience some difficulty in appreciating the distinction which the hon. Member draws between controlled and uncontrolled firms in this matter. However, the differential treatment of commercial travellers representing controlled and non-controlled firms is not regarded as either desirable or practicable.
    Mr. HOGGE: By what right can the railway companies raise the fares on Parliamentary trains?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I think that that is a question which ought to be addressed to the President.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Cannot the Board of Trade see that the controlled firms' are in the hands of the Government, and that they can sell to their customers only the overplus produced, whereas the uncontrolled firms go on in the ordinary way, and is not that a reason why these firms' travellers should get special treatment?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I have given some consideration to the question, and I have a note here which I would like to show my hon. Friend, which appears to remove that objection.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will this increase apply to cross-Channel traffic?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I must have notice of that.
    Mr. WING: Has the hon. Gentleman received a petition from the Commercial Travellers' Association?
    Mr. ROBERTS: The whole question is receiving very careful attention of the Board of Trade to-day.

    EXPORT GOODS (SEIZURES OF).
    Mr. NIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he considers it either necessary or expedient that the Customs and Excise, acting on behalf of the War Trade Department, should seize goods exported from this country under a duly granted permit when sent abroad under a contract of sale or return, and when, in pursuance of such option, the purchasers elect to return the goods to the vendors; upon what grounds are the Customs entitled to seize and claim to forfeit such goods which in law have never ceased to be the property of the exporters when the same are so returned; and whether he will give directions for a discontinuance of the practice referred to?
    Mr. ROBERTS: If the goods in question fall under the Prohibitions of Import, the Customs have no power to admit them to this country without a licence issued by the Board of Trade, whatever the circumstances of their previous exportation or their ownership. Such licence would ordinarily be granted by the Board on proof of circumstances such as those described in the question.
    Mr. NIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain whether or not the persons were returning these diamonds, which were obtained on sale or return, to the vendors, and whether they had a licence to import the goods into this country?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot state anything beyond what I have said. If the circumstances are as described by the hon. Gentleman, I think a licence would be issued.

    ENEMY BUSINESSES.
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade what changes in partnership were made in Austrian and German financial houses doing business in London during the period from January to August, 1914; and are any such established by Germans since 1899 now owned and conducted by British men?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I regret that I am unable to furnish the hon. and gallant Member with this information.

    GLASGOW AND ISLAY MAILS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Postmaster-General whether he can make any arrangement with the owners of the vessel

    1615
    carrying the mails between Glasgow and the island of Islay whereby intimation is given to the traders and others in Islay when the weather is considered by the captain of that vessel too rough for the passage, so that these traders may then conduct their business with Glasgow by telegraph and so that commercial travellers and others in the island may be prevented at great inconvenience gathering to the port of embarkation only to return considerable distances?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I will inquire whether it is possible to have a notice exhibited at the local post office on occasions when the steamer is prevented from sailing.

    PARCEL-POST SERVICE.
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a parcel of logbooks and abstracts of logs addressed to the captain or a steamer, the name of which has been supplied to him by the Member for the West Toxteth Division of Liverpool, at La Rochelle-Pallice, France, was posted at the General Post Office, Liverpool, on 28th September last and was not delivered to the steamer before she sailed from La Pallice on 14th October; that complaints of non-delivery were made by the owners of the steamer to the Post Office on and after 4th October, but the same were not acknowledged until 10th November; that, although postage was paid on the parcel in the first instance, further postage was demanded from the owners for the return of the parcel; that the Postmaster-General was requested by the owners to forward the parcel to another French port to await the arrival of the steamer there on her return voyage; that on 2nd December the owners were informed that the parcel was still lying at La Pallice; that the Postmaster-General was again repeatedly urged by the owners to forward the parcel to the steamer to this other French port; whether he is aware that the steamer has again recently sailed from this other French port without the logbooks and abstracts, although the same are required for Admiralty purposes; that since 4th October numerous communications have been made by the owners to the Postmaster-General; that the replies from his Department are that the matter is receiving consideration, accompanied with requests to fill up offi-
    1616
    cial forms; whether he is aware that this is not an exceptional case; and whether he will take prompt steps to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: I am having inquiry made into the particular case cited by the hon. Member and will acquaint him with the result in due course. I may say at once, however, that the parcel post with other countries is governed by international agreements embodying precise detailed regulations for the conduct of the service which do not admit of exceptional treatment in individual cases. In view of the unavoidable congestion in the railway and Customs services the foreign parcel post is not a suitable medium for the transmission of important and urgently-needed documents, and I would recommend the hon. Member to send such articles by registered letter post in future.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will my hon. Friend make arrangements with the Admiralty that such documents as are required for seamen in the Admiralty Service shall be forwarded direct, and that we shall not have such an example of delay as this?
    Mr. PEASE: I will consider the point.

    HORSES IN MINES (INSPECTION).
    Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Home Secretary what are the qualifications required for special inspectors of horses and other animals in mines under Section 109 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911; whether they inspected the horses in each mine in their respective districts during the course of the last year for which Returns have been made;; how many mines in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, were left without any such inspection during that period; whether notice is given on each occasion of the intended inspection or do they make surprise visits; and whether any inspections were made of mines in Ireland?
    Sir G. CAVE: Candidates for the post of horse inspector must be thoroughly experienced in the care and treatment of horses and other animals in mines, and must have had practical acquaintance with the conditions under which work is carried on underground. They are also required to show that they have a sufficient general education. In the year 1915 the horse in-

    1617
    spectors in England and North Wales inspected 916 mines, leaving 96 unvisited. The corresponding figures for South Wales were 288 and 287. I am making inquiry as to the figures for Scotland. As regards South Wales, in view of the heavy nature of the work there, a second horse inspector was appointed in October, 1915, so that the figures for 1915 do not represent the present position. Only one mine in Ireland employs horses. This was visited by one of the ordinary inspectors. The Instructions direct that, as a general rule, inspections shall be made without notice. The only exception allowed to this rule is in cases where the presence of the manager or some other official of the mine may be essential for the purpose of the inspector's inquiry. In such cases short notice may be given.
    Sir G. GREENWOOD: Are there seven or eight horse inspectors now inspecting mines?
    Sir G. CAVE: I think there are seven special inspectors, but the ordinary inspectors also make inspections of mines.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is it not an obligation on every inspector to visit every mine?
    Sir G. CAVE: Yes; certainly he ought to do so, and he does do so, if possible.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: How often?
    Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member will notice that there were 916 inspections.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy himself by examination that the number of inspectors is sufficient?
    Sir G. CAVE: I will make it. my business to do so at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. BUTCHER: When are the figures for 1915 to be published?
    Sir G. CAVE: I cannot answer as to the exact date, but I have no doubt it will be soon.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: How often are the mines supposed to be inspected in one year—two or three times each?
    Sir G. CAVE: Some of them are inspected several times, and I think the figures I have read show that practically every mine is visited at least once a year.

    EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS.
    Sir G. GREENWOODasked the Home Secretary whether the two alien enemies whose names appear in the Annual Returns for 1915 as holding licences to per form experiments upon living animals have now been interned; and, if so, at what date; and, if not, whether they still hold such licences?
    Sir G. CAVE: One of the two persons mentioned left the country in April, 1915, and his licence was revoked. The other, who is of Polish birth, was exempted from internment on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee and still holds a licence under the Act.
    Sir G. GREENWOODasked whether the Germans, said to have been naturalized in this country, whose names appear in the Annual Returns for 1915 as holding licences to perform experiments upon living animals still hold such licences; and, if so, what certificates, if any, do they respectively hold?
    Sir G. CAVE: Two licences are now held by persons of German origin naturalised in this country. One of them has an Certificate and the other two A certificates and an E.
    Sir G. GREENWOODasked whether the sixteen Japanese nationals whose names appear in the Annual Returns for 1915 as holding licences to perform experiments upon living animals, or any of them, still hold such licences; if so, what certificates, if any, do they respectively hold; and whether he will consider the desirability of confining such licences to British citizens?
    Sir G. CAVE: Of the sixteen Japanese subjects mentioned thirteen have given up their licences, having completed their experiments. Of the remaining three, one holds no certificates, one holds certificate A only, and the third (a staff-surgeon of the Japanese Navy) holds two A certificates, two B certificates, one E, and one EE. I am not aware of any grounds for altering the established practice with regard to the grant of licences to other than British subjects on special conditions. I may point out that this matter was considered by the Royal Commission, who expressed approval of the arrangements adopted by the Home Office in regard to it (Section 121 of Report).
    Mr. BUTCHER: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not advisable to withhold from alien enemies these licences?
    Sir G. CAVE: None of them are held by enemies.

    DOMICILIARY SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF PROPERTY.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Home Secretary whether the officers of the Criminal Investigation Department are authorized by him to act, without specific instructions from the Home Office, upon the directions of the Foreign Trade Department; and whether, before proceedings by way of domiciliary search and seizure of property can take place or a search warrant applied for, there is any investigation by a duly-qualified legal official to ensure that there shall be no abuse of the extraordinary powers entrusted to the Executive Government by reason of the present state of war?
    Sir G. CAVE: It is the duty of the police upon receiving information of any breach or suspected breach of the law to take the proper steps at once, and without obtaining specific instructions from the Home Office in every case. I am not aware that there has been any abuse by the police of their powers.
    Mr. NIELD: May I point out that in the latter part of the question I ask in regard to the necessity of a search warrant, that some legal proceeding or some legal steps should be taken before this domiciliary search is undertaken?
    Mr. NIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Superintendent M'Carthy, of the Criminal Investigation Department, acted on the instructions of the Foreign Trade Department, or upon what other instructions, when he made entry without any search warrant or other apparent legal authority on the premises of Messrs. Mirner Brothers, Russian subjects, at 2, Charles Street, Hatton Garden, E.C., on 11th November last, and seized and removed twenty-one parcels of diamonds of the value of £4,500, and all papers and vouchers found on the premises; whether he is aware that no information was given as to the reasons for the seizure or of any kind for three weeks, and then only an allegation that the goods were alleged to be of enemy origin; and what justification
    1620
    is suggested for handing over executive powers from the Minister responsible to Parliament for the due execution of process in due form of law to a Trade Department over whose actions Parliament has no effective control?
    Sir G. CAVE: Superintendent M'Carthy acted on the instructions of his official superior, having received information that diamonds which had been illegally imported were on certain premises over a restaurant in Hatton Garden. This action was taken under the Diamonds (Prohibition of Import) Proclamation, 1915, and the Customs (War Powers) Act, 1915. Messrs. Mirner were informed of the reasons at the time. The diamonds which were found to be of enemy origin have since been formally seized by the Board of Customs and Messrs. Mirner have been so informed. The action of the police was not taken upon instructions from any Trade Department and the latter part of the question does not arise.
    Mr. NIELD: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why it is that six weeks except two days have elapsed and no prosecution has taken place or been threatened, and whether or not he will say who the chief officer to Superintendent M 'Carthy is in connection with this matter?
    Sir G. CAVE: I do not propose to give the name of the chief officer. It has been found the diamonds were in fact of enemy origin, and no doubt any proceedings would be taken as soon as possible

    AERATED BREAD COMPANY EMPLOYES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received any complaint against the action of the police in searching women employés of the Aerated Bread Company on 7th December last; whether he is aware that no warrant was read, that the girls and women were forced into a room to be searched without any explanation; that men were present during the search; and that one woman who had some tea in her possession which was known to have been purchased was not allowed to make any explanation, but taken to the station and charged; whether he is aware that out of 140 employés only three were found in possession of sugar belonging to the firm, to the value of 1s.;

    1621
    and whether he will take steps to prevent a repetition of such unauthorised action on the part of the police?
    Sir G. CAVE: I had not heard of this matter until the hon. Member's question appeared on the Paper, I am making inquiries, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    LIGHTING REGULATIONS (ACCIDENTS IN METROPOLIS).
    Captain BARNETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the numerous accidents reported in the Metropolitan district during the recent fog, he will take steps to secure the temporary suspension of the lighting regulations when fogs occur in future?
    Sir G. CAVE: I would refer the hon. Member to the full statement made on this subject in another place on 4th November. It is found in practice almost impossible to make arrangements for increasing and again reducing on special occasions the number and brightness of street lamps. Further, the local distribution of the fog is erratic, and there is a risk that the fog may lift suddenly and disclose the lights. Arrangements have, however, been made to provide emergency lighting in the shape of flares, and these were, I understand brought into operation to some extent on the occasion of the last fog.
    Captain BARNETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman relax the lighting restrictions for the benefit of shopkeepers and householders?
    Sir G. CAVE: I should like notice of that.

    MR. VON BERG (NATIONALITY).
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the nationality of Mr. Von Berg, the chief clerk of the National Debt Office, Old Jewry?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Mr. Von Berg is a natural-born British subject who has been on the staff of the National Debt Office for over forty years. His family came to the United Kingdom 150 years ago.

    METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE (STAFF).
    Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are any Civil servants on the staff of the Meteorological Office who were born in enemy countries; and, if so, what are their names and when were they naturalised?
    Mr. BONARLAW: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

    "WHY MUST THE WAR GO ON?"
    Captain GANZONIasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a leaflet entitled "Why must the War go on?" written by the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs, and published by the Union of Democratic Control, has been distributed from house to house in the city of York; and whether he intends to take any action in consequence of the statements and imputations contained therein?
    Sir G. CAVE: My attention has been drawn to this leaflet, and it is receiving my consideration.
    Mr. PONSONBY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether he is aware that this leaflet was submitted to the Censor before publication?
    Sir G. CAVE: No, Sir, I am not aware of it. My attention has been called to this leaflet. I will consider it.
    Mr. BUTCHER: In view of the pestilential character of this leaflet, will you take steps to prosecute the hon. Member?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to understand that a leaflet which is passed by the Censor is of a pestilential character?
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Are there pro-Germans in the Censor's office?

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to submit a new Royal Warrant dealing with pensions before the Recess?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that my right hon. Friend the Pensions Minister will not be in a position to lay a new Royal Warrant before the Recess.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Pensions Minister has power, under the new Act, to do this?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think the new Act has altered the power of the Government to do it.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the result of the Treasury decision with regard to increased separation allowances?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A Committee of Ministers is considering the matter, and a decision will be arrived at without delay.
    Mr. HOGGE: May we take it my right hon. Friend will be able to announce this before we come back?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I certainly expect so; there will be no delay in the matter because the House is not sitting.
    Mr. FINNEYasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, whether he has received any resolutions from friendly and approved societies protesting against the action of the Government in not paying adequate pension allowances to soldiers and sailors suffering from disease or disablement caused during the present War, and urging upon the Government the necessity of making full provision for such men from Imperial funds instead of, as at present, throwing a part of the burden on the funds of approved societies, which funds it was never intended should bear liabilities of such a character; and whether he can say what steps the Government will take to remove the grievance?
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALL (Comptroller of the Household): I have received several representations from approved societies with regard to the effect on their finances of disablement caused by the War, and I can assure the hon. Member that the matter in all its aspects is receiving the most careful consideration.
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that in cases of sons who enlist and whose fathers are soldiers that the mother does not in practice receive any Government allowance on the son's account, and in case of the son's death allotment money
    1624
    is stopped immediately, as in the case of Driver W. Geehan, No. 1316, Royal Field Artillery, who was wounded on the Somme in September, died in hospital on 12th October, and his mother served with a demand note for return of identity certificate 16th October; is he aware that such prompt action in withdrawal of payment is in contrast with the granting of payment; and, seeing that in other cases allotment and allowance continue for six months after death, will he say why there should not be continuance of payment of allotment for the same period where allowance is not paid as in above cases?
    Mr. FORSTER: When a soldier's mother is already in receipt of the full rate admissible for a soldier's wife, she is not entitled to anything further from Army funds. The machinery of the Pay Department is, nevertheless, placed at the disposal of her soldier son for the purpose of regularly remitting a portion of his pay if he so desires. When he ceases to draw pay, these remittances necessarily end.
    Mr. WING: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, or is it a fact, where there is an allowance in addition to the allotment on account of the dependency of the mother on the son, where the father is in the Army, that in other cases you do grant it, and upon what principles is it omitted in such a case as I have mentioned?
    Mr. FORSTER: Where there is a separation allowance, it has been ascertained that there was prior dependence on the soldier. In this case there was not.

    MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will define the new positions to which Lord Milner and Lord Curzon have been appointed, with the salaries attached thereto; and when this House will be afforded an opportunity of considering those appointments and salaries?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope the House will allow this question to stand over till after the Recess, when I shall be prepared to answer it.

    WAR TRADE DEPARTMENT.
    Mr. NIELDasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the present

    1625
    administration of the War Trade Department has created dissatisfaction in trading circles, and in particular among subjects of the Allied nations resident in this country, whereby the friendly relations which ought to prevail between the peoples of the Entente are being subjected to an unnecessary strain; and whether, in order to allay this feeling, he will consent to the appointment of a Committee of this House to consider the constitution and administration of the War Trade Department and the methods employed by it, and the unreasonable delays which occur in dealing with the cases as they arise?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am advised that no such dissatisfaction with the War Trade Department exists as is suggested in the first part of this question, and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to consider the second part.

    BRIGADIER-GENERAL OWEN THOMAS.
    Sir HERBERT ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the Report and the findings of the Committee of Inquiry under the Army Act Amendment Act with reference to the case of Brigadier-General Owen Thomas?
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked whether, in view of the public interest shown in Wales in the case of Brigadier-General Owen Thomas, the Report of the findings of the Court of Inquiry will be published forthwith?
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has yet decided to publish the two Reports of the Committee of Inquiry under the Army Act Amendment Act; and if he can now make any statement on the subject?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has personally been dealing with these matters. In the press of business of the last few days my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War has not been able to consult him, but I will make a statement to-morrow.
    Sir H. ROBERTS: I will repeat the question to-morrow.
    Mr. McNEILL: May I give my hon. Friend notice that I will refer to this question on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill?

    DECIMAL SYSTEM.
    Mr. FINNEYasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has received a resolution from the Kidsgrove Urban District Council that it is of supreme national importance that prompt steps be taken to secure the maximum of trade with foreign countries when the War is over, and, with this end in view, the council strongly support the proposal to adopt the decimal system of coinage, weights, and measures throughout the British Isles; and can he say what the intentions of the Government are respecting the same?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to, but the subject is a very complex one, and I cannot at present hold out any prospect of early legislation in regard to it.

    AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN RED BOOK.
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Prime Minister whether a new Red Book has been issued by the Austro-Hungarian Government dealing with the entry of Roumania into the War; and, if so, whether he will make provision for its contents to be available for the information of Members of the House?
    Lord R. CECIL: Copies of this publication will be placed in the Library of the House for the convenience of hon. Members.

    ARMING OF MERCHANTMEN (SS. "BRUSSELS").
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether the steamer "Brussels" was unarmed on the occasion of the alleged attempted ramming of a German submarine; in view of the German reply in the case of Captain Blaikie, of the steamship "Caledonia," implying that had the steamship "Brussels" been armed they would have taken a different view of the action of her commander, whether this accords with the addendum to the German Naval Prize Law on the subject of the arming of merchantmen and the status of their crews published in June, 1914; whether he will at once see that steps are taken to overcome the objections raised by any neutral country to the arming of merchant ships for defence and will at once arrange to give British merchant

    1627
    vessels adequate protective armament and regularise the status of their officers and crews?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir - Edward Carson): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. His Majesty's Government cannot admit any distinction between the rights of unarmed merchant ships and those armed for defensive purposes. It is no doubt the aim of the German Government to confuse defensive and offensive action with the object of inducing neutrals to treat defensively-armed vessels as if they were men-of-war. Our position is perfectly clear—that a merchant seaman enjoys the immemorial right of defending his vessel against attack or visit or search by the enemy by any means in his power, but that he must not seek out an enemy in order to attack him—that being a function reserved to commissioned men-of-war. So far as I am aware, all neutral Powers, without exception, take the same view, which is clearly indicated in the Prize Regulations of the Germans themselves. I have confined myself to stating the general position; but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the Departments concerned are devoting continuous attention to all questions connected with the theory and practice of defensive armament.

    ENEMY BANKS.
    Captain BARNETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the official supervisor of the Deutsche Bank (Berlin) London agency wrote on the 11th instant, in reference to certain shares of an English company standing in the name of the said agency, that these shares were held for account of the Frankfort branch of the Deutsche Bank, that no instructions had been received from that branch to sell the shares, and it was therefore impossible to do so; and, if so, whether it is proposed to postpone the final liquidation of the Deutsche Bank (Berlin) London agency until the agency can communicate with the alien enemies in charge of the Frankfort branch?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The controller informs me that the shares which appear to be referred to by the hon. and gallant Member possess an approximate value of £10. All shares held by the London
    1628
    agency of the Deutsche Bank which are not at the unlimited disposal of the London management, as in the case referred to, are now in course of being vested in the custodian. The final liquidation of the Deutsche Bank is, therefore, not being postponed. There is, of course, no intention of permitting the London agency to communicate with its Frankfort branch as to disposal of securities held on behalf of that branch.
    Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what the custodian is supposed to do, or will do, with these funds; will the Government take any action as to what shall be done with these funds?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would like notice of that.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.)
    Mr. WINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if on the reassembly of Parliament, unless prohibition is declared before such date, he will give the Members of the House of Commons an opportunity of expressing its will in the Division Lobby as to suspending the sale of intoxicating liquors at the bars of this House or, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman himself on 20th April, 1915, that a Motion to impose upon us in this House precisely the same restrictions which are imposed upon others would have his support; and whether he is aware that the Kitchen Committee wish for the instruction of this House?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It will not be possible to give facilities for this discussion before the Recess, and perhaps the hon. Member will put the question again when we reassemble?

    FRENCH PARLIAMENT.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish any information in the possession of the Government of the constitution of the various Committees or Commissions of the French Parliament?
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member will find full information on this subject in the White Books Nos. 5 and 10, Miscellaneous, 1912. His Majesty's Government have no furthter informaton beyond that contained therein

    SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the concession made to soldiers and sailors in the matter of Income Tax is in practice rendered entirely inoperative where the pay is under £160 per annum owing to the wording of Section 30, Sub-section (2) of the Finance Act of 1916, which provides that all deductions permissible shall be made primarily from the pay; and whether he will suspend the collection of Income Tax on this basis after 1st January next and consider the introduction of words in the next Finance Bill which will give practical effect to the intention of the House in this matter?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Since I replied to my hon. Friend yesterday I have found that this matter was fully discussed in connection with an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend to Clause 27 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1916, and, as at present advised, I cannot undertake to introduce the legislation suggested.
    Mr. PETO: Does not the result of the right hon. Gentleman's investigation show that the facts stated in my question are correct—that making the deduction primarily from the pay in effect places civilians and soldiers on the same footing?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am told that that is not quite the case. But my hon. Friend will have the opportunity of raising the question on the Appropriation Bill.

    INCOME TAX (ALLOWANCE FOR CHILDREN).
    Mr. FINNEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the case of a wage-earner whose income is taxable and who has a child under sixteen years old a deduction of £25 is allowed off the total amount, but if the child be an adopted one or if the child be over sixteen years old, though afflicted and incapable, no such deduction is allowed; and whether he can arrange for the deduction to be allowed equally in the two latter as well as in the former case?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This matter has on several occasions been considered by the House of Commons, who decided that
    1630
    Income Tax rebates of the kind in question should not be extended beyond the limits of the present allowance made for children.

    GRAND JURIES.
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Attorney-General whether he is now able to give any further reply as to the question of dispensing with grand juries at Assizes and Quarter Sessions according to the recommendation of the Report of the Royal Commission on the King's Bench Division?
    Sir F. SMITH: I myself am in sympathy with this proposal as a war measure. Great economy would, I think, be gained in the time of important persons if it were possible to dispense with the services of these juries. At the same time, my hon. Friend will recognise the importance of carrying with me in this matter those who have special experience. I have addressed further representations to the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and I am not without hope of making a satisfactory answer in January.

    BRITISH OFFICER PRISONERS IN TURKEY.
    Mr. STEWARTasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division), whether he can give any information as to the condition of British officers who are prisoners at Kastamouni in the hands of the Turks; whether parcels forwarded to them are delivered; and whether, in view of the exceptionally cold situation of this camp, where snow lies for months, he can see his way to ask the American Embassy at Constantinople to make special efforts to ensure that parcels sent to the prisoners are delivered?
    Mr. J. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): I regret to say that the conditions at the prisoners' camps at Kastamouni and other places in Turkey are most unsatisfactory. Numerous complaints have reached us as to non-arrival of parcels at Kastamouni. The United States Embassy at Constantinople have recently been requested to press for an improvement in the dispatch of parcels to prisoners of war, and His Majesty's Government are making generally every effort to secure the amelioration of the lot of prisoners in Turkish hands, which is a source of constant preoccupation.

    YACHTS LENT TO ADMIRALTY.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his Department has been for the last six months paying off yachts which had been lent to it by the owners and chartering other vessels to take the place of these yachts lent without charge to the State; and, if so, will he say the reason of this action, in view of the facts that tonnage is scarce and these yachts must be laid up when discharged by his Department?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No yachts lent gratuitously to the Admiralty have been paid off during the last six months or at any other time, except on the ground of unsuitability for service. Certain small motor boats have been paid off, owing to the availability of vessels built to Admiralty order. A few small vessels have been chartered to perform harbour service duties, which were no part of the duties allotted to gratuitously loaned motor boats. The value of the motor boats paid off from the point of view of "tonnage," as used in the mercantile sense, is nil.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether the boats used in substitution for the small motor boats have been proved to be entirely satisfactory?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That does not arise out of this question.

  MUNITIONS.

    SKILLED MEN (EXEMPTION CARDS).
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Munitions whether the agreement arrived at with the various craft unions with reference to skilled men, either journeymen or apprentices, working on war work or who have enrolled as War Munition Volunteers is that they shall be provided with a card of exemption, the form of cards to be authorised by the Army Council and the card to be issued through the trade unions; if he can state if such an agreement only applies to the members of the craft unions or whether it applies to members of other trade unions who are doing exactly the same kind of work; if he intends giving some consideration to the same class of men who belong to other trade unions; and if he is prepared to receive a deputation from the general labour unions about the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The agreement referred to in the first part of the question provides that all members of the unions concerned not now fully engaged, or at any time hereafter ceasing to be fully engaged on war work, shall enrol as War Munitions Volunteers, and that all skilled men on war work, or who have enrolled as War Munitions Volunteers, who were either journeymen or apprentices prior to 15th August, 1915, shall be provided with a card of exemption from military service. The form of this card will be authorised by the Army Council, and the card will be issued through the trade unions. The trade unions further undertake to do their utmost to provide the Ministry of Munitions with skilled men, who will undertake to serve at the choice of the Ministry either in an Artificers' Corps in the Army or as War Munitions Volunteers in civil life. They also undertake to furnish names and, wherever possible, particulars of skilled men now serving in non-mechanical corps, and the Army Council will endeavour to continue to make every possible effort to transfer such skilled to mechanical units. With regard to the second part of the question, agreements of the kind referred to have only been entered into with unions which contain a large proportion of members possessing skill which is urgently needed for technical units in the Army and also for the production of munitions. With regard to the third part of the question, the Department have been in communication with the War Office as to the steps to be taken to extend some consideration to the same class of men who belong to other trade unions or who are non-unionists. With regard to the fourth part of the question, I will confer with the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. WARDLE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether this scheme which he now announces was offered to the Ministry of Munitions and the War Office in May of the present year?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Not to my knowledge.

    GLASGOW DEPORTEES.
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of Munitions if he is a position to state what decision has been come to in regard to the Glasgow deportees?
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): I have decided to recommend

    1633
    the competent military authority to cancel the Deportation Orders in respect of such of the deportees as are willing to sign an undertaking similar in form to that signed by the men to whom permission has already been given to return to Glasgow.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would improve the state of things on the Clyde if he gave permission to all to return without any conditions?
    Dr. ADDISON: Certainly not. The only conditions are that the men shall ventilate their grievances through the orthodox unions, and that they must behave themselves properly. I do not think that is anything improper.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say, if these men are guilty of all these practices, why the Government have never ventured to put them on trial?
    Dr. ADDISON: I did not say that they were guilty of any practices; I said that if they will ventilate their grievances in the proper way and not stir up strife in the shops the objection to their return will be removed, and I do not think that is unreasonable.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that such a charge has never been proved against a single man, that the requirements of such an undertaking suggests an admission on their part that they have been guilty of such practices, and that is why they will not sign; and is he also aware that the refusal to allow them to return is making them popular heroes and causing irritation among the workmen?
    Dr. ADDISON: Having given the matter careful consideration, I am quite satisfied that the decision at which we have arrived is the correct one.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that one of the reasons making the Re-election of Ministers (No. 2) Act a necessity was the fear of a by-election in the Blackfrairs Division of Glasgow where one of them would have been a candidate?
    Dr. ADDISON: This is the first time I have heard that suggested.
    Mr. PRINGLE: But it is a fact.

    RAILWAY FACILITIES.
    Sir T. COURTENAY WARNERasked the Minister of
    1634
    Munitions whether he can make any statement as to the extent to which munitions requirements are responsible for the curtailment of the railway facilities of which public notice has been given?
    Dr. ADDISON: The increased tonnage in munitions has necessarily thrown greatly added burdens upon transport facilities, both at home and abroad. After consultation with the President of the Board of Trade and the Railway Executive Committee, it has been decided, with a view to assisting in the rapid and effective provision of the requirements of the Director-General of Military Transport, to take from existing services certain locomotives, railway trucks and a proportion of non-essential lines. Some privately-owned trucks will be required and the owners are co-operating for this purpose. This necessitates a considerable curtailment of non-essential services, and the Government is satisfied that it can look confidently to the public cheerfully to put up with these restrictions. I should also like to add that our self-governing Dominions and India are rendering in this matter the most prompt and patriotic cooperation.

    SURGICAL APPLIANCES.
    Mr. HUGH LAWasked the Under-Secretary of. State for War whether he is aware that certain of the surgical appliances issued to wounded soldiers in this country and in Ireland are inferior to those supplied in similar cases by the Governments of the Dominions; and whether steps will be taken to level up the quality of such appliances to the Colonial standard?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware that wounded soldiers in this country and Ireland are supplied with surgical appliances inferior to those supplied by the Dominion Governments. Perhaps the hon. Member would kindly furnish me with more precise details, when I will, if necessary, have the matter further inquired into.

    TYPHOID FEVER TEST.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether Professor Dreyer's agglutination test for typhoid fever and other diseases has been officially adopted by the Medical Department of the War Office and used in

    1635
    military hospitals; and whether the statistics published regarding the number of cases of typhoid fever among the troops are based on the results of that test?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Professor Dreyer's agglutination test is officially recognised for those bacteriologists who wish to use it. The statistics published are based on the reports of bacteriologists, who may or may not use this test.

    KINGSTON TRIBUNAL (COMPLAINTS).
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Under-Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to the complaints at Kingston Tribunal that men in categories B 2, B 3, C 2, and C 3 are being called up and then sent home, thereby in many cases losing their employment; and whether it is proposed to take any steps to avoid unnecessary hardship in this respect?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry that I am not yet in a position to answer this question, but I will send an answer to my hon. Friend as soon as I have the necessary information.

    AIR RAIDS (LONDON DEFENCES).
    Mr. LYNCHasked whether the defences of London have the advantage of an efficient range-finder against Zeppelins; and, if so, why it has not been used effectively?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, Sir; these defences are provided with an efficient range-finder, and it has been used effectively, but its use does not in itself guarantee that targets will be hit.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is not that the very test of the efficiency of a range-finder, and is it not a fact that a range-finder could be provided which would inevitably result in any Zeppelin flying over London being brought down by the guns?

    AIRCRAFT RAIDS AND BOMBARDMENTS.
    Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider the
    1636
    question of making the payment for damage to private property from enemy ships and aircraft a national charge, so that the localities not affected should bear their share of the loss suffered by the less fortunately situated places, particularly having regard to the fact that the increased prosperity of the places not affected is largely owing to the misfortunes of the places affected?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No. Sir. This question has been very carefully examined, and I am not prepared to reconsider it.

    BLOCKADE OF GERMANY (FERTILISERS).
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have taken effective steps to prevent Germany obtaining through the Blockade via neutral countries supplies of fertilisers; and whether he can give the statistics of the imports of fertilisers into Holland and the Scandinavian countries for the first nine months of this year, as compared with the average prewar import into those countries, less exports to enemy count vies?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the imports for the first nine months of this year were, in round numbers, 362,000 tons, as compared with a normal prewar import for the same period, less export to enemy countries, of 635,000 tons.

  ARMENIAN MASSACRES.

    STATEMENT BY LORD R. CECIL.
    Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have lately received any reports or information other than matter already published regarding the treatment accorded to the Armenian inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire during the present War?
    Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government have lately received information from a reliable source which gives much detailed evidence in regard to the systematic cruelties and outrages which have been

    1637
    inflicted on masses of Armenians who have been deported from their homes-. The evidence goes to show that the Turkish officials have had recourse to various methods in order to exterminate these unfortunate people, that is, by famine, deliberate exposure to infectious disease, forced marches of aged men and women and young children, and, lastly, by massacres of gangs of labourers on pretext of insubordination.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Would the right hon. Gentleman have that information printed and circulated?
    Lord R. CECIL: I will consider that. I think it will be possible, and I will certainly do it if it is.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask the Noble Lord if he can trace any remonstrance by the German authorities against these massacres of the Armenians by the Turkish authorities?
    Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir. As far as I know, no remonstrance has been made of any sort or kind.
    Mr. O'CONNOR: Am I not right in saving that these massacres and other measures have been defended in official utterances in the German Reichstag?
    Lord R. CECIL: I believe that they have been so defended, and there is no doubt whatever that the German Government had power to stop these outrages if they had chosen to do so, but they did not.

    BEE KEEPING (MEDICATED SUGAR).
    Sir WALTER ESSEXasked the hon. Member for Wilton, as representing the Food Controller, whether he has completed arrangements enabling beekeepers to procure medicated sugar for the immediate winter feeding of bees, and will he say what steps he is taking to make public this provision?
    Captain BATHURST: The Royal Commission on the Sugar Supply have arranged to grant a quantity of sugar in all not to exceed fifty tons for the purpose of feeding bees in the United Kingdom. Such sugar will only be available in the form of bee candy. Its proper use will be safeguarded by medication under the advice of the Bee Experts of the Board of Agriculture, and its manufacture and
    1638
    sale have been undertaken for the Departments concerned by Messrs. Sydney Pas-call and Sons, Limited, Blackfriars, to whom all applications, whether from persons in the trade or private individuals, should be addressed.

    CORK PALACE THEATRE.
    Mr. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received any report as to a commotion recently at the Cork Palace Theatre when a play entitled, "An Irish lead" was produced; whether this play and several of its incidents were of a nature offensive to Roman Catholics, who formed the bulk of the audience; and whether in the demonstration of resentment that took place on the occasion there was not, in fact, any manifestation of Sinn Fein or disloyalty shown?
    Mr. DUKE: I have received reports as to the occurrence mentioned in the question. I am informed that the incident in question seemed to be a pre-concerted demonstration against the representation on the stage of incidents of religious observances. I have not sufficient information to enable me to say whether there was a political motive in the demonstration.
    Mr. R. MCNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this play shortly before had been given, by request, at a Catholic institution, and had been received with much favour?
    Mr. DUKE: I have some information on that subject, but I believe the fact is that the communications which took place between the representatives of a religious body, such as my hon. Friend mentions, and those who were responsible for the play came to nothing.
    Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been publicly denied that any presentation took place of the kind suggested?
    Mr. DUKE: That does not at all conflict with the answer I gave.
    Mr. MCNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that it has been publicly asserted?
    Mr. DUKE: There are few matters of public interest in Ireland on which there are not public assertions on both sides.
    Major NEWMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this play was produced at the Cork Opera House without any disturbance at all?
    Mr. DUKE: It may be so; but, if I may say so respectfully, the number of questions addressed to this topic greatly transcends its importance.
    Mr. T. M. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman also include newspaper paragraphs?

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked whether, in view of the extent of untenanted land held by the Congested Districts Board, steps will be taken to provide Jeremiah D. Shea, Rossmore, Tahilla, county Kerry, whose application has been frequently placed before the Board, with a suitable holding?
    Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board inform me that there is no untenanted land upon the estate which includes the holding of Jeremiah Shea, nor in the neighbourhood, available for providing a new holding for him.
    Mr. DORISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) what steps the Congested Districts Board have taken to acquire the congested estate of Mr. J. H. Peyton, near Castlebar, county Mayo; is he aware of the poverty-stricken condition of the tenants of this property; when, approximately, the Board hope to be able to afford them relief by compulsory sale or otherwise; and (2) if he is aware of the hardship and public dissatisfaction caused by the suspension of land purchase in the congested districts; and whether the Congested Districts Board and the Treasury will resume negotiations for purchase at least of the few small properties in West Mayo which are surrounded by purchased estates and the landlords of which have expressed their willingness to sell to the Board on reasonable terms?
    Mr. DUKE: The question of the resumption of land purchase will come before the Congested Districts Board at their next meeting.

    Science Teaching (Ireland).
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether, in view
    1640
    of the fact that the alleged legal obstacle of dispensing with a general written examination in science has been successfully surmounted for fifteen years by the Intermediate Education Board, and has only lately been discovered by that Board to be unsurmountable, he will ask the Board to try whether a way of getting over it or around it may again be found, and thereby save the schools from the upset caused by the Board's action; whether he will bear in mind that this action is condemned on educational grounds by the Government authority chiefly concerned with science education in Ireland; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the terms of the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1900, whereby power is given to the Intermediate Board to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations contained in the general summary of the Report of the Intermediate Education Commission of 1899; and whether in view of the specific recommendations of that Commission making a capitation Grant payable on the school roll and not on individual pupils, and that a method of distribution should be followed in which the dominant factor should be not the answering of each individual pupil, but the general efficiency of the school, he will state on what grounds the Board contends that it is now legally bound to institute a system of written examinations in science after a lapse of fifteen years?
    Mr. DUKE: With regard to the Report mentioned in the second of the hon. Member's questions, the recommendation made was that "a public general examination of students should be retained as a basis of calculation of the school Grant, but that this examination should not be competitive." The Board regard this as entirely consistent with the course they propose. I have been in communication with the Board as to the mode they will pursue in introducing what they regard as an improved system of examination inclusive of answers to written questions, and I think it will be found that the Board will proceed in a manner which will involve the least possible disturbance of proper arrangements now existing?
    Mr. BOLAND: In consequence of the Chief Secretary's reply not being completely satisfactory, I shall raise the matter on the Appropriation Bill this afternoon.

    Mail Transit (Dublin).
    Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Postmaster-General whether he is yet in a position to state the result of his negotiations with the Great Southern and Western Railway Company with reference to expediting the transit of the mails between Amiens Street and Kingsbridge; whether he will draw the attention of the directors of that company to the statement made by the chairman of the line at the meeting of the company on the 15th February, 1896, when the question of the acquisition and construction of the Drumcondra link line, which cost £400,000, was being discussed, that its construction would enable the company to run the distance from Kingstown to Inchicore in little more than half the time then occupied, and also to the speech of the chairman to the shareholders on the 8th August, 1896, when he repeated the same statement and commented adversely on the time consumed between Kingstown and Kings-bridge, and whether he will say what improvement has been yet produced by the expenditure of the £400,000?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: It is not probable that we shall be able to obtain a definite reply from the company at present. The statement attributed to the chairman of the company in 1896 was made to the shareholders and not to the Postmaster-General. It does not come within the province of the Postmaster-General to criticise a railway company's expenditure.

    Telephone Service (Delays).
    Mr. HOUSTONasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the interference and injury to business, in many instances Government business, and delays and exasperation caused to users of telephones by the carelessness and inefficiency of his Department; and will he take immediate measures to remedy this great and growing evil?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: I cannot admit the hon. Member's strictures. Every effort is made to maintain the efficiency of the telephone service and to check any tendency to carelessness on the part of the employés. Of course the pressure of war conditions is being felt here, as everywhere.
    Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability that all unnaturalised Germans should have their telephones disconnected and be denied telephonic facilities?

    Justices of the Peace (Scotland).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he proposes to adopt any new methods of dealing with the rota of justices of the peace in Scotland whereby the presence of justices arbitrarily selected by the clerks is constantly called for, while the others on the roll are correspondingly neglected; and whether he will insist that all clerks to justices will call all in turn to serve?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): As my hon. and learned Friend has frequently been informed, the control of the matters referred to rests with the justices themselves, and any complaint regarding the arrangements for the constitution of their Courts should be addressed to the justices of the jurisdiction concerned.

    Town Planning Act (Bristol).
    Mr. O'GRADYasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he has received a resolution from the Avon-mouth and Shirehampton Householders' Association, Bristol area, calling attention to the need of housing, and requesting that the Town Planning Act should be applied to meet the need; and whether, having regard to the necessity of a large number of workpeople living within easy reach of the docks, steps will be taken to meet the request of the association?
    Mr. BECK: I understand that the Local Government Board have not received any such resolution, but that it is proposed to send one of the inspectors of the Department to Bristol at an early date to make some further investigation into the housing question.

    Boldon Colliery (Overcrowding).
    Mr. T. RICHARDSONasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he has yet received the information promised locally to the medical inspector of his Department re overcrowding at Boldon Colliery; if so, what is the nature of the information supplied; and what action his Department propose to take to remedy the evil complained of?
    Mr. BECK: The information referred to has been received, and it shows that a considerable amount of overcrowding exists

    1643
    at Boldon Colliery, an evil which, unfortunately, exists to a high degree in many of the Durham districts. In view of the necessary restrictions on capital expenditure, the provision of additional houses at the present time does not seem practicable, but I understand that the Local Government Board will communicate with the local authorities with a view to the consideration of the question of providing houses as soon as possible after the War.
    Mr. WARDLE: Is it not possible to build some huts?
    Mr. BECK: I will represent that to my right hon. Friend.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Resolved, "That this House do sit tomorrow."—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]
  Ordered, "That the remaining stages of the War Loan Bill may be taken immediately after the Bill has been read a second time, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill."—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer.]

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
  Order read for resumed adjourned Debate on Question proposed [20th December] on consideration of Lords Amendments, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. James Hope.]
  Question again proposed; Debate resumed.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Continuation of Possession of Land Occupied for the Purposes of the Defence of the Realm.)
    (1) Where, during the course or within the week, immediately preceding the commencement of the present War, possession has been taken of any land by or on behalf of any Government Department for purposes connected with the present War, whether in exercise of any prerogative right of His Majesty, or of any powers conferred by or under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm, or by agreement, or otherwise, it shall be lawful for the Government Department in possession (hereinafter referred to as the occupying department), after, the termination of the present War, to continue in possession of the land for such period, not exceeding two years from such termination. as the occupying department may consider necessary or expedient, and, if on application being made to the Railway and Canal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) not less than six months before the expiration of such two years the Commission consent thereto, for such further period, not exceeding five years from the expiration of
    1668
    such two years, as the Commission may consider necessary or expedient in the national interest.
    (2) Whilst any land so continues in the possession of any occupying department, the Department may for the purposes of the public service exercise in relation. thereto all such powers as were during the continuance of the War exercisable in) relation thereto for the purposes of the defence of the realm, subject, however as respects the power to close public high ways, to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section six, and, as respects the power of removal of buildings and works, to the provisions of the next following Section.
    (3) The occupying department shall pay such rent in respect of any land which continues in their possession, and such continuance shall be upon and subject to such terms and conditions, as to compensation or otherwise (including compensation for any depreciation attributable to works and buildings not removed) as, failing agreement, shall be determined by the Commission.
    (4) The occupying department may transfer possession of any land to the Admiralty or Army Council or the Minister of Munitions, and upon such a transfer being made the Department to whom possession is transferred shall be deemed to be the occupying department.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "exercise"["exercise of any prerogative right of His Majesty"], insert the words "or purported exercise."—Agreed to.
    After the word "lawful"["it shall be lawful for the Government Department in possession"], insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act."—Agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: "In Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "five"["not exceeding five years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. DUNDAS WHITE: I would like to ask the Minister of Munitions or the Home Secretary for some explanation why the House is asked to accept this shortening of the time. I remember when the Bill was before the House that both these right hon. Gentlemen were in favour of the total period being seven years. There

    1669
    was an Amendment similar to this one moved from this side of the House, but it was resisted by these identical Gentlemen who are in charge of the Bill. If we are asked to go back upon that decision, I would rather like to know the reasons. The reasons for having seven years as the total period were given very fully when the Bill was under discussion in this House, and at least some explanation should be given why we are asked to go back upon that decision.
    The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Addison): The hon. Member will remember, when this question was before this House, we were pressed more than once to reduce this period, and we then made certain alterations in the Bill. During the interval before it reached the other place, seeing that the pressure was likely to be continued, the Department went over the whole matter again, with a view of considering what was the minimum period to which they could assent, and the conclusion come to was that it might be three years. On that account we gave way to the pressure.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "the next following Section," and insert instead thereof the words "Section two," and at the end insert,
    "Provided that—

    (a) If the exercise of any such powers causes the pollution, abstraction, or diversion of water or the-emission of noxious fumes to such an extent that if exercise of such powers had not been authorised by this Act persons interested in adjoining or neighbouring land would have been entitled to restrain the exercise thereof, any person who would have been so entitled shall be entitled to such compensation in respect of any loss occasioned by such pollution, abstraction, diversion, or emission during the period of occupation under this Section as, failing agreement may be determined in manner provided by this Act; and

    (b) nothing in this Section shall be construed as depriving any person of any right to recover damages in respect of any injury to property caused by accident due to the exercise of any such powers as aforesaid."

    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a privilege Amendment, because it imposes a new charge, but it can be made with the assent of the House.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Perhaps when I explain the nature of the Amendment the House will agree to allow it to be made. During the period of five years for which possession may be retained, damage may be done to property taken in this manner by smoke or other causes and the effect of this proposal is to enable compensation to be paid for such damage done during that time. A desire was expressed in another place that this proposal, which is not an unusual one, should be introduced and I hope, therefore, that this House will agree to accept it.
    Mr. WHITE: I hope that the House will not take that course. As Mr. Speaker has pointed out, this is a privilege Amendment, I need not make any comment on that point. But the Home Secretary has explained that this applies not merely to land which has been taken, but to any damage which may be suffered by adjoining owners by reason of the various causes mentioned in this Section. I would like the House to recognise—indeed, I am sure it does-—that wherever a nuisance is created—and I would take the case of a smoke nuisance as typical for purposes of illustration—wherever such a nuisance is created the parties prejudiced have a remedy at common law. They have a remedy on the ground that it is a public nuisance, and an action would lie for damages for a private nuisance in addition to that. There are certain powers under the Public Health Acts and various other Acts with which I heed not trouble the House, but in point of fact, not only in common law, but by statutory legislation, there are ample provisions for dealing with cases of smoke nuisance and the other nuisances enumerated. The real sting of this Amendment is to be found in the end of it. It is to give these particular people whose land may not be taken a mode of remedy against a Government Department which they would not have against an ordinary factory owner. In other words, it gives them an alternative and an additional remedy in seeking damage for the

    1671
    nuisance by putting into motion the Lands Clauses Acts, which were never intended for that purpose at all. On this point of compensation for nuisance I maintain there should be the same law for all. There should be the same right against the Government factory for a smoke nuisance as against any other factory. The House will agree, I am sure, that if it were proposed in the event of any smoke nuisance anyone suffering damage should have power to put the Lands Clauses Act into motion and go to the Railway and Canal Commission the whole country would be up against it. I quite agree that where a Government factory causes a nuisance the Department should be liable in the same way as the owner of a private factory. I have no doubt it is so liable, and will be so under this Bill when it becomes law. If that be not the case, then I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to make it clear that that is the intension of the Government. But I do suggest that there should not be any remedy in these cases which is not open to all who suffer damage. That seems to be very desirable, and all the more so when one considers that as a result of the other Amendments, which, of 'course, I cannot now discuss, the matter will not have to be decided merely by the Railway and Canal Commission, but in some cases by an arbitrator. I hope, therefore, the Government will reconsider their decision on this point.
    Mr. SHERWELL: As one who took great interest in this Bill when it was before this House, I wish to say I cannot associate myself with the protest just uttered by the hon. and learned Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Dundas White). The right hon. Gentleman, in accepting this Amendment, has fulfilled both in the spirit and in the letter the undertaking which he gave to this House on this matter, after a prolonged debate, when he promised that it should be considered in another place. Although my hon. Friend has fastened upon one point only, there are other points which are of far greater importance in connection with questions of pollution and abstraction, and I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to his suggestion that the Lords Amendment be agreed with.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made by the Clerk at the Table to the effect that the House has agreed to waive its rights with regard to this Amendment.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (3), at the end, leave out the words "by the Commission," and insert instead thereof the words
    "in manner provided by this Act, and in determining such compensation regard may be had to any loss suffered by the temporary severance of the land occupied from other land occupied therewith immediately before the time when possession was taken by the occupying Department or by reason of such other land being otherwise injuriously affected by the exercise of the powers conferred by this Section, and in determining the rent payable under this provision regard shall be had to the like considerations as are set out in paragraph 6 of the Schedule to this Act with respect to the determination of compensation payable for land acquired under this Act."
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is also a privilege Amendment, because it imposes a new charge.
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This proposal partly imposes a charge-and partly reduces it. The first part of it provides for what is well known in legal phraseology as compensation for loss by severance of land from other land occupied therewith which is thereby injuriously affected. In these cases compensation is provided for by the law, but I say frankly I think it is equitable that this charge should be made. This Amendment will provide a remedy which, in my opinion, it was an omission to provide in the Bill. It will provide that in determining the rent regard shall be had to the considerations set out in Schedule 2. But where a piece of land is taken and a building is put up by the State, the owner will not be entitled to claim rent for the buildings put up by the State. It is only fair that the one thing should be set oft against the other.
    Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I hope the House will not agree with the other House in this Resolution. This particular Amendment raises some most important-issues on which the other House has taken

    1673
    a directly opposite view to the one accepted by this House. In point of fact, if this Amendment is agreed to, we entirely alter the structure of the Bill, both as it was submitted by the late Government and as it passed through this House. I take objection to the very commencement of this Amendment, in which it proposes that the word "Commission" shall be left out, and the words "in the manner provided by this Act" substituted for it. That, of course, simply means that all the procedure that we deliberately adopted when the Bill was before the House of Commons for making the acquisition of land under this Act easy, simple, and inexpensive has been put on the scrap heap, and this particular provision brings the whole operation of the acquisition of land under the Lands Clauses Acts, with the methods of arbitration and compensation therein provided. It would be out of order for me to discuss the particular procedure now incorporated in this Bill for assessing compensation.
    I hope to do that at a later stage, but I may be in order if I point out that this particular Amendment only applies to land which is under tenancy. The same method of procedure is applied in subsequent stages of these Amendments to land that is compulsorily secured. Where any financial obligations are imposed, in point of fact the Commission, under the original structure of the Bill, was to be the authority for assessing compensation, and the amount to be paid for the acquisition of the land, but instead of that the powers of the Commission are taken away, and its sole duty will be to act as a legal tribunal to hear cases on appeal on such points of law as may be submitted to it. By the substitution of these words in the first part of the Amendment for the word "Commission," you deprive the Commission of the powers originally assigned to them to decide many other matters. This most important one, where it was proposed that a portion only of the property should be taken, was left in the discretion of the Commissioners to say whether the Government should acquire the portion or the whole of the property. But that power it is now proposed to take from them, and you are setting up a particular tribunal under this scheme to which will be given the whole discretion of deciding whether the State must take a small portion of a factory or an estate or the whole of the
    1674
    factory or estate. It is also proposed to deprive the Commissioners of the power of fixing the amount of compensation to be paid for the part of the estate that may be taken.
    As to the second part of the Amendment, which the Home Secretary so dexterously described as introducing a quite harmless proposition, if one may judge from the language he used, in point of fact he has introduced by his Amendment one of the most deadly instruments for reviving the fictitious system of fixing compensation which formerly existed. When setting up the doctrine of payment for severance, and the doctrine of payment for damage, the Home Secretary, or the other House, had only to introduce one other doctrine so dear to compensation surveyors, namely, the doctrine of special adaptability, to bring into operation again those powers which enabled landowners in past times to render it impossible for railway companies to pay a dividend. Just consider what this amounts to. Severance! Just consider the ingenious claim for compensation that may be built up on the doctrine of severance. The Minister for Munitions, we will say, has gone to one of the big works and has said, "We want to put an additional wing to your building because we desire to make some special shells." They do that at the expense of the Ministry of Munitions. Then the question arises that the State desires to take possession of the land on which they have built this factory, which they have equipped for this especial purpose. What does the surveyor who is instructed to act for the owner of the factory say? He says, "It is not only a question of paying for the value of the land on which this wing has been set up, but you are going to sever this from our factory, and, if you do that, you destroy the value of our factory." These gentlemen always do discover, in such cases, that this particular wing of the factory is indispensable to the carrying on of the business. Though they may have been in business for a hundred years before that they will say, "If you take this one wing of our factory we had better close down our business, and our £1,500,000 of capital will be so much waste paper." Then, solemnly and seriously, an army of surveyors will give evidence to the same effect, and the arbitrator, being a surveyor himself and knowing what severance means, will take a purely technical

    1675
    view of it. He will not take that simple, ingenuous view which, in cooing terms, the Home Secretary suggested to the House. Not a bit of it! He will not take the view such as would be taken by an ordinary man who is not a technical expert, and who would say this will not do any harm. He will say that this is actual severance, and that severance is a very serious matter. You will find that in nine cases out of ten a considerable sum will be awarded for severance, when from the ordinary, plain, common-sense standpoint no damage whatever is done.
    I will not multiply the instances. It is easy to see how the doctrine of severance can be made a very deadly one. For instance, say that the military authorities have put up an encampment in a park. The landowner allowed them to do it, probably invited them to do it, and was glad that they should do it. He had no ulterior motives of any kind, and only desired to serve his country. What does the doctrine of severance mean? That the military authorities may have cut off the mansion house from the park, or the mansion house from the home farm. That does not seem to be a very important matter to the House of Commons, but when an army of technical experts get to work and begin to assess the loss by reason of this severance they will find that it amounts to a considerable sum of money. This is not the way we should go to work. I think that these Noble Lords in the other House are the greatest enemies that exist in this country to the real rights of property. They are not the fair representatives of the landowners of this country. I know a great deal about the landowners of this Country, and I have had a good deal to do with them during the War. The great majority of them have placed their parks and estates gladly and willingly at the service of the nation without the slightest idea of making any profit out of it. Then these half-dozen Noble Lords, curbing the enthusiasm of their patriotism by personal pecuniary motives, have stepped in and, in the name of the great landowners of this country, make a ridiculous proposition of this kind. I am satisfied that if any notions of this sort were submitted to the great landowners they would repudiate them with scorn and contempt. The doctrine of severance is a most dangerous and -deadly one and ought not to be intro-
    1676
    duced in this connection at all. I do not want to Weary the House, because I feel quite satisfied that I have only to state the matter in two or three sentences to carry all reasonable and intelligent men with them. It is no good going on to flog the subject after the fallacy of the argument has been clearly exposed. So far as I am concerned, I will not assent to this proposal, and if I can get any hon. Member to tell with me in the Lobby against this Amendment I will divide the House upon it. Although in this particular Amendment we are only dealing with matters of tenancy, which may not be a serious thing in itself, the same principle is applied in later Amendments to the acquisition of land. If you are going to introduce the doctrine of severance and the doctrine of damage to adjoining land, you will make the process of the acquisition of land so costly that it will cease to be of any benefit to the State.
    I have only one other point to raise, that is in regard to damage to adjoining land. I really think it is a species of insult to introduce that into a Bill of this kind. Does anybody seriously suggest that because for the purposes of the War a nobleman has given up a portion of his park for an Army encampment or for the purposes of putting up temporary buildings for munition work, that he wants to be paid for the damage done to adjoining land during the term of the War? That is what it means. All sorts-of claims will be made under that heading. Obviously, if a man has had a munition factory put up in his park for the purposes of the War, it destroys all the amenities of the estate, it makes the adjoining land less desirable for high-class residences, and it probably interferes-to a considerable extent with the enjoyment of the sport in connection with the estate. It may be that the munition workers will have an eye to game as well as the owner of the estate. It will mean, in a dozen different ways, to whatever amount, that the damage to the adjoining land will be a very serious item. It is perfectly right and proper that any man who lends his property, or any portion of his estate for military purposes during the War, should have the land restored to its original condition at the end of the War. It would be quite possible to pay a fair ground rent for the land occupied, but to say that, in addition to the damage being made good and

    1677
    a fair rent being paid, he should receive, under the solemn process of a Lands Clauses arbitration an award by an arbitrator after listening to the evidence of experts, compensation for the damage done by the occupation of his land for the purposes of the War is not fair. I know what the answer of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench will be. They will say that it is not intended to make any ridiculous claim of this sort, but that all that is intended is that in a particularly hard case, where there is a real severance by which considerable damage has been done to the tenancy of the adjoining land, power shall be given to the arbitrator to assess some compensation. That is not what in practice will take place. Once this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament it passes out of the hands of the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on that Bench. The Courts laugh at the suggestion that anything Cabinet Ministers say has any real bearing on the construction of an Act of Parliament. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and this tribunal is set up, experts will go to work in the usual way. I know what the usual way is. I have been there a hundred times myself. If I were twenty years younger and engaged in the usual practice I should very likely look upon this Bill as a means of securing a handsome competence for my old age. This means that absolutely unnecessary expenses will be incurred in costs and that the landowners will receive large sums of money beyond anything that is reasonable or anything that they would expect.
    I am sorry to trouble the House at such length on the subject, but this Amendment in particular raises the whole question. Having carefully examined the Bill, I say that the other House has altogether altered the whole structure of the measure, and that the Bill will not be worth the paper upon which it is printed. Any Government Department could go and make better terms without this Bill at all. This would be a disastrous Amendment, and I would rather that the Government should withdraw the measure than accept it. I do not believe the Prime Minister could have seen this Bill. I have differed from the Prime Minister on land questions more than once, but I did so because he has been the man who wanted, as I thought, to impose hardships upon
    1678
    landowners, and I have been the man who stood up for the landowners. I could not stand up for any such scheme as this. I happen to be, in a small way, a landowner myself, but I believe that this kind of legislation and the kind of Amendments that have been put in this Bill by the other House are just the kind of thing that does the greatest injury to the land-owning classes of this country. Of one thing I am quite certain—in the present stage of civilisation no man can hold land unless he does so with due regard to-the interests of the community. To introduce such principles as these is to make the ownership of land almost indefensible.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I sincerely hope that we shall have some reply from the Government to the exceedingly weighty speech of my hon. Friend (Sir Tudor Walters). I confess to some surprise that the Government, which has sincerely—I am quite prepared to say sincerely—been called into existence with the object of greater celerity in business and the more expeditious achievement of public ends, should almost inaugurate its career by adopting an Amendment of this kind. I would remind the House that in regard to important matters of compensation, where the rights of private ownership or of private privilege or amenity have been invaded, it has been one of the characteristics of the Executive since this war to have all such private claims settled and adjusted by an expeditious machinery which is something new in the public life of this country. When one reviews the number of most important private interests that have been summarily referred to the War Losses Commission, it is extremely difficult to understand why a single form of property, interest in land, should be referred to an extremely complex form of machinery. I have regarded with considerable misgiving the countenance which the Government has given to the Amendments introduced in this Bill in another place, inasmuch as I believe that the consequences will be so serious, and that not merely the financial consequences, but the social consequences of this particular Amendment will be so much more serious in future that I would earnestly appeal to the Government to-respond to the arguments brought forward by my hon. Friend, and accept his suggestion that we should disagree with the Lords Amendment.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: We are told in the Memorandum to the Bill that
    "The main object of this Bill is to protect the State against loss arising from the fact that in the emergency created by the war"
    it has been necessary for certain Departments to do certain things. The effect and intention of the series of Amendments put in by the Lords is to inflict loss on the State instead of to protect it. I protest against action of that kind, and if my hon. Friend goes into the Division Lobby I shall be very glad to tell with him. This Bill has been turned upside down. Its machinery is made more expensive and less facile than it was in the original Bill. The Government ought rather to withdraw the Bill than accept these Amendments.
    Sir G. CAVE: I should like to reply to the speeches which have been made. I hope the House will look at the matter coolly. I think I am entitled to my opinion. The House knows very well that in introducing and carrying through this House this particular Bill I was subject to a good deal of comment, which I cheerfully bore. I went entirely on the principle that commended itself to the House that in this matter the interests of the State must come first. If we want land for defensive purposes we must have it. On the other hand, I always said, and I think the House accepted it, that where injury was done we ought to pay for it. I want the House, notwithstanding what I am going to say in a moment, to bear that in mind in connection with other Amendments as well as this. May I suggest what I think might fairly be done to meet the arguments of the hon. Members who have spoken? The Amendment really is threefold. First, there is the part to leave out the words "by the Commission" and insert "in manner provided by this Act." In my view that makes no change at all in the Bill. It is a pure drafting Amendment, because you must read this Clause in conjunction with Clause 8, which in the Bill as it left this House provides that all questions of compensation are to be determined, if both parties so wish, by arbitration, or, if one party so wishes, by the final referees. I do not think these words make any change at all in the Bill. Take next the first part of the Amendment—in determining the rent under this Section regard shall be had to paragraphs 6 and 7.
    1680
    That means that in determining the rent to be paid during the five years the landowner is not to charge rent for the buildings which have been put up by the State.
    An HON. MEMBER: That is already provided.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is nowhere provided, and we ought to keep those words. The central part of the Amendment provides for compensation for injurious effects. I am very anxious to maintain harmony. Of course, this Amendment only applies to the temporary occupation for five years of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions, who is in charge of the Bill, and I suggest that we should disagree with that part of the Amendment. If someone will move to leave out from the Amendment the words "and in determining such compensation regard may be had to any loss suffered by the temporary severance of the land occupied from other land occupied therewith immediately before the time when possession was taken by the occupying Department or by reason of such other land being otherwise injuriously affected by the exercise of the powers conferred by this Section," we will accept the Amendment.
    Mr. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman ask leave to withdraw the proposal to agree?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): On a point of Order. Would it be possible, the Question having been put "That the House doth agree," to add at the end of the Question "with the omission of these words"?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think the best plan would be to negative the Motion to agree, and then to propose the addition of the words to which no objection is taken.
    Question, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Sir T. WALTERS: I beg to move, in lieu of the Lords Amendment disagreed with, after the words "by the Commission," to insert the words
    "in manner provided by this Act, and in determining the rent payable under this provision regard shall be had to the like considerations as are set out in paragraph 6 of the Schedule to this Act with respect to the determination of compensation payable for land acquired under this Act."
    Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. MOLTENO: Even now I think there is very great objection to accepting this portion of the Lords Amendment. It takes away the last shred of power from the Commission. When the Act was first introduced I drew attention to the fact that a new body was to be empowered to deal with questions which might arise under this Act. I moved an Amendment which was negatived, and we were left to the Railway and Canal Commission. As matters now stand, if we pass the Amendment in its present form, the last shred of power of the Railway and Canal Commission is absolutely taken from it, and there is nothing for that Commission to do now but to assent to the finding of a referee. It has absolutely no judicial function whatever in regard to this Act. It takes away all discretion from the Commission and hands over the entire settlement of compensation to a referee. We all know what that means. We know what it means to have a land agent as referee settling compensation for landowners. It means that we are going to have repeated over again what we have always had when you have called in these referees. It means unlimited compensation for landowners. I have every desire that fair and proper compensation should be given to landowners where any damage has been suffered. But if this passes you will hand over the power not to any public body, but to a set of private individuals called a panel, and you deliberately take away from the Commission the right to disagree in any way with what the referee may do. It is a most extraordinary consequence of this Amendment. Every judicial function which this Commission might exercise will be taken away from it if we pass this Amendment. Therefore, I object to it even in its attenuated form. We ought to retain some shred of power to a Commission which ought to deal with the whole of it.
    Dr. ADDISON: I suggest that the point raised by my hon. Friend properly arises when we get to Clause 8. These words simply say "in manner provided by this Act." If the Lords Amendments to Clause 8 are disagreed with, these words would be in their right and proper place. The objection, therefore, should be raised when we come to Clause 8.
    Amendment agreed to in lieu of the Lords Amendment disagreed with.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power to Remove Buildings and Works.)
    (1) Whilst any land of which possession has been so taken is in the possession of an occupying department after the termination of the present War, any building or other work which for purposes connected with the present War has been erected or constructed on, over or under the land wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or, with the consent of the occupying department, at the expense of some person not being a person interested in the land may he removed, without the consent of any person interested in the land, by the occupying department, or, with the consent of the occupying department, by the person at whose expense it was erected or constructed, any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding:
    Provided that—

    (a) where the building or work was erected or constructed partly at the expense of a person interested in the land; or

    (b) where in pursuance of an agreement with a Government Department any person interested in the land is entitled to the benefit of or to prohibit the removal of the building or work;

    this provision shall not authorise the removal of that building or work during the continuance of such interest in the land without the consent of that person or the persons deriving title under him:
    Provided also that where under any agreement a Government Department is entitled to remove any such building or work nothing in this Section shall prejudice the rights of the Department or any other person under the agreement.
    (2) Where any building or work has been removed under the powers conferred by this Section the occupying department shall cause the land to be restored to the condition in which it was before the building or work was erected or constructed or shall, if the persons interested in the land agree or the Commission consent, instead of so restoring the land, pay such compensation in respect of the depreciation (if any) in the value of the land attributable to the disturbance of the soil

    1683
    as in default of agreement may be determined by the Commission:
    (3) Where any such buildings or works have been erected or constructed upon any common, open space, or allotment the building or work shall be removed and the land restored as aforesaid, except so far as the local authority certifies that such removal or restoration is not required in the interests of the persons interested in the land or the public.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "by the Commission"["may be determined by the Commission"], and insert instead thereof the words "in manner provided by this Act."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "except so far as the local authority certifies that such removal or restoration is not required in the interests of the persons interested in the land or the public," and insert instead thereof the words "except in such cases and to such extent as the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries on the application of the occupying department may by order declare that such removal and restoration is not required in the interests of the persons interested in the land or the public.
    Provided that before any such order is made the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries shall give the local authority or board of conservators (if any) in which is vested the management of the common, open space, or allotment, and any other local authority interested, an opportunity of being heard, and that before any such order comes into effect a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of thirty days on which that House has sat, and if either of those Houses before the expiration of that period presents an address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon without prejudice to the making of a new draft order."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Power to Acquire Land Permanently)
    (1) It shall be lawful to acquire by agreement or compulsorily on behalf of His Majesty—

    (a) any land in the possession of an occupying department or any interest in such land;

    1684

    (b) any land on over or under which any buildings, works or improvements have, for purposes connected with the present War, been erected, constructed, or made wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or any interest in such land;

    (5) For the purposes of the acquisition of land and interests therein under this Section, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule to this Act, shall be incorporated with this Act.
    Lords Amendments:
    In sub-section (1), at the beginning, insert the words "Subject to the provisions of this Act."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (5), at end, insert the words "but nothing in such modifications shall affect any right to compensation under the Lands Clauses Acts in respect of the severance of the land acquired from other land belonging to the same owner, or by reason of such other land being otherwise injuriously affected by the exercise of the powers of user thereof conferred by this Act."—Disagreed with.

    CLAUSE 4.—(User of Land Acquired.)
    Any land which, or an interest in which, has been acquired under this Act may be used by any Government Department for the purpose for which it was used during the War or for any other purpose for which it could have been used had the land been acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903, notwithstanding that such user could, but for this provision, have been restrained as being in contravention of any covenant or for any other reason, and no person interested in any adjoining or neighbouring land shall be entitled to restrain such user; but if, apart from this provision, he would have been entitled to restrain such user he shall, if application for the purpose is made within three years after the date of the acquisition of the land under this Act or after the commencement of the user causing the depreciation, whichever may be the later, be entitled to such compensation as the Commission may think just:
    Provided that—

    (a) no compensation other than compensation in respect to a breach of a restrictive covenant shall be payable if the land is used by a Government

    1685
    Department for a purpose for which it could have been used had the land been acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903; and

    (b) where such compensation is claimed in respect of any land, the Department may require the claimant to sell the land or his interest therein at such price as would have been proper if the value of the land had not been so depreciated, such price in default of agreement to be determined in like manner as if the land had been acquired under Section three of this Act; and

    (c) nothing in this Section shall be construed as depriving any person of any right to recover damages in respect of any injury to property caused by accident due to such user as aforesaid; and

    (d) nothing in this Section shall affect the liability of any person in respect of any contravention of the Alkali, etc., Works Regulation Act, 1906, or the Rivers Pollution Acts, 1876 and 1893, or of any local Act dealing with the like matters, or affect the powers conferred by any Act, whether public, general, or local, on any local authority, board of conservancy, or other public authority, with respect to the prevention of the pollution of rivers, or the abatement of nuisances caused by the emission of smoke or other noxious fumes.

    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), leave out the word "provision"["but for this provision"], and insert instead thereof the word"Act."—Agreed to.
    After the word "land"["adjoining or neighbouring land"], insert the words "or entitled to any riparian rights."— Agreed to.
    Leave out the word "provision"["apart from this provision"], and insert instead thereof the word"Act."— Agreed to.
    Leave out the word "he"["he would have been entitled"], and insert the words "any such person."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "he shall"["to restrain such user he shall"], and insert instead thereof the word"then."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "be entitled to such compensation as the Commission may think just," and insert, instead thereof,
    "he shall,

    (i) if the land is used for a purpose for-which it could have been used had the land been acquired under the; Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903,be-entitled to such compensation in. respect of any breach of a restrictive-covenant or damage caused by the-pollution, abstraction, or diversion of water, or by the emission of noxious fumes, as in default of agreement may be determined in manner-provided by this Act; and

    (ii) if the land is used for any other-purpose, be entitled to such compensation in respect of any damage occasioned by such user as in default, of agreement may be determined in. manner provided by this Act."— Agreed to.

    Leave out paragraph"(a) no compensation other than compensation in respect to-a breach of a restrictive covenant shall be-payable if the land is used by a Government Department for a purpose for which it could have been used had the land been acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to-1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903; and."—Agreed to.
    In paragraph (b), after the word "may"["the Department may require"], insert the words "at any time before such claim is determined, and on payment of all costs properly incurred by the claimant in. respect of his claim."—Agreed to.
    In paragraph (d), leave out the words "nothing in this Section shall affect the liability of any person in respect of any contravention," and insert instead thereof the words "is the user of land or an interest in land acquired under this Act the provisions."
    Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Perhaps I may offer a word of explanation. There was a discussion on this, proviso in this House, and it was pointed out by myself and others that, as it stands, it really has no effect, and the effect of the Lords Amendment is to make it. operative.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Leave out the word "or"["or the Rivers Pollution Acts"], and insert instead thereof the word"and."—Agreed to.
    After the word "pollution"["or the Rivers Pollution Acts"], insert the word"prevention."—Agreed to.
    5.0 P.M.
    Leave out the word "or"["or affect the powers conferred by any Act"], and insert instead thereof the words "shall be complied with and those Acts shall apply accordingly, and nothing in this Section shall."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Power to Sell Land Acquired Under Act.)
    (1) Where any land or any interest therein has by virtue of this Act been acquired by any Government Department, the Department may at any time thereafter sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the land or interest.
    (2) Where any such land is disposed of, then on the execution and delivery to the purchaser by the Government Department concerned of the necessary or proper assurance of the land disposed of, the purchaser shall, notwithstanding any defect in the title of such Government Department thereto stand possessed thereof for such estate or interest as may be expressed -or intended to be assured to him, freed and absolutely discharged (save as in the assurance may be expressed) from all prior estates, interests, rights, and claims therein or thereto:
    Provided that if at any time after such disposition any such prior estate interest right or claim as aforesaid is established by the person entitled thereto, there shall be paid to such person compensation to be determined in manner provided by the Lands Clauses Acts, as modified by this Act, with respect to interests in lands which by mistake have been omitted to be purchased.
    (3) Before any Government Department? sell any land or interest therein they shall, unless such land is land upon which buildings of a permanent nature have been erected or is land used in connection with such buildings, first offer to sell the same to the person then entitled to the lands (if any) from which the same were originally severed; or if such person refuse to purchase the same, or cannot after diligent inquiry be found, then the like offer hall be made to the person or to the
    1688
    several persons whose lands shall immediately adjoin the lands so proposed to be sold.
    (4) If any such persons be desirous of purchasing such lands, then within six weeks after such offer they shall signify their desire in that behalf to the Government Department concerned, or if they decline such offer, or if for six weeks they neglect to signify their desire to purchase such lands, the right of pre-emption of every such person so declining or neglecting in respect of the lands included in such offer shall cease.
    (5) If any person entitled to such preemption be desirous of purchasing any such lands and such person and the Government Department concerned do not agree as to the price thereof, or other consideration therefor, then such price or other consideration shall be determined by the Commission.
    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "land"["land or interest therein"] insert the words "so acquired."—Agreed to.
    After the word "erected"["erected or is land used in connection with such buildings"], insert the words "wholly or partly at the expense of the State or at the request of or by arrangement with any Government Department."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "by the Commission;" and insert instead thereof the words "in manner provided by this Act."
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Sir J. TUDOR WALTERS: I wish to say a word upon this Amendment. The Sub-section originally read:
    "If any person entitled to such preemption be desirous of purchasing any such lands and such person and the Government Department concerned do not agree as to the price thereof, or other consideration there for, then such price or other consideration shall be determined by the Commission."
    The Amendment proposes to leave out "by the Commission," and insert "in manner provided by this Act." I am not quite sure whether this is the point at which I ought to raise a matter which seems to me to be of some importance. I rather think a later Amendment may be the more convenient place, but perhaps I may be allowed to indicate the

    1689
    point which I have in mind. As this Bill left the House of Commons, provision was made that the Commission should he the body that should decide whether part or the whole of any particular property could be taken. If a Government Department desired to take a portion of a factory, or of an estate, then the Commissioners were to determine whether it was reasonable that the owner should have such portion taken from him or whether the Government Department should be required to take the whole. Now it is provided by one of these Lords Amendments that that power of decision is to be taken from the Commission and given to the arbitration tribunal. That I strongly object to, and if this particular Amendment has anything to do with that I wish to disagree with it.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is not affected by this Amendment at all, but it arises on the Schedule.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    Insert the following new Sub-section:
    "(6) The provisions of the last three foregoing sub-sections shall apply in the case of a lease of land for a term exceeding twenty-one years in like manner as they apply to a sale of land, except where the land is leased for the purpose of the development thereof in connection with any factory, building, camp, or other premises erected or established on land retained by the Government."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. D. WHITE: I would like to ask the Home Secretary a question, and may I say how much I appreciate the way in which he has met certain objections. I do not want to press certain objections that might be made to this Lords Amendment, but in the second line the Lords Amendment says "shall apply in the case of a lease of land for a term exceeding twenty-one years in like manner as they apply to a sale of land." It seems to me that that phrase is ambiguous. It may mean land under lease exceeding twenty-one years or it may mean a lease of which the unexhausted terms exceeds twenty-one years. In one case it will apply to a twenty-five years' lease, of which all but three years have expired, and, under the second interpretation, it would not so
    1690
    apply. I should be glad to have the point cleared up. I think it may mean a lease of which the unexhausted term exceeds-twenty-one years, and if that is correct I would suggest the learned Gentleman' should insert words to meet the difficulty.
    Sir G. CAVE: The meaning of the-Amendment is this: There is a provision in the Bill that in the case of a sale of land by the Government—land no longer required—the previous owner has a right of pre-emption. There was a discussion in this House as to whether that should apply also where the State leased land, and the House did not agree to that. The-Lords have now inserted it. It means a new lease.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Provisions as to Highways.)
    (1) Where, in the exercise of any prerogative right of His Majesty or any powers conferred by or under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm for purposes connected with the present War, any railway or tramway or any cable line or pipes have been laid along, across, over, or under any public highway, it shall be lawful after the termination of the War for the railway or tramway or the cable line or pipes to continue to be used and maintained along, across, over or under the highway, subject to such conditions as the Board of Trade, in the case of railways and tramways, and in other cases as the Commission, after giving the local authority and the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the highway or of any other railway or tramway laid thereon an opportunity of being heard, may by Order prescribe, and any such authority or person may apply to the Board or Commission to make such an Order: Provided that where any such railway or tramway crosses the roadway on. the level it shall not be lawful to use the crossing after the expiration of two years from the termination of the present War without the consent of the local authority.
    (2) In the event of the use of any such railway or tramway being discontinued, the Government Department by whom it was laid down or used shall take up and remove the rails and restore the road or street on which they are laid to the satisfaction of the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of such road or street.
    (3) Where in exercise of any such right or powers as aforesaid any public highway has been closed, it may be kept closed after the termination of the present War, but not, by virtue of this Section, beyond the expiration of twelve months after such termination unless the consent of the Commission is obtained, and the Commission before giving such consent shall give to the local authority and the authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the highway an opportunity of being heard, and the Commission may require as a condition of their consent the provision of another highway in the place of the highway so closed, and any person interested in any land adjoining any highway so closed who suffers loss or damage in consequence of the closing thereof shall be entitled to such compensation as, in -default of agreement, the Commission determine to be the amount of such loss or damage.
    (4) For the purposes of this Section the expression "local authority" means, in the case of a borough or urban district, the council of the borough or urban district, and elsewhere the county council.
    (5) Where any such railway, tramway, cable line, or pipes have been laid along, across, over, or under any public highway, or a public highway has been closed, in pursuance of an agreement with or subject to any undertaking given to, the highway authority, nothing in this Section shall authorise the continuance of the user of the railway, tramway, cable line, or pipes, or the continuance of the closing of the highway beyond the time specified in the agreement or undertaking without the consent of the highway authority.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "exercise"["exercise of any perogative right of His Majesty"], insert the words "or purported exercise."—Agreed to.
    After the word "realm"["realm for purposes connected with the present War"], insert the words "or by agreement or otherwise."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "road or street"["road or street on which they are laid"], and insert instead thereof the word"highway."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "road or street," and insert instead thereof the word"highway."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "the Commission determine"["the Com-
    1692
    mission determine to be the amount of such loss or damage"], and insert instead thereof the words may be determined in manner provided by this Act."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Sir T. WALTERS: I want to be perfectly clear as to the meaning of this Amendment. It is a long paragraph, or Subsection, dealing with the question of highways which may be stopped up or diverted. The original scheme of this Bill was that the whole question as to whether substituted highways must be provided was to be left to the Commission, as the right and proper body to deal with the matter. But this particular Amendment, occurring at the end of the paragraph, apparently only provides that the amount of compensation to be paid is to be determined by the particular tribunal set up by the Act. I want to be clear whether questions which arise under the earlier portion of the Sub-section, as to whether a highway is or is not sufficient, whether it is to be diverted, or whether another is to be substituted for it, are still matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and that only in the event of the Commission deciding that a claim for compensation exists and referring it to the tribunal— only in such case does the jurisdiction of the tribunal arise.
    Sir G. CAVE: That is clearly so. It is only where compensation is in question that the tribunal may come in.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "highway authority"["highway authority, nothing in this Section shall authorise"], and insert instead thereof the words "authority or person responsible for the maintenance of the highway."— Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "highway authority," and insert instead thereof the words "authority, or person so responsible."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Determination of Questions by Railway and Canal Commission.)
    The provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, as amended by any subsequent enactment, relating to the procedure for the determination of questions by

    1693
    the Commission under that Act, including the provisions relating to appeals, shall apply to the determination of questions referred to the Commission under this Act, as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to this Act:
    Provided that—

    (a) the Commission may in any case in which they think it expedient to do so call in the aid of one or more assessors specially qualified, and hear the case wholly or partially with the assistance of such assessors;

    (b) the Commission may hold a local inquiry for the purposes of this Act by any one of their members, or by any officer of the Commission or other person whom they may direct to hold the same, and the said provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, except the provisions relating to appeals, shall, so far as applicable, apply to such inquiries, and any officer or person directed to hold an inquiry shall have power to administer an oath and shall report the result of the inquiry to the Commission. In particular, where the subject matter of the inquiry relates to the amount of compensation only, the Commissioners shall, if so required by either party, appoint one of a panel of referees to be appointed in like manner as the panel appointed under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, such referee to be chosen in manner provided by rules under Section thirty-three of that Act, to hold that inquiry, and subject to an appeal to the Commission on any question of law, the Commission shall act on the report of their referee;

    (c)the Commission may act by two of their members;

    (d) the discretion of the Commission with respect to costs shall be subject to the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as modified by this Act as to costs, in cases where those Acts as so modified apply, but shall not be limited in the manner provided by Section two of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1894.

    (e) Nothing in this Act shall prevent the reference to a single arbitrator of any question of the amount of compensation under this Act if it be agreed between the parties that it be so referred.

    Lords Amendment:
    At beginning insert,
    "(1) All questions as to compensation or as to the purchase price of land or any interest therein to be paid under this Act shall—

    (a) if both parties agree within such time as may be allowed by the Commission, be determined by a single arbitrator agreed by the parties;

    (b) if either party so requires within such time as may be allowed by the Commission, be referred to such one of a panel of referees to be appointed in like manner as the panel appointed under Part I. of the Finance 1909–10) Act, 1910, as may be selected by the Reference Committee as defined by Section thirty-three of that Act, whose decision shall, subject to an appeal to the Commission on any question of law, be final;

    (c) in any other case, be determined by the Commission."

    Mr. D. WHITE: I beg to move, in paragraph (b) of the Lords Amendment, to leave out the words "subject to an appeal to the Commission on any question of law, be final," and insert instead thereof the words "be subject to an appeal to the Commission."
    I think this may be a convenient way of raising a question which seems to me to be one of the main points of the Bill, namely, whether the Commission is to be the ultimate authority and whether or not there is to be an appeal to the Commission. As the Clause stands it is so framed that there can only be an appeal to the Commission on points of law, and that, in nine cases out of ten, will probably be of no use whatever. It seems to me that there is every case for entrusting the final decision to the Railway and Canal Commission. They know in a practical way the working of the Lands Clauses Act. They have matters of this kind constantly before them, and I think it is in the interests of the public that the final word should rest with them, as it did when the Bill left this House. I therefore move the Amendment which I have handed in, the effect of which would be to make the last two lines of Sub-section (6), instead of "shall, subject to an appeal to the Commission on any question of law, be final," read as follows: "shall be subject to an appeal to the Commission."
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: I bee to second the Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: This Amendment of the Lords is a pure drafting Amendment. It provides that the question of fixing compensation or the purchase price of land shall, if both parties agree, be determined by a single arbitrator. It practically reproduces paragraph (e) of the Bill as it left this House. Again, the Amendment provides that if either party so requires the question shall go before the referee, whose decision shall be final, subject to an appeal to the Commission on any question of law. That reproduces the latter part of paragraph (b) as it left this House. There seems to be nothing new in it: it is a pure reproduction. With respect to the hon. Member's Amendment we should be going back on our own decision in striking out words which we ourselves put in the Bill. At the end of paragraph (b), as it left this House, there is provision for an appeal to the Commission on any question of law I do not know whether it is in order for us to strike out of the Bill something which was in the Bill as we sent it up. I submit that we ought not to do it.
    Sir T. WALTERS: That does not raise the point I dealt with before as to whether a portion of the whole of the land shall be taken?
    Sir G. CAVE: No; it does not.
    Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendments:
    After the word "questions" ["determination of questions"], insert the words "including appeals from referees."— Agreed to.
    In paragraph (b) leave out the words "In particular, where the subject matter of the inquiry relates to the amount of compensation only, the Commissioners shall, if so required by either party, appoint one of a panel of referees to be appointed in like manner as the panel appointed under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, such referee to be chosen in manner provided by rules under Section 33 of that Act, to hold that inquiry, and subject to an appeal to the Commission on any question of law, the Commission shall act on the report of their referee."—Agreed to.
    In paragraph (c), after the word "members," insert the words "one of whom shall be the judge."—Agreed to.
    Leave out paragraph (e),"Nothing in this Act shall prevent the reference to a single arbitrator of any question of the amount of compensation under this Act if it be agreed between the parties that it be so referred."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Application of Building Laws.)
    (1) Any street, building, or work which has been formed, erected, or constructed otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of any general or local Acts relating to streets or buildings, and with any by-laws or regulations made there-under on any land to which Section one of this Act applies, or which has been acquired under Section three thereof, shall, unless the authority by whom such provisions, by-laws, or regulations are enforced consent to the continuance thereof, either be so altered as to comply with such provisions, by-laws, or regulations, or be discontinued or removed within such reasonable time after such land or building has ceased to be occupied by a Government Department as such authority may order, and the owner (as defined by such Acts, by-laws, or regulations) shall have power to enter upon and carry out any works without the consent of any other person, and if he fails to comply with such order[he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds for every day during which] such non-compliance continues, and such authority as aforesaid may remove any such building or work and recover the expense incurred in such removal from the owner in a summary manner as a civil debt.
    (2) If any person feels aggrieved by the neglect or refusal of such authority to give its consent, or by the conditions on which such consent is given, or as to the time within which such discontinuance or removal is ordered, he may appeal to the Local Government Board, whose decision shall be final: Provided that the Board may before considering any such appeal require the appellant to deposit such sum not exceeding five pounds to cover the costs of appeal as may be fixed by rules to be made by them.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), after the word "time"["within such reasonable time"],

    1697
    insert the words '"not being less than two years."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the words "he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds for every day during which."—Agreed to.
    In Sub-section (2), after the word "final"["whose decision shall be final"], insert the words "and shall have effect as if it were a decision of the authority."—Agreed to.
    Leave out the word "five"["five pounds"], and insert instead thereof the word "ten." Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Savings.)
    (1) Nothing in this Act shall authorize the acquisition of any interest in any common, open space, or allotment, or the acquisition otherwise than by agreement of any land which forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or of the home farm attached to and usually occupied within the mansion house, or is the site of any ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest, or of any interest in such land or grounds.
    Provided that

    (a) nothing in this Sub-section shall prevent the acquisition, whether by agreement or compulsorily, of a right to use and maintain any cables, lines, or pipes which have been laid under any such land as aforesaid; and

    (b) where before the passing of this Act there have been erected on any park, garden, pleasure ground, or farm, as above-mentioned, any buildings for the manufacture of munitions of war, the Commission may authorise the compulsory acquisition of the whole of such property, including the mansion house, if any, where they are satisfied that it is of national importance that it should be acquired.

    (2) Nothing in this Act shall authorize the retention of the possession for more than three months after the termination of the War of—

    (a) land belonging to any local authority within the meaning of the Local Government (Emergency Provision) Act, 1916; or

    (b) land belonging to any company or corporation carrying on a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public
    1698
    undertaking other than land which before the commencement of the present War had ceased to be used for the purposes of the undertaking; or

    (c) land held by or on behalf of any governing body constituted for charitable purposes which at the commencement of the War was occupied and used by that body for the purposes of that body;

    without the consent of the appropriate Government Department, or, in the case of a university or a college at a university, without the consent of the governing body of the university or college, provided that such consent, if given, shall not authorise the retention of possession for a longer period than three years after the termination of the War, and if any question arises as to what department is the approprite Government Department, the question shall be determined by the Treasury, and nothing in this Act shall authorise the acquisition of any such land as aforesaid or of any interest in or right of access or other easement or right over any such land, except by agreement with such authority, company, corporation, or body as aforesaid.
    (3) Where possession has been taken of any land under any agreement authorising the retention of the land for any period specified in the agreement, nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention of possession after the expiration of such period without the consent of the person with whom the agreement was made or the persons deriving title under him.
    (4) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of land with respect to which an agreement has been made for the restoration thereof to the person previously in occupation thereof (other than an agreement to give up possession of land at the expiration of a tenancy) or, in the case of land subject to an agreement for sale to a Government Department, shall authorise the acquisition of the land otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
    (5) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of land without the consent of the Commission where the purposes for which it is to be acquired are purposes other than those for which land can be acquired under the Defence Acts, 1842 to 1873, or the Military Lands Acts, 1892 to 1903.
    (6) For the purposes of this Section the expression "governing body constituted

    1699
    for charitable purposes" includes any person or body of persons who have a right of holding or any power of government of or management over any property appropriated for charitable purposes, and includes any corporation sole, and the governing body of any university, college, school, or other institution for the promotion of literature, science or art.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (1), paragraph (b,) leave out the words "authorise the compulsory acquisition of the whole of such property, including the mansion house, if any, where they are satisfied that it is of national importance that it should be acquired," and insert instead thereof the words "by order authorise the compulsory acquisition of the park, garden, pleasure ground or farm, or any part thereof, where they are satisfied that it is of national impotance that it should be acquired, so, however, that if the owner so requires the whole of such property, including the mansion house, if any, shall be acquired, and that before the order made by the Commission comes into effect, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of thirty days on which that House has sat, and if cither of those Houses before the expiration of that period presents an address to His Majesty against the draft or any part thereof, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think this is also a privileged Amendment.
    Sir G. CAVE: I hope the House will waive its privilege in this case also.
    Sir T. WALTERS: I beg to move as an Amendment, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    With great respect to the other House, I maintain that this is a ludicrous provision to insert. In the Bill as it left this House we proposed to take powers to acquire a mansion house or a park when national necessity requires. For instance, if the park was to be a site for the building of huts, or anything else required for national purposes, and it was necessary in the national interests we should take it over, then we should take over the man-
    1700
    sion house too. What is this strange provision inserted in another place? It is, forsooth, that if in the national interest it becomes necessary to take someone's park and mansion, and we proceed to take it, we are to lay Papers on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament to show that we are going to take So-and-so's mansion house and park, and anybody who thinks that it is an outrage to take Lord Tom Noddy's park and mansion may protest against it and try to raise some opposition. I object to the levity of such a proposal, and I think we ought to remind the other House that we are at war and that we cannot play at legislation in this fashion. It is absurd to suggest that because a nobleman's park and mansion house is to be taken there should be special provision for laying Papers upon the Table. If Parliament comes along and, under the special powers which have been granted to Government Departments during the War, takes the whole of a man's business or takes the whole of his huge factory and everything that he possesses, we do not have to put Papers upon the Tables of the House of Commons and the House of Lords in order to give somebody an opportunity of raising a question against it. Why should we do it in the way that is now proposed? It is a matter of unduly pressing a privilege, and I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Amendment for the purpose of marking our dislike of the introduction of principles of levity upon a serious matter like this when we are in the midst of a great national crisis.
    Mr. SHERWELL: I beg to second the Amendment of my hon. Friend. May I remind the House that the adoption of this Amendment violates the practice which has been universally observed by the Ministry of Munitions throughout this War. Where the Ministry of Munitions wants additional accommodation they have not had a moment's hesitation in taking hotel after hotel or any other important public or private building. We have not quarrelled with the action of the Ministry of Munitions in that respect because we have thought that the severity of such action was amply covered by the necessities of the War. I fail to see why there should be an important departure from the administrative practice, which, so far, has been uniform, and that we should make that departure solely in the interests of the landowner. Surely the

    1701
    landowner must be content to stand with his fellow-citizens in all respects so far as loss or temporary loss is concerned and should not ask for exceptional terms. I am glad to endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend that it is reducing the proceedings to a farce to suggest that where the Ministry of Munitions or any other Government War Department requires a special estate or a special portion of land it will be open to any hon. Member of this House during a period of thirty days to object to the Department having what the Department has already decided that it requires for urgent war purposes. I hope the House will not accept the Lords Amendment.
    Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps my hon. Friends have forgotten what happened in respect of this matter in the Committee and Report stages of the Bill in this House. In the Committee stage a proposal which was inserted deliberately to enable certain munition factories which had been built wholly or partly on private land to be continued was deleted because, in the main, the discussion ranged round the general question of the preservation of open spaces, parks, and so forth. On the Report stage, as the matter was of such first-rate importance, because on one particular place we had erected a factory at a cost of nearly £800,000, and it was obviously necessary that some provision enabling us to acquire the land must be inserted in the Bill, I brought up an Amendment which narrowed the question down to the cases existing at the time of the passing of the Act, and narrowed it also to the cases where buildings of a permanent character and so on had been put upon the land: That was in Sub-section (1), paragraph (b) of this Clause of the Bill as it left this House. It was only after a Division that we succeeded in this House in getting this power in the Bill. So far as the Amendment goes it brings the Bill into line with the Amendments which have been inserted earlier relating to open spaces, and so on. As a matter of fact, there are only two cases that are really involved, and I do not anticipate that any of the procedure which the hon. Member (Sir Tudor Walters) seems to fear will be likely to arise.
    Sir T. WALTERS: Then why put it in the Bill?
    Dr. ADDISON: We must have the provision in the Bill. The hon. Member is well aware that Members of this House are
    1702
    very jealous of any acquisition of land which may now or hereafter be likely to become a public open space. It was mainly on that account, I believe, that the jealousy of our suggestion first arose. In this Amendment the desires of the Government are incorporated in the Bill, and we obtain what we want. We must agree with their Lordships' Amendment in this matter; it is the result of prolonged discussion, in consequence of which we are paying a minimum price for what we require.
    Sir T. WALTERS: May I ask a question, so that the right hon. Gentleman may really answer the question involved? I think he has not read the Lords Amendment. He is addressing himself to arguments dealing with the question of public parks and pleasure grounds, whereas this Amendment of the Lords deals with another thing.
    Dr. ADDISON: I am well aware of the object of the Lords Amendment. When the Bill was in this House, as I have explained already, this particular provision was involved, in that part of the Bill which related to public open spaces, and there is no doubt that owing to that it was deleted in Committee. Afterwards I took the question up myself on the Report stage and made the provision specially applicable to this class of case, and it was inserted by the House after a Division. In respect to the point raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sherwell), he seems to have overlooked the very essential difference between the taking over of hotels for the duration of the War and the permanent acquisition of private property. There is a great difference, and I do not quite appreciate his argument. The taking over of the Hotel Metropole, or any other hotel, is quite a different matter from putting an enormous factory on a man's park and permanently acquiring it. There is no comparison whatever between the two cases.
    With respect to the provision to which the hon. Member for Brightside referred, that again is not a departure from the provision as it left this House, because the Commission may authorise the compulsory acquisition of the whole of such property. The reason is this, and I think it a very good reason: In one place a factory conies down on sloping ground below a man's mansion. I think it fair for a man to say, "You have put this horrid factory in front of my drawing-room window. If you are going to buy

    1703
    my park, and I have no further use for it as a park, you must buy the whole lot." I admit that it goes beyond what this House contemplated when it passed the Amendment on the Report stage, but I cannot anticipate that this House or the other House would present an Address to His Majesty against either of these two cases which are involved. Neither of them would stand discussion. I am perfectly satisfied with that, and it would be impossible to make a case, so far as I know, on any basis existing at present on which an Address could be founded. I have no fear of an Address, and this is some safeguard against unnecessary or arbitrary action in this matter, and I hope that the House, having obtained what it really wanted, will not persist in its objection to this Amendment.
    Mr. D. WHITE: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have dealt a little more fully with the real point of this Amendment. The main part of his speech was devoted to matters which do not touch the point raised. The simple question before the House is this: We have certain words in the Clause. The question is whether the words proposed in the House of Lords should be substituted for them. Anyone who considers these words on their merits will agree that the Clause as it left this House is better than the proposed Amendment. The particular vice of the Amendment is this: We are by this Bill setting up practically new machinery. We are enabling these matters of valuation of premises and so on to be decided by the Railway and Canal Commission and subject to certain conditions to other tribunals. The essential feature of the matter is that these should be the tribunals. But now a totally different feature is brought in. Instead of their decisions being final, hon. Members will remember that in an Amendment of the House of Lords which we have just accepted, it is proposed that their decisions be the subject of arbitration where one of the parties wants it.
    Sir G. CAVE: Where both parties want it.
    Mr. WHITE: Having set up these tribunals, why not leave them to decide the question? The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there were only two cases in which this might apply, and that in fact it will not apply to either of them. What
    1704
    then is the rational ground for putting it in at all? It is not merely superfluous, but most undesirable, and for this reason. This is a quasi judicial proceeding, and where proceedings of a judicial character are taken, it is highly undesirable that this House should interfere with those to whom it has confided judicial functions. In the practical working of the Clause the case is still stronger. Suppose some land is taken under conditions to which this would apply. If the owner of the land is a Member of this House or the other House, or has what is called in certain classes of politics a pull over any Member in either House, then he can get an address presented and can get special consideration of the case by Parliament. That seems to me a most undesirable thing. It is going against the fundamental principle of judicial decision, and is a thoroughly bad example for the country. It suggests that those who are in either House, or who have a pull in either House, can stop judicial proceedings or vary the result. This is thoroughly undesirable. It would be very much better if we left these questions to be decided by the tribunal, and limited the power of presenting an address in either House of Parliament to those cases where public affairs, and not private affairs, are concerned.
    Sir G. CAVE: It is really not worth while discussing this at length. I have a great desire to see this Bill pass. We are all agreed that parks shall not be taken by compulsion, but as the right hon. Gentleman has told the House, there were two cases in which parks were in fact being used for munition factories, and he asked the House to make an exception of those cases and allow us to take those two parks under this general provision. Neither of them belongs to a Member of either House. Many Members know who they are. They are persons who will not sell, except at a very high price, so that if we can persuade the House to accept this special provision, it will cover those two cases. When the matter came up in another place objection was taken, and this was taken out of the Bill. This was a very serious matter. Therefore, at a later stage, in another place, it was agreed that the provision should be reinserted in an approved form with this special proviso about laying Papers on the Table of the House. In my view it can have no practical effect at all. We have got to do the best we can. We have got our Bill

    1705
    subject to this, which I think will be waste paper, and I hope that the House will not spoil a very good bargain, and risk our Bill for something which is really of no practical importance at all.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in its practical application this Amendment is not likely to be of serious importance and that the House, especially in these days, would not be well advised to spend a very long time on it. At the same time I cannot help saying that it is a provision which in principle and in form somewhat offends the sense of fair play of many Members of this House. Apparently, even if common land is taken under this Act for national purposes, there is no question of either House of Parliament being invoked to override that action.
    Dr. ADDISON: They are not taken at all.
    Sir G. CAVE: A provision about common land has just been inserted, as to buildings on common land, but common land is not taken at all.
    Mr. SAMUEL: At all events this is a most exceptional provision. It does not apply generally to lands which are taken under this Act, but where it comes to be a question of taking park land, then either House of Parliament is to have laid before it a formal statement of the facts, and either House is to be entitled to move and pass an address which would have the effect of repealing the action which has been or is proposed to be taken. That is a most exceptional provision to be inserted in an Act of Parliament, and in days such as these I do not hesitate to say that it ought not to appear in any Act of Parliament. At the same time the Government say that this is part of an agreement, and in return for this provision, which they do not contemplate will ever be used, a point of real substance has been conceded to this House in the other House. And I have no doubt that my hon. Friends may probably not wish to press the matter to a Division. At the same time, I think that a very strong protest should be entered against the Amendment made in the Bill, and I hope that this exception will not in future be used as a precedent.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I am not impressed by the speeches from either of the two Front Benches. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has endeavoured to set
    1706
    the matter in a fairer light than it was put by the Minister of Munitions, but the explanation which he has given is one which should set this House on its guard. We were told by the Minister of Munitions that a provision was introduced into this House which would apply only to two cases, and in one of these cases buildings to the value of over £800,000 had been erected on the land, and it was because of the value of these buildings that the Government of that day held that it was absolutely necessary, in the public interest, that the Government should have the right compulsorily to acquire land. That was the form in which this provision left this House for another place. Then the Home Secretary tells us that in another place, on a Division, that provision which the former Government regarded as so necessary in the public interest was omitted from the Bill. In other words, by a Division in another place, it was decided, on a provision essential in the public interest in which a sum of £800,000 was involved, that the public interest should give way to the private interest of the landlord. The effect of this compromise, as the Home Secretary called it, is that after the Commission has decided it will be possible for thirty days to move an address in either House of Parliament. By this provision you expressly encourage the people who carried the Amendment in another place omitting a provision essential in the public interest, once more to come forward with an address in another place, stultify the intentions of the Government, and obtain a victory for private selfish interests over the public interests. We know that those interests are sufficiently powerful in another place to carry an address.
    Dr. ADDISON: We got the provision in again.
    Mr. PRINGLE: You got it in subject to this proviso, and I say that the House of Commons ought not to agree to this in spite of the appeal of the late Home Secretary. If anybody else is willing to go to a Division I am willing to go to a Division. It is a very bad beginning of the career of the new Government, this great Government of national safety, that it should come down to the House of Commons and recommend an Amendment of this kind in which private interests are going to prove themselves superior to the interests of the public. In the circumstances I hope that my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment will persist in it, and that

    1707
    we shall have a Division, and see whether public or private interests are to prevail in this hour of our national peril.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    A Division was challenged, and Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER. declared that the Ayes have it.
    HON. MEMBERS: The Noes have it!
    Sir G. CAVE: On a point of Order, Sir. The Motion was, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I put the Question, "That the House doth disagree with the Lords Amendment," and hon. Members on my left said "No."
    Mr. PRINGLE: You said, Sir, that the Ayes had it.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is true. I said to the House that the Ayes had it, and the Noes persisted. I called the Noes, and the Ayes did not persist.
    Mr. WHITE: We understood here that the Question was "doth agree."
    Sir T. WALTERS: When you declared that the Ayes had it, Sir, why did the Ayes persist? If you had said in the end that the Ayes had it, the Ayes would not have persisted further.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in the House to know that it is the custom when a Division is challenged to put the Question more than once where there is any uncertainty. But clearly on the second and third time of calling the unanimous voice was in the negative. I cannot allow the matter to be the subject of further argument.
    Mr. WHITE: If I may be allowed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I cannot have the subject further discussed.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendment:
    In Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), after the word "undertaking"["purpose of the undertaking"], insert the words "had before that date ceased to be so used."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir G. Cave.]
    Mr. KING: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some explanation of the Amendment?
    Sir G. CAVE: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Bill, he will find that there are two classes of land: (a) land belonging to any local authority and (b) land belonging to a company or corporation. The Amendment is only a drafting Amendment.
    Lords Amendment agreed to.
    Lords Amendments:
    In Sub-section (4), after the word "to"["restriction thereof to"], insert the words "the owner or."—Agreed to.
    In sub-section (5). at the end, insert,
    "(6) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the retention, except by agreement, of the possession of land taken with a view to maintaining the food supply of the country for any longer period than is necessary for securing any annual crop growing thereon at the termination of the present war."
    Mr. COWAN: I have an Amendment to move—
    Dr. ADDISON: I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Mr. COWAN: As the right hon. Gentleman moves to disagree, my Amendment may not be necessary.
    Dr. ADDISON: The reason I move to disagree with the Lords Amendment is that it goes beyond the scope and intention of the Bill, and quite beyond anything contemplated.
    Lords Amendment disagreed with.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Saving of Prerogative Powers.)
    The powers conferred by this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any right or power of His Majesty by virtue of His prerogative or otherwise.
    Lords Amendment:
    Leave out the words "by virtue of His prerogative or otherwise."—Agreed to.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Application to Scotland.)
    In the application of this Act to Scotland the following modifications shall be made—

    (a) Sub-section (7) of Section three and Sub-section (2) of Section five shall not apply.

    (b) "Borough or urban district" means "royal, parliamentary, or police burgh"; "easement" means "servitude"; "mortgagee" means "heritable creditor"; and "restrain" includes "interdict."

    (c) The Local Government Board for Scotland shall be substituted for the Local Government Board.

    Lords Amendment:
    In paragraph (c), at the end, insert the words "and the Secretary for Scotland for the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries."—Agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

  MODIFICATION OF THE. LANDS CLAUSES ACTS.
  3. All questions of disputed compensation shall be settled by the Commission.
  4. No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory.
  5. Where a portion only of any factory or other building is required the owners and other persons interested in such building may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, be required to sell and convey the portions only of the building so required, if the Commission are of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and in such case compensation shall be paid for the portions required, and for any damage suffered by the owners or other parties interested in the building by severance or otherwise.
  7. In determining the amount of compensation the Commission shall also take into account the amount (if any) of any compensation paid or other payment received in respect of the previous occupation of the land so far as such compensation or payment was payable in respect of matters other than the mesne profits of the land.
  8. Where the surface of the land is acquired without the mines and minerals lying thereunder, the provisions of Sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the
  1710
  Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall apply with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit.
  10. The Lord Chancellor may make rules fixing a scale of costs to be applicable on an arbitration under this Act, and the Commission may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow as costs in the arbitration the cost of any witness whom they consider to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which they consider to have been caused or incurred unnecessarily, and, if they think the circumstances such as to justify them in so doing, to order that each of the parties shall bear their own costs.
  11. There may be contained in the award of the Commission a finding that the claimant, after having been requested in writing by the Department by whom the land or interest therein is to be acquired so to do, has failed to deliver to such Department within a reasonable time a statement in writing of the amount claimed, together with any information in his possession which may be reasonably required to enable such Department to make a proper offer, and, where such a finding is contained in the award, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to costs of arbitrations shall apply as if such Department had offered the same sum or a greater sum than that found to be due by the award:
  Provided that this provision shall not apply unless the written request for information contained a notice of the effect of this provision.
  12. The provisions of this Schedule shall apply to Scotland subject to the. Following modifications:

  (a) For the reference to mesne profits there shall be substituted a reference to profits:

  (b) For the reference to Sections seventy-eight to eighty-five of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, there shall be substituted a reference to Section seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845:

  (c) "The Court of Session" and "Act of Sederunt" shall be substituted for "the Lord Chancellor" and "rules" respectively.

  13. The provisions of this Schedule shall apply to Ireland with the substitution of a reference to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the reference to the Lord Chancellor.
  Lords Amendment:
  In paragraph 3, after the word "Commission," insert the words "an arbitrator or referee or the Commission as the case may require (hereinafter referred to as the arbitration tribunal)."
  Sir T. WALTERS: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This Amendment would deprive the Commissioners of one of their few solitary remaining powers. The great object of this Bill, so far as I can see, is to deprive the Commissioners of all powers possible, at all events so far as the Amendments apply to the Commission. In this particular respect I would suggest to the House that it is vital that the original structure of the Bill should be maintained. If you refer to Clause 5, you find that it gives power to sell land acquired under the Act.
  Sir G. CAVE: My hon. Friend is raising the question of the power of parting with land. This Amendment does not deal with that. It comes under Clause 3.
  Sir T. WALTERS: I do not even like it in Clause 3. My objection in regard to Clause 3 is that as it now stands it provides that compensation shall be settled by the Commission. The Lords Amendment is that it is to be decided by a Court of arbitration. If that is to be the doctrine, I should very much prefer that it should be retained by the Commission, and under the order for arbitration the business of settling compensation could be transferred from the Commission to the arbitrator. That seems to me to be reducing the powers of the Commission to a minimum; in other words, the Commission, as I understand, is to be the body who shall decide whether the matter shall be referred to arbitration or not, and it seems to me that it should stand in the Schedule as the authority, whereas if you entirely eliminate it, then the entire procedure would be in the hands of the arbitration tribunal. I will not, however, press the Amendment, which I would point out is a method of depriving the Commission of their powers.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  Lords Amendment:
  In paragraph 5, leave out the words "Commission are"["Commission are of opinion"], and insert instead thereof the words" arbitration tribunal is."
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir G. Caw.]
  Sir T. WALTERS: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  6.0 P.M.
  I want the Commission to be the tribunal to decide, but the Lords Amendment transfers the powers to the arbitration tribunal. That alters the whole position. Supposing the Government want to take only a portion of a factory, they have to go before the Commissioners for their consent to taking a portion and not the whole of the factory. Supposing the Government Department desires to take only a portion and supposing the owner of the factory said they must take the whole, he could put his position before the Commissioners and give his reasons why the whole of the factory should be taken. And the Government Department, who wish only to take a portion of the factory, would put their case before the Commissioners, who would deal with it on its merits, and no injustice would be done and the Government would not be saddled with a huge factory that they did not want. Or, on the other hand, the owner would be in a position to say that the whole of the factory should be taken so that he might not be damaged or ruined by a portion being taken. I say that the Commissioners ought to decide that point. The Lords Amendment throws this on the arbitration tribunal—that is to say, when the matter goes before the arbitration tribunal—evidence is called, and the arbitrator delivers his award as to whether the Government ought to take the whole or a part. The arbitrator is looking at it from a purely technical standpoint—purely from the surveyor's standpoint—and he might decide that it was important, in the interests of the owner of the property, to sell the whole of it rather than a art. Generally speaking, that would obviously be his decision. But he has not regard to other aspects of the question, namely the general national interests, what is fair under all the circumstances of the case, and not merely a question of value. A question of value

  1713
  the arbitrator could very well decide, but this is a question of general policy and general fair play and justice. An impartial tribunal like the Railway and Canal Commissioners, who will take a judicial view of the proceeding, is the proper body to decide whether the whole or part should be taken, and what should be done in these difficult and delicate circumstances. To leave it to a tribunal which will only examine it from a technical standpoint will lead probably to a miscarriage of justice, and will inevitably mean that the State will be required to take much more land and more buildings than it needs. I hope, therefore, that the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment and will retain for the Commissioners this important judicial function which they are well qualified to exercise, and which this House decided, after a full discussion, that they should exercise.
  Sir G. CAVE: The hon. Member will understand that I only moved to agree with the Lords in this Amendment for a formal reason. After hearing what the hon. Member has said, and for other reasons, I am rather inclined to agree with him. The point is, which is the authority to say whether a part only or the whole of the premises should be taken. We must go to the Commissioners to determine whether we can buy at all, and it is convenient that they should determine at the same time whether they buy part or the whole. On the whole, therefore, I think we are in favour of leaving the Bill as it stands in this respect, and I will not press my Motion that the House do agree with the Lords.
  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and negatived.
  Lords Amendments:
  In paragraph 7, leave out the word "Commission," and insert instead thereof the words "Arbitration Tribunal."—Agreed to.
  In paragraph 8, leave out the words "with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit," and insert instead thereof the words "subject to this modification, that for the purpose of Section seventy-eight of that Act' prescribed 'shall mean 'prescribed by the Arbitration Tribunal.'"—Agreed to.
  In paragraph 10, leave out the word "Commission," and insert instead thereof the words "Arbitration Tribunal."— Agreed to.
  In paragraph II, leave out the word "Commission," and insert instead thereof the words "Arbitration Tribunal."— Agreed to.
  In paragraph 12 (b), at end insert the words "and for the reference to Section seventy-eight of the former Act there shall be substituted a reference to Section seventy-one of the latter Act."—Agreed to.
  Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
  Committee nominated of Dr. Addison, Sir George Cave, Mr. Salter, Sir John Tudor Walters, and Mr. Dundas White.
  Three to be the quorum.
  To withdraw immediately.—[Colonel Craig.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

  PEACE PROPOSALS.
  Sir J. SIMON: In the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill last Tuesday two great speeches were made which will remain part of the historic possessions of this House, and it will need a very special excuse to justify any private Member in reviving debate even on the enormously important questions which were then discussed. My excuse is this, that it may be desirable, in view of an independent controversy which arose a year ago, to make quite plain in a few sentences how widespread, and I believe how universal, is the acceptance in all sections of opinion, and in all parts of the country, of the Prime Minister's declaration in answer to the German message. It is obvious that any Member of the House who ventures to say a single word on this subject must speak under severe restraint, lest carelessness on his part should damage the very cause he wishes to serve; and it is equally obvious that anyone who ventures to say anything about it must throughout remember that he is acting, private Member though he be, under serious responsibility. I would desire in a few sentences, remembering these rules of conduct, to say one or two words upon this enormously important

  1715
  question. The Prime Minister on Tuesday told us quite plainly that in all proper senses of the word the communication which the Government has received from the enemy is not a peace proposal at all. Proposals involve propositions, and it is a misuse of language to talk about a message which contains no suggestion of terms, whether reasonable or unreasonable, as though it was in itself a proposal to negotiate terms. If, indeed, that message had contained terms, though they might be unacceptable and impossible terms, I trust it would be dealt with by giving those who sent it a clear and specific answer. For it seems to me—and I believe this is a view which is widely held—that in times like these if any belligerent makes professions of its desire for peace on reasonable terms and puts forward what it claims to be a formulation of those terms, everything is to be gained from every point of view by testing the sincerity of such a declaration. If such a declaration be genuine, well then, those who took no notice of it would put themselves and their country in a very invidious position before the world. On the other hand, I would urge—and this is equally important —that if such declarations are waved about when they are not genuine, it is essential that they should be exposed as a sham. But we are told that the only communication received from the German Government is a mere paraphrase of what we all know the German Chancellor said in the Reichstag. It is an invitation to discuss without indicating even in outline what are the terms to be discussed, save so far as these proposals may be anticipated by the bombastic language with which the suggestion was mentioned by the German Chancellor. To judge this matter fairly, we must allow for the fact that the German Chancellor was addressing the German people. But the fact remains that a communication of that sort is not a peace proposal at all, and I feel confident that those who on a past question of method—the difficult question of how best we could distribute and organise our national forces so that they might be used in the best way—I feel confident that those who felt a difficulty on that subject have on that account no reason at all to qualify their view that the Prime Minister gave the only answer to the German message which could be properly given. After all, what is it the Prime Minister has said? He has not replied to the German
  1716
  Chancellor by using vainglorious boasting. On the contrary, he has warned his countrymen that the burden which now rests on their shoulders will inevitably become heavier as time goes on, if they are going to discharge the great task which they have undertaken. The Prime Minister has not slammed the door to peace. What I understand him to have done is this: To have pointed out that no terms are even suggested in this communication, and that discussion without some previous suggestion of terms is necessarily a delusion and a sham. For my part, I believe there is nobody in this country whatever may be his opinion on other matters, if he realises at once the number of the Allies and the complexity of the questions which must arise when peace comes to be discussed on a basis of proposed terms—there is nobody who can seriously expect any other reply to be given than the one already indicated. At the same time, does not the House agree that this tremendous event of the last few days has introduced two new and most significant facts? I mean, first of all, this fact: that for the first time since this terrible world-wide conflict began an official communication issued by our enemy to the Allies has been sent forward which at any rate mentions the name of peace. Hitherto there have been unofficial hints and suggestions in countless number. Different people have attached different degrees of importance to them. It is obvious that they were not likely to be fruitful in result, but were designed simply to test how the wind might be blowing, and were put forward in a way which enabled the agent who flew the kite to be repudiated by the principals when it was convenient for the principals to repudiate him. But it is a new fact of gravity and importance that for the first time there has been an official communication from our enemy. I do not believe that the future history of this struggle can be unaffected by that new fact.
  There is a second new fact involved in that, and consequent upon it It is the fact disclosed to us by the Prime Minister on Tuesday that, wholly unsatisfactory and vague as is this communication from the enemy, wholly undeserving as it is to be described as a peace proposal, it. necessarily involves an answer from the Allies. I apprehend that the answer, like everything else which has been done by the Allies, is a matter for their joint consultation

  1717
  and determination. We may well be content with the intimation given to us by the Prime Minister on Tuesday as to the general character which that answer may be expected to assume. Those two facts everybody who, on the one hand, is deeply anxious to see peace secured on proper terms, and firmly determined that it shall not be secured until proper terms are attained, can note. I have no intention of making an oration or unnecessarily prolonging the Debate. For the rest I hope the House of Commons will allow me to say this much, and I say it from a sincere desire to do whatsoever I can to contribute to national unity: there may be differences as to the methods by which we can secure our maximum strength and distribute our national forces most wisely. But that has nothing to do with the essential agreement which, I trust and believe, exists in every quarter as to the nature of the reply which the Government, speaking in the name of this country, announced that it will make to the Germans. The Prime Minister speaks in this country as the official head of the nation. I believe he has spoken both the voice and the mind of the whole nation. I care not what other points of difference may have arisen on any other aspect. These two things I affirm with just the same unqualified and certain confidence as any of my fellow-countrymen, for on these two points every patriotic citizen is agreed: first, that it would be an unpardonable crime for any Government to allow the War to go on for an unnecessary hour, and, secondly, that it would be the deepest treachery to falter in securing, by force of arms if need be, by more reasonable methods if and when the opportunity comes, those objects, essentially defensive and essentially unaggressive, for the sake of which, I am convinced, we were compelled to go to War.
  Colonel MILDMAY: The whole House will be prepared to endorse the proposition put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and especially will follow what he said about national unity. I am quite sure the House, the country, and those at the front will be heartened by the strong and stalwart speech made by the Prime Minister, backed as it was by the uncompromising utterances of the late Prime Minister. What has been especially pleasing in the last ten days has been the difference of tone in the House and Lobby. I have been away from the House very nearly a year. When I came back to it ten days ago I felt quite dazed with
  1718
  the atmosphere of personal recrimination which was prevelant in the Lobby. The air seemed thick with violent denunciations and accusations. To anyone who has not been here for some time that seemed quite deplorable at a moment when all will agree national unity is essential. It occurred to one at once that surely it was not too much to expect from those at homo that at such a moment it should be recognised that all personal considerations should be forgotten—as forgotten they are in the loyal co-operation by those who are fighting in the trenches. I am not very well aware of what is going on at home, and I am not able to speak as to the merits or the demerits of the late Government. But one thing I do know, that the present Government has been called into being, and it asks for our support in order that we may carry the War to a triumphant conclusion. As, I think, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said just now, in company with all patriotic men I intend to give it all the support in my power. What is more, I think that those at the front will scarcely forgive any who may covertly or overtly seek to undermine its strength. I am glad to recognise that there is a universal feeling of unanimity in the House at the present time, and that Members will most certainly recognise their obligations.
  What about the Press? There are newspapers and newspapers! I sometimes wish, reading the newspapers abroad, that it were possible to restrict all newspapers to the publication of news. I should like to do away with headlines. I should like to put a stop to the recording of political gossip—most of it purely conjectural, and more often than otherwise quite false. Sometimes I think we might do without leading articles, though I am bound to say that many leading articles are weightily written and with a due sense of responsibility. Everybody knows that the halfpenny Press, at the present moment, are the principal offenders. Amongst the worst offenders I think we must number some of those papers which profess to support the new Government. Cannot these newspapers see that they are "queering the pitch" of the Prime Minister by the extravagant personal abuse of those lately in power? I must say that the reckless use of the terms "pro-Hun" and "traitor" positively sickens one. It is so clear that this unmeasured abuse must arouse such indignation in certain quarters of the House as seriously to en-

  1719
  danger that unanimity of support which will mean so much to the Government in the future. It is so un-English, this sort of thing! It is such a sign of unbalanced judgment! It gives such an impression abroad that people at home are getting "rattled." It is so little in accord with the mens sana in corpore sano, of which we have always been so proud and which has never failed your fighting troops in the field in this War even under the most disastrous and distressing circumstances. I would like to say, "Do let us give each other credit for being actuated by honesty and sincerity; do let us credit each other with the best and not the worst motives." I can assure hon. Members that things at the front are very different, because there prevails there a spirit of what I might call generous altruism. When the echo of these personal recriminations reaches the men in the field they ask themselves, "Are the politicians quite mad?"
  They would appeal to you to get at the relative importance of things—to keep the necessities of the moment in the right perspective, and let patriotism expel prejudices, personalities, and party considerations. I have said that there are no such recriminations on the Somme. But hon. Members may picture to themselves what desperate hardships are being suffered by those who are occupying the fighting area at the present moment. Quite apart from the danger of battle, and what they call intensive shell-fire, the conditions our men are enduring every day are such as would seem scarcely endurable to many at home. They are up to their eyes in liquid and half frozen mud with never a chance of getting dry from morning to night. Yet they carry on cheerfully and confidently, inspired by the single-minded and unselfish determination that their cause shall prevail. What a splendid example do these set to those at home! Never for one moment does their confidence in the ultimate success of the cause fail them. There is some amount of gloom at home. There is no denying that. It may be that the fate which has overtaken our Roumanian friends in the Balkans has produced that gloom, has given rise to it in the minds of those who lose their sense of proportion and cannot estimate the whole position in the right perspective. There are no such doubts upon the Somme. We all know that for the moment that climatic conditions have compelled a halt. Nobody can advance in
  1720
  a sea of liquid mud. It is only for the moment. They will be at them again there before very long, and I will tell the House that there is in the air, and prevalent in the atmosphere, a sort of conviction that we have got the Germans; that we have got to the turning point. That impression is every day being confirmed by the demeanour of German prisoners falling into our hands. From the many documents which we find upon them which were never intended to reach our eyes, we learn with certainty that the German people are being strained beyond endurance. We have constant proofs of that. Is it not confirmed by the attitude of trembling anxiety with which the Germans have awaited our answer to the peace overture? from the Central Powers? I am quite certain the House will agree that with the turning point so near this is not the moment to falter in our determination to insist that our righteous cause shall prevail ! It has been well said—it was said the other day—that the Army in the field was a radiant centre of optimism. All that that Army in the field asks you is that you should be as true to it as it has proved itself in the past, and will prove itself in the future, to be true to you.
  Major E. WOOD: I do not rise to add anything to that which the hon. and gallant Member has just said. I am only desirous to make a few observations, as an entirely unofficial Member, upon a matter which, I think, is of first importance, and I am not without hope that the views of unofficial Members may perhaps have some solid influence. I refer to the question of Ireland. Those of us who heard a few nights ago the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clare (Major W, Redmond) are under a considerable debt to him for that speech. I should like in passing to say that I think the House, and wellwishers of Ireland, will all feel that that kind of speech is of infinitely more use, and of infinitely greater advantage, to the cause of Ireland than some of the speeches which in the last few days have been made on Irish matters. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will acquit me of discourtesy if I regret, on behalf of those who wish well of Ireland— and I think we all wish well of Ireland, although our ways and methods may be different—the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond), and even more if I regret

  1721
  the speech made last night by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon). If it were required, I could without difficulty, I think, give those hon. Gentlemen the reasons for the statement that I make. I know, privately and extensively, what harm those speeches have done, but, speaking with no special knowledge of Ireland, for I, like the hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Major W. Redmond), have been absent from this House, and shall be absent again, I am quite certain that what I am going to say is by no means an odd, personal view of my own, but is one shared by a great many with whom I work.
  There is no need to emphasise the importance of Ireland as a war problem. We were reminded of it in that capacity a few nights ago by the Prime Minister. We were reminded of its international and Imperial bearing by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and for each one of us, when we survey the situation in this country, and when we try to appraise in our minds what are the advantages and disadvantages under which we labour at this moment, when we are inclined to be most optimistic, there is always the recollection of Ireland as a spectre at the feast, for which, so far, statesmanship has found no solution. I would ask the House to bear with me if, purely from the English point of view, I recall what I fancy to have been the process through which the English mind has passed. We all of us remember—I remember most vividly—the great gratification that ran through this House in the very early days of the War at the attitude taken up by the official representatives of. Nationalist Ireland in this House, and how we deplored the way in which, owing to various misunderstandings, into which it is unnecessary to enter, the tone of the picture gradually changed; how, after that, came the more serious events in Dublin, with all the subsequent history attaching to them, and, finally, the abortive efforts at a settlement a few months ago. As a result of influences, some ignorant, some mysterious, all tragic, we now see the spectacle in which a large section of Ireland is resolutely standing aloof and aside from the effort which the rest of the Empire is making, with the result that, as an hon. and gallant Friend of mine reminded the House a few nights ago, the question of recruiting for the Irish Division is one of the extremest gravity, and with the result, which is more immediately felt in this
  1722
  country, that Irishmen are filling positions in England that Englishmen have been compelled to forego and leave behind, and are drawing wages which those Englishmen, by their military service, have been compelled to give up.
  Mr. BYRNE: Are there no Englishmen in Ireland?
  Major WOOD: I think the hon. Member, if he goes to Liverpool, will know there is ample justification for what I have said. It is impossible to ignore that situation. It is impossible to fail to recognise the dangers that are inherent in it from the point of view of this country, and from the point of view of Ireland. It is impossible, as I know very well, and many other hon. Members of this House know, to exaggerate the bitterness that is being caused in many English homes by that situation to-day. The ordinary Englishman, when confronted with that situation, is inclined cither to say, quite naturally and simply, that the remedy is to do the obvious thing —on paper—namely, to apply the same measure of compulsion to Ireland in the matter of military service that you have already applied to England, Scotland, and Wales, or he inclines to wash his hands of Ireland, to set his teeth and say, "With them or without them, we will win the War." To my mind either of those answers is essentially unsatisfactory. Either of those answers, in the situation in which we find ourselves now, amounts to a confession of failure, and I do not suppose within the whole course of Irish history there has ever been a paradox and a tragedy more simple and more complete than this, namely, that this struggle which at home is breaking and has broken down the barriers of class and political prejudices should, at the very heart of the Empire, be sowing seeds and laying the foundations of a disunion which is likely to be more permanent and more irreconcilable than it has ever been. That, in my judgment, is the inevitable outcome of present events, unless statesmanship can guide them into happier channels.
  A situation in which England loses the fighting strength of Irish manhood at this juncture on the one hand, and in which, on the other, Ireland pursues a policy which bids fair to be the undoing of all that friends of Ireland have been trying to do for generations past, seems to me a situation which no patriotic person can con-

  1723
  template with equanimity. If that is so, what path then is the House of Commons and the Government to take at this parting of the ways? They can either, of course, follow along the old paths which, I think, in the minds of many of us are likely to lead them into unfruitful and barren controversy, or the Government can take its courage in both hands and advise the Crown to make a generous departure upon new lines, for which it would enlist the services, perhaps, not only of the representatives of Irish parties in this House, but of all the representative Irishmen in whatever walk of life they be in Ireland, and would give Irish leaders an opportunity of proving the sincerity of all that they have often said they were willing to do by way of assurance and guarantees. When they have said that—and along with that let them couple an appeal to the honour and all that is best in ideals and hopes in Ireland—let them appeal frankly, and boldly and fearlessly to Ireland to take a stand along with them for all that we, as well as Ireland, are fighting for. As I began by saying, I do not think speeches like those that have been made from the Irish Benches always assist the Government in what is bound to be an extremely delicate matter. After all, this subject is not, and cannot be, one of a nicely-calculated weighing of pros and cons between this political party and that. Inasmuch as we have been reminded often enough that the question is one in which imagination, atmosphere, sentiment, all the intangible things of life play a predominant part—inasmuch as all that is true, I submit with certainty in my own mind that the only way in which British statesmen can hope to relieve it is by what I have described as a frank and fearless appeal to imagination and sentiment. It is perfectly true that the political risk involved in that course is great. It is perfectly true that there is no certainty, it might be said, that, even under so generous a scheme as I have outlined, you will get the men you want. I doubt very much whether, if the information that reaches me is correct, the risk we should run by adopting such a course is any greater than the risk we run by proceeding on our present course. With regard to the question whether or not we should in effect get the, men from Ireland, I should like to remind the House of what I think is a not inapplicable precedent, that the times to-day for some such action
  1724
  as this are not, to say the least of it, more unpropitious—I should be prepared to put it higher, but I will content myself with that—than were the times when the late Mr. George Wyndham first began to consider and outline his policy of a conference between landlords and tenants with regard to Irish land. It will be within the recollection of older political memories than mine that that somewhat prominent figure in Ireland. Captain Shaw Taylor, who was responsible for the first suggestion of that, was treated as a harmless lunatic in the minds of many. It was said, if that policy was adopted, there would be no security that Ireland would not repudiate what were merely honourable obligations. That did not happen, and for my part in the crisis in which we are I should unhesitatingly take that risk, and I should do it with this object, that I should consider that I had fair hope that under some such course of action as that I might well get half or three-quarters of the available men out of Ireland I was entitled to get; and, besides, I should get something of far greater value and that is a public opinion which would compel all the rest of Ireland to do its duty once I had been able to enlist it on my side. There may be many who would say that that is an excessive sacrifice to demand from the people, who would most violently disagree with such a policy. I know very well how great that sacrifice would be, but I also know, as we all know, that if we have learned one thing more than another in this hard school of war we have learned this, that to achieve anything you must have sacrifice and that the extent of the sacrifice is most often the measure of the worth of the attainment. I would say to my friends in Ulster at this juncture that well as they have deserved of the Empire in the past, they would earn a nobler title to fame if at this moment they could freely accept the invitation to make the great venture of faith without which no such experiment would be possible. Let them as a community make the sacrifice that so many have been willing to make on the battlefields of France.
  One word more and I have done. I think that the people of this country will forgive the taking of great risks and pardon failures if the handling of this matter were to show a genuine inspiration. I cannot impress upon the House too strongly how urgent this matter is or how rapidly events appear to me to be moving,

  1725
  or how imperative is the need for some action. To the new Government is given as great an opportunity as has ever fallen to the lot of any Government. The Prime Minister has peculiarly valuable and quite exceptional qualities. The Chief Secretary is a person of broad sympathies who, in spite of an extremely difficult position, has won the respect of men of all parties in and out of this House, and on this new Government are concentrated all the hopes, the high hopes, of the people of the United Kingdom and of Ireland, who see in them, or hope they see in them, men who realise the magnitude of the task to which they have set their hands and who realise the importance of forging, if need be, new weapons with which to handle that task. I would implore them to grasp the opportunity that is before them boldly and fearlessly, and, if they would, I verily believe that all parties would rally to their standard; and if they could enlist, as I believe they could, the genuine enthusiasm, self-denial and self-sacrifice of all political parties in this question, they would be able to succeed, and if they succeeded they would, without question, have earned the undying gratitude of all their fellow countrymen.
  Mr. LEES SMITH: I wish to make a few observations with regard to the Note which has recently arrived from the Central Powers, and to the speech in reply to it made by the Prime Minister. That Note contained a statement that the Central Powers would bring forward proposals which they considered to be an appropriate basis for a firm and a lasting peace. It is difficult to tell from the Note whether those proposals would be laid before the Conference was held or after, but I understand that what the Prime Minister's reply amounted to was that those proposals must be made now before, and not after, the various parties have met in some Council Chamber. The Prime Minister did not close the door. I understand that if these proposals are made now, and if they do not conflict with any of the obligations of honour in regard to the purposes for which we entered the War, that then there is some hope that they may form the basis of negotiations. I wish to say that I, and a number of other hon. Members, considered that that was a very wise answer, and the best possible answer which at this stage a British Minister could make. I wish, if I may, to
  1726
  emphasise one or two considerations. We really want that the German Chancellor should put forward his propositions, and for that reason I hope that any Note which may go in reply—because that is what he will officially have in front of him and not speeches—will not be couched in such language as to make it practically impossible in view of the public opinion of his own country for him to proceed further with the matter. I say this because it is of the highest importance that these proposals should see the light of day. This is important to us, to neutrals, and it is also important from the point of view of the German people.
  If these proposals are sincere, well, then, I say frankly that I most intensely desire to see the end of this horror and suffering and slaughter; if they are sincere, well then, the possibility of the end of this War comes in sight. If they are not genuine, then it is equally necessary that they should be made public, and for this reason. If this War goes on for another year or two, the German people will be faced with the prospect of starvation and death and suffering, which I do not believe that they or any people will endure unless they are convinced that they are doing it for some noble and honourable purpose. Strangely as it may seem to us, at the present time I believe that the German people are so convinced. The German Chancellor has throughout told them that they are fighting for their existence and for their legitimate rights. If these proposals are not genuine, then let them be made public, and let it be seen that the Germans are fighting for purposes of aggression. When the German people realise it is for that they are suffering and dying, then I believe we shall have taken a step which will be far more effective than any military victories in undermining the forces which are consolidating the German nation.
  7.0 P.M.
  At this stage of the War and the possibilities of peace, I think it is necessary to deal with some of the deeper questions which seem to be affecting the public mind. I came back to this House two or three weeks ago, and I found in discussing this matter with a number of my friends that one argument kept recurring again and again. I have been told over and over again that even if we secure peace now, and secure it on satisfactory terms, than even then we should have failed to achieve the purpose for which we entered into this War. I have been

  1727
  told that the purpose for which we entered into this War was security for Europe, and that whatever the terms of peace may be, that security cannot be ensured unless the peace is preceded by a clear and definite military decision. I want to deal with that subject: First of all, I wish to say that I think that on a question of that sort the House should inform itself not only of the opinion of the public in this country, but of the opinion of the soldiers who are abroad. The hon. and gallant Member who has just addressed the House (Major Wood) has recently returned from France. I also have recently returned from the front. I have not been out there as long as he has. He has been there a year, and I have been out there for seven or eight months. I have held a very subordinate and very unheroic position, but on this particular point it has had an advantage. I have been able to form some judgment of what ordinary soldiers, the rank and file, are saying and thinking when they are among themselves, because throughout that period, I happen to have been serving in the ranks. I do not think I am a militarist, but I say frankly that I have come to the couclusion that those men out there on such an issue as this, will form a sounder, a less hysterical, a less prejudiced, and a more realistic judgment than any body of men in this country. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member who spoke just now, and I should be very pleased indeed if the issues of peace and war depended not upon the Press of this country but upon the views of those who have to face war in its reality other Members have given their experience, and I think I am entitled to give my own experience. I wish to tell the House most emphatically that I am absolutely certain, if you put it to the men out there whether provided we can obtain guarantees that our honourable obligations will be fulfilled—
  Mr. SALTER: What sort of guarantees?
  Mr. SMITH: I will explain in a moment. If you put it to them whether we should then make a serious effort, all parties to get together, I say such a proposition would not only be carried by an overwhelming majority but with practical unanimity. I should like to deal with this idea of a military decision. The Prime Minister speaking the other day told us
  1728
  quite frankly that we must not expect any speedy military decision. I suppose it is generally agreed that a military decision can only be reached—1 will not say only, but is most likely to be reached—as the final result of something in the nature of a war of attrition. That is to say, the War is to settle down into a grim exchange of a life for a life in which there will be fewer fit and wholesome men left in each country and until the German lines are so thin that they will fall back to shorter lines in the rear, and then the process will continue again. I hope that I shall not be accused of what the Prime Minister described as poltroonery. I say frankly that is to me a most {rightful prospect and one which I confess I am not willing to face unless I am convinced that there is no other road out. The question which I have kept asking myself is this: When we have gone through with it, when it is all over, when we have got our military decision by these means, where then shall we find the security which it is all to obtain? When it is all over, as far as I can see, there will still be left in the heart of Europe a hundred million men organised, systematic, penned in, as it is also proposed by the rest of Europe, behind hostile tariff barriers, prepared to take advantage of any shifting of alliances to recover their position. To me the notion that these are the conditions under which we shall obtain security from the fear of another war seems to be the wildest delusion, and a delusion which is fraught with the most tragic and awful consequences, for it will prolong this War for months, and it may be for years, after the time when there is any good purpose that it can accomplish, and will send to mutilation and slaughter tens of thousands of my fellow countrymen.
  If we want security we must alter our whole way of looking at this subject. I believe security can only be obtained by a scheme by which the nations of Europe and outside agree together that all will guarantee each and each will guarantee all. One of the most important events in the history of this War, and, indeed, in the history of the world, has been the fact that this scheme has been now officially adopted by the Government of the United Kingdom, by the Government of Germany, and by the Government of the United States in their acceptance of the proposals that they should band themselves together into a league of nations. To my mind, therefore, we shall achieve the purposes of

  1729
  this War not according to whether or not we obtain a military decision, but according to whether or not there is created out of it a league of nations, and a league of nations which begins without being burdened by a legacy of unremedied grievances which might stifle it at its birth. I therefore think that the purpose of this War is to secure terms of settlement which, on the one hand, will put an absolute and decisive veto upon any mere aggression, and, on the other hand, will give consideration to any legitimate claims which any of the countries engaged in the War may be able to make good. If we can secure a peace of that sort, then I think a military decision becomes unimportant, because without it we shall have removed as far as human foresight can the causes of war.
  I have found, in speaking on this matter to my friends and others, that it has seemed to them the very notion that we are in this War in order to create a league of nations is fantastic and unpractical and Utopian. It might be so if we were living in ordinary times, but we are not. We are standing upon the threshold of a new order of the world. We are living in a moment in history when mankind never so clearly has held its own fate for good or for ill in its own hands. If Christian Europe does not now make up its mind to make an end of war, I do not see how civilisation as we have known it can go on. We all agree to that. We all want to rid ourselves of war, but there lies between us a profound cleavage of opinion as to the path along which that end is to be pursued. Some wish to pursue it by trying to hold the Central Empires down by a military decision, followed up by economic strangulation. If you do that, you will carry forward into peace the hostilities and the hatreds of war; you will divide Europe into two rival camps; you will make armies, navies and armaments more burdensome and oppressive than ever; you will make war more inevitable and deadly than ever; and you will clamp and fasten Conscription irrevocably upon this nation and all others. I myself prefer—it may sound Utopian—to follow the other path.
  If I may speak more particularly to those with whom I have been politically associated, I would say to them the path to follow is to go back to the old Liberal tradition and trust yourselves boldly to those decent, kindly, humane forces which are to be found in every man and in every
  1730
  nation. Put behind you military decisions and Paris Conferences; seek only terms of peace which will enable you to substitute the possibility of friendship for the continuance of hatred, and on those terms of peace erect a league of nations. Of course, it will not give you absolute security, and nothing can. I admit that if these human forces fail us the league of nations will break in our hands. But if they fail us nothing can succeed. They will not fail us. I believe that those who put their trust in the great moral forces, which lie latent in the hearts of man, will find that, in the long run, they have never failed mankind. Trust them once again. I say that because I see no other way by which who can save the civilisation of Europe.
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): The House will readily understand that I am divided between two desires. It is the general desire of the House, I think, that we should rise to-morrow, and if that is to be done it is quite impossible that a subject so vast as that which we have just been discussing can be properly debated to-night. I am going to try and set an example by saying very little indeed on the burning questions which have been raised in the course of the Debate. In regard to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, I at least, who have run vicarious risks, have no right to throw taunts at a man who has had his place in the fighting line. At the same time I am compelled to say that if the spirit of the speech to which we have just listened were to permeate this country then, in my belief, all the blood and treasure which have been spent in this War will have been spent in vain. I do not think that he or anyone needs to impress upon us what are the horrors of this War. If there were ever any one who loved war for itself—I have always hated it—if there were any whose imaginations were moved by the pomp and panoply of war, they know better now what it is. It is not glorious victories or the hope of them that is moving the hearts of the people of this country. What we think of is the men—our own nearest relations—who are suffering the hardships which were pointed out to us by my hon. Friend behind me (Colonel Mildmay).
  What we are thinking of are the desolate homes to which life will never return again in this world. What we are thinking of are the maimed and wounded whom we

  1731
  see going about our streets. We do not love war, and if I saw any prospect of securing the objects for which we have been fighting by a peace to-morrow there is no man in this House who would welcome it more gladly than I would. But what is the position? The hon. Gentleman says—I hope no one will think in quoting his words I have any party view in mind—"Let us trust to the old Liberal traditions. Let us trust to the good hearts of those we are dealing with. "Why are we in this war to-day? Why are we suffering the terrible agonies which this nation is enduring? It is because we did trust Germany, because we did believe that the crimes which have been committed by them would never be committed by any human being. It is all very well to say, "Let us get terms of peace." Yes, but can you get any terms of peace more binding than the treaty to protect the neutrality of Belgium? Can you come to any conclusion upon paper or by promise which will give us greater security than we had before this War broke out. Where are we to find them. I hope that not this country alone but all the neutral nations of the world will understand the position that has now arisen. Germany has made a proposal of peace. On what basis? On the basis of her victorious army ! That is the basis. The hon. Member who spoke last tells us that if we win the victory there will be Conscription for ever in this country. But what will be the condition if peace is settled on the basis of a victorious German army? Is there any man in this House who has honestly considered, not merely the conditions in which this War was forced on the world, but the way in which the War has been carried on— is there any man in this House who honestly believes that the dangers and miseries from which we have suffered can be cured in any other way than by making the Germans realise that frightfulness does not pay, and that their militarism is not going to rule the world?
  I ask the House to realise what it is we are fighting for. We are not fighting for territory. We are not fighting for the greater strength of the nations who are fighting. I can say, honestly, so far as my own convictions are concerned, and I believe it is true of every one of us, we are fighting for two things—to put it in a nutshell. We are fighting for peace now. Yes, but we are fighting for security for peace in the time to come. That is what
  1732
  we are fighting for. When these German peace proposals come before us, not only based on German victories, but when they claim they are doing it on humanitarian grounds, and when they treat it, to put it at the best from their point of view, as if they and the Allies were at least equal —let the House remember this. Let them consider what has happened in this War. The outrages in Belgium and the outrages on sea and land. Let them remember what was referred to at Question Time to-day—the massacres in Armenia, which Germany could have stopped at a word, if she had wished to do so. Let them remember all that. and let them realise that this War will have been fought in vain, utterly in vain, unless we can make sure that it shall never again be in the power of a single man or of a group of men to plunge the world into miseries such as I have described.
  And when the hon. Gentleman talks about peace on these terms, I ask anyone in this House, or in the country, this question—Is there to he no reparation for the wrong done? Is the peace to come on this basis, that the greatest crime in the world's history is to go absolutely un punished? It is not vindictiveness to say that. It is my firm belief that unless all the nations of the world can be made to realise that these moral forces of which the hon. Gentleman spoke have to be shown in action—unless they realise that —there never can be an enduring peace in this world. I am not afraid of my countrymen. Both hon. Gentlemen have told us that the troops at the Front will fight to the end to secure what they think is necessary as a result of this War. I am sure that they will. I am sure also of this: that our fellow-countrymen at home who up till now —I shall say what I think about this—have made few sacrifices, except the sacrifice of those dear to them—our people at home are determined in this matter, and if they can be made to believe, as I am sure they can, that the objects for which we are fighting can be secured, then there is no sacrifice which they will not be prepared to make. I am afraid I have said more than I intended when I rose, but I could not refrain from expressing what I felt on this subject. After all, there will be many opportunities for thinking over and discussing this question, and so I hope that in a few minutes this Debate may be brought to an end.

  ARMY ACT AMENDMENT ACT.— [COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.]
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I do not propose to say anything to diminish the effect of the powerful speech of my right hon. Friend by continuing the discussion of the great subject on which he has just spoken, but if the House will bear with me for a few minutes I should like to refer not to any question of high policy, but to a mere detail of administration; and the only reason why I ask leave to do this to-night is because the subject which I want to introduce is one which cannot be profitably introduced at any later stage. Parliament is, we understand, going to rise to-morrow until February, and therefore this is the last opportunity that will occur for bringing to the notice of the House a matter which, I think, is of some importance. Several times during recent months questions have been addressed to Ministers —first of the late Government, and then of the present Government—asking for information with regard to the Committee of Inquiry which the House will remember was set up in August last by a special Act passed by this House. I myself have put down questions several times, and it was inevitable, perhaps, that the answer should be postponed latterly on account of the change of Government. On Tuesday last my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary asked me to postpone this question until to-day, and, of course, at his request, I readily undertook to do so; but I pointed out that unless I could get an assurance to-day that the Report of this Committee will be made public I should have no further opportunity of pressing for its publication until next Session. I want to mention to the House that one gallant officer who is closely concerned with the Report to which I have referred is to leave this country in the middle of January. His reputation as a military officer is greatly concerned in the Report, and I think the House will agree that it would be very unfair to that officer, if this Report is to be published at all, as I hope to convince the House that it should be, that its publication should be deferred until after he has left this country for East Africa.
  I want to recall to the House the composition of this Committee and how it came into operation. The House will remember that in August last the present Prime Minister, who was then Secretary of State for War, passed through this House an Act for bringing into being a
  1734
  mixed military and civil court for inquiring into certain matters connected with War Office administration, which, as he told the House, concerned both military and civilian individuals. The court eventually set up was an extremely strong one. Its president was Field-Marshal Lord Nicholson, and the three other members of the court were Major-General Lord Cheylesrnore, Mr. Justice Atkin, and the Deputy-Chairman of Committee of this House. It would have been difficult to have formed a court more likely to command the confidence of this country and this House. Speaking in the House in August as to the necessity for this court, the present Prime Minister said:—
  "There are circumstances which involve imputations upon officers and upon others.
  With reference to the Report, when it was made, he used these words:—
  "The Report will be considered by the Army Council, by the Secretary of State and the Government, and, if necessary, by the House of Commons."
  I should like to ask the Under-Secretary if he will say who is to be the judge of the necessity of this Report being seen by the House of Commons. Is the Army Council to decide? Is the Secretary of State to decide? I submit it is the House of Commons that should decide, and it is for that purpose that I am appealing to the House to-night to decide that this Report—the Report of a Committee set up by a special Act of Parliament, and a Committee containing among others, a Member of this House—should, as a matter of right, be made to this House. The Committee, by its terms of reference, was to make a Report. To what body, if not to the House of Commons, should this Committee of inquiry report? I altogether deny that it was the intention of Parliament that this court was set up to report to the Army Council. That was unnecessary. The court that reports to the Army Council should be a court-martial. Further, a fortiori, it would not report to the Secretary of State alone, who, after all, is only a member of the Army Council from the point of view of the Army. I submit that on all grounds, constitutional and equitable, this Report should be definitely made to the House of Commons and that now, when it has been in being for several weeks, the House has a right to see it. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Bill setting up the court, also said—-it is usually said on these occasions:—
  " All the officers concerned not merely welcome but court inquiry and the fullest investigation."

  1735
  If it was true—I do not question it for a moment—that these officers did court an inquiry, surely it must follow that now that the Report has been made they do not shrink from the publicity of the findings. I have not seen the Report myself, although it has been in being for some weeks. It is supposed to be confidential, but copies have been sent to several individuals and, of course, the Government cannot expect that some knowledge of its contents should not leak out. I do not wish to hide the fact that, although I have not seen the Report, I have learned something of its contents. The cases which require the formation of this court were two. One concerned the reputation of a brigadier-general, who was a Welshman, and the other the reputation of a second-lieutenant, who was an Irishman, so that you have an officer of high rank and an officer of low rank both concerned. As regards the brigadier-general, I should like to remind the House of a question which was put by my friend the late Sir Arthur Markham in this House on 28th June. He asked the Prime Minister:—
  Whether he is aware that the late Lord Kitchener, on 3lat October, 1914, had an interview at his request with Brigadier-General Owen Thomas, the Minister of Munitions also being present—"
  That is the present Prime Minister—
  "when a pledge was given to the brigadier that in consideration of his agreeing to raise a North Wales Brigade the appointment of all officers should be in his hands, it being understood that Welsh speaking officers should, where possible, be appointed; that Lord Kitchener further authorised the brigadier to give this pledge to the Welsh people; whether the brigadier, despite this pledge, has now been superseded by a Scotsman. a Territorial colonel, who was formerly a lieutenant in the Regular Array; and will he, in view of this pledge, give the matter his consideration?"
  The answer was given by the then Under-Secretary for War:—
  "Mr. Tennant: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer these questions. I cannot find that there is any record in the War Office of any such undertaking as that mentioned. On the representation of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief the Home Forces, and in the interests of efficiency—"
  I would call the attention of the hon. Gentleman and the House to these words—
  "and the interests of efficiency, Brigadier-General Owen Thomas was relieved of his command by another officer."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT. 28th June, 1916, cols. 836–7, Vol. LXXXII1.]
  Pausing there for one moment, the Under-Secretary no doubt was giving the reply which was furnished by the Department. I make no sort of imputation as to his good faith in the matter. I think it was unfortunate that the answer given
  1736
  was that there was no trace of the pledge given to this officer, because I do not think that the present Prime Minister, if he were able to be present, would deny that verbally, at all events, such a pledge was given by Lord Kitchener in his presence. That, I understand, was the case. At all events, the moment that answer was given it was quite clear that it was given out to the world that Brigadier-General Owen Thomas was relieved of his command in the interests of efficiency. That, of course, was rather a severe blow to this officer, who had no reason whatever to suspect that he had not the complete confidence of his chiefs up to that time, as any commanding officer or generals who were sent down to inspect his brigade had invariably spoken in complimentary terms of his work, and he had every reason to believe that he had their confidence. In point of fact, he did retain and, I believe, retained to the last the confidence of Lord Kitchener. He was appointed by Lord Kitchener with the knowledge of the present Prime Minister, and he was appointed to this command because he possessed very special and unique qualifications for dealing with the Welsh people. I believe he successfully raised no less than ten battalions of Welsh troops. When that answer was given in this House. Brigadier-General Owen Thomas, very naturally and rightly, claimed an inquiry. I believe he was entitled to such an inquiry under the King's Regulations. Yet that inquiry was refused, for what reason I have been unable to find out. Lord Kitchener and the present Prime Minister who had appointed him knew his value.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): I do not know whether my hon. Friend would like me to intervene now to say that I have seen my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War since Question-Time, and he has had an interview with the present Prime Minister, who personally is very much interested in -his case as he was Secretary of State for War. I am enabled now to tell the House that we propose to publish the findings of the Court of Inquiry at once.
  Mr. MCNEILL: At once?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Yes, at once. I hope, with the leave of the House, to be able to make a further statement tomorrow.
  Mr. McNEILL: After what my hon. Friend has said I shall not certainly trouble the House any further. All I was anxious for, all I have asked for weeks and weeks, and all I have pressed for is the publication of the Report which, as I have already said, the House is entitled to have. Now we have the assurance of my hon. Friend that the findings of the two Reports—do I understand it is the two Reports?
  Mr. MACPHERSONindicated assent.
  Mr. McNEILL: Will be immediately made public- I have no further complaint to make.
  Sir H. ROBERTS: It is unnecessary for mo to take up more than one or two moments of the time of the House in expressing my gratification at the promise that the findings of this Court will be published immediately. The House will understand that to me in my position as a Welsh Member with a full knowledge of the Welsh position this particular case of Brigadier-General Owen Thomas is of especial interest to the people of Wales. Our only desire is that in this case the conclusions of this Court of Inquiry with regard to the circumstances under which he was removed from his command should be made public, and we hope that the atmosphere will be cleared of a certain suspicion as to the desire of the War Office—which I do not believe existed— to hush up matters which ought to be made public. I am only too glad to receive the assurance of the Under-Secretary of State this evening that possibly to-morrow he will be able to make a fuller statement which will not only, as I hope and believe, clear away the imputation from the character of Brigadier-General Owen Thomas which was conveyed in the answer to the question of 28th June, and which will do much, I hope, to restore full public confidence in the action and the policy of the War Office.
  Mr. CARADOCREES: I only regret the long delay there has been in the publication of this Report. Many months back the Report was ready. I personally thank the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. McNeill) for having raised the question and having appealed to the Government to agree to the publication of this Report. It is of the utmost importance that there should be confidence in the war administration of this country. There can only
  1738
  be confidence in the administration of the War and of the offices which administer the War if the country believe and know that justice and mercy will be meted out to high and low alike without fear and without favour. I congratulate the Under-Secretary upon the decision to publish the Report.

  FIELD PUNISHMENT.
  Mr. MORRELL: I desire to call attention to another matter which has lately often come before this House in questions and answers, but which has not for some years past been the subject of any Debate —I mean the very difficult subject of field punishment in the Army, in which is included the form of punishment popularly known as "crucifixion." I regret very much that two hon. and gallant Friends of mine (Commander Wedgwood and Major Hayward) are not able to be here to support me. Both have taken a great interest in the subject at different times, and it is after consultation with them that I venture to raise it to-day. I welcome very much the announcement made by the Under-Secretary for War on Tuesday that the Government are contemplating some reforms. It is quite true that, so far as I understand the answer, the reforms are not going very far. A great many people, myself included, believe that a considerable number of officers in the Army would like to see this punishment entirely abolished. They do not believe it is necessary. Some of the most distinguished officers, including brigadier-generals, do not believe that field punishment No. 1 is a necessary punishment, and would be glad to see it abolished. My object in bringing the subject before the House is, in the first place, in the hope that I shall get further details from my hon. Friend as to what is really intended, and, in the second place, to urge upon him certain points which ought to be and must be met if the very great dissatisfaction and resentment which this punishment has undoubtedly aroused is to be allayed. It is sometimes suggested—it has been suggested I think in this House— that the feeling which this subject has aroused is due to an agitation in the House, or to a Press agitation, and that it has not a solid basis. There is no sort of ground for such a suggestion. The matter came before me almost by chance through my taking up the case of Driver Graham, who was sentenced to this punishment on account of having ex-

  1739
  ceeded the speed limit, and since I asked a question and got a remission of that sentence I have been almost bombarded with letters on the subject. The interest which this arouses is very wide indeed. I have had letters from the front and from people in England. I have had interviews with people. I have interviewed many men who have seen this punishment actually being inflicted, and I have seen some men who have undergone it, and I can assure everyone that it is a matter, in my judgment, of very great national importance that this question should be set at rest in a satisfactory way.
  Moreover, the House of Commons is the right place for ventilating this subject. The Under-Secretary, in his answer yesterday, seemed to suggest that this was a matter which did not directly concern the House of Commons. I do not know whether he really suggested that, but there was that insinuation. If he tells me he did not suggest that, I accept what he says. It certainly concerns the House of Commons. The Regulations under which this punishment is inflicted were sanctioned by the House of Commons, and it is the duty of the House of Commons to inquire how far those Regulations are now justifiable. The question has really got a new importance owing to the enormous increase in the Army. That affects it in two ways. Not only now do you have men of education and social standing serving as privates in the rank and file, and men who have seen this thing going on are able to report upon it, but also the vast increase in the size of the Army has had this result, that many men of really very slight experience, and who in some cases are not men who ought to hold high position, do now occupy responsible positions. I have a letter from an old soldier who served in the old Army originally, and since then has been transferred to the New Army, as indicative of the sort of change I mean. He says in effect that when he was in the old Army, under experienced officers, the infliction of punishment No. I was of very rare occurrence. He had known of only seven cases in his own company. When he was transferred to the New Army he found a completely different state of things, and I think he says there were no fewer than sixty cases, some of them for comparatively technical offences, in which this punishment had been inflicted. I think that is generally the experience,
  1740
  that there has been a very large increase, I and I think an unjustifiable increase, in ! this form of punishment. That seems to me an altogether regrettable state of things, and one that this House ought to guard against. It is very necessary that the punishment should be safeguarded, and that the offences in respect of which it may be inflicted should be clearly defined, because it is a severe and sometimes a cruel and a degrading punishment. In conversation with a general now in the War Office, he said to me, "This is a hard and degrading punishment, and it breaks the spirit of any man." Therefore it ought not to be inflicted except for the gravest offences. We ought also to know whether it can be awarded by the commanding officer or by a court-martial.
  I think it is right that I should prove the point I have made that this punishment is extremely severe, and that it is awarded in respect of comparativley minor and technical offences. I will give three instances to prove what I have to say. In the first place, I will state a case, which appeared in the papers and which I have inquired into, of a Liverpool man whose name I prefer not to give, a member of the Corn Exchange Pals Battalion in Liverpool, who died as the result of the infliction of this punishment. He was a man of the highest social standing. He was very well known in Liverpool, and was an international hockey player, amongst other things. He volunteered at the beginning of the War, although forty years of age, having a great many relations and friends in Liverpool. He was a man of the best education, and might have had a commission, but went into the ranks. His mother was expecting him home on leave in the ordinary way after two years' service abroad. She heard | that for an offence which, I believe, was merely that of having lost his helmet, he was condemned and sentenced to field punishment No. 1. As a result of that punishment, when he was on the eve of coming back, he died. That is practically made good by an interview which General Child, Director of Personal Ser- vice at the War Office, gave to a Press representative on 14th November. It was reported in the "Evening Standard" of that date. In the interview he said:
  "The soldier concerned, together with eleven other men, was sentenced to one day's field punishment I No. 1. On the morning upon which he was sentenced I he was medically inspected by the medical officer of the battalion, who certified him as fit to undergo the

  1741
  punishment. The field punishment consisted of fatigue. From 1.45 to i.40 the men were employed in digging a hole for the disposal of rubbish from 4.40 until 6 they were doing nothing. They were then confined under the conditions laid down in the Bales for Field Punishment for half an hour."
  That is merely General Child's description of it. What really happened was that they were placed in these detention barracks in the ordinary way, crucified with their arms out, and confined to these particular posts for that purpose. It is the punishment known as "crucifixion."
  Mr. MACPHERSON: Where did this take place?
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. MORRELL: At the front. I will go on with the quotation:—
  "Here it should be noted that the maximum period allowed is two hours, Subsequently to this—"
  I believe it was immediately afterwards—
  "the soldier concerned whilst on the march asked leave of the provost-sergeant to fall out, as he did not feel well. The sergeant himself took the man to the medical inspection room, where he was placed on a stretcher and made as comfortable as possible. He complained of acute pains below the right lung and difficulty in breathing. He shortly afterwards collapsed and died."
  He goes on to describe the post-mortem examination:
  "A post-mortem examination was held the next day at which the lieutenant-colonel, a major, two captains and an expert bacteriologist were present. They investigated every organ of the man's body, and apart room some slight trace of fatty disease of the heart here was no other evidence to the naked eye of the cause of death. In the words of the finding of the post-mortem. the only suggestion is that an acute attack of dilatation of the heart supervened."
  That is, that the man had an acute attack of dilatation of the heart. That really bears out what I said, that it is really there admitted that the man died as the result of the infliction of this punishment. Most fair-minded people who read that report would say that was so. I do not think anyone would deny that there have been cases, not once or twice but a good a good many cases, in which death has supervened as the result of this punishment. I am prepared to bring some more cases if necessary. That is my information upon the subject. I do not say that frequent cases have occurred in which this punishment has resulted in the death of the victim.
  I will give one other instance now of the trivial things for which this punishment is inflicted. There is the case of Driver Graham, to which I have already referred. There you had a perfectly respectable man, who was a well-known member of the Society of Chauffeurs before the War. He entered the Army as a volunteer, and
  1742
  he was put to drive a great motor lorry at the front. In doing that he had exceeded the speed limit—driving a bit too fast. Some commanding officer said he would make an example of him, and he was sentenced to 90 days with this field punishment. Simply as the result of questions in this House and as a result of the feeling that was raised in this country that sentence was entirely remitted, very much to the credit of the War Office, I agree. I am glad it was remitted, but I say that there you have an instance of the sort of abuse which occurs, because at the present time the offences are not properly defined for which this punishment may be inflicted. This man really was guilty only of a technical offence, and yet he was sentenced to this cruel punishment of "crucifixion." Not only was the sentence remitted, but, finally, we were able to obtain for his wife all the arrears of pay which had been stopped. We thus got the whole matter put right. I do not want to weary the House, but I want to make this case perfectly clear because I do not want to refer to it again.
  I have here another letter from a member of the Cardiff Pals, another man of good standing, a member of the Welsh Regiment, who volunteered at the beginning of the War. This was written some time ago, but it is given as an instance of what happened. He says:
  "I wonder if you could see rather a severe bit of business through for the fellows of this battalion, which is out at Salonika I can assure you that besides the few that are materially affected, you would be doing us all a good turn which shall never be forgotten. The grievance is this. Since our arrival in Greece about six or eight of our fellows have been unfortunate enough to get into scrapes of quite a minor nature, and the punishment they have received has been of the very severest, namely, that of being tied to the wheel of a limber. Now this to one who has never actually witnessed it may not sound a lot, but I can assure you to pass them and witness the look of abject misery on their faces is terrible. Of the first four eases I'll say nothing, but the last batch to be tied up were awarded this for merely the following: Every morning at 6.30 we have to trn ont on parade for a wash, which we get in a stream the other side of the hill near our camp, a thing we all relish very much, but one morning it. was pouring with rain and a few chaps stayed in their ' biovies,' thinking in all probability (I suppose) that it was just as bad to get their clothes soaked through by putting them down whilst washing as it was good to find merely their faces and hands clean. Now this sort of thing may be a breach of military rules but it does not, I am sure, warrant such severe punishment, and should such a thing leak out I am sure Lord Derby's scheme would look a sorry sight. at any rate it would not. be a great aid towards recruiting. I forgot to mention the length of time the punishment is for—one hour in the morning and one in the afternoon for twenty-one days."
  Whenever we raise subjects of this sort we are told the same old thing, "Discipline in the Army must be maintained; the War

  1743
  is a severe thing, and you must not judge punishments by civilian standards." I am not here in order to interfere with the discipline of the Army; in fact, I believe the finest thing that can be done for the discipline of the Army would be to see that the sense of injustice which this punishment has raised is done away with. We have been told on every case of this sort the same thing; the same arguments have been brought forward. It took years of agitation in this House before the brutal and degrading punishment of flogging was done away with. Fifty years ago a man in the British Army—and it constantly happens—might die under the lash. Fifty years ago it was possible to give as much as 200 lashes to the soldier. As the result of a great agitation it was reduced to fifty lashes. From 1846 to 1881, fifty lashes were permissible. Lastly, in 1881, as a result of constant efforts by Members of this House flogging was altogether abolished. Will anyone say the discipline of the Army has suffered since? Everyone knows the discipline is better now than it was then.
  Therefore, I say we have a very strong case for asking that this punishment, which I believe will be generally admitted to be a degrading punishment, should be abolished. Short of that, there are, I think, at any rate three or four reforms which are required, and which I want to press upon my hon. Friend. In the first place, I would ask this: Will he see to it that there is no more of the particular form of punishment known as crucifixion? The first question I would put to him is that this particular form of punishment— the holding up of the arms when the person is tied—which is now constantly inflicted in detention camps, should be done away with, and that the pole punishment should also cease. I will not go into that, because I do not want to specify it. It is well known that there is a form of punishment known as pole punishment. The second point I would make is this: Will you see to it that in the future this is not inflicted on men in public? That at least is a reasonable request. To-day men in France are punished in public, and the little French children may go out and watch an English soldier being crucified. I say that is a thing which ought to be done away with. Thirdly—and this I have already asked—may we have a still better definition of the offence for which this very severe punishment, if it is to continue, is
  1744
  to be awarded, so that it may be awarded more rationally, and only by a court-martial. Lastly—this, I think, is very important—will my hon. Friend be able to tell us when he makes his reply that this will not be done merely by some instructions sent out to the commanding officers, but that there will be a definite alteration in the Regulations brought before this House and submitted to it. That is very important, because the Regulations at present are obviously insufficient. Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that these Regulations are amended; and lastly, that there shall be no more delay over this matter, which has now been for six months constantly before this House and in the Press. It is time it should be dealt with. I believe this really does constitute a serious scandal and I would ask the Government to act fearlessly and promptly, so that what is a very grave cause of resentment among a large number of men in the Army and at home may at least be removed.
  Mr. J. MASON: I desire to take only a very few moments in order to call attention to a comparatively small matter of War Office administration which seems to me to be susceptible of improvement. It has to do with the information which is kept at the War Office of the qualifications of men who seek commissions, and, possibly, of those who are in other ranks. It is a curious thing that when a man applies for a commission he is asked a very considerable number of questions, involving particulars as to his parentage, and even asking the occupation of his father, but he is not asked what his own occupation has been. One can easily see that this form originated in time of peace, when men applied for commissions who were obviously not occupied in some other way —young men starting in life. Now, since the Army has grown, it is very largely officered by men, who, up to the time of the War, were engaged in all the various professions and occupations of the country. It seems to me a most important thing that the War Office should be informed of a man's former experience and capabilities. My attention was called to this matter by a young man who is now a captain in an Infantry regiment, and who, previous to the War, was a mining engineer of very considerable practice and knowledge. He told me himself that he had never been asked a question or asked to give any information as to his previous career, and it struck me that it was

  1745
  worth while calling the attention of the War Office to such a fact, because it is quite possible there may be hundreds or even thousands of men who have technical skill such as that of this mining engineer. Or there might be men—I do not know of a case—of medical training, or with some other qualification, which, at a particular moment, it might be extremely desirable to know of for the purpose of the War. It is quite evident that if the War Office was to require the services of 200 or 300 engineers, that the knowledge where these men could be found might be extremely important. Therefore, I should venture to suggest that, even if there is no record as to the previous occupation of this very large number of officers who are now in the Army, the War Office at any rate should alter the form which is now sent out to all those who apply for a commission with a view to ascertaining their qualifications. This man, and one or two others who corroborated his statement, are of course men who have been in the Army since the early days of the War, and I do not know whether there has been any alteration in recent times in the nature of the form sent out. I do not want to make this a point against the War Office. I am merely desirous of throwing out a suggestion which might lead to useful results at a later stage of the War.
  Major C. HUNTER: In the few remarks I wish to make I desire to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman who represents the War Office to the number of thefts that have taken place from officers and soldiers' bodies when the officers or soldiers have been killed or wounded in the field. My hon. Friend will quite understand that in making these remarks I do not in any way whatever cast blame on him or his Department. I know perfectly well everybody connected with the War Office is most anxious to sift this matter to the bottom. I know that there are generals in the field who would only be too anxious to discover these delinquents and that if they caught them red-handed they would inflict upon them the severest penalties which the military law would enable them to impose. But my object in raising this unpleasant question is rather to give it publicity, because I feel that if publicity is given to this matter it would probably reach the ears or the eye of some of those who are engaged in this nefarious practice and would cause them to desist. Unpleasant t most certainly is, because it is robbing officers and men in the field,
  1746
  and partakes rather of those ghouls who used to frequent and consort with armies in the Middle Ages, and is in no measure connected wit I those splendid fellows who are now fighting the battles of right and and justice upon the fields of Europe. Some time ago I had occasion to ask a question in the House on this subject in regard to matters brought to my own personal knowledge, and I was quite astounded at the number of letters that I received from all parts of England bearing on the subject. Many of the letters came from people in very modest circumstances, who have done everything they possibly could—in fact, they have stinted themselves to give their sons or their brothers or other relations some article of value, such as a good pair of glasses or an excellent watch, a thing yon must have in the trenches, or some other article as a token. The least that these people look forward to is that when those dear ones of theirs are killed or wounded that these articles should be returned to them to keep as a memento of the sacrifice made. But that is not to be. In nearly every case of an officer's kit being returned to this country I have no hesitation in saying that practically every article of real value has been abstracted from it. It is a very disgraceful state of affairs. Not only did I receive hundreds of letters from people all over the country, but I received letters from general officers on the subject. Naturally those letters are private and confidential, and I will only read one extract from one of the letters, which I shall be willing to show to any hon. Member who desires to see it. It is from a general officer in Gallipoli. Referring to my question, he said:
  "I should say that in 75 per cent. of cases the bodies of dead officers were completely rifled of everything of value."
  He went on to say:
  "My blood boils still when I think of my dead officers in Gallipoli, everything taken off their bodies—glasses, wrist watches, money, trinkets, etc. Their bodies were never for one moment in the hands of the Turks."
  Could anybody have more direct evidence that this robbery is done by our people? It is not for me, and I should be the last person in the world to attribute the blame to one particular class of men, but I will say this, that from all the evidence I have received, and I have received a great deal, it has been very clearly brought to my knowledge that all this thieving takes place between the time that the man is actually hit in the firing line until he reaches the base hospital. There are very

  1747
  few instances—in fact, I have not found a single one—where the kit of an officer or the kit of a man which has been sent from regimental headquarters has not arrived in this county in exactly the same state in which it left. I do not think the blame is attributable to the regimental headquarters, or to the railway people in France or the railway people in England. I do hope that when my hon. Friend gives his answer he will be able to let the House know, and the country know-—because it is a very burning question with many people—that every effort will continue to be made to trace these people, and that if they are traced we can rely upon our generals to carry out prompt punishment.
  Mr. BILLING: I had intended to limit my remarks to the question of the Air Report which was put upon the Table of the House yesterday, but the hon. Member who raised this question of No. I Field Punishment reminds me very forcibly of the feeling that does prevail in the country, and among the troops, with reference to this punishment. I raised the question two months ago. I brought one ease to the knowledge of the late Under-Secretary of State for War, and within a month I received dozens of letters on the subject. Several people came to see me, and informed me that this punishment was not limited to the Army in the field. Some gentlemen from the East Coast came to see me, and said they had personally witnessed the crucifixion of men at camps on the East Coast, for everybody to see. I am satisfied that it is possible to maintain discipline in the British Army without acts of brutality such as that. I can speak with a certain amount of experience, because I have been both a trooper and an officer, for several years in both cases. I know what the feeling in the ranks is with regard to any form of punishment of that description, and I also know the feeling of a number of officers. What does it amount to in this War whether you are an officer or whether you are a private? What it largely amounts to is, which door you have knocked at when you go to the War Office or the Admiralty. I could give dozens of instances of capable men, experienced men, who have knocked at the door of the War Office and at the door of the Admiralty and said, "Please can I have a commission"? But they did not happen to knock loud enough, and perhaps there was
  1748
  nobody knocking with them, with the result that they went in by another door and they became privates. More power to them. However, the point is that this form of No. 1 Field Punishment was introduced in the days of what we may call a professional Army, when what some of our writers have referred to as the fellows who did not make good anywhere—and they were a pretty tough crowd—joined up in the Service, and they had to be dealt with, more or less effectively, with great severity. It was largely a professional Army in South Africa, and I was there for close on two years, and I never saw a case of crucifixion in the whole of that war. I do remember having brought to my attention in 1897, I think it was, a practice which the Dutch had introduced of crucifying nigger on wheels for offences that happened right away from civilisation where no gaols were available, and I remember that in one or two cases where the Dutchmen were brought to book for this they were very seriously dealt with.
  I am almost sure that the Under-Secretary for War is of the same opinion as we are in this matter. I do not think he approves of this kind of punishment. If it were limited to very serious cases there might be something in it, but it is not. It has been most grossly abused. It must be remembered that we are not dealing now with "toughs," but we are dealing with some of the best, if not all the best, certainly the majority of the best men in this country—men who have had high professional positions, and men of refinement and taste. If this form of punishment is not a great mental degradation, and if it is not a great mental suffering, it certainly is not a great physical suffering. It must be a great mental suffering to a man of taste to be tied with his back to a wheel, with his hands behind the head and above the head. If it is not mental suffering, it is not physical suffering. If it is mental suffering, then the man must have a lot of pride and a lot of self-respect; otherwise he would not suffer. Surely, in these enlightened and alleged Christian times, when you have these men of self-respect and pride, there ought to be some other way of punishment than by tying a man to a cartwheel. In the South African War in many cases we drafted fellows into labour gangs for extra fatigues, and that for most small offences was quite sufficient. If the punishment is for any larger

  1749
  offence I do not think that type of punishment is sufficient. The Under-Secretary says No. 1 Field Punishment is not given for trivial offences.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I never said that.
  Mr. BILLING: If it is given for trivial offences, I hope that he will take this opportunity of showing that it shall not be done again Here is a letter sent to me three days ago:
  "Dear Sir,—A son of mine who enlisted at fifteen years and ten months was gassed and shell-shocked. On return to duty, not feeling over well, a few weeks after, at the end of a long march he got up on the back of an ambulance for a lift. An officer who came up told him to get down and took his name and number A few days after he was given ten days No. 1 field punishment, one hour in the morning and one in the evening. French women and children stood around and said, This is the English. We will remember. Do use your influence against this most barbarous punishment"
  I do use any influence I have to call the attention of the Under-Secretary to that. We have heard a great deal in this House in most eloquent speeches this afternoon of what these men who are up to their shoulders in half-frozen, half-liquid mud go through, these men who are hazarding their life and making great sacrifices. Yet there is a bit of a boy, who is sixteen years of age, who went out and made a great sacrifice, who has been fighting since the first three months of the War, who has been gassed and shell-shocked, and because his constitution is probably injured and he has not strength within a few weeks of that to finish a march, and because he clambers up behind an ambulance wagon so as not to get left behind, he is subjected to ten days, No. 1 field punishment.
  I would like the Under-Secretary in reply to say what is the most junior rank of officer permitted to administer field punishment? I believe that a captain can do it. If that is not the case, I will bring to his notice half a dozen cases in which captains have done it, and I will ask him to deal with them. I believe also that it is the case that every officer who witnesses the offence is entitled to administer punishment. If that is so, it is most cruelly unjust, because my experience, which runs over seventeen or eighteen years, is that an officer who puts the man under arrest, or actually witnesess the crime or act of negligence, shall not be permitted to try or to condemn that man. It stands to reason that these men must be prejudiced, and I think that if we could have some form, quite a small form, of inquiry into this question, it will be
  1750
  found that where there is most crucifixion of the men there is least experience among the officers. It is simply because I have had this case brought to me, not by one but by several senior officers, that a fellow has not the experience, the tact, the ability, the common moral courage to run his men, and the result is he tries to intimidate them by some form of punishment of this description. There is no man more anxious than I to see discipline pervading our ranks. In the years when I was serving I was a very strict disciplinarian and punished men many times, but I never have been the cause of subjecting them to this indignity. I trust that the Home Secretary will put his heart as well as his head in the way in which he will handle his reply, and the influence which he brings to bear on the War Office.
  There was a speech made by the hon. Member below me (Mr. Lees Smith) on the question of peace. I think that it is one of the finest speeches that I have ever listened to in this House. It was made by a man who of his own free will became an ordinary soldier, and he came back from France with the opinions and experience that an ordinary soldier gains, and I differ with the opinion which he ex-I pressed. Yet it is an opinion of which the Government have got to take considerable notice. It has been suggested by the hon. Member that a league of nations is possible. Personally I do not think that a league of nations would be possible after the War. I am not trying to moralise on the ethics of war and peace, but the only peace which is possible in this world, so long as it is inhabited by people such as we—and we are no better, I do not know if we are any worse than the generations before us: we are probably not worse than those who will follow us, and most probably very little better—but peace will be absolutely impossible unless there is force behind. One would have thought after all these years that we could have done away with the police in the streets, and after this War some nations must police the world just as the streets are policed to-day. I am absolutely confident that even if this War goes on for another ten years it is not the end of war. It is the end of this type of war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted in his reply that we were not prepared that we trusted to a wonderful form of Liberalism which was described by one or two Members in this House, so that I thought it was

  1751
  a new word for Christianity, and not a political term at all, which meant all things for all men. I am afraid that even Liberalism will not stop the world going to war in the future. It may make it unprepared again, but what I do feel is this, that we have not yet begun to learn the lesson that this War ought to have taught us in the first six months.
  We have not begun in this country even now to realise what war is. I think that the finest thing that could have happened in this country would have been for 50,000 Germans to land in Essex during the first six months of the War. It would have wakened us up to what war is. Even now, after twenty-nine months of war, we find ourselves without imagination and without foresight in its administration. Of course, I am particularly specialising in two things in which I have taken an interest. One is aviation and the other is what are colloquially known as tanks. How long are we going to squirt men like spray against the rocks of the German in entrenchment in the West? How different it would have been if we had taken the question of the Air Service seriously. The matter was brought particularly to my attention today, when I have the first opportunity of bringing up the final report of the Committee on the administration and command of the Royal Flying Corps. I came to this House for one reason which was prominent in my mind—to get an inquiry in the administration and command of our Air Service in this country, because quite apart from the great part that it could play in this War and quite apart from being the deciding factor in this War, as it is going to be, the only hope of the suggestion of universal peace which is made by the hon. Member below me, the only way you will stop war, is to render it so terrible that no one would dare to enter into it, and not to apply that wonderful science of Liberalism which wants to give you everything and take nothing. There will be ambitious nations, if not this one other ones, to-morrow.
  It is the case, I think, that if this country does not grasp this question of the Air Service now, when surely there is an immediate return for any outlay of men or money spent? on it, and when the whole world-conflict ought cenrtainly to justify expenditure of imagination and invention, even to taking gambling chances, I am perfectly confident that we shall never do
  1752
  it when peace has eventually broken through the war cloud. It is for that more than any other reason that I beg of this Government, of which we all have such hopes, not to tinker with the Air Service now. Last night it was even suggested that this question of a Minister for the Air Service should be for the duration of the War; but it is not for the duration of the War that this great air problem has to be dealt with, it is for the duration of the world. It is a new weapon this Air Service, of immense and far-reaching possibilities, and even now, though it has been tinkered, it has proved a considerable success, and a great adjunct to the Navy and our military forces. Reading through the Report of the Air Committee, who inquired into the Air Service, I find it difficult to draw the line between the Naval Air Service and the Royal Flying Corps. The Committee of Inquiry was set up some- where in April and here we are in December; the Committee has accomplished something certainly, but all the good arising from that Committee was finished and done with the moment Mr. Tennant got up from that bench and granted the appointment of the Committee. The moment the higher command heard that there was going to be an inquiry, the work was done; and they knew perfectly well that there would have to be drastic I changes.
  I dealt with the first Report in this House at considerable length, because it was a Report on a particular subject which brought that Committee into being. ! The present Report is made more on the technical side, that of construction, than on the side of general administration of the service. In the previous Report they dealt with the particular case of the accident at Montrose, and the Committee said that the facts as stated by myself were wrong; in fact, that it was a gross misstatement upon which my charge was based. Between the time of that Report and the present, there were published documents which I needed to substantiate my statement. When they came to my hands, I rose from my seat in this House, and I read the statement they contained, that the accident in question was due to the gross negligence of the authorities, a statement which is in absolute contradistinction to the findings of the Air Committee. Five or six months afterwards they bring out the present Report in which there is no reference whatsoever to the discovery of these documents, which so

  1753
  completely changed the whole character of their findings. At the end of the Report there is a memorandum which I would like specially to mention: It is signed by two gentlemen, one Mr. J. H. Butcher, a Member of this House, and Mr. Charles Bright. These two gentlemen express their dissent "from that part of the final Report which states," etc., etc., "dealing with the case of Montrose." The rest of the Report deals with the questions raised by myself and others, and I really think I am justified in occupying the time of the House in holding the brief for the critics, who have been so very shabbily treated. Those critics came forward with the very best intentions, and with the interests of their country at heart, above all things, and how were they treated? They were treated—as many Members of this House may have witnessed if they crossed the passage to the Committee Room—as men on their defence against some charge rather than as English gentlemen who had come forward to try and get made efficient what was a very inefficient force at that time.
  The Committee admit that what the witnesses said had a very great deal of truth in it, and the figures which are given as to the number of aeroplanes we had at the outbreak of the War show what wo were able to do at that period, and for that condition of things they blame the administration, but say "it would Be unfair to hold the heads of the Royal Flying Corps responsible." I beg to differ from the Committee. If I were in command of the Royal Flying Corps, and I wanted something which I thought necessary in the interests of the country, I should say "I have been chosen for this command, and I am the best judge of what is wanted, and either I have it or I do not." The result of the inquiry has been a finding of unreadiness against the Royal Flying Corps, and the Committee themselves say that the officers in supreme command were, in their way, responsible; but they go on to say that all the witnesses agreed that a great improvement in efficiency had taken place, and attributed it to them. I am sure that the members of the Air Service are all aware of the very considerable improvement that has taken place and which began when the Committee of Inquiry was grantee?. I do not want to dwell at any length on this Report. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] I quite understand the hon. Member, but he must remem-
  1754
  ber that to a certain extent this is a very serious thing for me. I brought very grave charges in this House and outside against the administration and the command of the Royal Flying Corps, and this is the answer; this is rea y the finding of the Court. It is very difficult for hon. Members to find time to read it, and so I think that is all the more reason why I, with my inside knowledge, should point out certain parts of this Report to them. One of the most grave charges was the stopping of the building of high-power engines. The Report says, first of all, that General Henderson admitted that he had stopped them; that he had stopped private firms building, and also stopped the engines being built in the factories. In one paragraph they say he was right in doing that; in another paragraph they suggest that he was well advised in stopping the Royal Factory aircraft engines and that he was perfectly right. Anyone who has had experience of the particular engine referred to, which has caused so much loss of life, will understand that he was quite right in stopping the building of it.
  Without going any further into this Report, I would say, after having read it through very carefully, that it is a very neat packet of political whitewash. They find the senior commands guilty practically of every charge that was charged. They find them guilty, after thirteen months of war, of having no Flying School for training pilots in this country. They say it is very regrettable, that it ought to have been done, but that no blame can be attached to anybody for not doing it. The way in which everybody is forgiven for unforgivable sins in the conduct of this War almost makes one think that we condone inefficiency. Here, again, they have eventually recommended that pilots should be trained in France, and that is after thirty months of war. When I came back from France, in December, 1914, I put out a plan for the training of pilots in France. From December, 1914, by recommendations, day after day and week after week, and by constant agitation—if you like— in this House, I have endeavoured to persuade the authorities to start a school in France. There was no excuse for them not doing that and thus training the pilots in suitable atmospheric conditions. This was urged away back in December, 1914, and yet, two years after, in December, 1916, it is decided that something has got to be done. I consider that when a man

  1755
  knows that this sort of thing is going on he is doing a public service by bringing it forward. It is quite useless and fatuous to suggest that because a man does this sort of thing he is not performing the best service to his country. I do not wish any word I am saying to be construed in any way as in the nature of an attack on the present Government. I want, if I can, to give them my whole-hearted support; I want nothing of them, so I can speak quite frankly. But I do ask them not to continue with tinkering and muddling schemes for aircraft. Perhaps Members may not believe it. and may think I am stretching a point, when I say that if we are going on for another twelve months, this War will be decided one way or the other in the air. I cannot understand why hon. Members lack the imagination to see, when we have a stalemate on land, and the position on the sea is such as it is, that the only element left to fight in is the air. If one-half or one-quarter of the money that has been spent on other forms of warfare, and if one-quarter of the energy that has been expended, had been devoted to aviation, the War would have presented a very different aspect to-day. We tinkered with tanks for two years, and when we had got sixty of them we were so proud of the result that we sent them over to France and disclosed this new method of warfare to the enemy. We ought never to have gone to France until we had 600, and the result is that the Germans have got to windward with us on the tanks.
  I repeat to the House: I have said it until I am sick, and I am sure the House must be sick, also, that if we do not take this air problem seriously, and if we continue to tinker with it, then it will not only be what is going to happen in this War, but what will happen in the future. I am perfectly certain it will be harder to get half a crown off the Front Bench for an aeroplane six months after the War is over than to get a million pounds to-day, because at present popular opinion is behind them. It will not be so then, and if by then we have not a great Air Service, created during the stress of this War, we shall never create it in the days of peace. And if we have not a great Air Service in the days to come, our Navy will be worse than useless. I suggest to the House that within two years of the termination of this War, whatever enemy cares to expend one-twentieth part of what the German Navy cost the German people in submarines, our
  1756
  boasted isolation will be absoluely gone. We have controlled the surface of the sea, but we shall control it no longer. After this War the submarine, which is so great in defence and so difficult to check, will alter the whole aspect of things. The only way of maintaining our island isolation in the future is by having the complete and absolute supremacy of the air. That is going to be a very expensive proposition. If, owing to the foresight of our forefathers, we have inherited the supremacy of the sea, then it is our duty to our children to leave to them the supremacy of the air.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The House—and the hon. Members—will forgive me, I am sure, if I do not reply to the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for East Herts (Mr. Billing), in so far as it dealt with the naval and the Royal Flying Corps. I think the House will realise that most of his speech, which was not a direct denial of the allegations in the Air Committee's Report, was clearly a repetition of the remarks which he has pressed upon this House more than once. Before I come to deal with the main points of this discussion to-night, namely the question of held punishment No. 1, I should like to deal with two, if I may call them so, subsidiary points, which have been raised, the one by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. J. Mason) and the other by the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Bath (Major Sir C. Hunter). The point which the hon. Member for Windsor brought before the House appears to me on the face of it, to be very useful. As I understand it the present application form for a commission does not leave a space for the applicant to fill in what occupation he pursues in civil life. It does seem to me to be a reasonable request that I should ask those responsible at. the War Office to consider whether in the interests of the Army, and the men themselves, we should not have this little alteration made to the form.
  In regard to the second subsidiary point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bath, I can assure him that I quite understand the spirit in which he raises this subject. I know it is not in any way to embarrass the Government, nor to embarrass the generals who are in command in the field. He was, I think, the every first in this House to raise this question of the thieving and looting of the goods, chattels, and effects of soldiers

  1757
  who have been wounded and could not, therefore, look after their goods, or who have been killed. It has, I believe, been brought to my hon. and gallant Friend's personal knowledge that this matter has caused a great deal of natural disquiet all over the country. I think he will be pleased to know that only this last week we had a very long letter from General Sir Douglas Haig, who himself has taken a very deep interest in this question, and I assure the hon. and gallant Member that from this letter I gather that everything which can be done is being done at the present time to deal with this matter. One can easily see that circumstances of this sort touch the finest instinct and the most natural sentiments of the people of this country who have got those nearest and dearest to them at the front. Consequently I am perfectly certain that whatever can be done—we have the assurance of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief— will be done by all those concerned.
  9.0 P.M.
  But I should like in the interest of the great, the very great, majority of the Army to point out that while it may be, human nature being what it is, and this Army being the most gigantic Army that this country has ever placed in the field, with all sorts of troops and all conditions of men—I am perfectly certain more than 99 per cent. are the very best blood of the country, and the finest type of men— when we have an Army of this magnitude, it is not surprising to learn that a few men are there whose past records would not lead one to expect them to leave anything alone that does not belong to them. While that may be so, I think hon. Members should be reminded of this fact: that the greater amount of goods belonging to soldiers in war who are wounded in battle are lost, firstly, because there is a good deal of rifling done by the enemy, and secondly, when a man is killed by shell fire, although we report his death as instantaneous, what unfortunately occurs is that usually the man and everything upon him is blown into bits and scattered all over the place, and no trace of himself or any of his goods or chattels can be found. Then, again, there is a tremendous lot of things lost in the mud. It is a strange thing, but the mud conditions are extraordinary; consequently the losses by this abnormality of nature is also a very strong factor in the general accumulation of losses. There is another
  1758
  very sad point. There is what is called No-man's Land. When a man falls there his body is lost, and consequently every article of intrinsic value which he might have, and which is of double value to those whom he leaves behind, is lost with him. While, as I have said, there may be a certain amount of thieving and looting, I suggest to the House that it can for the greater part be accounted for by the considerations which I have mentioned. I now come to what I really think was the gravamen of this charge against the War Office by all those who have taken part in this discussion. The gravamen is, first of all, the existence and, secondly, the cruelty of the punishment which has been called—and, as was pointed out the other day, because it is an unjust appeal to sacred associations—wrongly called, crucifixion.
  Mr. MORRELL: My hon. Friend does not surely suggest that it is not known as crucifixion? He knows as well as we do that it is known in the rank and file of the Army as crucifixion.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot help that. I am not—unfortunately for me and fortunately for the country—a soldier myself, but I have taken great pains to find out the facts from men who have spent all their lives in the Army, and field punishment, from its existence until a recent time has never been known but as field punishment No. 1. This word "crucifixion" has been used and used frequently.
  Mr. BILLINGmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: We know the matter has sacred associations. It means a man with his arms stretched out on a piece of board, and his feet resting off the ground. That is what we understand by crucifixion. That is what the man in the street understands by crucifixion. That is what by sacred tradition and otherwise we have been led to understand was crucifixion. I defy a single critic of the Government to come forward and say that a single instance of that kind of crucifixion has taken place up to the present. If so, let him bring it before the House. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) has asked me to give an assurance that what I did say at some length in answer to a question would not be in the nature of an instruction but in the

  1759
  nature of law. It is probably not new to him, but it may be to others, that we ourselves in the House of Commons, or our predecessors, are responsible for the nature of the punishment. The punishments have been for years past on the records of this House and in the Army Estimates. Men might very well have talked about the justice or injustice of the matter during peace time. I defy any man on that side of the House to produce a single Debate in the House of Commons where the gravity or injustice of this particular punishment was ever brought before the notice of the House.
  Mr. BILLING: It was not the practice.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: We are now in the very throes of a death struggle, and very rare cases are brought forward. Even the hon. Member for Burnley could not produce more than three.
  Mr. MORRELL: I brought them forward as illustrations.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know whether the hon. Member submitted them to the War Office or not.
  Mr. MORRELL: Yes.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: I am assured that not a single case can be produced where, as a result of field punishment No. 1, death or even illness ensued. The hon. Member for Burnley may be assured that this standardisation of punishment will be proceeded with. I think I can guarantee that there will be no stretching the hands out. I think that is going a long way. If this punishment is continued—and my advisers tell me it is absolutely necessary that it should be continued—I think I can safely say there will be such modifications as will, I think, satisfy the critics who have spoken to-night in the Debate. I do not go any further than that, but I know a general order will be given. That punishment is not inflicted, I would remind my hon. Friends, except in cases of absolute necessity. Those who order it are as kind-hearted men as the hon. Member for Burnley. They do not want to see a human being put under an irksome indignity. But the conditions of war are stern conditions, and it might often happen that a man, if he thought he was going to get two years' imprisonment, instead of passing two or three nights more in the trenches, would willingly take the two years.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman give his assurance that it will stop in England? If I bring any case forward of it happening in England will he have it inquired into?
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My recollection of my answer to a supplementary question was that that punishment had not been used in England. I made further inquiries after the Debate the other night, and learnt that, immediately on the outbreak of war, a letter was written saying that that punishment was not under any consideration, to be used in this country, and that- letter is now on the files of the War Office. The punishment that is used in this country is field punishment No. 2, which is entirely different. It is a punishment by means of which the soldier is tied by ropes or strings, or whatever it may be, but he is not attached. Field punishment No. 1 is when you tie him by ropes and attach him by ropes. That is the distinction. As I said the other day, in the stern conditions of war, when you deal with men—thank God, these cases are very few—on account of carelessness, negligence, or cowardice or other vice in the field, you have to deal with these men by the quickest and most effective method in order to encourage the others and to stimulate a sense of shame in the men themselves, and I know this punishment has had more effect than any other punishment could possibly have, because they know it is a disagreeable and irksome thing, and they must recognise that that punishment is given for very grave offences, often in the front line. There is no alternative except the death penalty, and I ask the House of Commons if it got the alternative which it: would have You cannot afford to take away from the firing line three, four or five men in order to guard one recalcitrant soldier, when the taking away of three, four or five men, or even two men, might mean breaking the whole of the line. It is a preposterous contention. Then my hon. Friend made some appeal like this to me: "If my hon. Friend cannot get rid of this punishment at the present, will he see that that punishment is not given except for grave offences V I think I apprehend rightly what he meant. It is an extraordinary thing that there again the House of Commons is responsible for that, because it has been laid down in the Army Act that this punishment can be given for any offence, and now there is an out-

  1761
  cry that young subalterns, colonels, and so on, are fire-eating men who are anxious to continue this punishment. But it is due to the House of Commons that when a man, for any trivial offence you like, is made to appear before his commanding officer, he is asked, "Will you be tried by me or by court-martial?" He knows full well that if he elects to be tried by his commanding officer for any of these small offences he may get that punishment. On the other hand, the court-martial does not often give that punishment. It is very often penal servitude or a long term of imprisonment. It is very rare, indeed, to find field punishment given by a court-martial.
  Mr. MORRELL: It is possible.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: All the punishments of that sort of which I am aware were given by commanding officers. The men know perfectly well what they are likely to get for certain offences. That is how the case stands. In view of these facts, I do not see why the Army should be blamed at the present moment. I think the blame, if it is to be apportioned rightly for this sentence, and for the fact that it can be given in connection with any offence is due, first of all, to the man himself, who elects to be tried that way; and secondly, to the House of Commons, and not to the Army. With regard to the suggestion dealing with the inequality of sentences, I do not know why it should require a debate dealing with Army affairs to bring to the House of Commons what is a well-known fact, namely, that the inequality of sentences depends upon the inequality of human nature. Very often a magistrate at one Court in London will give six months, while another magistrate at another Court will give a fortnight for the same kind of offence. It is the same in the Army. Human nature in the Army is the human nature one finds every day in the Police Courts of London, and if my hon. Friend seems to think that any young subaltern can give any punishment he likes, that I would say is also preposterous. The greatest care is taken in having the sentences reviewed.
  Mr. MORRELL: I did not say "young subalterns." What I did say was that, as the Army is now, an untried, inexperienced man may be president of a court-martial or may be a commanding officer.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: My hon. Friend would like to lead me into the question of the history and jurisdiction of these men—
  Mr. BILLING: I was guilty of suggesting that it was any captain. Am I not right in saying so? The point is that the prisoner can either be tried by his commanding officer as a captain or go before a court-martial.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no doubt that the criticisms were meant to belittle the way in which they were acting, and it was urged that we gave this power of life and death to young men quite incompetent to deal with it.
  Mr. BILLING: That is so.
  Mr. MACPHERSON: The acting commanding officer of the battalion has that power, and no one will persuade me that there is any less chance of fair treatment when this power is given to a man of the rank of captain when the commanding officer is away, and I would sooner trust my life and treatment to him than I would to a great many hon. Members of this House. My hon. Friend asks for an assurance that this punishment will be carefully regulated and supervised. I have already told him that in one ease we made nine different inquiries. All the court-martials are conducted by trained men, and everything that is possible in humanity, so far as the stern conditions of warfare allow, is being done, and has been done during the whole of this War. I do not think you can find a single man who has been court-martialled who says that he has been treated badly. I have read many accounts of the statements made by prisoners, and I have never once come across a case in which the man says he has not been fairly treated or that justice has not been done to him. I appeal to hon. Members to give the Army in the field a chance. You force them to make many inquiries by all sorts of questions in this House. You are forcing these men in the field to do things which you yourselves ought to have dealt with in peace time, and I say that that is grossly unfair. I do not object to any amount of questions, and unofficially I have tried to do my best in this matter, but when a great struggle is going on I think we ought to be as lenient as possible with the men in the field. Hon Members

  1763
  would not be satisfied with my replies unless I produced evidence from the Commander-in-Chief, who has to consult other commanders. Reports have to be made, and I can imagine those reports would take a soldier twice as long to write as it would take men of our qualifications in civilian life. Consequently, you must take cognisance of all these facts. However anxious all hon. Members who have spoken to-night may be to see that justice is done, I hope they will hesitate in future to put questions unless they have a very strong case to bring forward, and unless they are matters of the highest importance.

  IRISH POLITICAL PRISONERS (RELEASE).
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: I see the Chief Secretary is now in his place and I would like to give him an opportunity of making his promised statement with regard to interned Irish prisoners.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I said to the House last night that I have had this question under my anxious consideration from the time I became Chief Secretary. I referred to the many urgent representations which have been made to me. Such representations in favour of the release of these interned men have come constantly, not merely from persons concerned and from Parliamentary representatives, but from disinterested people of many shades of opinion who are heart and soul with us in the prosecution of the War. I referred to the distinct advance towards normal conditions which has lately been evident in Ireland. It has been, as I said last night, a very difficult duty to balance the risks of release against what I believe to be the great and almost inestimable advantage of limiting interference with personal liberty to the irreducible minimum of necessity. I have come to the conclusion, in view of all the facts within my knowledge, that the time has come in this case when the advantage outweighs the risk. I have so advised His Majesty's Government, and a decision has therefore been taken to-day to proceed with as little delay as possible to return these interned prisoners to their homes. I do not need to dwell, and I will not dwell, upon the exceptional safeguards for public order which exist in these days. They form part of the facts. I prefer to say that, conscious as I have been of the earnestness of the appeals which have been made for a
  1764
  generous and comprehensive decision in this case, I think I may justly express a hope that the act of condonation which is now resolved upon in response to so many earnest representations will have the good results, the results of unmixed good, which so many Irishmen have foretold for it.
  Mr. O'CONNOR: I think it will be agreed in all parts of the House that the Chief Secretary has made a statement which commends itself to the House generally. I have heard the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman with the deepest satisfaction, because I know that he has brought to this task the most conscientious and scrupulous thought and attention, and I know that he has not taken this decision without the full consciousness that in the present state of Irish feeling the step he has taken is free from any real danger. My right hon. Friend made just a passing reference to the asssurance which my hon. Friends and myself and other people have given that this large act of generous oblivion would not cause trouble in Ireland. My hon. Friends and myself have given that advice in perfect good faith, and we have given it with a large and intimate knowledge of the character of our people and their feelings at this moment. We have said to my right hon. Friend that the better feeling and the healthier atmosphere which the release of these prisoners will produce in Ireland will have the effect of creating a state of feeling between the two countries in very sharp and pleasant and healthy contrast with that which has obtained before. We have pledged ourselves as far as we can, and we have assured the right hon. Gentleman—it is partly on these assurances that he has agreed to this great act of policy— that this measure will be unattended with insecurity either to law or to order or to the general condition of Ireland. I think I may make the boast that the Members of our party have never given an assurance of any kind to any Ministry that they have not carried out to the very best of their power. I am sure that our people will back the assurances of their leaders and will show that this act on the part of the Government will lead to a better and a pleasanter state of feeling between the two countries. I trust that better state of feeling may lead to other things, and that we may all see what I believe is the universal desire of all parties in this

  1765
  country, namely, a true and lasting conciliation between the people of England and of Ireland in this great hour of crisis.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The statement of the Chief Secretary will, I am sure, have been received with great satisfaction in all quarters of the House. Of the men who were arrested at the time of the rebellion, five-sixths have already been released. We are glad to know that the remaining one-sixth, the men who have been in internment, are now also to be set free. They have suffered no inconsiderable penalty already for their share in the rebellion, having been kept in conditions not of imprisonment but of detention for now a considerable number of months. Their private circumstances must necessarily have suffered in consequence. It had been recognised for some time that the question was not free from difficulty, but the late Prime Minister was about to bring it before the Cabinet, and I have every reason to think, to hope, that a similar decision would have been arrived at under the auspices of the late Government. I feel confident, as I ventured to say in the House last night, that this is a wise act of policy, and that it will be warmly welcomed throughout Ireland, even among that vast majority of the Irish population which had no sympathy whatever with the rebellion or with its aims. It will be generally recognised as being an act of appeasement designed on the part of the Imperial Government to reconcile the feelings of Ireland to those of the rest of the Empire.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I am very loth to stand between the House and its next business, but I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Wood) that I would support him in his plea for a better atmosphere and a better understanding with the people of Ireland, and I rise for a few moments to fulfil my promise. I have been a Member of this House, off and on, for over thirty years, and I must say that I have consistently voted against hon. Members from Ireland, but I am free to confess that for some time I have had considerable doubts in my mind as to whether come concession was not due to Nationalist feelings, and I am at this present juncture quite convinced that self-government is an absolute necessity for Ireland in
  1766
  order to stop the great waste which is now being caused to our strength in fighting our enemies. There is no doubt about it that if the feeling in Ireland towards this country were a better one at the present moment we should, first of all, be able to spare a large body of troops now locked up in that country, and, secondly, we should stand a very good chance of getting some of the finest fighting men in the world into our Army. There is, I am sorry to say, a certain section of opinion which thinks it is possible to obtain a better feeling in Ireland by forcible means, and that it would be of great benefit to the Irish people generally if we could by forcible means put the young men of Ireland into our Army to fight against the Germans. Personally, I dissent in the strongest possible manner from that point of view. It would throw Ireland into turmoil, and lock up a still larger number of troops than we have got there at present. Besides that, there is no reason why, because we are fighting the greatest tyranny the world has ever known, that we should become tyrannical and domineering ourselves. I should like to remind the House what Edmund Burke wrote in 1777 to the sheriff of Bristol. He said:
  "Liberty is in danger of being made unpopular to Englishmen. We are taught to believe that a desire of domineering over our countrymen is love to our country and that those who hate civil war abet rebellion, and that the amiable and conciliatory virtues of lenity, moderation and tenderness to the privileges of those who depend on this Kingdom are a sort of treason to the State."
  There is a strong resemblance between the situation now and the situation then. We had the right, no doubt, in those days to domineer over the Americans. We have the right now to domineer over the Irishmen. The question we have got to ask ourselves is whether it would not be to our advantage to show the amiable and conciliatory virtues of lenity, moderation and tenderness to the privileges of the Irish people. We have great Allies in this War, but I am not sure that the greatest allies of all are not our ideals, our ideals of liberty and of freedom. It is those ideals which have sustained this country in two years of unexampled trial, and it is the belief that we are honest in those ideals that has brought our fellow countrymen rolling up from every part of the Empire. It is because we unfortunately do not believe those ideals apply to Ireland that the Irish people are now turning their backs upon us. To do the English people justice, I believe they fully

  1767
  realise the necessity for the application of our ideals to Ireland. I believe that there is nothing that English people wish for and desire more at the present moment than a better understanding with the Irish people. If I did not think so, I should not be standing here and saying this. But the British people are thwarted and hindered in their desire by the unfortunate differences which exist in Ireland. I appreciate those differences and I respect those differences as much as any man in this House, but there comes a time in the history of every country when smaller things must give way to greater. We are fighting for our lives against the most powerful combination of Powers in the world, and I think we have a right to ask that the people in Ireland should put aside those differences and help us wholeheartedly and stand together in the fight. If the men of the North and the men of the South can die together in the trenches we have a right to hope that the men of the Forth and the men of the South can live together in Ireland and shoulder together the common burden and responsibilities of the Government of that country.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I rise to make an appeal to the House. I wish it to realise that time is getting on and that there is a good deal of business yet to be gone through. I sincerely hope that hon. Members will enable us to get on with it as fast as possible.
  Mr. BUXTON: I have every desire to follow the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I think the House will excuse me if I refer to the speech he made himself this afternoon. He drew attention in that speech to a most vital question—that of our war policy and war diplomacy. May I refer to one aspect of it—to the organisation of the joint diplomacy of the Allies? I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on the activity and speed with which he has foreshadowed—as a matter which will be dealt with—the concentration of diplomacy. Such concentration has been needed from the day the War commenced, especially for dealing with two most vital factors which presented themselves for diplomacy to manipulate—the States in the Near East who were at the time neutral, and the neutrals of the West— and, above all, America. With regard to the former, of course it is a subject for
  1768
  rather melancholy reflection that our unrivalled opportunities for securing the support of the whole Balkan States were muddled away.
  In regard to America who have done well, and I will ask leave to say just a few words on this matter, because it has not been dealt with in recent days in this House. There are rumours to-day in the Lobby of some action by America not yet defined. However that may be, it is extremely vital we should keep our eyes closely on the paramount factor which America represents. Everyone realises that she is the only State powerful enough to turn the scale if she chooses to do so, or to guarantee any settlement that may be arrived at. Everyone who has studied the facts and figures must realise that. I have realised it all the more because lately I have been in America raising funds for war relief work. Public opinion has been regrettably deflected into misconception on this subject, and I desire to recall one or two facts in common justice to our American friends. We sometimes hear talk that America ought to be fighting on our side. Her policy has even been called that of the hyena, or, at least, of the Levite passing by on the other side. We ought to clear our minds of these ideas. It is not true, and its effect is of the very highest importance. No one who knows American conditions and the difficulties arising from the presence of a mixed population in America, including many more than ten million Germans could suppose that America could go to war with a united front. In the opinion of high authorities here the part she has played as a friendly neutral has been more useful to us. Of course, she may have: vastly improved her financial position. It is easy to be cynical about money-making Americans, but the economic advantages to the greater part of the American people is doubtful. Large classes in America with fixed incomes are suffering severely from the War, because of the rise in prices. There is one absolute proof of the service that America has rendered as—one which we very naturally forget, but it is an important one, namely, the burning hatred which is felt for America, in Germany by the Jingoes. It is unworthy of British common sense if we blind ourselves to facts like these at the expense of our interests. We surely agree with the Prime Minister in his appeal that we shall deal with reality and not fortify ourselves with

  1769
  words. America was no party to the Treaty which guaranteed Belgium, and even we, who are so much more involved in the conflict than America, argued in 1914 that our main reason for going to war was our share in that Treaty.
  American friendship is essential to us. Fortunately we have it. According to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are still dependent on America for supplies to the extent of £2,000,000 a day. There is no need for us to resent the realisation of facts like these when we remember that America is, after all, Anglo-Saxon in language and still more in ideas. I think it is due to America that the enormous services rendered voluntarily by Americans should be recalled in this House. It would astonish anyone who went there to find how ardent is the support given and work which is being done and great services rendered, without any reward, and our gratitude ought to be shown for them. Everyone knows of the princely generosity of Mr. Hoover and his friend, in regard to Belgium. But very little has been heard of other kinds of American sympathy and generosity towards the Allies. It is astonishing to find the leisured classes in New York working in many places in the same way as the leisured classes are working here and with the same enthusiasm. In one afternoon when I was in New York £200,000 was raised for Bed Cross work at a single bazaar. Belief work for the wounded and for the distressed in Belgium, Poland, Serbia, and Armenia had some months ago passed a total of £5,000,000. We know what we owe the American Government and the philanthropic agents who helped them in regard not only to British prisoners, but also to Russian, French, Italian, and Serbian prisoners. In fact, the American generosity has proved almost beyond belief and I hope that American will understand how much gratitude is felt here. I thought it was only fitting some mention should be made of it in this House.
  But what is not very largely known is the fighting service America has rendered is in personnel. It is not realised here that regiments and even brigades are practically composed of American citizens. There are at least 30,000 Americans fighting for us, and it is only necessary to cross the Atlantic to immediately find evidence of that fact in the presence on board ships of Americans—officers probably in the Canadian Army—returning home, on leave. There is a feeling when
  1770
  the influence of America in the settlement is considered it would be infra dig. for us to trouble about America. This feeling is unworthy of us. It is not merely that we have got to reckon with America, but we ought to welcome her essential sympathy on our side. To feel it as infra dig. is as if the French or Russians were to consider it infra dig. to rely on British financial aid.
  America is also with us in the main political aspects of the War, and in a much higher degree than we have any special right to anticipate, and it is well to remember that. She is with us, above all, because of the invasion of Belgium, because of German frightfulness, and there is no country among the Allies where a more intense feeling was aroused by the horrors in Belgium, by such things as the execution of Captain Fryatt, by the submarine atrocities, by the deportation, and, above all, by the horrible Armenian atrocities.
  The Americans are the only Western people who have a large and close personal representation in the Near East. They are the people who know the Near East best, and they have an even wider interest in the Armenian question than any of us as a nation. Above all, America is with us because she is against militarism. She is with us in demanding therefore restitution and security, because in America those are regarded as the right ways to discredit militarism. The question of the way to discredit militarism is constantly debated in America. It behoves us to notice American opinion, if only because it is the opinion of a friend who has also a full view of the situation, both military and diplomatic. As the House is aware, the American soldiers are very famous experts. I believe it was the opinion of Lord Kitchener that the American Staff College was the finest in the world. They are great students of the military as well as of the diplomatic situation.
  May I tell the House a word upon the American, view of that situation? In some circles the military pulverisation of Germany is desired, but in the best informed sections of pro-Ally opinion it is held most distinctly that the renunciation of the conquered lands by negotiation would discredit militarism more completely than the must crushing victory in the field. At the same time, they hope that we shall insist upon the most drastic

  1771
  terms—above all, that France and Belgium should be evacuated, and that Belgian sovereignty, independence, and integrity should be restored in every respect without exception. Sympathising, as Americans do, with our desire for reparation and security, they approve our insistence on such terms. It certainly is the case that they would feel that a mere refusal to consider what are our aims in the form of definite terms was a grave diplomatic error. The party which favoured an embargo on the export of munitions, and which came fairly near to success in the early part of the War, would readily make use of the material which a blunt rejection on our part would afford. Even if that party should fail in regard to munitions, the limitation of the export of wheat, which has become a very pressing question owing to the shortage of the crop, would become a practical proposal, and it is the case that a Bill has been introduced by one of the pro-German party in Congress to legalise that prohibition. These views may, of course, be right or wrong, but we are dealing with facts and not with our own opinions. Americans look to the anti-annexationists in Germany as their main hope. They have great belief in the mass of sane and anti-militarist and anti-Junker influence in Germany, and it is certainly a strange fact that in spite of the difficulties of the situation, that party has shown itself to be as strong as it is. They feel that if military subjugation were complete the resentment which defeat would arouse against the military class would be obscured by the spirit of bitter revenge, which would unite all sections in favour of further military ventures. They think we should be burning down our own house in order to roast the German pig.
  The party of constitutional reform, again, it is thought, would be most fully reinforced by defeat through terms, such as would show that militarism had produced no gains, while involving the most intolerable losses. The desire to sec militarism destroyed is very intense indeed across the water. It is thought that the paramount necessity for America and also for the world is security and stability for the future, and that for security we ought to rely largely upon new international guarantees in which America would share. Certainly it is a stroke of fortune, not
  1772
  only for us but for the world, that America has not only aided us, but is preparing—public opinion is being successfully urged in that direction—to guarantee the stability of the settlement. They will do so if the settlement appears to them to contain the elements of permanence. President Wilson went far to define in the notorious speech of 27th May last the principles upon which alone he would consent to aid in a discussion of the terms. Those are principles to which we also adhere, namely, the rights of the nations and the defeat of aggression. There is very intense sympathy across the water with our desire to continue the War until the sacrifices of those whom we have lost is rendered, as we think, profitable. There is a very keen sympathy with our feeling on that subject. It is well understood in America. I think I am correct in saying that the view is taken that nothing will so fully do honour to or justify the sacrifices of those who have laid down their lives as the establishment of an international settlement based on the total defeat of aggression and the new international guarantees which would do what, at all events, is most possible to preclude war in the future and obviate the necessity that tragedies so deplorable should ever occur again.
  Mr. CURRIE: I had intended to ask the attention of the Government for a few minutes to the fact that the Session is to close without our having from them any expression whatever of any intention on their part to deal with the better regulation of the drink traffic. The subject is one in which we know the Prime Minister is interested, but in view of the appeal made by the Leader of the House that time should not be wasted, I do not propose to make the observations I had intended to make. I will only say it is rather strange that although we have time, apparently, to proceed at no little length to all sorts of twopenny-halfpenny questions, the Session should close without anything being said on this point, upon which I will not express my own view, but which I still think requires the Government's courageous action.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I should like first to congratulate the Chief Secretary on the statement he has made to-night, and I hope that the great act of reconciliation in the release of these prisoners will be the commencement of a process of

  1773
  appeasement which will make the future brighter and better for Ireland. When I heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I was wondering whether he was unsaying what the Prime Minister said the other day. The Prime Minister said:
  "To enter on the invitation of Germany, proclaiming herself victorious, without any knowledge of the proposals she proposes to make, into a Conference is to put our heads into a noose with the rope end in the hands of Germany."
  To that I agree. He further said:
  "We feel that we ought to know, before we can give favourable consideration to such an invitation, that Germany is prepared to accede to the only terms on which it is possible for peace to be obtained and maintained in Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1916, col. 1335.]
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech to-night seemed to indicate that it was quite impossible, that this offer of negotiations should, under any circumstances, receive other than a direct negative. I understood the Prime Minister to leave the door open and to make it possible, if terms were submitted which were capable of discussion and capable of reconciliation with the aims and objects with which we entered this War, that negotiations might take place, and it might be possible perhaps to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of men whose lives would be thrown away if this War of attrition, which has gone on for so long, were unnecessarily continued. If continued a day longer than is necessary to obtain the object on which our hearts are set, it would be a crime on the part of the country which prolonged it. I only wanted to make quite sure that the Leader of the House was not going back on the statement of the Prime Minister and that we may still hope it may be possible to curtail this War and to save many thousands of lives. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will find a large mass of opinion in the country which will attach greater glory to the man who brings this War to an end than to the men who have conducted it.
  10.0 P.M.
  There were two other points I particularly wanted to refer to. The Prime Minister on Tuesday referred to a good many things. He indicated the possibility of our being turned into a province of Germany. We are to have all kinds of regimentation in our lives. We are to have all our old freedom curtailed. We are to be regimented, we are to be put under the direction of Civil servants, who are to tell us what we are fit for and what we are to do. Our meals are to be regulated, our food supply is to be controlled, and our
  1774
  land is to be controlled also. But there was one significant omission which caused some of us, who are extremely interested in this matter, a sense of dismay. Of all the evils referred to in his speech, of all the enemies of our country, sources of weakness and loss, not a single one of them compares for a moment with alcohol. It weakens our soldiers in the field, it makes their recovery from wounds prolonged, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants evidence of that he can go to men like Sir Thomas Barlow, who are advisers of the Government in matters of the kind. It is causing a vast amount of sickness, and it has turned many a young fellow who entered the Army a total abstainer into a drunkard. Many of the saddest cases have come to my own personal knowledge. And it does this kind of thing. I have a letter from a colonel in the Canadian Forces who himself was the means of raising a Canadian regiment, and is now in command of it. He says:—
  "I believe that if the sale of intoxicating liquors were cut off for the time of the War, there would follow an immediate dropping off in the number of venereal diseased soldiers amounting to fully fifty per cent. I base this on the fact that fully seventy-five per cent of the men I have seen have told me that they have filled up with booze before they went with a woman. This is especially true of sailors with whom I have talked."
  He adds, later on—
  "Canada has pledged her last man to the cause, but our mothers are not willing that their boys should be the prey of rum and disease in trying to see London."
  Not only is drink weakening our Forces at the time we are asking for an addition to our man-power and throwing industry into all kinds of difficulties in the endeavour to obtain additional men for our ranks, not only is it actually weakening our forces in the field, but at home here it is employing over 900,000 acres of land in the growth of the proportion of barley which is used in the manufacture of intoxicants, and the acreage devoted to hops—over 900,000 acres at a time when we have appointed a Food Dictator. And we have appointed at the head of the Agricultural Department a gentleman who has called together the farmers of the country and told them they will have to be regimented like other people, and have to be told to what crops to devote the acres under their control. That is direct waste, excepting that portion of these foodstuffs which is being used to provide alcohol for the purpose of explosives, and it is useless to talk to the people of this country about waste and the duty of saving when we are allowing this great

  1775
  mass of foodstuffs to be destroyed in the production of that which weakens instead of strengthens our forces.
  I want to know what the Government is going to do about it. We shall not have any chance of hearing for several weeks to come. I shall be glad to be told whether they are going to tackle this question more stringently than they have done. Something has been done, I know. The Board of Control by its restrictions has greatly improved things. The Limitation of Output Act, passed last July, has had the effect during the six months ending September of reducing the amount of beer released for home consumption by 2,250,000 barrels, and the amount of spirits by something like 6,000,000 gallons. That is all to the good. But at the same time the common use of intoxicants in our munitions areas is to-day producing results, not so bad as originally, but bad enough. I was talking to an ironmaster in the smoking-room the other day, and he tells me that even now, with the restrictions in operation, a certain class of worker in his ironworks, the puddlers, during the hours from 12 to 2.30 drink heavily and largely unfit themselves for their afternoon's work. That is an unnecessary limitation of our output, and the restrictions, valuable as they are, ought to be carried still further. I hope either the Food Controller or some other member of the Government will deal more drastically than has been done with this question. I hope the Government will remember that not long ago they received 2,000,000 signatures asking that during the period of the War the production and sale of alcohol should be entirely prohibited. I hope they will remember that on the Order Book of the House twenty-three Members have put down Resolutions asking for the self-same thing, and that they will respond to this demand that the country shall put forward its full strength to win this War by removing the causes of weakness which exist among us.
  There is only one other point I wish to refer to. I notice that the new Minister for Agriculture made a speech to the farmers yesterday, in which occurs this paragraph. This is from the "Freeman's Journal":
  "We hope to be able to give you clerical assistance and assistance in the way of surveyors and valuers and everything else required to carry out the first step in the survey of the land in each county which may be utilised."
  1776
  Further down he says:
  "If you set to work at once I believe you can do it—"
  That is, get this survey—
  "within a fortnight. Of course the business man who gives his time to that work will require to be paid."
  I want to know what has become of the information already registered in the pigeon-holes of the Valuation Department. The nature of the soils, the value of the soils, and probably all the information which the Minister for Agriculture will require to be got at further expense by the use of business men, who will want to be paid, is already registered in the pigeon holes of the Valuation Department. Is it intended to ignore all that information which has cost so much money? Is it intended, whilst we have officials already in employment in that Department who could be utilised for the purpose of adding to the information already possessed any further information required, to engage others to do it? Is it intended to cramp that Department and make it difficult for it to resume its work when the War is over? I should like to have some kind of assurance on that, because I think it is very important. We are on the verge of drastic efforts to force into use all the unused land of the country. We hear that it is necessary that all the information possible shall be collected and that none of it shall be lost. It is important, then, that those who have been engaged in the gathering of this information should be kept at work as a body for the further use which we hope to be able to make of them after the War is over. I should like to know whether the declaration of the Minister of Agriculture has any bearing on that question? I will not detain the House any longer, but I want these two points cleared up: First of all, what is the attitude of the Government towards the greatest enemy the country has—their attitude towards the great question as to whether they are prepared to protect us against those internal ('angers which are even more dangerous than any external one? And, secondly what is their attitude towards the Land Valuation Department?
  Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: I want to make an appeal to the Leader of the House and to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to bring their minds to the gravity of this question TO which my hon. Friend has just referred. In the speech of the Prime Minister last Tuesday

  1777
  the right hon. Gentleman implored the nation to arise to national sacrifice. Are we doing this in relation to the drink traffic? Perhaps some of you may look upon me as a fanatic, but I appeal to you, not as an abstainer, but as a supporter of the Government to win the War. I appeal to you as a patriot —I may be a humble one. But I do ask the Government to tackle this question. Why is it that this great drink traffic, which we are up against on every hand, is not dealt with? My right hon. Friend said something about the soldier. Not long ago I was going home from the House one night and I came up against a Canadian soldier. I always try to give the soldier a word of encouragement. This one told me what he had seen in regard to drinking since be came to this country from his home across the sea, where there is sobriety to a large extent. Canada has nearly gone dry now on this question, and we have examples the world over which has put us to shame. For here, in England, which has been held up to the world as a pattern, we are behind every nation on this question. Is it not time, if we want to win this War, that we should do something more than we are doing? This would mean not only a saving of money, which is a great thing, for money is wanted, and the millions that are now spent in this way could be put into the War Loan. How much better we then should be able to fight the foe! I beg the right hon. and hon. Members opposite to bear in mind that the Prime Minister asked us to rise to this national sacrifice. He implored us to "have a national altar of sacrifice," a "National Lent." Let us put it into execution. Let every Member of this House of Commons say that, "By God's help, I will do all I can in this respect to win the War." We shall do it all the better if we make this sacrifice Let us banish the drink, which everyone recognises now is, at its best, but a luxury. I told the House the other day that even the "Brewers' Gazette" said that it was a waste and a luxury. I hope the Leader of the House will convey our wishes to the Prime Minister, and that, without undue delay, the Government will tackle this question. If they do, I am sure it will help us more than anything else to bring this War to a victorious and glorious conclusion.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not desire to say anything upon the topic which hon. Mem-
  1778
  bers who preceded me have referred to, except to say that I sympathise with the greater part of what has been said upon that subject. But I do think it of the utmost importance that to-night, when we are on the eve of dispersing for something like six weeks, something should be said in this House on the policy of the War. I said recently that I believe this country is passing through a most critical juncture in its history. Two years ago, when the House was adjourning for the Christmas holidays, the present Minister of Blockade protested against a four weeks' Adjournment on the ground of the critical events which might happen in that interval. To-day he is a member of that Ministry which is proroguing Parliament for six weeks at a far more grave juncture in our history. We are passing through an acute Ministerial crisis. On Tuesday we heard in this House two speeches, one from the Prime Minister and the other from the ex-Prime Minister. But I think it is only candid to say that neither the one speech nor the other revealed the real cause of the crisis. Nobody can believe—it is indeed incredible to suppose—that such an acute Ministerial crisis could have arisen purely on personal grounds, purely on a question of incompatibility of temperament Such a crisis can only be justified on the ground of some great question of national policy. We have been left to draw inferences as to what the question of national policy is. We know that during the greater part of the existence of the late Government there has been one great question upon which its members have disagreed. It is public property; we know it from speeches in this House; the question of the policy to be pursued in the East. We remember a year ago, when the present First Lord of the Admiralty retired from the Government, that he fully and frankly stated then the reason of his severance from his colleagues. He told us then that the Government had to decide whether they were going to intervene effectively in the East, that they should either intervene effectively or not intervene at all; and it was because the Government of that day decided to do neither that he washed his hands of responsibility of their policy. But what has happened? We know of course that at that time the present Prime Minister and the present Leader of the House held views indistinguishable from those of the First Lord of the Admiralty. But what has been the result? We have had now twelve months of a compromise policy, a hopeless policy,

  1779
  a policy bound to lead us to disaster. I believe that it has been the continuance of this compromise, this impossible situation, that has brought about the fall of the late Government. I think it is the duty of the House of Commons to inquire into these things. I have pressed on more than one occasion for a Secret Session. I believe that we in the British House of Commons have as much right to have these questions thrashed out, with full knowledge and ample information, as the members of the French Chamber, who recently had a Secret Session lasting, I think, for eight days. Here we are kept in ignorance. It is good enough that the British House of Commons should separate for the Recess with its eyes blindfolded; but I think there are questions which we should ask and questions which it is of the utmost importance in the vital interests of the country should be answered.
  What is the new Eastern policy? The present Prime Minister never mentioned Salonika in his speech. The late Prime Minister never mentioned Salonika in his speech. Yet it was in regard to Salonika, what is happening there, what may happen there, and what may be the results of possible policy there that all those who are most vitally concerned with the future in this War were most concerned about. Are we to have any extension of the military commitments there? Are we to see division after division taking up the priceless tonnage through the Mediterranean? These are questions to which we should require an answer. We have had a Shipping Controller appointed. How many ships is he going to have to control as a result of this policy? We have had a Food Controller appointed. How much food is he going to distribute in the month of March when you are taking all our ships vitally required to bring wheat from Australia to this country? These are vital issues. I am not concerned with the speech of the German Chancellor in the Reichstag or our Prime Minister's speech here, or their competition in talk of victory. What I am concerned with are the facts of the situation, and the conditions of victory, and I believe that the conditions of victory in this War for this country depend far more to-day on a wise decision in this respect than upon any decision taken heretofore. We have heard a great deal about the vigorous prosecution of the War. We have had two Committees on opposite sides of the House
  1780
  talking about the vigorous prosecution of the War, and the present constitution of the Government Bench indicates the success of those Gentlemen in their vigorous prosecution of the War. They have vigorously prosecuted the War on to the Front Bench. What we went is a little more wise prosecution of the War. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir F. Cawley), who now holds an office of great responsibility, suggests that I should join them. I believe that I could have joined them if I had been willing to talk the language current on that. Front Bench. Let me come to the real question. Are we going to pursue this policy in the East, which is going to still further deplete the wasting tonnage of this country 1 You will say to me that I am encouraging the enemy and that I am giving information to the enemy. That is all nonsense. They know more about it than we do. They know the rates of insurance for ships crossing the Atlantic today. I do not think that the Leader of the House will deny that. They know, too, that, owing to the submarine menace, British vessels are now uninsurable in the Mediterranean. These are the vital facts of the War, and why are we discussing whether A, B, C, D, E, F, G, or H are to be on the War Council? This House is dispersing for a long period, dispersing, I believe, without the certainty of meeting again, and when no more responsible men are left to voice our protest, I believe that it is necessary even for one on the Back Benches to raise a protest against a ruinous policy.
  Mr. BOLAND: The speeches of the Noble Lord who spoke about half ah hour ago, and of the hon. Member for Ripon, who spoke on the same subject—Ireland-were reecived in this portion of the House with great appreciation, and I think it a good omen that they coincided with an act of wise statesmanship on the part of the Chief Secretary. Now that the Chief Secretary is free to devote himself to another aspect of Irish life, I might ask him to settle the educational tangle in that country. I have had occasion during the last two months, almost day after day, to call his attention to the way in which the teaching of science in Ireland is hampered by the action of one of the so-called Education Boards in Ireland. A quarrel, for it is such, between two Government Departments is being waged over the Irish boy or girl who is wishing to

  1781
  learn science I regret to say that unless the Chief Secretary takes action immediately within the coming few weeks the teaching of science in Ireland for the coming year will be wasted. For the past fifteen years the teaching of science in Ireland has been conducted not on the basis of a written examination to test the pupils, but on the sound system of inspection of all the schools in which science is taught, precisely the same system which has always been adopted in this country and in Scotland. Yet suddenly the Intermediate Board in Ireland, an irresponsible body, decides that for fifteen years it has been guilty of an illegal practice, and has forced through this House a system of rules by which the system of the last fifteen years is to be wiped out, and a Board on which there is not a single scientific man is to be allowed to interfere with the teaching of science in our Irish schools.
  The Chief Secretary has within his reach a very easy means of settling this question. it may possibly be contended by the Intermediate Board that the system of inspection of science teaching in Ireland has not been sufficiently strict. If that is the charge, there is nothing easier than to tighten up the system of inspection. The better the inspection, the better every educational body in Ireland will be pleased. I am perfectly certain that the Department of Agriculture, the Government authority which during these fifteen years has carried out the system of inspection, will be only too willing to improve it in every possible way and make it more valuable and more searching. It would be an absolutely retrograde step to depart from the old system of teaching science and instituting a system of written examination. The idea of written examinations for preliminary science teaching is absolutely abhorrent to every man who has the interests of Ireland at heart. It is not liked either in England or Scotland, and yet the Education Board for Ireland are to be entitled to do this, without consulting educational opinion, and against the advice of headmasters, teachers of science and others throughout the country. All the privileges of raising this question within forty days have been removed owing to the new conditions, and apparently the Education Board of Ireland is to be allowed to ride roughshod not only over Irish opinion, but over opinion in England and Scotland and every other country. During the Recess,
  1782
  the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary may have an opportunity of seeing the inspectors of the Irish Board of Agriculture, the heads of the Intermediate Board, the many learned and scientific experts in Ireland, the headmasters, and the educational bodies, and he will learn what is the real difficulty at the back of this question. I trust that when he returns at the beginning of the new Session he will be able to inform the House that the proposal has been withdrawn, and that nothing will interfere with the method of teaching science in our country which has been in operation for fifteen years.
  Mr. WING: I wish to congratulate the Chief Secretary on his Christmas gift to the Irish people, and I would like to make an appeal to the Leader of the House on behalf of a section of the community to whom either a Christmas or a New Year's gift might be made. The replies to questions asked by myself on so many occasions, respecting increased allowances, have been of a character to lead one to believe that they will shortly be an actual fact. I wish an announcement could now be made on the matter, for it would cheer many a soldier, and it would be a very comforting message to people at home. Another class with regard to whom I feel great sympathy are the old age pensioners. Regulations have been made with regard to the men who earn money and those who receive allotments, but I believe that a very small proportion of old age pensioners are to receive the half-crown, which I understood was to apply to all old age pensioners not benefited by the concessions which I have named. We waited upon the late Secretary to the Treasury, who promised to hand the matter on to his successor, and I would ask the Leader of the House to drop all these rules and regulations, which consume a great deal of time, and cause a great deal of temper, and cost a good deal of money. You have dropped the regulation in respect of those men earning money and those receiving allotments, and now I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that the half-crown should be given. The concessions already made have been on the ground of the increased cost of living, and I submit that on the same ground the half crown should be given to all those who receive old age pensions, and are not otherwise benefited. There have been great speeches and a great decision made to-day, and I should like the right hon.

  1783
  Gentleman just to assure the old age pensioner—who, I am sure, has the whole country behind him—of immediate extra help. If it means a little more in income tax, I am certain that no income tax payer would object to it—that the half-a-crown should be given all round, because all alike suffer from the increased cost of living. I will not detain the House, nor elaborate this point, but, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to send a thrill of joy into thousands of homes, he cannot do better than accept the wish that has been expressed to him by resolution and by petition to the Treasury and by the general sense of the whole country. Increased allowances to soldiers' dependants, as promised, and a universal increase of old age pensions immediately offered would be Christmas or New Year gifts which would give universal satisfaction.
  Mr. HOGGE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has referred to the question of separation allowances. I would only like to say, about that, that I personally am very grateful to the Leader of the House for the action he has taken with regard to this, and that, as one of the most persistent critics of the Government on that subject, I am satisfied, from what he has told the House and also told me, that the Government mean to do something substantial in regard to it. I can only emphasise what my hon. Friend has just said and add that, if the Leader of the House will remember the practice which obtains in his native country with regard to the New Year, he will try and synchronise these benefits with that date.
  What I got up to say, and to say very shortly, was this: I made a few comments on the introduction of the Vote of Credit, which was for £400,000,000, and I put a question to the Leader of the House as to whether that amount of money meant a long recess. He at once got up and said he could give me his word that it did not. Now, I understand that the Government are going to prorogue for at least six weeks. If they are going to do that the Vote of Credit will only last another fortnight. That seems to me to suggest that ! the amount of the Vote of Credit does synchronise with the length of the Recess. It is only a fortnight short, in any case. I want to say, further, that the Prime Minister, when he spoke—in fact, he criticised the old Government, and thereby himself, in saying that there had been too much concealment of the actual
  1784
  facts of the situation—promised the House, and said he hoped in future that the public of this country would be taken more into the confidence of the Government than they had been hitherto. I am not in the least sure that the public are going to be taken into their confidence. I have been a Member of this House since the outbreak of war, and the only information I have been able to pick up in regard to what is happening has not been picked up officially, or communicated to me by anyone in that position. Therefore I, along with many other Members of the House, am at a very considerable disadvantage in arriving at sound conclusions. If that is the case with us, what can we say about the public outside? The public outside are absolutely ignorant of what is happening in the progress of this War. The public outside think that we are winning this War hands down. They are fed on headlines in our newspapers, with regard to detached events in the War, but they are not told of the real facts that lie behind those headlines. Now; it cap-not be alleged against myself, or my hon. Friend who sits next me (Mr. Pringle), that in saying what we are saying to-night we are, in. any sense giving, as the common phrase goes, information to the enemy the most serious information that has ever been given to the enemy has been given by members of the present Administration. Only yesterday the President of the Board of Trade answered to the German people that we were a beleaguered city. I have not myself seen all the signs that are usually associated with a beleaguered city. I wonder what steps the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House is going to take to restrain and stop those within the Ministry from communicating these kind of facts to the enemy. It is not good enough to get up on the Front Bench and to say that those who make such speeches had better not make them, when we learn our lesson from the right hon. Gentleman's own colleagues. We are told by a Member of the Ministry that we are a beleaguered city. Let me for a few moments examine what such a statement moans. I take it that a beleaguered city means that the ordinary and necessary supplies cannot be brought in. The measures which are being taken to provide the necessary food supplies of this country are measures which have necessitated special appointments in the new Ministry. That again is an indication

  1785
  that something requires to be done, People outside are not so foolish as members of that Front Bench think they are. They argue in an ordinary and commonsense way. They know that we as a country cannot grow the supplies necessary for the people of this country. They also know that those supplies are brought here in ships. They argue, when the Minister of Agriculture says that we are a beleaguered city, that the ships are not coming here. They say, "Britannia rules the waves." Why are the ships not coming in? The ships are not coming in, they say because somebody is preventing them. Who and what is it? German submarines! The German submarine, then, has developed to such an extent during this War that it is able to escape from the methods by which it was got hold of before and has got into the trade routes which lead to this country. Surely, then, in those circumstances, we have to face the question, for the public see through the veil that the Front Bench are drawing across the House.
  The Front Bench cannot throw dust too long in the eyes of the public. As a friendly critic of this Administration, as a critic of whom, at any rate, it cannot be said that I have ever opposed the War, for I have been in favour all the time, I warn the Government that they may wake up some fine morning to have to answer the question which will be put to them by the public in this country: What is the meaning of the step that you are taking now after all that you have been telling us? There are great and serious questions involved in this to which I think the House ought to give some attention. I, like the Leader of the House, have been through the great fiscal controversies of the past. I have replied to all the speeches he ever made in various parts of the country, although, I suppose, he never heard of it. We took his speeches and said he knew nothing at all about the subject, and we produced our figures to show how he was wrong. Whether or not he or I was right or wrong, he will agree that both of us— that all of us who were concerned in that controversy, laid enormous stress upon the value of our mercantile marine to the prosperity of this country. I do not suppose there is a single Member of the House who does not recognise and realise that but for the efficiency and sufficiency of our mercantile marine this country would ont be the great country it is. Now there are two kinds of mercantile
  1786
  marine. There is the mercantile marine which trades between this country and other parts, supplying this country with the necessities of life and the necessities of industry, and there is the mercantile marine which is in the hands and control of British shippers, which is doing the mercantile trade of neutral countries beyond the seas which surround these Islands. These are two great sources of wealth and sustenance to this country, and we all know that both of those are being destroyed.
  The Government have made certain proposals with regard to shipping. I understand the Prime Minister has promised the Labour party, or the Labour section of his Ministry or Cabinet, that he is going to nationalise the shipping industry of this country; in fact, he has promised to nationalise everything except his own Ministry. We were told when this War began that no Government, Coalition or otherwise—and I do not know quite what is the correct adjective with which to describe this Government—would introduce matters of a controversial aspect. Now the nationalisation of shipping, the nationalisation of mines, the nationalisation of practically every industry in this country is an extraordinarily controversial question. It is more. It is a very serious economic question as to whether individualists in this country—because, after all, even the Leader of the House will agree that the greatness of this country has been achieved by individuals— are going to have at their disposal the necessary capital to promote and stimulate the great industries that make for the greatness of this country, if the Government is going to nationalise any or all of those industries I think it is really rather dangerous to allow the present heterogeneous Ministry to be free from all kinds of criticism for six weeks, and to run loose through their various Departments, because, after all, the Prime Minister is going to be concerned with something entirely different. He is going to concern himself with the conduct of the War, and you have in charge of the various Departments of this Government a great many men, hardly any of whom agrees one with the other, running these Departments, promoting their ideas, experimenting at an abnormal time in some of the greatest economic and industrial changes that have ever been suggested in this country. If you

  1787
  wanted to make these great changes, you ought to have experimented in times when circumstances were normal, and you could have got normal results, and from those experiences made up your mind whether it was worth while to promote those experiments further or not. I do not think it is wise at a critical time like this to allow everybody and anybody—and, after all, that is a real description of the composition of this Ministry, which does consist of everybody and anybody—to try their 'prentice hands on some of the best established industries in this country. Therefore, I wish to associate myself with my hon. Friend, who, with myself, makes up our party, in protest against the length of this Recess, and in protest against allowing this Ministry to refuse to meet the House for so long with great questions undetermined.
  There is one other point. My hon. Friend beside me has referred to a question which I know he would not have referred to if he did not feel it very seriously. All of us talk over these questions, even when we do not venture to express ourselves on them publicly. I think my hon. Friend is right in insisting that the Leader of the House should, at any rate, give us some indication as to whether with the new Ministry we are to have a more defined policy with regard to both our military and our naval operations. If it is true—and I say no more about it than this—that military necessity or your Government policy requires in the Near East the dispatch of many more thousands of troops than are at present there, then, taking those troops there and maintaining them means a reduction of from four to five tons of shipping per man all the time they are maintained in the Near East. Can we afford, in view of the physical necessities of the people in these Islands, to take away from our already depleted mercantile marine so much tonnage as that involves? I do not want to say more, because, like the Leader of the House, I should be more than willing to make very considerable sacrifices to see this country victorious in the right kind of way. I agree that what we want is to pursue this fight until we have got security or immunity from any such recurrence for, at any rate, another generation, if not longer. I am all with him in that, and I would be willing to go a very long way and make a very consider-
  1788
  able sacrifice if that end could be secured. For that reason I think you will excuse me and my Friend from putting our point of view. It is a wise thing to carry with the Government all the sources of strength that they can carry in the House of Commons, and if the Government can carry more hon. Members with them by indicating that this new Ministry has got some definite ideas about policy and how that policy is to be pursued it is well worth doing. Having put my case and added my protest, I leave the matter with the Prime Minister.
  Mr. LYNCH: I wish, even at this last hour, to say one or two words which I hope may be judicious and helpful to the Government. To-day we have heard some very powerful and weighty speeches, delivered with a certain burning zeal for ideals such as is not usual in this Parliament, but which is a greater sign of strength than considerations greatly material. With respect to the two last speeches from the small but powerful party opposite, I would say that the situation has been summed up in the epigrammatic style of the French, where they have been tortured by the same apprehensions as we have, in the advice to the Government, "Make peace or make war." Make peace while the opportunity is now with us before we enter into untold further sacrifices; or else once and for all, having made up your minds to win, active with all energy the ten thousand factors we organise for warlike activity to the full, and infuse in every one of them the spirit of victory. There have been one or two disquieting symptoms since the present Government came into power, and one is the hesitating kind of policy with regard to Greece marked by nothing but sheer incompetence and futility. My advice to the Prime Minister is to assert himself in his own Cabinet; he should know that the people of this country and of all the world are looking up to him as a great leader; let him show himself as a great leader by the spirit of command which he can instil into those who are his immediate followers.
  Leaving this point, I intend to say one or two words with respect to Ireland, because all these questions are very intimately associated. I believe that the War for a certain period will go from bad to worse, not from any fault of this present Government, but because effects follow causes at long intervals, and even now

  1789
  we are only reaping the results of some of the hesitations of six and twelve months ago.
  I believe that the people of Ireland will feel more pressure and more hardship. There may be within the next three or four months a period of misery. Therefore, it behoves all those connected with the government or Ireland to make use of everything which will make for greater efficiency in that country. In my own Constituency—and I believe it holds with respect to the length and breadth of Ireland—one can see untenanted lands, some left perfectly derelict—even some of the very forests running wild—which, joined together, would make hundreds of thousands of acres of fertile land. All those acres should be immediately taken over, and should be immediately developed, and those difficulties of routine of Departments and so forth, which the Chief Secretary himself indicated to-day, should be brushed aside as much as possible. He himself should enter more determinedly into the very pith of the matter, and even make short work of all the cumbrous red tape and routine which delays the operation of this work in Ireland. He should devote his whole attention to putting as many men as possible on this waste land; this would in itself solve a great number of problems in Ireland, and would be of very great advantage to this country in one of these problems which may be soon the most pressing, such as the production of food.
  There exists in my Constituency, and it is only an example of others, many places where productive work such as the reclaiming of land could be undertaken. Really, the difficulty that has stood in the way of this being accomplished has not been a material difficulty, but the difficulty of breaking down the spirit of routine in the offices. I venture to say that ten examples could be found of works of great value which would give employment to people, stave off poverty which I fear is coming, and be of immense advantage to the strength of Ireland, and indirectly to England also.
  Leaving this topic, I will touch upon one other, and that is the question of the Irish prisoners. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the Chief Secretary, it was a bold and generous act on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to make the announcement which he did. I do not believe the Irish people at any time
  1790
  have failed to respond to evidence of good will, and I believe they will testify their gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion. But if I might venture to say it in the face of his generous offer, I think he ought to have gone still further. He ought to have declared a general amnesty. He might put up in opposition to that many legal reasons, but after all the meaning of a general amnesty is to neglect to look into the minutiæ of the cases, to sweep all minor considerations away, so that all may be forgotten. That was done by my friend Theodore Roosevelt after the war in the Phillipines, when in one day he dismissed the question and allowed it to lapse into ancient history. It was never again referred to in after time except with approval of the boldness of the act. It was also done by my friend Louis Botha in South Africa, when he had a still more serious problem to deal with than that of the right hon. Gentleman in Ireland. Now is the time for big men—for men to do great and bold things in a large and generous way. I think in that sense the right hon. Gentleman ought to look once more into this question.
  During the years I have sat in this Parliament I have never once spoken of the broad question of Ireland, although it was that which brought me here—which brought me into politics—to do something valid for Ireland, something great and enduring, has been the one dream of my political life, and the reason why I never intervened in any Debate in the years when there were many burning questions discussed in this House was that I was unwilling by any act of mine or any intervention on my part to stand in the way of Ireland obtaining what I considered was a very inadequate measure, but which seemed at that time to commend itself to the great majority of the people. I thought the measure of the last Government was badly conceived— conceived in a very small spirit—and that the basis having been badly laid, the superstructure was false and that the measure would never be found to be a valid operative measure.
  Now there seems to be a tendency to feel that a better solution must be sought for Ireland, and I would suggest the Government will find it easier to carry a bold and great measure than to attempt in a small, pettifogging way to push through a smaller measure such as at every corner

  1791
  would bear marks of a compromise and party manœuvring. Now is the time to produce broad measures when great ideals are in the air, and I believe if the Government were to rise to this occasion and once and for all proclaim a measure so great that by its greatness and by the fascination of its proposals it would appeal to the men of Ulster themselves, they would have a better chance of carrying it than they would of carrying one smaller and hampered by ten thousand petty faults.
  11.0 P.M.
  What is that measure to be? I am almost afraid to say; for my own standpoint, and in that respect my views, are more advanced perhaps than those held by any other Member of the House. With respect to the Chief Secretary I will say this, that whereas in private life I admire him as an admirable and courteous gentleman, yet as the Chief Secretary I abhor him, because I abhor the office which he represents, and which in itself is the very seal placed on the subjection of Irishmen. I abhor in that respect the Lord Lieutenant also, and I hope that in any bold scheme both will be swept away. Remember that you cannot coerce Irishmen; you cannot drive Irishmen. You may grind them down under your heel, and they will still fight. Even if you kill them outright, their very ghosts will come back to haunt you. I hope that Irishmen will never lose that spirit. If they had not maintained it our history would have been closed 100 years ago. With respect to these rebels, I say, from my place in this House, that I hope the spirit which animated them will never die out of the breasts of the young men of Ireland. I do not mean by that that I would encourage them in rebellion, partly because rebellion is not likely to be successful. If any words of mine could have influenced these young men before the rising, they would not have undertaken that rising at all. I would advise them to continue their agitation on strictly constitutional lines because I believe those lines are stronger and more valid than those of rebellion. At the same time I hope that they will never let perish from their minds the feeling of nationality. The depth and strength of that feeling can never be overestimated. Englishmen themselves feel that. What would you think of the Belgians if, being claimed as German subjects, they were to knuckle down and kow-
  1792
  tow to their oppressors? You would admire the Belgian who, crushed down beneath the brutal tyranny of Germany, at the moment of his dying still lifted his soul to the aspiration of a great and free Belgium. If your own country—I pray that the omen shall never be realised —were to be subjected to the heel of a conqueror, what Englishman would you respect—the man who made obeisance to the new Government, who learned to speak German and cry "Hoch" to the Kaiser, or the man who through every misery and disgrace still kept his soul pure in its ideals, burning strong with the aspiration to the liberty of his country? Do you think Irishmen are inferior to that? No ! Irishmen have many faults, but I believe there are no people in the world in whom the ideal is found burning more brightly than in the breasts, not only of the educated and cultured Irishmen, but of those in the very lowest ranks, not of humanity, but of the ordinary work-a-day world of profit. Many a time I have stood before an ignorant Irish peasant and have respected him—I was going to say as a king, but no!—higher than I place any king—simply for that bright and burning spark which he exhibited, and in the readiness with which he would defend it with his life.
  That must not be lost sight of in finding a solution for the great Irish problem. I will leave the matter with that vagueness at present. My great hope is to see a solution however temporary, of this problem which will open the way to the future development of Ireland. We have heard a speech to-night upon education. Irish brains are not inferior to those of any people. I should like to see Irish education established in such a form that Irish genius can display itself in all the channels in which it has distinctively shown itself capable of success so that Irishmen can reach the highest point of education and stand in the forefront of the works of humanity. I should like to see art encouraged, science cultivated, and the country made stronger in all material works and in the strength of its population. As Thomas Francis Meagher said on a certain occasion when he stood in the dock at Clonmel—he was an object of hatred and derision to Englishmen but a hero to Ireland—"To lift this island up, to make her a benefactress to humanity instead of being, as she is now, one of the meanest beggars in the world, this has

  1793
  been my ambition and my ambition has been my crime." These words, uttered long ago, have inspired successive generations of Irish, and I hope they will continue to inspire them until they have realised the glory of their dreams.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  WAR LOAN BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. D. MASON: I should like to ask with regard to Clause 1, if the right hon. Gentleman will state approximately the amount of the Loan. In Sub-section (4), in which reference is made to raising money, either in British or in other currency, does that mean that the Government has taken powers to issue a dollar loan as well as a sterling loan? In the next Sub-section, which indemnifies corporations which under Statute or under their articles of association are at present prohibited from assisting, I understand the Sub-section now to give them powers to make such investment. On the face of it the interference with private contracts seems a dangerous precedent, but we live in exceptional times and the object of the Government is to override the Statute and articles of association of companies and intervene without allowing companies and institutions to have the power of calling a meeting of their shareholders to get the necessary right to make such investment. My attention was drawn to another point by my hon. Friend (Mr. Holt) with reference to this Clause. It is, perhaps, a matter of drafting. It indemnifies these institutions which are at present prohibited from investing, but does it not also place them in rather an awkward position when the period of indemnification has transpired, because it specifically says there is to be indemnity for holding? If they make a purchase of the Loan and the period has expired, if they should want to liquidate their holding, would they come under any ban or would they come under the law? The point was raised by the hon. Member for Hexham. I am trying to explain what he said. Under this Clause, if
  1794
  an institution invests in this Loan will it be liable, because it still holds a loan after the period has expired, to the common law?
  Mr. BONARLAW: May I try to explain this Clause? So far as the power to do this is concerned, and so far as the law as it now applies stands, it does not matter whether the loan period has elapsed or not. The only meaning of the words, as I understand, is to make sure that the corporation can exercise this power. The contingency feared by the hon. Member cannot arise.
  Mr. MASON: I am glad to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. I have endeavoured to explain the point of the hon. Member for Hexham, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—[Mr. J. Hope.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee, and reported without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS BILL.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Minister of Pensions.)
    In order to unify the administration of such pensions, grants and allowances as are hereinafter mentioned there shall be a Minister of Pensions, who shall be appointed by His Majesty, and the Minister shall, during the continuance of the present War and for a perior of six months thereafter, be entitled to receive advice and assistance from the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty, the Financial Secretary of the War Office, and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Local Government Board in respect of any matter on which such advice and assistance is requested by the Minister.
    Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "during the continuance of the present War and for a period of six months thereafter."
    Motion made, and Question proposed: "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Arthur Henderson.]
    Mr. HOGGE: I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords Amendment."
    I do not know whether Members have taken the trouble to look at the Lords Amendment. The House will, at any rate, remember that the House of Commons framed this Bill itself, and therefore we look with some jealousy to changes made in it in the other House if they are not essential changes and beneficial to the Bill. What the Lords propose to insert in this particular part of the Bill is to put back the three Parliamentary Secretaries to the three Departments as a junior consultative body with the Pensions Minister. What the House of Commons decided was that the Pensions Minister should, while the War lasts, take advantage of the advice which he could secure from these gentlemen, and that six months after the War these gentlemen should disappear and the Pensions Department go along on its own feet. I think, after the choice that has been made in regard to Pensions Minister, that the House has every confidence that the Pensions Minister will be able to conduct his own business, and that he should do that without having permanently associated with himself, or with any successor in that office, three gentlemen who, after the War is over, and particularly six months after the War, will have absolutely nothing to do with pensions except those which are reserved to them. You might as well suggest that the Pensions Minister should be associated with the Admiralty in the dispensation of Service pensions in the Admiralty, or that he should be associated with the Financial Secretary to the War Office in the dispensation of Service pensions to our soldiers. We have delimited the sphere of operations of those various officials, and unless my right hon. Friend (Mr. Henderson) has some better reason than that he has given why we should agree to the Lords Amendment I shall proceed to divide the House.
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: After the word "Parliamentary"["the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty"], insert the words "and Financial."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Henderson.]
    Mr. HOGGE: The Lords Amendments that we have in our hands refer to Bill 141, and the only Bill one could get from the Vote Office is marked 131. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which Secretary of the Admiralty is meant. There are two Secretaries to the Admiralty, the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Civil Lord; which do you mean?
    Mr. HENDERSON: That applies only to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty.
    Mr. HOGGE: Why do you call it "Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty"? That is a curious description of a Secretary. If it means the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, the proper thing to do is to leave out "Parliamentary" and insert "Financial."
    Lords Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Relations with Statutory Committee.)
    The powers and duties of the Statutory Committee under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, shall be exercised and performed by that Committee under the control of, and in accordance with, the instructions of the Minister of Pensions, and the Statutory Committee shall render to the Minister of Pensions advice and assistance in respect of any matter on which such advice and assistance is requested by the Minister.
    Lords Amendment: After"1915"insert the words "other than those relating to separation allowances."
    Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment really strikes at the purpose of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to place pensions, including Statutory Committee's, under one authority—the Pensions Minister. If we allow this Amendment to remain in the Bill it would withdraw from the control of the Minister any supplementation in connection with separation allowances, and we might have

    1797
    no official dealing with supplementation in connection with one part of the Bill for the Minister and dealing with supplementation for separation allowances under the Statutory Authority, and yet the funds of the Statutory Authority might all have to come out of the Vote, and we feel that that is an anomaly.
    Lords Amendment disagreed with.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Staff, Remuneration, and Expenses.)
    (1) The Minister of Pensions may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may, with the sanction of the Treasury, determine.
    (2) There shall be paid, out of moneys provided by Parliament, to the Minister of Pensions such annual salary not exceeding two thousand pounds, and to the secretaries, officers, and servants of the Ministry such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine.
    Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "one of the secretaries of the Ministry shall not by reason of his office be," and insert instead thereof the words "the office of Secretary in the Ministry shall not render the holder thereof."
    Mr. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I desire to make this explanation. The Bill left this House on the understanding that there should be one Secretary, who might be a Member of Parliament. There has been a feeling that the work of the Pensions Committee might become so great, and the number of cases to be dealt with so large, that a second Secretary might be found necessary. It is not the intention of the Government at present to appoint more than one Secretary.
    Sir J. SIMON: This arises on the next Amendment.
    An HON. MEMBER: The next Amendment is consequential.
    Mr. HENDERSON: The next Amendment is consequential, and I take my point upon this. I want to make it clear that if my hon. Friends object to giving this power to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary, I will not carry the Amendment further.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I hope the Government will not ask us to agree with the other House in this Amendment. The
    1798
    Bill was carefully considered in this House, and as it left here it provided for the appointment of one Parliamentary Secretary, and I think the House of Commons is rather jealous of the multiplication of offices. It would be difficult to make out a substantial case for having three Ministers representing this one Department. Almost all the great Departments are represented in Parliament by two Ministers, and it would be difficult to show that the work of the Pensions Ministry is so vast and elaborate that it cannot be adequately performed by the Minister and one Parliamentary Secretary. I would point out that when the Bill was passing through this House, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take power to appoint two Under-Secretaries to each of the three Ministries—Labour, Shipping and Food. Objection was taken to that proposal by my right hon. Friend (Mr. McKenna), and the Home Secretary, who was in charge of the Bill, said the Amendment limiting it to one Secretary was a very proper one. The same principle which applies to the three new Ministries, I think, should apply to the fourth.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Lords Amendment disagreed with.
    Lords Amendment: After the word ["Parliament"] insert the words "but not more than two such Secretaries shall sit as Members of that House at the same time."—Disagreed with.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
    Committee nominated of Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Henry, Mr. Hogge, Mr. Pollock, and Sir John Simon.
    Three to be the quorum.
    To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. James Hope.]
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Arthur Henderson.]

    SUPPLY.— [20th DECEMBER.]
    Resolution reported,

    ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.
    "That an additional number of Land Forces, not exceeding 1,000,000, of all

    1799
    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."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. PRINGLE: I want to make one or two observations on this Vote. I think it is essential that the House, before finally agreeing with the Vote for an extra million men, should know whether these men are to be soldiers. At the present moment we have about 4,000,000 men under arms, but a very large percentage are not soldiers; they are being used under military law for civilian purposes. Consequently, before we assent to a further increase in the armed forces of the Crown, I think we should receive some undertaking from the Minister in charge that this further million are going to be bond fide soldiers, employed for the purpose of the European War, and not for the purposes of industry in this country. I do not wish to go into details as to the numbers of men at present employed in that way; but I know, for example, that there are several thousands of men in the part of the country which I represent who, not for a temporary matter or for an emergency, but since the month of July, have been continuously employed in ironworks on military pay. I think we ought to know, first of all, whether this new million men are to be enlisted as soldiers, and, if not, if they are to be enlisted for the purposes of being used as workmen under military law. We ought to know, also, whether they are going to be paid at military rates of pay, in competition with civilians who are earning wages under normal conditions. I think that my right hon. Friend should give us some assurance on that point.
    Mr. TYSON WILSON: I would like to empmasise what the hon. Gentleman has said. The military representatives in many parts of the country are taking men who are doing the most essential work it is possible for workmen to do. I will give an illustration. I had a letter on Tuesday from Louthborough. A man had been working for a company there, making aeroplanes for the Government. He is 41
    1800
    years and 3 months old. He got exempted in August for a period, and now he has been again called up. The firm do not want to lose this man, and say he is necessary for carrying on the work, but the military representative refuses to release him or to suspend his calling-up notice. He says that this man will have to pass his trade test, and that then he will send him to Farnborough, to the Government aircraft works on the same day. I had a letter from Farnborough, saying that Government men had been released from the factory there to go into the Army. It is not playing the game to release skilled men that are absolutely required to make aeroplanes, for their places cannot be filled in a day or two. It is most unfair, particularly to men of that age, to put them into the Army, send them to Farnborough, and put them on military pay for doing work of just the same kind that they were doing before in the shops from which they were taken. I put a question to-day with regard to the men engaged in ship repairs in the Liverpool and Birkenhead district. I have heard quite within an hour or two that on the Birkenhead side of the Mersey matters are far worse than on the Liverpool side. The workmen of the country ought to know exactly where they stand. They are living in a state of fear and trembling. So long as these men are engaged in work of national importance—I do not mean the kind of work imposed upon them by tribunals—but their ordinary work, if it is accounted to be work in the interests of the nation they ought to be left there. The hon. Member should make it as clear as he possibly can that men engaged in essential work shall not be drafted into the Army so long as their services are required, and so long as they are doing the work they are engaged in at present.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: If my hon. Friend had heard me yesterday he would have known that I pointed out quite clearly that this Vote was a purely technical Vote. It is merely to regularise our position. At present we have a Vote for 4,000,000 men. The Colonial Forces are included in the British Forces; consequently it is necessary that we should have this additional Vote. It does not mean taking any more men from the industrial centres of the country; it is simply and solely to regularise our position.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to—
    New Ministries and Secretaries Bill, Public Authorities and Bodies (Loans) Bill, without Amendment.
    Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill, with Amendments.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM (ACQUISITION OF LAND) BILL.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.— [Sir George Cave.]

    DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
    Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered accordingly, and agreed to.—[Mr. J. Hope.]
    And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Nineteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.