DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.— [SECOND DAY.] (Hansard, 16 February 1916)

§ Sir F. BANBURY

At the present moment the country needs deeds, not words, and, therefore, I do not intend to occupy the attention of the House for any length of time this afternoon. We are met here together under very exceptional circumstances. I think I am right in saying that the Session which ended only a few days ago was longer than any Session since the Long Parliament, and not only had it the peculiarity of being longer than any previous Session, but it also had the peculiarity of having no Opposition during 77 practically the whole of it until nearly the end of last year. There was not even a small group opposed to the Government. There were, no doubt, below the Gangway two or three hon. Members who acted sometimes together and sometimes separately, and they criticised the action of the Government; but when we met at the beginning of last Session, in November, 1914, the Opposition which was in existence, showing a patriotism which has never been excelled by any other Opposition, determined to support the Government in everything that it did, and they continued to do so, very much to the credit of the Leaders of the Opposition and of their followers. Then last June the Government were obliged to alter the constitution of the Cabinet and of the rest of the Government. They made a Coalition, and under that the same thing prevailed, and the House—with the exception of a few hon. Members below the Gangway opposite—loyally supported the action of the Government. That is a very exceptional position. It has altered entirely the procedure of the House of Commons. But I think we are justified in asking ourselves whether it has had a good result. Personally, I do not think we can flatter ourselves that the method of conducting the government of the country has been very successful. Let us consider for a moment what has taken place. I do not propose to go into military matters. I am, unfortunately, not a soldier, but it does not take a great soldier or a military expert to decide that Germany was the chief initiator of the War, and that until the Germans are beaten and many of them are killed we shall not terminate the War. Therefore our object should be to kill as many Germans as possible. How are we to carry out that object?

The Government, when they commenced the War, had made no preparation whatever for carrying on a great war of this kind, and not only had they made no preparation with regard to the Army, but they had made none in regard to supplies of munitions, stores, and various other Articles which are essential for carrying on a great war. What then ought they to have done? I remember a statement by Napoleon that the thing a general should do should be not to divide his army into small packets. But very nearly the first thing the Government did was to divide the Army up into small packets. Instead of concentrating all the men and all the 78 munitions in Flanders, and attacking the Germans where an attack was most likely to be successful and where we could kill as many of the Germans as possible, they occupied themselves in sending expeditions into various parts of the world—chiefly to the Dardanelles where we were killing Turks and not Germans, and they used up a large number of men and munitions there just at the time they were wanted in Flanders. I believe our casualties—including sickness—in the Dardanelles amounted to something like 200,000. I have not the exact figures in my mind at this moment. What would have been the effect if last spring or summer we had been able to put in our lines in Flanders all the men and munitions we have wasted in the Dardanelles! Had we had an effective Opposition possibly that expedition to the Dardanelles would never have been carried out.

Then there is the question of the blockade. That is a very serious matter and I should like to point out to the House that in a speech which he made in another place a short time ago Lord Devonport stated that 1,500,000 tons of iron ore had been going into Germany since the commencement of the War until the end of December last. I understand the representative of the Government in another place said he could not quite reconcile these figures. But at a meeting in the City the other day Lord Devonport repeated the statement and added that he was prepared to substantiate the figures whenever challenged. There was also another statement—a very important one—made by Lord Devonport which rather escaped notice in the Press and in the other House. It was that during the last eight months 2,000,000 tons of iron ore had gone into Germany through German ports, so that altogether something like 3,500,000 tons of iron ore have gone into Germany either by way of Rotterdam or through German ports. That is a very serious question which I think demands the consideration of every one in this House and outside.

I should like to say one or two words on the question of finance. The Prime Minister told us yesterday there was to be increased taxation. I do not propose to discuss at any length the financial problem, but I do hope, if we are going to have increased taxation it will be in the form of Import Duties which will bear upon the whole country and not in the form of taxes which bear only upon very 79 small classes of the community. The Prime Minister also spoke of the necessity for economy. There have been two or three Committees formed to promote war economies. About a year ago I had the honour of being present at the Guildhall when the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Bonar Law) made very eloquent speeches, as they always do. They told us that we ought to practice economy, and when a little later I had to move a resolution I ventured to express a hope that the Government would set us an example in that respect, as, if they did, I was quite sure the majority of the people would follow it. That sentiment was received with great cheers at the Guildhall meeting, but I am sorry to say my words fell flat upon the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the only economy effected by the Government, so far as I know, has been the closing of the museums. It has taken them a year to do that. I do not in the least object to the closing of the museums.

I quite agree, too, with the statement made the other day by the Prime Minister, that in effecting economies you must begin somewhere, and if you save a small sum in one direction you may save another small sum in another direction. But I do say this, that if after a year a Government, consisting of the best men of all parties, and desirous of economy, has only been able to effect the economy of closing the museums, that cannot be considered to be a very great achievement. What I think ought to be remembered with regard to finance is that the first step to take in economical management is to see that the expenditure of the Government itself is carried out in a businesslike way—to see that wherever a sovereign is spent full and fair value is obtained for that sovereign. I do not believe that at the present moment the Government are getting full and fair value for the sovereigns they expend. It is of no use coming down here and asking the House and the country to bear an enormous burden of taxation and to agree to raise enormous loans if, on the other hand, the Government are wasting money by spending a sovereign where they need only spend fifteen shillings. I have one or two instances which prove the correctness of what I have just said. Probably there are a great many more of much more importance, but there were two which came under my special notice. 80 It was brought to my knowledge some two months ago that the Government were paying veterinary surgeons 35s. a week for sick horses, and that they were paying other people 25s. a week for ordinary horses. If you have any experience of the management of a great stud you will know that a sick horse costs less to keep than a sound horse, because the sick horse does not eat so much. When I saw those figures, happening to be chairman of the horse committee of the Great Northern Railway, I had the accounts of the cost of our sound horses and sick horses made out, and I sent them to a very efficient, if he will allow me to say so, public servant. I will not mention his name, but I have the privilege and honour of knowing him. He is an honoured permanent official at the War Office. The result was that the price of 35s. a week for sick horses was reduced in some cases to 15s. and in other cases to 20s. I have not the actual figures with me, but I think that is the reduction that was made. That, of course, is very satisfactory, but it only shows the force and value of criticism. Therefore it is necessary that there should be some little criticism of the Government.

I have one other case which occurred quite recently. I will not mention any names, because it is best not to do so in these circumstances. It was brought to my knowledge that the Government were paying very exorbitant wages for certain work which was being done. I brought the case to the notice of my hon. Friend The Financial Secretary to the War Office, who very kindly said that he would investigate it for me. I received a letter yesterday from the hon. Member for the Hoxton Division (Dr. Addison), who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, from which it appeared that the case to which I alluded came under the Ministry of Munitions. The explanation he gave me was that the Munitions Department were erecting certain works, that the contractor was paid higher than the local rate, but that everything that he was paid higher than the local rate was afterwards returned to the Government. I must say that I was not very satisfied with that explanation. Even if the contractor in question did make that return to the Government, the contract must have been so very profitable that he could very well afford to do it. At any rate, it is not wise to pay wages far and away above the local rate, because the only effect is that it upsets and disorganises 81 all the labour in that particular district. I do not think you get any better work for it, and it costs a considerable amount of money more.

The object of my few remarks has been to show it is necessary that there should be occasionally some criticism of His Majesty's Government. That view did suggest itself to several of my hon. Friends on this side of the House a short time ago, and they formed a War Unionist Committee, presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson), and of which I myself have the honour to be vice-chairman. That Committee consists of very nearly all the Members who generally attend on our side of the House. Their desire is to support the Government as long as they resolutely, with determination and vigour, and with a due regard to economy, prosecute the War, but to criticise them, and, perhaps, criticise them somewhat strongly, if they ever show failing in their duty in that direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) has an Amendment upon the Paper dealing with the Air Services, therefore I will not say anything about the Air Services, but I will conclude by saying that the Committee to which I have alluded has come to the conclusion that it will support my hon. Friend's Amendment unless a satisfactory answer is given to-day by the Government.