Commons Sitting of 22 February 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill, Beighton and District Gas Bill, Cardiff Railway Bill, City of Dublin Steam Packet Company Bill, Colonial Bank Bill, Folkestone Gas Bill, Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill, Northwich Urban District Council (Gas) Bill, Plymouth and Stone-house Gas Bill, Saint John's Church (Kingston-upon-Hull) Bill, South Metropolitan Gas Bill, Tynemouth Corporation Bill, Uxbridge Gas Bill, Wakefield Corporation Bill,
To be read a second time upon Thursday.

IRISH UNIVERSITIES ACT, 1908.
Paper [presented 21st February] to be printed. [No. 23.]
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Worcester (Mid or Droitwich Division), in the room of Major the Honourable John Cavendish Lyttelton (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

VOTE OF CREDIT (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT, 1914–15).
Copy presented of Appropriation Account of the sums granted by Parliament beyond the ordinary grants of Parliament to pay the expenses on measures taken for the security of the Country; for the conduct of Naval and Military operations; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the continuance of trade, industry, business, and communications whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for relief of distress; and generally for all expenses arising out of the existence of a state of war, in the year ended
556
31st March, 1915; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 24.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1916–17 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
Estimate presented showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1917 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 25.]
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1916–17).
Estimate presented for Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1917, with Memorandum by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 26.]
INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Amended Rules as to the Constitution and Procedure of the Registration Council made under the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Copy ordered "of Accounts relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions for each month of 1916."—[Mr. Runciman.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    PRIZE COURTS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement about the position created by the offer of this country to give to the United States representation upon certain Prize Courts of appeal?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I am not sure to what offer the hon. Member refers, but if his inquiry relates to the point raised in the question asked by the hon. Member for Walsall in this House on 28th October last, I would refer him to the statement made on that occasion.

    PEACE PROPOSALS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has information as to the alleged offer of separate peace terms to Belgium; and whether he can give the House any information on the subject?
    Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply returned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Coventry on the 17th instant.

    CONTRABAND COMMITTEE.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked what is the composition of the Contraband Committee; and what are its chief duties?
    Sir E. GREY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my statement in the House on 26th January last (see OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 3128–3129).
    The description of the composition of the Contraband Committee and of its working occupies more than a column of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and can hardly be repeated in answer to a question.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware he then stated that there are two naval members of the Committee and that there has been a different statement made by the chairman of the Contraband Committee, to the effect that there is only one such member? There is a good deal of difference between one and two.
    Sir E. GREY: Certainly, there is a difference. If the hon. and gallant Member had put down in his question that that was the point he had in mind, I would have inquired into it. I believe the statement I made is correct, but, as the point was not raised in the hon. Member's question, I have not looked into it.
    Colonel YATE: Does a naval member of the Committee mean an officer of the Royal Navy, or does it mean an official of the Admiralty?
    Sir E. GREY: When I made the statement undoubtedly I was dealing with the representation of Departments. I understood there were two members representing the Admiralty, or nominated in some way by the Admiralty, on the Committee.
    Colonel YATE: There is no officer of the Royal Navy on that Committee?
    Sir E. GREY: I understood there was at least one officer of the Royal Navy. I thought the two representatives of the Admiralty included one naval officer. However, I cannot be sure about it, and, as doubt has been thrown on my statement, I should like to inquire into it. If a question is put down I will answer it.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Who are the members of the Contraband Committee?
    Sir E. GREY: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to my statement on the 26th January he will see I stated who was chairman of the Contraband Committee—an hon. Member of this House. I cannot give all the names offhand, but if a question is put down as to the actual names I will give an answer.

    DANISH PORTS (EXAMINATION OF CARGOES).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked whether our Consular officials in Denmark are encouraged to visit the ports and shipping to ascertain what is done with cargoes?
    Sir E. GREY: Yes, Sir; so far as local conditions permit.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware my information is that the Consular officials are prevented by the Legation from visiting the ports? Will he inquire as to that?
    Sir E. GREY: Yes, I will inquire. It is a statement about which I have no information before me.

    STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (ORE EXPORTS).
    Mr. MURRAY MACDONALDasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether

    559
    duties are imposed on exports of some classes of ore from the Straits Settlements; and, if so, whether he will give a schedule of the duties?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Steel-Maitland): No Export Duties on the exportation of ore from the Straits Settlements are imposed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has in mind the royalties on tin and tin ore and other ores imposed in the Federated Malay States. These royalties are at differing rates and cannot be summarised briefly, but the rates will be found in the Manual of Statistics relating to the Federated Malay States, a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House.

    RUSSIA AND CONSTANTINOPLE.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked whether the British Government has entered into a commitment to support Russia's claim to Constantinople; and, if so, whether it had any bearing on the Dardanelles Expedition and on the present operations in the Near East?
    Sir E. GREY: I must refer the hon. Member to the reply returned by me on 13th May last.

    ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the War Office that medical men now holding commissions in the Royal Army Medical Corps, being under forty-five years of age and unfit for foreign service, shall resign the same on the expiration of their present agreement of service?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): Temporarily commissioned officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps under forty-five years of age and unfit for foreign service are not permitted to retain their commissions after the period of service for which they engaged has expired. No further commissions are being given to men under forty-five years of age unless they are physically fit for active service. It is hoped by these methods to set free men who are physically capable of undertaking general military duties and who have hitherto been employed in war hospitals in this country or have been engaged in private practice.

    DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

      CASES IN IRELAND.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under- Secretary for War when the competent military authority in Ireland decided to treat the use of the Irish language as an offence under the Defence of the Realm Act; why the decision is carried out in detail instead of by public proclamation; and whether he can arrange to have it announced in the speeches of recruiting officers and in posters on their vans and motor cars?
      Mr. TENNANT: No such decision as is alleged in the first part of the hon. Member's question has been given, and accordingly the other parts of the question do not arise.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he reconciles that answer with the fact that the police in the county of Cork arrested Mr. Chavasse, an Englishman, subjected him to indignity, stripped him of his clothes, insulted him, called him a blackguard, a Sin Feiner, and a German spy, and told him that an Englishman had no right to speak the Irish language in Ireland?
      Mr. TENNANT: Anyone has a right to speak any language he chooses—even to speak the German language is not an offence against the law of the realm. But if the hon. Member will give me particulars of the case, I will certainly have it inquired into.
      Mr. GINNELL:I have given them. Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the dates, respectively, of the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Terence MaeSwiney, of his being served with the text of the charge against him, and of the trial; what the charge was; how long he was imprisoned before trial; and the result of the trial?
      Mr. TENNANT: Terence MaeSwiney was by order of the competent military authority arrested and lodged in prison on the 13th January last. On the 15th February he was served with summonses charging him with making a seditious speech and having in his possession a cipher code. He was on the same day brought up at Cork Police Court and allowed out on bail to appear on the 21st February. He was in prison from the 13th January to the 15th February.
      Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that Mr. MacSwiney has never been served with any charge whatever?
      Mr. TENNANT: There is no requirement to serve a charge on a person arrested under the Defence of the Realm Act.
      Mr. GINNELL: Can a man in Ireland be imprisoned without any charge?
      Mr. TENNANT: A man can in this country and in any part of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. GINNELL: It is very wrong!
      Mr. GINNELLasked, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is with the knowledge and approval of the Admiralty that the Englishman acting as coastguard on Lettermullen Island, in the midst of Irish speakers, though twenty years there, cannot speak Irish, and now threatens people with the Defence of the Realm Act unless they speak English, which many of them do not know; and whether, to avoid conflict with the people, this interference with their language will be stopped?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): This matter has been inquired into and there would appear to be no foundation whatever for the allegations contained in the question.
      Mr. GINNELL: To whom was the inquiry addressed; was it to the man accused?
      Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say offhand. I have read a long Report, and can say that the suggestion the question contains that this man could only speak English and insisted upon everybody else speaking English is, according to my information, quite without foundation.
      Mr. GINNELLasked if he will state how long Mr. MacCabe, of county Sligo, has been in prison on a charge of which he has been acquitted by a Dublin jury; whether he is still in prison; awaiting trial by what Court; and on what charge?
      The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): MacCabe was arrested on the 6th November last under the Defence of the Realm Regulation and detained in custody. On the 4th February
      562
      he was acquitted on one of the charges brought against him, and on the 18th February was discharged, the Crown having decided not to proceed with the remaining charges.
      Mr. GINNELL: Was not that decision due to the fact that they had no evidence against him?
      Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir.
      Mr. GINNELL: If they had, why did not they go on?
      Mr. BIRRELL: There was some reason for dissatisfaction in the former, case.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland for what purpose members of the Crimes Special Branch of the Irish police are now in plain clothes in Sligo, Mayo, and Galway, having regard to the freedom of those counties from crime, as shown by the Assizes; will he inform the House by whom, known to the police, explosives have been placed on two recent occasions on the property of the Marquess of Sligo; why the order not to prosecute was issued from Dublin Castle; and whether it is by his direction men watching suspicious movements of the police are now being threatened with the Defence of the Realm Act?
      Mr. BIRRELL: There are no members of the Crimes Special Branch of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the counties named in the hon. Member's question. No evidence has so far been obtained by the police in the matter referred to in the second part, and there is no foundation for the allegations in the third and fourth parts.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is with his approval and under what law Claude Uasal Chavasse, B.A., of Christchurch, Oxford, has been arrested, imprisoned, and fined in Ireland for answering a policeman in the Irish language in the neighbourhood of an Irish college where Irish is generally used by all except the police; if this was the blunder of subordinates, whether he will prevent its recurrence; and, if any police are deemed necessary in such places, whether he will see that the men sent there understand Irish?
      Mr. BIRRELL: The person referred to, who is an Englishman, having failed to answer to the best of his ability questions

      563
      reasonably addressed to him under No. 53 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, was arrested by the police but not imprisoned. By direction of the competent military authority he was prosecuted at Macroom Petty Sessions on the 9th instant when he was fined £4 and £l costs. It is understood that he has appealed. It is not considered that the incident requires any change in the present police arrangements of the locality.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the conduct of the police towards this English gentleman in stripping him, abusing him and imprisoning him for a whole night in the black hole?
      Mr. BIRRELL: I do not think that that account of this Englishman's treatment is justified by the facts.
      Major NEWMAN: May I ask the name of the Irish college where Irish is always spoken?
      An HON. MEMBER: Ballinageary.
      Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the general use of Irish in the neighbourhood of an Irish college is an asset to the district and to the college? [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. It must be perfectly obvious, must it not, that the speaking of the Irish language in the neighbourhood of an Irish college is an asset to the district and the college, and a legitimate asset? That being so—
      Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of argument.

      BRITISH SUBJECTS.
      Mr. E. DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many natural-born British subjects, if any, have been interned without trial under the Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act?
      Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked the number of British subjects arrested and imprisoned without trial under the Defence of the Realm Act?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): In reply to these questions I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for North Salford.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      EXAMINATION OF RECRUITS (MEDICAL FEES).
      Mr. RENDALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the scales for payment to medical men for examining recruits (Southern Command Order 507, dated 13th March, 1915), set forth that for a whole day, defined as six working hours, and the examination of from thirty to forty recruits the payment of £2 is ordered to be made; that in certain towns the doctors declined to examine more than thirty-one recruits per day, and for this work have been paid the full fee of £2; that in other places doctors worked from nine to twelve hours, and in one case (Dr. Weaver, of Yeovil) 226 recruits were examined in fifteen consecutive hours, yet for these long hours and far greater number of examinations only the same fee of £2 is being paid as for the examination of thirty-one patients; whether there is dissatisfaction; and will he order the payment of £2 for each six hours' work and get his medical advisers to put these matters on a businesslike footing?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): If a few recruits are examined in a day, the fee is 2s. 6d. a recruit. £2 is the payment for a full day's work. In view of the evil results of hurried examination it is not considered desirable to hold out to doctors pecuniary inducements to examine more than thirty to forty recruits in one day. I am not aware that the profession is dissatisfied with these arrangements.

      HOME DEFENCE.
      Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to reintroduce the Military Service Bill which was left un-passed at the end of last Session?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir, there is no present intention of reintroducing this Bill.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is it necessary? Will these men not come under the existing Military Service Act?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.
      Mr. AINSWORTH: Is the Government aware that hundreds of thousands of men who have given their services and are prepared to give their services to the country

      565
      for Home defence are seriously affected by any delay on the part of the Government to deal with the question and give them a military status under the War Office?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.

    OPERATIONS IN EGYPT (DISPATCHES).
    Colonel YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when the dispatches relating to the operations in Egypt during the past year will be published?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. and gallant Member is presumably referring to the operations which took place in the neighbourhood of the Suez Canal in the early part of last year. These operations were fully described in six long official communiqués issued in February and March, and there is no additional information to be published.
    Colonel YATE: Was that information published in the "London Gazette"?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think so, but I cannot be certain at this distance of time. It was certainly published in the Press.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the dispatches are published in the "London Gazette"?
    Mr. TENNANT: I will endeavour to do so, but I cannot give a promise.

    THIRD WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL.
    Mr. HAYDN JONESasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what was the cost per patient bed per week of the Third Western General Hospital for 1915, what the medical staff consisted of, the amount paid as remuneration, and how many members of such staff carried on private practice?
    Mr. FORSTER: I regret that the Army accounts are not kept in such a form as to admit of arriving at the weekly cost of a hospital per bed. This hospital, which is an administrative unit composed of many different buildings, contains 2,000 beds. It has a staff of some thirty-two medical officers, who draw the Army pay of their ranks; and of these nineteen are local members of the profession, to whom it is open to pursue private practice.

    NATIONAL RESERVE (BOUNTY FOR RE-ENLISTMENT).
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSHasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in response to an appeal from the officer commanding, many members of the 1st class National Reserve, 5th Manchester Regiment, enrolled themselves on the 3rd September, 1914, in the Territorial battalion for immediate active service, that they left England six days later for Egypt, and have since been through the campaign in Gallipoli; and whether, under such circumstances, the Department will favourably consider the claim of such members for a similar bounty as has been paid under paragraph 2, Army Order 28, dated 19th September, 1914?
    Mr. FORSTER: The whole subject of these gratuities has been very carefully, considered on many occasions, and I am afraid I cannot agree to any reopening of the question.

    ARMY PAY CORPS, WOOLWICH.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the male civilian clerks in the Army Pay Corps, Woolwich, whose wages are 35s. per week; whether these men petitioned for a war bonus of 4s. a week, which was not granted; whether he is aware that since then four or five new paymasters have been appointed at £5 5s. per week and several female superintendents at £3 3s. a week, and have had to be taught their work; that while the male civilian clerks get no pay for overtime lady clerks and supervisors are paid; and whether he will reconsider the claims of these men for some concession?
    Mr. FORSTER: The facts are as stated, but it should be added that the ladies and gentlemen appointed to higher positions had superior qualifications for higher duties. The rate paid to male civilian clerks for routine clerical work is considered sufficient.

    EMPLOYMENT OF WOUNDED AND INVALIDED SOLDIERS.
    Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General whether, at the Northern Division Post Office, London,

    567
    there are about sixty wounded and invalided soldiers employed examining parcels going to Germany for British prisoners there, and that they are only paid 1s. a day, with 1s. 9d. a day subsistence money; and whether he will take steps to give these men more adequate remuneration, in view of the fact that they are allowed nothing for lodging expenses?
    Mr. FORSTER: I find, on inquiry, that these men are either provided with billets paid for by the public in the ordinary way, or are living at their own homes and are in receipt of consolidated allowances intended to cover lodging. It appears, however, that in some cases these allowances have been issued at incorrect rates, and this is now being adjusted.

    ROYAL MARINE ARTILLERY HOWITZER BRIGADE (PROMOTION).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will undertake that no artificial barrier will be placed in the way of the promotion of any officer in the Royal Marine Artillery Howitzer Brigade simply because he has joined for the period of the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. No barrier is placed in the way of officers as regards promotion Officers are promoted according to their merits and the requirements of the Service.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this particular brigade mentioned in my question no officer who has joined temporarily for the period of the War is entitled, by order, to rise above a certain rank?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is by order?
    Mr. HOGGE: Yes.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The question of promotion in the Royal Navy and Marines is naturally one for the Naval and Marine authorities. I will, however, look into the point. I am quite certain there is no barrier, and that officers are promoted according to their merit and the requirements of the Service.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the special circumstances of the case? Undoubtedly the information is given that promotion is withheld.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will certainly do that.
    Colonel YATE: Are temporary lieutenants holding appointments as adjutants in the Royal Marine Artillery eligible for promotion as captains?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: No, they are not.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the late Harry Hull, of Gillingham, Kent, who served in the Navy for nearly nineteen years, was a petty officer, secured the Good Service Medal, and was officially recognised as of superior ability and very good character; whether the sailor, after being knocked overboard from His Majesty's Ship "Duncan" and undergoing treatment in the Royal Naval Hospital, Chatham, was invalided, owing to a form of paralysis, out of the Service on a pension of 8s. 3d. a week; that in order to keep his wife and child he tried to work in Chatham Dockyard, but after ten days was found insensible in a boiler which he was cleaning out; that he was sent without the knowledge of his wife to Medway Infirmary under a wrong assumption that he was insane; that he was taken home by his wife and died on 6th February as the result of falling downstairs; that the widow has since been informed by the lady visitor from the Patriotic Fund that nothing can be done for her; and whether the Admiralty will have the facts investigated with a view to something being done for the widow and child?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The late Harry Hall was invalided from the Navy with a life pension of 8s. 3d. a week. In accordance with our practice, so far as opportunity offers in the cases of men discharged on small pension, light work was found for Hall in Chatham Dockyard. He collapsed while at work in the machine-shop. (He had not at any time been employed inside a boiler.) No trace of any injury could be found. He was incoherent and rambling, and could give no account of himself. He was taken to the Medway Union Infirmary. Directly intimation of his death reached us the matter was taken in hand. The necessary forms of inquiry

    569
    have been sent to the widow with a view to the assessment of pension to herself and child. Such pension will, of course, be payable as from the date of death. On inquiry I find that the Patriotic Fund cannot trace any record of the case having been brought to their notice at all.

    IRISH POST OFFICE (USE OF IRISH LANGUAGE).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General if he has ascertained whether the recruiting, taxing and other Departments of Government in Ireland concur in the use that is being made of the Post Office in the West of Ireland against the Irish language, imperatively ordering Irish speakers to speak English and, if unable, refusing to attend to them unless they find an interpreter; will he say under what law peaceable Irish taxpayers are denied the common right of the postal service; and, if he disapproves of this conduct of those public servants, what remedy he proposes to introduce at all such places in the western counties as Maam Cross?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. A. Pease): If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any case in which an Irish person unable to speak the English language has been unable to gain attention at an Irish Post Office, I shall be pleased to inquire into the matter.
    Mr. GINNELL: I will do so.

    MUNITIONS.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
      Mr. AGG-GARDNERasked the Minister of Munitions if, in view of the fact that in only three districts out of sixty in the counties of Berks, Wilts, Somerset, and Gloucester an increase of drunkenness was reported at the last brewster sessions held in these counties, and that the three districts referred to were under the control of the Central Control Board, he will use his influence in the interests of temperance to persuade the Central Control Board to suspend the Order recently announced for placing further portions of these counties under its control?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): I see no reason for taking the
      570
      step suggested in the question. The Orders referred to are based on requests of the military authorities.

      SHRAPNEL SHELLS (COST OF. PRODUCTION).
      Mr. MACMASTERasked the Minister of Munitions what was the cost of the production of the ordinary Artillery shrapnel shell just before the War; what is the cost now; and what is the cost of production in France of the corresponding shrapnel shells used by the French Army in the .75 gun?
      Dr. ADDISON: In regard to this question, I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that great reductions in the prices of most natures of shell have been obtained. In regard to ordinary shrapnel, owing to its special nature the prices have remained practically stationary, notwithstanding the increased cost of labour and material. After prolonged negotiations on the basis of actual and precise estimates of cost as ascertained by the Cost Accounting Department in national and other factories and with the assistance of local committees, an agreement has been arrived at whereby a reduction in prices in many natures of shell of from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. has been obtained. This arrangement will secure a saving, as compared with former prices, on the June shell supplies of about £400,000 per week. I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging our indebtedness to the officers of the Finance and Contracts Departments, and those concerned with the local organisation, for the services they have rendered to the State in this matter. I have no information with regard to the last part of the question.
      Mr. MACMASTER: What was the price of production of individual shells before the War and at what time did this reduction take place?
      Dr. ADDISON: I think it is undesirable to state that.
      Sir R. COOPER: Is the House to understand from the hon. Gentleman's answer that there is a reduction of pre-war prices of shells?
      Dr. ADDISON: There is a reduction on the price previously paid during the course of the War to the extent mentioned in the reply. As a matter of fact, there is also a reduction on pre-war prices as well.
      Mr. MACMASTER: Is it not a fact that the price of production of the corresponding French shell used for the .75 gun is about one-third the cost of production in this country?
      Dr. ADDISON: That is not quite correct, and, besides, the hon. Member must remember that the French shell is quite different in many respects from ours. All these things must be taken into account when you are comparing one with another. As a matter of fact, you are comparing different things, and the comparison is unfair.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is there not a difference between the cost of labour here and in France?
      Dr. ADDISON: Very great.

      LEAVING CERTIFICATES (UNDERPAYMENT).
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been drawn to the case brought before the Manchester Munitions Tribunal on 3rd February in which a woman, employed as a driller by a firm of electrical engineers, applied for a certificate enabling her to leave her employment on the ground that she was not being paid a reasonable wage; whether he is aware that the woman affirmed that her wage never exceeded 12s. 4d. a week, though she worked a normal week of 50½ hours with 8¾ hours overtime in addition; whether he is aware that the leaving certificate was refused; and whether he will issue instructions making it easy for workers to obtain leaving certificates in all cases where there is gross underpayment, or enforcing a general minimum wage for all women munition workers?
      Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend agrees that the wages paid in this case are inadequate and he proposes as soon as possible after advice from the tribunal to be set up under the Munitions of War Amendment Act, to issue directions to deal with such cases. With regard to the particular facts to which my hon. Friend draws attention, I am informed that the woman's original application to the firm for a certificate was made, not on the ground of wages, but on her being required for work at home; and that the munitions tribunal refused a certificate on the firm offering to consider the question of increase of wages after one week if she returned to her work and showed proficiency. As regards the last part of
      572
      the question, I would refer to Section 5 (5) of the Munitions of War Amendment Act, which will come into force on Monday next, and under which munitions tribunals in dealing with certificates will be required to consider whether the conditions of the Fair-Wages Clause have been observed.

    LABOUR EXCHANGE STAFFS (WAR BONUS).
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that the employés of the Post Office received a war bonus some months ago, he can see his way to grant a similar bonus to the staff of the Labour Exchanges, seeing that the work, which is of national importance, has considerably increased and the purchasing power of the wages depreciated?
    Mr. GEORGE THORNEput a similar question.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The Board of Trade have submitted the question of the grant of a war bonus to the clerical staff of their Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance Department for the consideration of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, and have received a reply intimating that their lordships cannot regard the conditions of appointment or service in the Department as justifying any departure from the general decision of His Majesty's Government; that a case has not been made out for throwing upon the taxpayer at the present time the heavy additional burden which would be involved by the grant of a war bonus to the subordinate staff in the civil establishments. This reply has been communicated to the officers concerned. A further memorial on the subject has been received from the Federation of Labour Exchanges and Unemployment Insurance Clerks' Associations, and this is under consideration.

    PAPER IMPORTS.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether in arranging for the distribution of the imports of paper among paper users the Licensing Commission will ascertain any stocks of paper now held by newspaper firms and others, and regulate the distribution of such imports of paper as may be allowed accordingly?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: An inquiry into the stocks of paper at present held in the United Kingdom is at present in progress; but the precise use to be made of the information so obtained will be determined when this is completed.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in prohibiting, except under licence, the importation of paper-making materials, the Government have considered the damage and ruin that may be caused to the many thousand journeymen printers in the United Kingdom; whether he is aware that these firms, by reason of the nature of their trade, are unable to keep in stock any large quantity of paper, and will consequently, unless they know whether the Committee will allow them to obtain the paper, be totally unable to undertake or tender for printing work; and whether, seeing that the effect of this restriction will divert to foreign countries work now done in this country, he will say what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I greatly regret the dislocation to trade which must inevitably result from even a partial prohibition of any class of imported goods, and the hon. Gentleman will realise that the decision to prohibit the import of one-third of the paper-making materials hitherto imported was only arrived at by the Government under stress of urgent need of the nation for tonnage and after careful consideration of all the circumstances. I have no doubt that the Royal Commission which has been recently appointed will do all in their power to lessen the inconvenience and hardship which must in some cases result from the prohibition.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the advance in the price of paper for printing by nearly 50 per cent., to the fresh restriction now placed on the importation of paper, and to the fact that business will in the future, in the purchase of paper, be on a cash and not a credit basis, the Government intend to extend to journeymen printers a moratorium in respect of rent, rates, and taxes?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the proprietors or directors of any leading newspapers, with the exception of the
    574
    "Daily News," were invited to take a seat on the Commission to licence the import and distribution of paper?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Mr. Parke, who is the gentleman referred to in the hon. Member's question, was nominated by the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, and this nomination was conveyed to me by Lord Burnham, who informed me that Mr. Parke's name had been unanimously agreed upon as an expert representative of the newspaper branch of the paper trade. The Commission is formed on an expert and not on a representative basis, but in order to secure experts who have the full confidence of the others in their respective branches of the paper trade I consulted the various trade associations. With the exception of Sir Thomas Whittaker and Sir Rowland Bailey, practically every member of the Commission is the nominee of a trade association.

    ZEPPELIN RAIDS (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. NEWDEGATEasked the Prime Minister whether he can make arrangements that compensation shall be given to persons suffering loss by Zeppelin raids out of German investments in this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Arrangements have been made for State insurance against air raids, and I do not think that the question calls for further consideration at present.
    Sir R. COOPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the Government might not properly do something to relieve cases of hardship arising from the recent raid in the Midlands, where it was less contemplated that the necessity for using the State insurance would ever be required?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That question was answered yesterday.

    EXTRA FORCES OF POLICE (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there are extra police stationed in any county in Ireland now, imposing a burden on the rates; if

    575
    so, in what counties, how many in each, at what cost, and on account of the prevalence of what crimes as shown by the Assizes of 1915?
    Mr. BIRRELL: There are extra forces of police in the counties of Clare and Galway, nineteen men in the former and two head constables and sixty-four men in the latter. The present rate of cost to the ratepayers of these counties is £836 and £4,000 a year respectively, but is diminishing. The extra forces are stationed in these counties under the authority of a Proclamation of the Lord Lieutenant declaring the counties to be in a state of disturbance and to require an additional force of police. At the Assizes in 1915, 104 serious crimes committed in Clare and 210 in Galway were reported to the judges. The extra forces are required for the protection of the persons and property of obnoxious persons as well as for the prevention of crime.

    EXTRA FORCES OF POLICE (IRELAND).

      Bacterised Peat.
      Mr. KINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether a scheme to adopt on a large scale the results of Professor Bottomley's investigations into bacterised peat has been adopted by the city of Manchester; whether this scheme has the approval of the Board of Agriculture; and whether the products will be available for agriculture generally or are only for local purposes?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The Board are informed that the Corporation of Manchester intend to experiment in the manufacture of bacterised peat. They are satisfied that the experiments proposed are desirable. It is understood that in the first instance the material will be tested locally, and if the tests prove satisfactory arrangements will doubtless be made for placing the product on the market.
      Mr. KING: I suppose that it will be open to other municipalities or private persons to take up the same system, and that there is no exclusive right given to Manchester?
      Mr. ACLAND: It is entirely a matter between them and Professor Bottomley.

      Post Office (Theft by Assistant Sorting Clerk).
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a man named Cooper, now serving a term of imprisonment in Armley Gaol, Leeds, for committing a theft while assistant sorting clerk in the Post Office; whether at the time the theft was committed, Cooper had to maintain a wife and five children on 24s. a week, and that he had previously borne a good character; and whether, in view of the fact that Cooper has developed serious heart trouble since being sentenced, and laid fourteen weeks in gaol awaiting trial, he will consider the possibility of counting this period in the sentence of six months' imprisonment?
      Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have carefully considered this case and regret that I do not find any sufficient grounds for recommending a reduction of the sentence.

      Breach, of Factory Act, Leeds.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes taking any further action in respect of the case brought before the stipendiary magistrate at the Leeds Police Court against the Kirkby Bank Screw Company, Limited, for five admitted breaches of the Factory Act; whether it was admitted that girls of thirteen were being worked overtime without the firm having been granted an emergency order, and that an official of the War Office interfered and sent a letter to the firm with the object of preventing a successful prosecution by the lady factory inspector, and that on the strength of this letter the stipendiary magistrate reproved the lady factory inspector for having brought such proceedings and dismissed the case; whether the name of this official of the War Office will be published; and whether the Home Office will take steps to inform this official that it is no part of his duties to interfere with laws for the protection of the health and efficiency of young girls?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The firm pleaded guilty, but the magistrate dismissed the charges under the Probation of Offenders Act, and there is no further action which can be taken in regard to the case. The facts of the case are as stated in the question. As regards the letter ascribed to an officer of the War Office, which is said to have influenced

      577
      the magistrate in his decision, I have communicated with the War Office, and I am informed that they are making inquiries. I may mention that before the proceedings in this case were instituted the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions were consulted, and both Departments agreed that the overtime employment of such young girls was not necessary, and would not in any circumstances have been countenanced by them; and these views were brought by the inspector to the magistrate's notice. I do not know the magistrate's reasons for taking the course he did, but it is plain that if such excessive hours as were worked in this case by young girls of thirteen are tolerated the health of munition workers must be impaired, and the output of munitions impeded.

    NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

      DISTRICT INSURANCE COMMITTEES.
      Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he is aware that it has been decided that the continuance of district insurance committees in the county of Lancashire is undesirable; and if he will state whether this decision applies to all district insurance committees in Great Britain and Ireland?
      The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Roberts): The activities of district insurance committees have in many areas been suspended in the interests of economy. The action taken, which is without prejudice to the future, has the strong support of the insurance committee for the county referred to in the question.
      Mr. WILSON: Is the intention to suspend the whole insurance itself, or, if not, why is there differentiation between county and county?
      Mr. ROBERTS: Some regard must be had to the circumstances of each area.

      COMMITTEE OF INVESTIGATION.
      Mr. BOOTHasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware that the appointment of a Treasury Committee to examine the finance of the health insurance scheme has been received with approval by the workers generally; whether any meetings have been held; whether the matter is considered urgent; and whether the meetings will be open to the public?
      The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY (Mr. Montagu): The Committee was appointed in response to representations made by a comprehensive and influential deputation of approved societies of various types, and I have reason to believe that its appointment has been generally approved. The Committee has, I am informed, already held three meetings and is proceeding with its labours as expeditiously as possible. The question of opening its meetings to the public is one for determination by the Committee itself, but I understand that, following the usual practice, it is deliberating in private.
      Mr. BOOTH: Will the public be admitted only when evidence, is taken and not during the discussion, or will the evidence be printed and available for Members of the House before legislation is proposed?
      Mr. MONTAGU: A question of that kind ought to be determined by the Committee itself.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move,
  "That, until the House otherwise determines, and so far as the House does not otherwise determine, on every day on which the House sits

  (1) Government Business do have precedence;

  (2) At the conclusion of Government Business Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, That this House do now adjourn, and, if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put not later than one hour after the conclusion of Government Business if that Business has been concluded before 10.30 p.m., but if that Business has not been concluded, not later than 11.30 p.m.;

  (3) If the day be a Thursday the House shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday;

  (4) Any Private Business set down for consideration at a quarter-past Eight o'clock on any day shall, if Government Business is concluded before that time, be taken at the conclusion of Government Business, and, for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this Order, shall be deemed to be Government Business;

  (5) All Select Committees, including Committees on Private Bills, shall have power to sit on Friday, and, if the House adjourns from Thursday or Friday till the following Tuesday, on Monday, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House;

  (6) Whenever the House adjourns from Thursday to the following Tuesday Members desiring to give Notice of Questions for Oral Answer on a Tuesday or Wednesday may send Notices of such Questions to the Clerks at the Table, and any Notices of Questions so received by them before Five of the
  590
  clock on a Friday or Monday shall be accepted as Notices of Questions for Oral Answer on the following Tuesday or Wednesday, respectively, and be printed and circulated with the Votes;

  (7) Whenever the House adjourns from Thursday to the following Tuesday, Members desiring to give Notice of new Clauses and Amendments to Bills may send such Notices to the Clerks at the Table, and any such Notices received by them before Five of the clock on a Friday or Monday shall be printed and circulated with the Votes."

  The Motion standing in my name embodies the Resolutions under which the House did its work during the last Session. I think they were found to work smoothly. As hon. Members will remember, various alterations were made in the course of the Session at the request of private Members. In regard to the time at the disposal of private Members, the Government gave last Session seven full days for discussion of Motions. There were six Adjournment Motions before various Recesses. During the Session the House sat 154 days, and on forty-seven of these days private Members took the opportunity of raising topics on the Adjournment Motion at the end of business. So that in practice I think the working of the Resolution was found not to be inconsistent or incompatible with considerable liberty of discussion on the part of private Members. I gather from the Order Paper that there are very few suggested Amendments of the Resolution, no doubt in consequence of the experience to which I have referred. I will, by anticipation, say in regard to the first Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King)—to leave out the words "The House otherwise determines and," and insert the words "the thirty-first day of March"—that I do not propose to assent to that Amendment, because the House will remember that I acceded to an appeal which was made by hon. Members, and the House has already resolved that the Motion which suspends the activity and the liberty of private Members shall not be continued, without the assent of the House, after the 31st March. Two of my hon. Friends suggest that at whatever time Government business comes to an end, the Speaker shall not put the Motion for the Adjournment until 11.30 p.m.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No, no!
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is the effect.
  Mr. HOGGE: Not later than 11.30 p.m.
  The PRIME MINISTER: In other words, suppose Government business was over at six p.m., there would be five and a-half hours before the Speaker need put the Adjournment Motion.
  Mr. HOGGE: If the House so desires.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will not say if the House so desires, but if hon. Members so desire. I do not think that is a proposal which the House would be disposed to approve. In regard to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Aneurin Williams), I will agree to that. These are the only points of substance which, so far as the Notice Paper indicates, are intended to be raised. I think the House will agree, after the experience of last Session, that the arrangement now proposed, which is merely a repetition of what took place last Session, is required by the condition of things in which we live, and is not an undue infringement or usurpation of the rights and liberties of private Members.
  Mr. HOGGE: The Prime Minister has referred in anticipation to the Amendment which stands in my name and in that of the hon. Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle). I would like to remind my right hon. Friend that the Government have many expedients to hand by which they can put an end to any unnecessary discussion. There is the fact that the House can be counted out. On Thursday night last week the House could have been counted out, and would have been counted out, and the Address in reply to the King's Speech would not have been finished until Monday this week had it not been for those of us who have been referred to just now in criticism from the Front Bench.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: There were others besides you.
  Mr. HOGGE: There were not enough of the others. But we will leave that point. It only emphasises the fact that it is within the power of the House to stop a discussion if the House so chooses. The reason this Amendment was put down was simply to get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman again at the begin-
  592
  ning of the new Session that in cases where the point to be raised was of sufficient importance, and that it could not be covered inside the hour, the Government themselves would agree to move the Adjournment before the last Order, as they did frequently last Session. If the Prime Minister will give us that assurance, so that we can get it on record, as we did last Session, I shall not press the Amendment.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If it was so last Session, we will do so again.
  Mr. HOGGE: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I quite recognise that if Government business goes on until eleven o'clock it would be unnecessary and absurd to ask the House to sit beyond 11.30. It does occur to me that there may be occasions when there are important matters to be discussed, and if the Adjournment takes place about dinner hour or somewhat later the Government might give the House more than an hour to discuss matters of importance. I should be glad if the Government could see their way, while retaining the 11.30 limit, as it stands, to change the hour in the Motion to two hours, when important matters could be discussed. If the matter was unimportant and not of public interest, the House could be counted out and the Debate would come to an end. If the matter is of public importance I think that one hour is too short a time.
  Major NEWMAN: I would like to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I have a Motion on the Paper to leave out "one hour" and to insert "two hours." When there are important matters to be debated I am sure that it is worth while to give this extra time. For instance, yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) raised an important point. He was able to raise it and have it debated, because he had the opportunity. But suppose that he had not had the opportunity, and had had to raise it on the Motion for Adjournment, it would have been quite impossible to have had the matter debated in an hour, and the matter would have been bound to be slurred over. Therefore I think that it would be better on these occasions to allow two hours rather than one hour. I would also like to say a few words about another Amendment of mine, to which I attach importance, from the personal point of view—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must wait until his Amendment comes on.
  Mr. BOOTH: I desire to raise a point with regard to private Bill legislation. I would ask the Leader of the House, if he can see his way, to repeat the advice which he gave last Session. I drew attention then to the fact that possibly contentious types of Bills might be discussed in Committee upstairs and a considerable amount of expense incurred, and that then the Government would be unable to find time for them to be fought out on the floor of the House, as had taken place two or three years previously, and the Prime Minister answered a question of mine on the subject. If I may read the Prime Minister's answer, I do so in the hope that the course then adopted will be adopted again. I think that the experience of last Session was that it was a wise decision. It is really requisite that the Chairman of Ways and Means should have the power, when he came to the conclusion that certain Bills would be contentious and would be fought on the floor of the House and that the Government would be unable to give time, of pointing that out to the promoters of the Bill and getting them either to withdraw some contentious Clause or, failing that, drop the Bill altogether rather than waste time. The Chairman of Ways and Means did give that undertaking, but he gave it at the request of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's answer to my question was as follows:
  "I refer my hon. Friend to my answer on the 3rd February last, where I stated that if particular private Bills raised questions of a public character and of a contentious nature, the Government would naturally feel disposed to prevent further progress. He will see that I do not include Bills where the contentious matter is of a private nature and domestic to the Bill. It is of course not easy prima facie to determine whether a particular Bill is or is not of the latter description, but where doubt exists the question could be settled on a Second Reading debate and I am sure the House would be disposed to be guided by the view which would probably be then expressed by the Chairman of Ways and Means."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 17th February, 1915, col. 1141, Vol. LXIX.]
  I think that that met with the approval of everybody concerned.
  The PRIME MINISTERindicated assent.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: There is a matter which the Prime Minister would, perhaps, be good enough to consider. I have not put down an Amendment. As it stands, the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman provides for notice of questions for Tuesday, in the event of the House adjourning from Thursday to Tues-
  594
  day, but no provision is made for what has become the more common practice of adjourning from Thursday to Monday.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will deal with the Amendments.
  Mr. McNEILL: I do not think that there is any Amendment on this point. Therefore I would like to have this point cleared up. As the Motion stands now, when the House adjourns from Thursday to the following Monday, notice of questions for Monday will have to be given at the Table of the House on Thursday, whereas if the House sits on Friday questions can be handed in until five o'clock on the Friday afternoon for the following Monday. Therefore if, as is probable, we shall not sit on the Friday, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that questions for Monday night be received up to five o'clock on Friday by the Clerk of the House. It follows from that that a question for Tuesday should be received up to five o'clock on Saturday, giving two complete days. At all events, whether the second point be conceded or not, I venture to suggest that notice of questions for Monday should not be required to be given before the House rises on Thursday evening, but might be received on Friday afternoon.
  Mr. HOLT: I do not quite understand—perhaps I did not hear the Prime Minister quite distinctly—what the position will be after the 31st of March. Will another Resolution then be necessary in order to carry this matter over the 31st of March, or am I to understand that the House will have the opportunity of discussing the proposal? Again, as regards the application to that part of the Session which comes after the 31st of March, personally I do not like that the discussion on the Adjournment should be taken in substitution for direct Resolutions by Members, because it is a very inconclusive way of bringing a matter up, and we are never able to take a Division. I do not think that that is satisfactory. It would be much better that private Members should discuss proposals on a Resolution which would confine the discussion to one point on which we could take a Division, and I should like to know if after the 31st of March we shall have a reasonable opportunity of getting back the rights of private Members, if we want to have them?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Resolution passed the other day deals with private Members' business, and, unless the

  595
  House otherwise decides, private Members' rights will be resumed, but that will arise again. I do not propose to make any change in that. With regard to the various points raised, I gladly renew to the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) the assurance which I gave last year, and in the terms which I stated last year. I think the discretion exercised by the Chairman of Ways and Means gave great satisfaction. With regard to the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Mr. Ashley), he must remember that this Resolution does not take away the power given by the Standing Order to secure the support of forty other Members to raise a Motion for the Adjournment on the terms of a Resolution, which would come on at a quarter-past eight o'clock. That power is untouched by this Resolution. Therefore, whenever there is a matter which requires more extended discussion, it could be raised by the familiar and normal procedure of securing the support of forty Members, if the Speaker thinks that it is a "definite matter of urgent public importance." I do not think you need do it in any other way, and in that respect the right of Members to discuss matters which arise publicly is preserved. I hope I have satisfied the hon. Member for East Edinburgh with regard to his point. [Mr. HOGGE indicated assent.] Looking at the experience we have had during the last Session of the working of this Resolution, I believe we have the right to think and say that we have provided, as I stated a few months ago, for discussions as they arise, and which do not form part of the Government programme.
  Mr. ASHLEY: May I ask your ruling. Mr. Speaker, in reference to what has fallen from the Prime Minister? Supposing the Government business stops, and the House is counted out at 7.30 p.m., does not the raising of a Motion at 8.15 p.m. on a matter of urgent public importance, with the support of forty Members, fall to the ground? What I suggested was that the Government should give two hours for the discussion of any matter which it is necessary to discuss if it be important.
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the House is counted out at 7.30 p.m. the discussion cannot be taken at 8.15 p.m. If forty Members are anxious to bring the matter on at 8.15 it is not likely they will be absent at 7.30 p.m.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I propose to deal with the suggested Amendment of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. McNeill) by inserting in the sixth paragraph the words "Monday or."
  Mr. McNEILL: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. LOUGH: If questions or Amendments are put down on the Friday will they be in the Paper on the Monday? [An HON. MEMBER: "Not necessarily."] If the House sits on the Friday and an Amendment or a question is put down on that day it can be dealt with on the Monday, and, therefore, I believe it is the intention of the Prime Minister to leave the House more liberty for notices to be put down on a Friday before five o'clock.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think it will meet the view of my right hon. Friend if at the end of paragraph (6), before the word "Tuesday," the word "Monday" be inserted.
  Amendments made: In paragraph (6), after the word "following" ["Whenever the House adjourns from Thursday to the following Tuesday"], insert the words "Monday or."
  In the same paragraph, after the word "a" [Questions for Oral answer on a Tuesday or Wednesday"], insert the words "Monday or." After the word "following" ["following Tuesday or Wednesday"] insert the words "Monday and."
  In paragraph (7), after the word "following" ["Whenever the House adjourns to the following Tuesday"], insert the words "Monday or."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Mr. COWAN: If the House is sitting on the Friday, will it be possible to put down questions for Monday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It can be done under the ordinary Rules.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Enfield (Major Newman) seems to put military Members in a worse position in regard to their questions by delaying them three days, whereas they could be asked and answered earlier in the ordinary way.
  Major NEWMAN: I was not aware of that.
  Mr. BOOTH: Will the Chairman of Ways and Means act upon the suggestion of the Leader of the House?
  The CHAIRMAN Of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): I shall, of course, endeavour to carry out what appears to be the desire of the House in the way that was adopted last Session.
  Question, "That this Resolution, as amended, be the Resolution of the House," put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed.
  That, until the House otherwise determines, and so far as the House does not otherwise determine, on every day on which the House sits—

  (1) Government Business do have precedence;

  (2) At the conclusion of Government Business Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, That this House do now adjourn, and, if that Question shall not have been agreed to, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put not later than one hour after the conclusion of Government Business if that Business has been concluded before 10.30 p.m., but, if that Business has not been so concluded, not later than 11.30 p.m.;

  (3) If the day be a Thursday the House shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday;

  (4) Any Private Business set down for consideration at a quarter-past Eight o'clock on any day shall, if Government Business is concluded before that time, be taken at the conculsion of Government Business, and, for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this Order, shall be deemed to be Government Business;

  (5) All Select Committees, including Committees on Private Bills, shall have power to sit on Friday, and, if the House adjourns from Thursday or Friday till the following Tuesday, on Monday, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House;

  (6) Whenever the House adjourns from Thursday to the following Monday or Tuesday Members desiring to give Notice of Questions for Oral Answer on a Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday may send Notices of such Ques-
  598
  tions to the Clerks at the Table, and any Notices of Questions so received by them before Five of the clock on a Friday or Monday shall be accepted as Notices of Questions for Oral Answer on the following Monday and Tuesday or Wednesday, respectively, and be printed and circulated with the Votes;

  (7) Whenever the House adjourns from Thursday to the following Monday or Tuesday, Members desiring to give Notice of new Clauses and Amendments to Bills may send such Notices to the Clerks at the Table, and any such Notices received by them before Five of the clock on a Friday or Monday shall be printed and circulated with the Votes."

  Colonel LOCKWOOD: May I ask the Prime Minister to state the business to be taken on Thursday?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Naval Prize Procedure Bill—Second Reading, and, if possible, other stages.

SUPPLY.— [21st February.

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1915–16.
  Resolution reported,
  1. "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £120,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the Ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1916, for General Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business, and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the Ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of War."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: I desire to refer to a matter which was discussed yesterday, although I approach it from a somewhat different position than that occupied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Captain Amery). My right hon. Friend gave the House yesterday a number of remarkable and striking cases in which the methods of recruiting which have been recently used were obviously open to strong criticism. The House generally was impressed by the fact that in some way or other the legal position of civilians has been impinged upon, and that those who were seeking, and very properly, to get as many persons as possible to join the Colours, were going beyond the powers given by Parliament, and were giving rise to widespread uncertainty and misapprehension. I do not propose to adopt precisely the epithets or suggestions which were made by some of the speakers yesterday. I am not here to impute any motive, and certainly not any evil motive, to those who are working for recruiting in the War Office or out of it. But it is quite possible for zeal that is not according to knowledge to bring about a state of things almost as serious as that brought about by the methods which were described with such vigour, and apparently with such strong feeling, by the hon. Member for North West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle). I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for War present. I rise for the purpose of asking him whether it is not possible to clear up the uncertainty which now exists, and to remedy the mistakes which have been unwittingly made, by action which he can take in Parliament, and by action which can be taken by the War Office itself. In the first place, it will be abundantly clear that there is in many places great misunderstanding and uncertainty as to the position of men who have been certified as medically unfit to serve since the 15th of August last, or who may have had their papers rejected on medical grounds. I could give the House instances of persons well affected towards recruiting who are really quite uncertain, in view of the various circulars and various discussions, whether employés of theirs who have already been up once have or have not to go up again.
  600
  My first request to the War Office is that they ought now, without any further delay, issue a circular to all the Home Command, from whom circulars have been ordered to go to recruiting officers in all parts of the country, calling attention to the fact that all persons rejected after 15th August on medical grounds are outside the Military Service Act and cannot under any circumstances be enlisted against their will. That really requires to be done. I think those of us who are concerned with recruiting almost every day of the week, and who come in contact with this problem, will be the very Members of this House who are most aware of the uncertainty prevailing, and who would be most grateful to have that uncertainty once and for all resolved and put right. The second point which I put respectfully to the Government and the House is this: I think now, after yesterday's Debate, it will become widely understood why there has been this difficulty in connection with applications for armlets. Personally, I am not disposed to blame the War Office for wishing to give this particular dignity of an armlet only to persons who are either totally unfit medically for any kind of military service or to those who are prepared to take any kind of service in the Army, but who are not at the moment in a position for health reasons to take it. I do not blame them. The point was raised yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that armlets had been promised to all persons who were certified medically unfit during what was known as the Derby campaign. I understood from my right hon. Friend that no such promise was made. However that may be, and I do not know enough about it to take up the time of the House, I assume that the War Office in this particular matter are agreed that they are not under any obligation to give armlets, and that therefore they are entitled to make what conditions they like within the law in connection with the offer of armlets. I understand their view to be that an armlet is not to be given to everyone who was certified medically unfit between last August and the present time, but only to those of such persons who are willing to come up again and be re-examined and attested, subject to the decision which the doctor's examination dictates.
  4.0 P.M.
  If that is the case so far, there is much to be said for it, but I am sure, after

  601
  yesterday's Debate, every Member of the House will agree that there have been a number of cases where men who tried to obtain armlets have had it so put to them have felt compelled to be attested again, and have been if not told, and I am afraid in some cases they have been told they would become conscripts if they did not, have not had the alternatives fairly put before them. I would ask my right hon. Friend, on this second point of new procedure with regard to armlets, whether it would not be possible to make it perfectly clear that in the case of any person who comes up seeking an armlet re-examination by a doctor is demanded before such armlet is given, and that it should be clearly laid down that it must be explained to such person that if he submits for that second examination he is thereby submitting himself for attestment, and has become a Reservist unless the doctor says he is utterly unfit for any kind of military service. That ought to be made perfectly clear to him. It is not a case of going up again to be re-examined simply. By submitting himself he is thereby submitting himself for attestment. That ought to be made perfectly clear. Still more clear, if possible, ought it to be made that any man so coming up who declines to submit himself when he knows what is involved should never have it hinted to him that he is liable to be conscripted if, since the 15th August, he has been certified medically to be unfit. That undoubtedly has happened, and wherever it has happened it has given rise to a great deal of discontent and anger and to a sense of grievance, and it has affected the national spirit, which, in the interests of as large an Army as this country is capable of supporting at this moment, we all want to preserve. The third point is this: A circular has gone out—the yellow circular quoted yesterday—calling upon people to report themselves. It would have been very much better if that circular had not been sent to anyone who has already been certified medically as unfit. But everybody who knows the rush that took place at the end of the Derby scheme knows perfectly well that there were hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of men who had their applications marked "medically unfit," and who have medical certificates, and yet who are not known to the War Office to have them. Could not my right hon. Friend and his advisers have sent out
  602
  with that circular a slip saying, "If you have been already medically examined and certified as unfit, this does not apply to you. You are to let the recruiting officer of the district know that has happened to you, and give him proof that you have been so certified"? If that were done at once it would do a great deal to meet the case. It would show that the War Office are doing, as I am sure they are, everything they can to observe in spirit and in letter the Military Service Act and the various operations of which this House has approved.
  The next thing I want to ask is this: A notice went out yesterday, or is going out to-day, to men who have not attested or enrolled stating that they must report themselves on the 4th March. There is no doubt a great deal to be said for that. But it ought to be made clearer than it is to these men that, while they are being summoned now, there is still open to them, until the 2nd March, the right and opportunity of voluntarily attesting. It is too late, I understand, to have anything put upon that notice with regard to the alternative of voluntary recruiting; but I would ask my right hon. Friend to state in his reply—because he will be reported, and his statement will be known throughout the country—that that opportunity for voluntary enlistment is open until the 2nd March. I hope he will be able to tell the House that the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee, either by posters or by some other methods, are keeping that fact before the eyes of the public in order that everybody who receives the summons to report himself on the 4th March may also have present to his mind the fact that he can still enlist voluntarily if he chooses and put himself in line with his friends who have already enrolled. I ask these things, which I hope the Government and the House will not think unreasonable, because I think we should all be sorry if the difficulties incident to a great movement of this kind did really affect its efficiency or give rise anywhere to a conviction of ill-treatment or injustice. The Military Service Act, while it may be bombarded on grounds of logic from almost every point of view, did represent the conclusions to which the vast majority in this House came in a very difficult matter, and it has certainly had acquiescence, sometimes reluctant, sometimes cordial, in all parts of the country. That acquiescence surely depends upon its being administered with scrupulous care, and, on the

  603
  other hand, upon the critics making adequate allowance for the very great difficulties which the War Office are under in dealing with a voluntary system and a partially compulsory system, and with all the details connected with the administration of recruiting in this country.
  There are two or three other matters which I think would promote recruiting, and which I will mention in a sentence. One has reference to persons who have obtained medical certificates improperly. There are rumours that some certificates have been purchased. It is suggested that in some cases they have been got by that which approaches fraud. One can well understand any Government Department which has information pointing in that direction being anxious to overhaul such cases, and if possible to put people through their facings a second time. But if the War Office know of such cases, by far the best way is to bring them as soon as possible to the test of a civil tribunal. There is no civil tribunal throughout the country which could not be trusted to deal, not only fairly but firmly, with any case where a man got exemption by fraud. The feeling of the country is not such as would allow that to be looked at as a light offence if it is properly proved. But it is of the greatest importance that all such cases, if suspected, should be investigated, and, if proved, punished, not by administrative order or by any modification of administrative methods, but by the decision of a civil tribunal as quickly and as clearly as possible. There was a very interesting announcement a day or two ago with regard to giving bounties to soldiers who have served the time for which they enlisted and whose re-enlistment is desired. I think that would have the unanimous support of the House. Everyone knows that experienced soldiers, are of more value than ever at the present stage of such a war as this. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether any proposal of that kind ought not to be made retrospective. Scores and hundreds of such men who finished the period for which they enlisted some time ago have re-enlisted without any bounty whatever. If it is thought desirable to offer a bounty to soldiers whose original time has just come to an end, surely the bounty ought to be given as readily, if not more readily, to those who, without any prospect of a bounty, have gone back to fight after having served their full time.
  604
  My last point is with regard to the question of badges. Some of us who have sat on advisory committees and tribunals are struck with the difference between what happens in one place where men are employed and what happens in another. I am not thinking so much of actual munition factories as of various factories throughout the country which are engaged on Government contracts. I do not know who it is who decides how many men in any such factory are to have badges, and therefore to be outside all recruiting. If it is the Ministry of Munitions, I should have been glad to have seen a representative of that Department present. But I understand that all the different Ministers are on cordial speaking terms with one another; therefore anything I say on this point will no doubt be repeated with all the persuasiveness at the disposal of my right hon. Friend. It makes it very difficult to secure the number of men who want to go and who ought to go when you have one factory where badges are given indiscriminately and another in the same neighbourhood where a much stricter view is taken. It is very unfair to employers who have let their men go if other employers get undue advantage in this particular. Badges ought to be given only with the concurrence of some thoroughly qualified inspector who knows the local conditions and the character of the factory, and not merely upon the statement of the employer, which may be very different according to the employer's enthusiasm or want of enthusiasm for work other than that connected with the War. These matters have a direct bearing upon recruiting. All of us who wish to see as many persons enlisted as is best for the country wish to see it done by methods which are fair all round. For these reasons I hope my right hon. Friend will reply to the questions I have put, and that he will be able, either to-day or at some early date, to inform us that the War Office are extending these bounties, that they are making it clear that they will go to the civil tribunals where cases of fraud are suspected, and that they will so regulate matters with the Ministry of Munitions that the whole question of badges shall be dealt with on a basis which is equitable all round.
  Colonel HENDERSON: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for the constructive criticism he has made upon this question as opposed to the destructive criticism which we had yesterday. I listened

  605
  to yesterday's Debate with attention, and I have this morning read most of the speeches delivered. I find on the whole that misunderstanding exists because it has not been realised that the granting of armlets is a privilege which men who have voluntarily come forward asked for in order that they might demonstrate to their friends that they were prepared voluntarily to do their duty. It will be remembered that in the course of yesterday's Debate my right hon. Friend quoted from the Army Order of the 16th December, explaining the circumstances under which armlets would be issued. There was an explanatory notice in the Press of 27th December. I endeavoured to obtain that notice, but unfortunately I was not able to get yesterday a copy of any paper which included it. I have a copy of that now, and I think it will do a great deal to clear up the question of armlets if I may be permitted to read its contents. It is dated 25th December, and states:
  "ARMLETS FOR THE MEDICALLY UNFIT.
  1. It has been decided to issue khaki armlets of the same pattern as those issued to men accepted for Army Reserve B under the Group System.

  (i.) To men who have presented themselves since the commencement of the War for service either by way of direct enlistment or under the Group System, but who have been rejected on medical grounds, and

  (ii.) Until further notice to men who present themselves for direct enlistment but are rejected on the ground that they are medically unfit for immediate service with the Colours.

  2. To qualify for an armlet—
  this is the important point—
  it will be necessary for all men who have been already rejected on medical grounds to present themselves again for medical examination unless they are able to produce Army Form B 2505 (A) or Army Form B 2512 (A) showing the date and cause of their rejection.
  3. Men rejected on medical grounds will be divided into two classes:

  (a) Men who on examination have been certified as medically unfit on account of organic disease, and

  (b) Men who have been rejected on account of eyesight or some slight physical defect.

  4. Men under heading (b) above as a condition of being given an armlet will be attested and passed to the Army Reserve. Men under heading (") above will not be attested, but their names will be registered. Men under both heads (a) and (b) will be free to return to their civil occupations, but men under (b) will be liable to be called up at any time for medical examination and for immediate service in any occupation for which, as soldiers, they may be liable, and for which they may be considered suitable by the military authorities."
  That, as I have said, is dated 25th December, and was in the Press on 27th December. This medical re-examination in order to obtain an armlet was in force long before the Military Service Bill was before this House. I freely admit that recruiting officers have made mistakes in different parts of the country, but they have a great deal to do, and I would like to remind the
  606
  House that a lot of work is put upon them by this House always demanding returns, and hon. Members have failed quite to grasp the point. It is perfectly clear, however, that if a man can produce a medical certificate showing that he has been rejected as medically unfit, and if that certificate is dated since 15th August last and is properly signed by an authorised person, he is exempted under the Act.
  Mr. S. WALSH: Not exempted, but excepted.
  Colonel HENDERSON: At the same time, if a man requires an armlet, he must submit to this further medical examination. Circumstances have altered since the Derby scheme was started. Men are to be grouped for different purposes, for general service abroad, for general service at home, for garrison service abroad, and for garrison service at home, and for sedentary occupations. It will, therefore, I think, be admitted by anybody who thinks at all on the matter that, with this final medical examination, a man who was not fit for general service abroad when he first presented himself may, and very likely will be, fit for some other service, such as garrison service at home or abroad. We find that the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him yesterday were apparently very anxious to assist men not to serve their country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I understand from yesterday's Debate that every excuse was supported by them.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: The Act of Parliament!
  Colonel HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, as I say, have shown hostility to the Military Service Bill from its very inception. Possibly they have a right to do so; but, in my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman himself and his Friends must have known from a very early date—certainly from the date that the green form was first introduced—what was coming. He should be the last person to grumble when it did come. I cannot help thinking that if a man offers himself for enlistment, or did originally offer himself for enlistment under the Derby scheme he thereby signified his willingness and desire to serve his country in the way he was best fitted to do. The hon. Members who spoke yesterday seemed to desire that a man who had any excuse should not serve if it could possibly be helped. It is

  607
  perfectly clear—or it should be now—that a properly signed medical certificate of rejection since 15th August entitles a man not to be called up compulsorily, but if he wants an armlet it is necessary for him to submit himself for this further examination. There have been irregularities on the part of recruiting officers, but those can be remedied now. The hon. Members who yesterday criticised the action of the War Office would do much better if instead of ventilating these faults of the recruiting officers they had indicated them to the War Office, and those matters could have been put right. Instead of airing these things in this House, and giving the impression to the people both of this country and of the Allied countries that there was a certain section—there may be a certain section, but I believe it is a very small one trying to avoid military service, it would have been better to do what I suggest. I believe throughout the country as a whole men desire to serve in that capacity in which they are best fitted to serve. It is a mistake to ventilate these supposed grievances in the House of Commons instead of taking them direct to the Department concerned. This course I do not believe is in the interests of the country as a whole.
  Military clerical labour was criticised by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark yesterday. He forgets that there are men to be taken for what is known as sedentary occupations. It may be, and very likely will be, that a man takes the place of another who is fitted for more active work, for fighting in the trenches or elsewhere. The man who does the clerical work, who is on the office stool, is just as much a soldier as the man who is actually serving with the Colours. I have as much respect as any other man, for the man who is willing to relieve another, for the man who has signified his willingness to serve in the most advanced position, but failing to do that is prepared to serve in the drudging task of office work. I hope these few remarks will have cleared up one or two points which were raised yesterday; that some misinterpretations will have been removed by what I have said.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I would like to add one word to the appeal made by my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Adkins) to the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary. I can assure him that this is not a question of what our views may or may not have been in regard to the Military Service Act.
  608
  I think my hon. Friend opposite who has just spoken has probably made a mistake in that. The question is: Is injustice being done to men who are patriotic enough to have offered their services to the State? From evidence placed before me, I have not the slightest doubt that injustice is being done. Men applied and were rejected and have offered their services again, and many of them have been forced into the Army because they thought the power rested with the recruiting officers. I do not think the question was so much a question of the Department of the right hon. Gentleman as it has been the unwise action of some of the local recruiting officers. Therefore, I would support the appeal of my right hon. Friend that a clear statement should be made directly to the recruiting officers, stating that what they are doing is not in accordance with the wishes of the War Office, and that it should be stopped. I would go further, and suggest that these men who have been falsely induced under the circumstances to join should be released. In many cases these men are of no advantage to the country or to the Army. I know one case which makes the whole thing absolutely concrete. Someone I knew had a man engaged in his service who was rejected. He took him back into his employment. That man went forward again and was forced into the Army. He is now in hospital at the expense of the State. I know another similar case, that of a man engaged in service who was rejected by the military authorities and went back again to his situation. He also is now in a military hospital. I shall be glad to give the right hon. Gentleman the facts of the cases. Those two men having offered themselves and been rejected, and having re-entered civil employment, were forced into the Army, and are now, at the expense of the country, being kept in a hospital. Of course they are no good at all. I therefore urge that circumstances like that should be inquired into. Such procedure does not add strength to the Army. The right hon. Gentleman does not want men of that kind, who after a week or two have to go into hospital. I am sure that he is as anxious as we are to see that right and justice is done in this matter.
  There is just one other small point I wish to mention to the Under-Secretary. That is the question of raw youths being sent out right into the trenches without, in my opinion, sufficient training. I have

  609
  brought this question privately under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman once or twice, and he has been good enough to look into the different cases I put before him, practically of boys in my own Constituency, but he took quite a different view of the result of his inquiry to what I did. Here is an extract from the letter that my right hon. Friend was good enough to send to me upon the cases I brought before his notice:
  "Four of the live men in question had served for two months and twenty days, whilst the fifth had served two months and thirteen days. The conditions of training were 'very good.' All live men were reported to be in good physical development."
  That may or may not have been so, but it depends largely upon the age of the boys, which in these cases was not very high. The right hon. Gentleman knows that what I wish to put before him for consideration is whether it is really right that boys after eight weeks' training should be sent right up into the trenches; whether they should be sent, whilst to his knowledge and my own other men have been training here for about fifteen months and have not yet been sent to the front. We must not be surprised if people outside cannot understand that sort of thing. They see boys after six or seven weeks sent off to the front, and they see in another regiment men at home after fifteen months of training, and apparently in a good healthy condition. It is not surprising if they cannot understand the matter. I presume it is due to the system by which the Army is supplied, drafts being more required for some regiments than others. I do not wish to raise unnecessary discussion in regard to this matter, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not dismiss this question from his mind, but will consider whether it is not possible to employ men who have been training for fifteen months before boys who have been training for only a few weeks.
  Mr. WALSH: Before this very large amount of money is voted I should like to ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one or two points of administration on somewhat different lines to those to which reference has already been made. First of all I would draw attention to the very unsatisfactory way in which the separation allowance is being administered at the present time. May I just remind the House that a Committee sat in February of last year, and upon the result of its deliberations payment began to be made first from 1st March, 1915. The special
  610
  object that Committee agreed upon was that the separation allowances when paid should, as far as possible, leave the dependants in a similar standard of comfort as they possessed before the soldier enlisted. Everybody agreed that that was a very desirable object to secure, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the administration in the last five or six months, especially in the area of which I can speak definitely, has been anything but satisfactory. The process before the last few months was that, if there were grown-up members of the family and there was more than one soldier, the second soldier could make an allotment in favour of an adult member of the family, and a certain allowance was made upon that. That should go some way towards meeting the object that the Committee itself had agreed upon. I hear a right hon. Gentleman say that many of them are getting a great deal too much.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I did not.
  Mr. WALSH: Not the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War, but a right hon. Gentleman on the opposite bench, who need not be specially named, who said that some of them are getting a great deal too much.
  Sir F. BANBURYindicated assent.
  Mr. WALSH: Well, a vast number of cases do not come in the definition at all. A particular case has come under my notice—although indeed there are scores—where a father and, in fact, all the grownup members of a family have gone to the front. They were earning between them, as shown by proved records of weekly wages, £4 16s. The father makes an allotment to the mother and the children. It had been possible before for the two sons to make allotments to the grown-up members of the family, but within the last five or six months, whether owing to the War Office itself or because of powers unfairly usurped by regimental paymasters, it has now been laid down that, unless these soldiers definitely paid over the money to the grown-up members of the family in whose favour they have made the allotment, no allowance can be made. In this case there is a positive loss of at least 50s. in that family. There are seven dependants—the mother and six others—and to say that we are doing our best to leave the dependants in a standard of comfort similar to that which they

  611
  enjoyed before the War broke out, is to play with language. There are scores of that kind of case. The pension committees, the pension officers, have in numerous cases recommended these for the full allowance of 9s. a week. In scores and scores of cases not a single penny except the soldier's 3s. 6d. a week has been paid. Need we wonder recruiting has not been as brisk? I myself have been on scores of recruiting platforms. I have found a terrible difficulty, not indeed in speaking to meetings as to the great necessity of British people rallying to the support of their country, but in getting over the tremendous fact that the families of the working people were being left not at all in the reasonable standard of comfort we hoped they would be, but in a positive state of penury and semi-starvation. Surely when we are voting hundreds of millions of money we can afford to be fair-minded towards these cases. I pointed out a case to the Financial Secretary between two and three months ago, giving names, wages, dates and regiments. I have been told in these last few days it is not now the practice of the War Office to pay this kind of case. It was the practice of the War Office for very nearly twelve months. I wonder upon what ground this has been done. There can be no reason for this, and I raise this point because it is a very sore point indeed with the vast mass of working-class families, that where every grown-up member of the family has gone to the War, only one allotment, and only one allowance can be made. That is the practice to-day, and I am sure it is not at all a practice this House would like continued.
  I would ask another thing. In the case where a soldier makes the compulsory allotment to his wife, there is not very much delay, speaking broadly, in the payment of the allowance, but in the case of the mother and those in whose cases speculative opinion can come in there is very serious delay. I have cases in my own knowledge where five and six months have elapsed and the allowance has not been paid. The grown-up boy, who, in many cases, is almost the sole support of the household, has gone to the front, leaving his mother and small brothers and sisters dependent upon him. The allowance of 3s. 6d. is generally paid, but all kinds of inquiries and an almost insuperable delay take place before the mother can receive the money to which she is properly en-
  612
  titled. At the most it could not be more than 9s., and it even gets down to 2s. or 3s., and in many cases for six months and over nothing at all has been paid. I know perfectly well, as everybody must know, that when there are hundreds of thousands of investigations, there must be a vast amount of clerical work, and increase your staff however you may you cannot cope with it as quickly as could be wished; but I do not think there is any reason at all for the intolerable delay taking place in many cases. Everybody recognises the immense amount of work, and that we must do all we can to assist, but those who move about among working people and get upon platforms, helping all we can, find our task made very much greater because of this kind of difficulty, and it is not in any spirit of carping criticism that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give all the attention he can to the matter. I know how tremendous is his task, and we will help him all we can, but we do want some consideration paid to those members who move about among vast masses of people and find their difficulties greatly increased because of the delay that is taking place in those Departments for which the War Office is responsible. It may be delay in the Regimental Paymaster's Office, but, whatever the case, the fact remains that there is this delay, and we ought to do our best to overcome it.
  There is one other point Why should the wife, the mother and the children at home be penalised in their allowances because of the wrong-doing of the soldier at the front? I have had many cases brought to me in which they are. An hon. Member near me says they are not, but I do know they are, and have been, and, indeed, very serious inroads are made in the weekly allowances previously payable to the wife and children because of some wrong-doing on the part of the soldier at the front—at least, that is put forward as the case—but I really cannot see why the wife and the children at home, who can in no way be responsible for that, should be penalised in their allowances which, at the best, are none too high, and when we are dealing with millions of money in this way we ought at least to consider those who have no help at all except these payments. If they could go out to work; if they could sell their labour in the commercial and industrial world, it would be vastly different but it is upon the women and children

  613
  who cannot find that employment that the burden falls most seriously, and I think we ought to remodel our action in that respect. Those three special points I do most respectfully urge upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I have put the matters without any malice or bitterness at all, but they are matters with which everyone of us is concerned. Everyone of us finds every day, and almost hour by hour, we are up against these particular facts, and I do ask the Department to take these matters into special consideration.
  Mr. GEORGE LAMBERT: The Prime Minister yesterday, in his very lucid speech, gave us the sum total of the expenditure upon the Army, Navy, and munitions together. I would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could give us the details for the Army, Navy, and munitions separately. I believe that would show, at any rate, that, so far as the naval service is concerned, it is for the great services it is performing to the country, relatively a very cheap service. But I wanted to address one or two questions first to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War. I must say that, had not the statement come from the Prime Minister yesterday, I should have been very much startled to hear that the War Office was pursuing the austere virtue of economy. In all my experience War Office waste and extravagance hits one in the face, and I have a case here—a very small one—which has come under my special notice because it deals with a matter in which the War Office is engaged in my own parish. It is a very small matter—a question of sending hay from a stack to the station. I have made rather careful inquiry, and, if the House will allow me, I will just give the procedure of the Department which is now exercising economy. On 20th January two supervisors arrived and a hay-press. On 2nd February six men arrived, and on 7th February a traction engine. It was only last Saturday, 19th February, that they were able to get from four to five tons of hay from the stack to the station two miles away. I am perfectly convinced that, if you take the cost of putting this hay from the stack on to the truck, it is as much as the hay is worth. Do let the War Office trust some of the local people to do this work for them, instead of sending men from all parts of the country to teach the Devonshire people how to put hay upon a truck.
  614
  I believe there is to be a very influential gathering of Ministers at the Guildhall or Mansion House to advocate economy. I suppose they will want Members of Parliament to go to their constituencies and advocate economy; but how can I have the face to do this, when this glaring example of Government waste is going on before their very eyes? The thing is ludicrous. But I want to go a little deeper into this, and I would like to ask who is really responsible. I understand that there are two Ministers responsible now for the expenditure at the War Office, outside the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure we should have done very differently if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were responsible. But I understand the Secretary of State for War is responsible, and that there is also some kind of responsibility attaching to the President of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. TENNANT:No.
  Mr. LAMBERT: He is Chairman of a Committee—
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not think it is fair to saddle a Minister who is engaged in making an inquiry into the expenditure of the Department, with the administrative defects, if there be any, of that Department.
  Mr. LAMBERT: My right hon. Friend has precisely interpreted the moral which I propose to point out. To my mind it is impossible for any Cabinet Minister to go into a Department and conduct an inquiry into its administration. You must put the responsibility upon the executive officer who is responsible for the office, and there is no other way out of it. When I was at the Admiralty there were several kinds of inquiries by various gentlemen, but you must put the responsibility upon the executive officers concerned, and I understand that he is the Secretary of State for War. It is quite impossible for one busy Cabinet Minister to supervise another. Now I understand that the Home Secretary is going to supervise or inquire into the expenditure of the Admiralty. That again is an entire delusion, and no one knows it better than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Apparently the only Cabinet Minister whom the Government can rely upon is the Minister for Munitions. Although the Prime Minister said yesterday that the system was working admirably, in my judgment it is not a good system, and I could use very much

  615
  stronger language about it. In my opinion the head of the War Office should be able to be called to account by the House of Commons. I do not in the least endorse the criticisms that have been levelled at the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for War, because many times he has had to defend an impossible policy, and he has done it with very great adroitness; and I am sure that many Ministers would have found themselves in much greater difficulties than the right hon. Gentleman found himself in in dealing with those matters. Not only is there the administration of the financial side of the War Office, but there is also the strategic side. There was an Order in Council issued on 27th January which stated that:
  "The Chief of the Imperial General Staff, shall be responsible for issuing the orders of the Government in regard to military operations."
  What does that mean? Does it mean that the Secretary for War is supplanted in this matter?
  Mr. TENNANT: He has delegated certain duties.
  Mr. LAMBERT: But is the Secretary for War responsible? If it is a question of dual control it will mean chaos.
  Mr. TENNANT: The Secretary for War is the Minister responsible to Parliament and I, as his representative, am responsible in this House. I think the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the Secretary for War can delegate certain duties to certain officials under his authority.
  Mr. LAMBERT: That is not quite the point which I am putting to the House. Here is an Order in Council published in the "London Gazette" dated 27th January, which runs:
  "His Majesty by and with the advice of his Privy Council is pleased to order and it is hereby ordered as follows: The Chief of the Imperial General Staff . … shall be responsible for issuing the orders of the Government with regard to military operations."
  That is not a delegation by the Secretary of State for War to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, but it is an Order of the King, if not of the Government itself. Who really is responsible for the movement of the troops? Is it the Chief of the Imperial General Staff or the Secretary of State for War? It may not be wise to give me an answer, but it does seem to me that such a question as that might well be cleared up with advantage to those of us who do not quite understand the proceedings. At the Admiralty, as the Chan-
  616
  cellor of the Exchequer knows full well, all orders go out on the responsibility of the First Lord, but here at the War Office you are going to have two gentlemen—I have not a word to say against either of them—the Secretary of State for War and the Chief of the Imperial Staff, and they are both responsible for issuing orders to the troops. It seems to me that that is reducing the status of the Secretary for War more or less to a civilian position. The Secretary for War had recruiting taken from him and he has now had the movement of the troops taken from him; and if he is only to have civilian duties it seems to me that a civilian might well be appointed to perform those duties.
  I have listened with very great interest, as we all have, to the Debates that have taken place here since the House met, and great complaints have been made as to the lack of air defence and the scarcity of shipping. I am not sure that justice has been done in every case to those who are responsible for the aircraft defence of the country. I should like to have the statistics of the number of aircraft that have been built during the last five or six years. It seems to me that we have been attempting to do too many things with our aircraft, for we have been sending them to Gallipoli, Mesopotamia, Salonika, and East Africa, and if you strain the powers of our aerial defence and offence to this gigantic extent, of course you cannot have the aircraft here as well to defend our own shores. The very last thing I want to do is to criticise a Government of which the Prime Minister is the head, and-whom I was proud to follow in days gone by, but it does seem to me that we are straining our resources to a great extent. I know there is a good deal of dissatisfaction because air raids are not met and because hostile aircraft are not driven off. I had the good or the bad fortune to be at Walmer on Sunday, and I must say that the aeroplane, which came along at about sixty miles an hour, swooped down, dropped its bombs, and went away again at a very high speed. It is pretty difficult, unless our aircraft are constantly in the air, to be able to deal with a raid of that description, and if it can be done, of course no one will be better pleased than I shall be.
  With regard to the question of shipping, I wish to put this to the Government. It is not so much a matter of bad management in requisitioning, though undoubtedly there has been a great deal

  617
  of waste, but it is a question of using ships for expeditions all over the world. I wonder how much of our shipping was taken up in the Gallipoli Expedition. I understand that freights have gone up from 12s. 3d. per ton for wheat from the River Plate to 150s. per ton. I put this point to a miller friend of mine in Devonshire, and he told me that that increase meant as much as 3¼d. upon a 4-lb. loaf. Now there is plenty of wheat in Argentina and America, but it cannot be brought here because you have requisitioned the ships for all these various side shows, as I will venture to call them. I suggest that the Admiralty is not so much to blame in this matter, because the real cause is that the Government themselves are overstraining even the great resources of the British Empire in this matter. We cannot go on supplying the Allies with naval power, money, shipping, and munitions and at the same time maintain our great Army in Flanders and conduct campaigns in all the theatres of war in the world. I say it cannot be done, and it has not been done with much success up to now.
  There is one point I wish to make with regard to the Navy. We have heard rumours of German naval activity, and we are threatened with an outburst of submarine war against our merchantmen. If this really occurs I shall be much surprised if it does not make the strain on our shipping far more severe than it is at present. [An HON. MEMBER: "Unless the Navy deals with it!"] I feel sure the Navy will cope with the submarine peril, but the Navy cannot do everything all at once. I am profoundly grateful—and in this I am sure I am voicing the sentiments of everyone in this House and the country—to the Navy for having overcome the submarine menace of last year. If there is a great recrudescence of this submarine activity we must expect a scarcity of shipping. The Germans are a very resourceful people, and I expect they have been utilising for the last six months their resources with some advantage. I do not wish to make any reflection upon the President of the Board of Admiralty—far from it—but I do wish to say, and I say it on my responsibility as one who has been a member of the Board of Admiralty for something like ten years, that I really regret that the Government is not making more use of a man who, I believe, is the greatest naval strategist of the day.
  618
  We know full well that Admiral Lord Fisher is no longer responsible for the conduct of the War, because he disapproved of the expedition to the Dardanelles, and we know that he was right. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I do not want to join in any intrigue, and I wish to speak out quite openly in this matter, because it is so vital to this Empire that you cannot afford to lose the genius or the brains of a single man. There is no doubt in my mind that it is almost a disaster that the Admiralty have not at the present moment in some responsible Department the services of this eminent man. You cannot afford to run any risk. Naval disaster—which God forbid that we should have—would be irrevocable, irretrievable, and fatal, and I put it to the Government that they should use the best brains of the country for the service of the nation.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office for the Order which came out last Saturday giving a much more generous interpretation of the allowances to be made to dependants. I think it will go very far, in fact, quite far enough, to remedy the undoubted grievance which existed. I happen to have come back after having been ten days in my Constituency, where there are a very large number of soldiers, besides a large convalescent camp, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to take this opportunity of contradicting publicly from his place in this House certain absurd stories and scandalous misrepresentations as to what the War Office is prepared to do for disabled soldiers. All up and down the country—I do not think it is only in Lancashire—stories are being told, and one hears them not only from civilians but also from soldiers, that soldiers have been thrown on to the streets when disabled by disease contracted while on active service, and that no compensation is given to them by the War Office. It is said that compensation is only given to soldiers who have been discharged incapacitated from wounds. I understand that is an absolute travesty of the truth, and that the War Office, whatever it has done in the past, is prepared in the future to give compensation on the same scale to any man permanently disabled and incapacitated from any cause arising while on service. If while serving his country he

  619
  is incapacitated, he is to be given adequate compensation whether his incapacity arises from wounds or from illness. I should like the hon. Gentleman to state publicly exactly what the position is, because these stories going about, as he will understand, are prejudicial to recruiting, cause discontent in the ranks, and thereby prevent us from carrying this War as soon as possible to a successful conclusion.
  Mr. HOGGE: I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to deal in his speech with a matter which is troubling a number of us who are interested in the question of soldiers' and sailors' separation allowances. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here, because he also knows about this point. The War Office is the spending authority, but as a matter of fact over £2,000,000 have been forthcoming from other sources and have been paid for the War Office. Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Under-Secretary of State for War say whether the War Office or the State intends to refund that money which was collected for another purpose, or whether they are going to allow that money which has been paid in that way to perform for them what this House said ought to be performed in the payment of separation allowances? My right hon. Friend knows exactly to what I refer. There is a fund, amounting to over £5,000,000, which up to 30th June in this year will be depleted at any rate to the extent of £2,500,000 or £3,000,000, by money which has been paid for the War Office. Will that money be refunded to that fund, so that it will be available for the objects for which it was got together when the occasion arises? If my right hon. Friend can reply to that point, he will ease the minds of a number of us.
  Captain CLIVE: I want to raise two points which have not been referred to, connected with the subject of canteens in France. Perhaps I may shortly describe to the House how these canteens are being provided. At the outbreak of the War, at the instance of the War Office, a very remarkable amalgamation took place between two separate bodies who had previously competed with each other for the supply of canteens. One was the Canteen and Mess Co-operative Society, which did not trade for profit, but which gave back the whole of its
  620
  profits to the soldier, and the other was the firm of Dickeson and Company, who made what contracts they could with commanding officers of battalions, and who made what profits they could for themselves and their shareholders. These two bodies, antagonistic in all their methods of business, agreed at the outbreak of the War, in a patriotic spirit which we all admire, to settle their differences and to work harmoniously together, and they now form one body, which has been given the title of the Expeditionary Force Canteens. Perhaps I may say, just to show how well they deserve of the country, that their turnover in France alone is something like £3,000,000 a year. They thus bring back from France something like £3,000,000 of the soldiers' pay, which, in view of the exchange, is quite an appreciable amount. In the case of the Mediterranean it is something approaching £2,000,000. The benefit they confer on the soldier is very great indeed. They employ in France alone something like 1,200 men.
  I want, first, to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War as to the treatment that has been meted out to these men. A request has been made over and over again that they should be enlisted, not to get Army pay, but enlisted in an honorary capacity and temporarily for the period of the War. There are many reasons why this should be done. One of the chief is that in the more recent development of the canteens they have been brought up very close to the firing line—one within my own knowledge has been within 1½ miles of the trenches—and many of them are subject to shell fire and aeroplane attack. If any of these 1,200 men get killed or wounded, they or their widows are apparently not entitled to any sort of benefit. That is one of the main reasons why I suggest that they should be enlisted for their own sakes, but there are several other reasons from the point of view of administration. These men periodically ask for leave, and, when it is refused, they take advantage of their civil agreement and in many cases—on the whole they are a most loyal body of men, and I do not want to say anything disparaging to them—they give a month's notice, return to England, and then, after a spell at home, they very likely ask for reemployment. That surely is not satisfactory. The non-enlistment of these men really means a perpetual stream of men travelling to and from France, with no more serious object than that of a unique experience, at great expense and trouble

  621
  to all concerned. They have to go on supply ships round by Havre, report themselves in London, and it takes a long time to get them back again. If they were given leave as soldiers, they would go on a troopship and be able to return in seven days. It is an important matter from the point of view of discipline. In peace time a large number of canteen employés are soldiers, but that, very properly, is not allowed on active service.
  I suggest that these civilians who are engaged for this work should be subject to military discipline when they are out at the front. It is just as important that discipline should be maintained among them as if they were soldiers. I believe, though I cannot vouch for it, that the enlistment of these men has been strongly recommended by the Commander-in-Chief in France, and that it was permitted in the Dardanelles. I have no written facts to corroborate what I say, but the report I have is that the medical officer in the Dardanelles reported very strongly in favour of canteens as a means of maintaining the men's health. The canteens do not only supply beer, but also groceries and a hundred and one more luxuries which are not included even in our liberal rations. There was more sickness in the Dadanelles than there has ever been in France, and it was strongly recommended that these canteens should be encouraged, and the employés there were allowed to be enlisted. I do urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, for all these reasons, that the same arrangement should be made in France as was made with great success in the Mediterranean.
  Mr. TENNANT: They were enlisted in the Mediterranean.
  Captain CLIVE: They were enlisted in the Mediterranean, but hitherto their enlistment has been refused in France. Furthermore, they are now being asked if they are willing to enlist for the Regular Army. It is now being endeavoured to recruit them under the Derby scheme. Surely it is hard that men who have been actually under fire should be treated as shirkers, and should not be given credit for the good work which they have done. The other point which I wish to raise is quite a different one. It has to do with the provision of huts for canteens at two places, Rouen and Etaples. When the Expeditionary Force Canteen was first formed it was sent out to conduct business in any hutments, tents, or buildings which
  622
  could be procured on the spot, and as the organisation grew it commenced building proper hutments out of its own funds—that is to say the position was created whereby canteen hutments were paid for by the soldier. The officials of the organisation represented this matter to the War Office in April, 1915, and after considerable delay it was decided that the Government would provide canteen hutments in France in exactly the same way as the Government provide canteen premises in barracks in England. It was stated at the time that the item would be included in the Army Estimates and would be dealt with through the ordinary channels. It very soon became clear that if it was left to the Army to provide them there would be great delay. Therefore, with the approval of the Inspector-General of Communications in France, it was suggested that the Government should authorise the Expeditionary Force Canteens to put up their own huts subject to the approval of the local representatives of the Board of Works, such huts to be paid for by the Government. They were, in fact, to act as agents for the War Office, and make the best terms they could. They endeavoured to put them up by contracts made in France. At Rouen and Etaples, in spite of asking for tenders for some time, they were unable to obtain tenders in France, and they therefore got leave to obtain tenders over here in England. The history of those places is really a remarkable one. The lowest tender was accepted on 21st September. It was agreed that the Government would convey the materials from the South-West India Docks to the nearest point to each site of erection in France, and would also convey the necessary workmen. The general work of constructing the huts in sections was done on the quay at King's Lynn; these various fittings were made in various parts of the country. On 1st October it was suggested, owing to the congestion at the South-West India Docks, that the huts should be shipped direct from King's Lynn, but the War Office refused that. On 7th October there was an opportunity of chartering a vessel, and the contractors offered to transport the huts if the Government would allow the cost of freightage. This offer was submitted to the War Office and was refused. There was no other opportunity of sending them, and on 3rd November the offer was renewed and accepted, but then it was found that, owing to the delay, the ship

  623
  which could have been chartered for the purpose was no longer available. Instructions were then Bent to convey the huts overland to Newhaven, where they were to be shipped in supply ships, but difficulty arose there and finally, on 4th January, the huts were delivered in France—ten weeks after it had been reported that they were ready—ten weeks, in the winter time. The whole point of getting the huts was to have the canteens properly housed, instead of their being conducted under canvas in winter time.
  The Etaples huts stand on a somewhat different footing, because they have not yet been delivered. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to deal with that matter. They have been ready for delivery since the 18th of October. On 25th October the War Office asked for their weights and the number of trucks that would be required. Negotiations proceeded from time to time, and there were numerous interviews, but nothing was done, and on 10th December the contractors were again asked to give the weights of the huts and again they supplied the information. On 18th December they received instructions to communicate with the Embarkation Officer at the South-West India Docks, who had been directed to arrange for their shipment. On the 22nd that officer said he had no such instructions. On the 24th the contractors were again told to communicate with him and to quote the number of a War Office letter. [⅕⅓8/3 15:12:15.] Even that had no effect, because the Embarkation Officer said he could not receive goods by rail. Between 30th December and 24th January repeated representations were made. I will not weary the House with the whole of the long story. On 12th February the first but was despatched from King's Lynn, and two days later notice came from the Embarkation Officer to the effect that he did not know when the but could be shipped, and no more must be sent until further instructions had been received. In the meantime another but had been loaded into trucks at King's Lynn. A further point I should like to remark upon is that men had to be sent out to erect the huts at Rouen and because those at Etaple were not delivered the men had to be brought home for a time and then sent out again. It has been estimated that the delay has already cost £400, and, apparently, the end of the expense has not yet been reached.
  624
  The climax is really rather dramatic. A telegram was received yesterday to the effect that all the tents at Etaple had been blown down and it was impossible to replace them. It asked what was the position as to the huts. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is a case of urgency, and, although the winter is half over, surely it is worth while making an effort to get the huts sent. I would like to add finally that, although I have gone into these cases in some detail, they are not the only instances in which difficulties of this nature have arisen between the Expeditionary Force Canteens and the War Office. The Expeditionary Force Canteens are doing wonderfully good work out there. The two managers, the manager of Messrs. Dickeson and the manager for the Canteens and Mess Co-operative Society, are really doing this work gratuitously; they are getting no additional salaries. They are being paid by their own firm, but they are doing this work in France entirely gratuitously, free, and for nothing. Therefore instead of hampering them everything possible should be done to assist them in carrying on the work they are doing in the interests of the soldiers, and such assistance should be given as expeditiously as possible.
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Perhaps the House will allow me to say the few words I have to say now, and will accept my apology for not having been here when my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Stephen Walsh) spoke. I was at the time attending a Committee at the War Office. I understand my hon. Friend raised two points in regard to allotments and the issue of separation allowances, and he referred to certain cases in which the separation allowance was described as not more than a miserable pittance. I think the cases he had in mind were those of allowances to dependants—to a wife in one case and in another case to the mother of a soldier.
  Mr. WALSH: The term "miserable pittance" was applied mainly to the cases of the mother's allowance; it has never been more than 9s., and very often it is not more than half that.
  Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend will bear in mind the basis of calculation of these separation allowances. They are calculated on the degree of dependence which existed prior to the man's enlistment. I admit that in some cases it does

  625
  appear to operate harshly, with the result that it excites a feeling of natural compassion for those who suffer, as many do, in these hard cases. But, speaking broadly, I think the House of Commons will agree that we should make a great mistake if we departed from the basis of calculation, which must be the degree of dependence prior to the War. The War Office have accepted that view, and therefore it only remains to ascertain the degree of independence which must govern the rate of the separation allowance. The machinery for calculating it has been set up, and the House knows quite well that the Pensions Committees and Pensions Officers, having come to a decision as to the degree of dependency, the separation allowance follows. I am afraid I cannot hold any hope that any departure can be now made in the method of calculating these allowances. Then my hon. Friend complained of the intolerable delay which has occurred in a number of cases.
  Mr. WALSH: In that class of case particularly. The allotment is paid readily, but in many cases the allowance has to be waited for for as long a period as six or eight months.
  Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend will realise that nearly all these cases are cases of difficulty. In many of them the information given by the soldier or by the dependant is either not clear or it is not accurate. The delays in a great many of the cases which I have investigated myself have arisen from one or other of these causes, but I hope my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that I am doing everything I can to expedite the issue of all these allowances. The House will believe me when I say I am convinced there is not the slightest wish or intention on the part of anybody to hold up these allowances. There was a time no doubt when the pay office was, to use a colloquial expression, "snowed under." The pressure of work was gigantic; the expansion of business was enormous, and the staff, while it had every desire to cope with this work, was untrained and often exiguous. Arrears consequently accumulated, and one knows when the work of an office is thus increased how difficult it is to deal with arrears. I regret that in a large number of cases there have been delays, but it is not due to the pay office; it is the inherent difficulty of the problem which undoubtedly makes it difficult to come to that ready decision which we
  626
  would like to see in all these cases. I can only add we are doing everything we can to secure a quicker decision in these matters, because we are all anxious these separation allowances should be issued at the earliest possible moment. Then my hon. Friend raised the question of the deprivation which is suffered by the family of a soldier who has the misfortune to be imprisoned. He pointed out truly enough that in the case of a man being sent to prison for more than a certin period the allotment ceases and the family have to live on the Government portion of the allowance only. My hon. Friend will realise that that is because the man's pay is stopped, and there is no money from which the allotment can be drawn. I am not quite clear whether my hon. Friend's suggestion is that it would be desirable or proper under these circumstances that the State should take upon its own shoulder the payment of the amount which a soldier had contributed before he went to prison. I am afraid, however, I cannot hold out any hope of that being done. That is one of the misfortunes—and it is a misfortune—which I am afraid accompanies imprisonment of the breadwinner even under ordinary conditions. I think these are the main points advanced by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. WALSH: My first and most important point was as to the change in the method of administration, in so far as the separation allowances are paid to a wife and dependent children. In the earlier part of the year it was possible for a second soldier from the same family to make an allotment to an adult member of the family in addition to the allotment made by the husband, and the allowance was thereupon made by the regimental paymaster. Now, however, they will not, under any circumstances, pay such an allowance unless the second soldier has actually handed over the money to the dependant in whose favour he has drawn the allotment. That is a case which I have been discussing with the hon. Gentleman for a month or two. There are other cases as well.
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not think, as a matter of fact, there has been any change in the system.
  Mr. WALSH: Oh, yes, there has!
  Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to assure him that I will look into the question, and that it

  627
  shall have my fullest consideration. Then my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Lambert) raised other questions, most of which my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for War will deal with when he speaks later on. But there is one question he mentioned on which I should like to say a word or two, and that is the question of hay purchases, and the fuller employment of local machinery. My right hon. Friend says, very truly, that no soldier can teach the Devonshire farmer anything about shifting hay, loading, and so forth. It may be that in some case he has in mind there has been regrettable delay leading, unhappily, to waste of money; but I do not think you can judge a system by individual failures here and there. I suppose it is unavoidable in a war of this kind where you are buying on the enormous scale. When you are conducting any business on the enormous scale upon which we are conducting the Army at the present moment, there must almost inevitably be failures here and there. If my right hon. Friend will give me particulars privately—
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: I gave them publicly.
  Mr. FORSTER: I will have the case looked into with a view to preventing a repetition of that kind of thing as far as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley) raised a question of great importance with which we shall have to deal more fully on a Motion of which notice has been given, when we get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates. He raised the question of the men who are walking about the country suffering from disease which has been incurred in the course of their military service. He mentioned the fact that there seems to be a prevalent belief that nothing is done for these men except those who are suffering from wounds.
  Mr. ASHLEY: That is so.
  Mr. FORSTER: If that belief is prevalent, I am very glad my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity of saying at once, point blank, that that belief is wholly unfounded and erroneous. I hope the fullest possible publicity may be given to what I am saying now, in order that the painful impression may be removed at the earliest opportunity. I may add in this connection that my attention has been called to a statement made—I forget
  628
  by whom—that the men who were actually suffering from and who have been invalided out of the Army on account of what is known as trench feet are to get no pension, no gratuity, and no financial help. That is absolutely devoid of all foundation of any sort or kind. It is a complete misstatement.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman give us in two words what the position exactly is? That will meet the case.
  Mr. FORSTER: I was going to state the terms of the Royal Warrant in a very few words. Disability pensions and so forth are granted to non-commissioned officers and men discharged as unfit for further service, on account of wounds or injuries or sunstroke received in action, or in the performance of military duty, or on account of blindness caused by military service, or by disease due directly and wholly to military service. So that men who are suffering from wounds, injuries, sunstroke, blindness, or disease, get pensions under the Pay Warrant, the qualification being—I do not want to hide or cloak anything—that the wounds or injuries must have been received in connection with or in the performance of military duty, and the disease must have been directly and wholly due to War service.
  Captain CLIVE: If the disease is aggravated by War service, will not that count?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. The disease must be caused by and incurred in the military service, so that the cases of the kind to which reference has been made of men who are suffering from trench feet are absolutely covered.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Would tuberculosis be covered?
  Mr. FORSTER: Certainly, if it is due wholly and directly to service.
  Mr. ANDERSON: Is not this the point, that in the case of troubles like rheumatism or consumption or nerve shock, the man who is discharged has no absolute right to a pension because of them; that the matter is referred to a medical board, and that the pension depends upon the report of that medical board, so that if the board says that the man's consumption was merely aggravated by his service, the man is not entitled to a pension?
  Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend has stated the position exactly. It depends upon the finding of the medical board,

  629
  which is, of course, always subject to an appeal to the higher medical authorities. It depends upon their finding whether the disease is wholly and directly due to military service. If it is, the man gets a pension; if it is not, I am afraid he does not. I do not want to go into this matter at great length as I propose to deal with it in a few days' time, if I have to speak. It is within the province of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War, but if I have to speak I propose to deal more fully with the whole question later.
  Sir COURTENAY WARNER: Will the hon. Gentleman make some reference to what took place in the Debate the other day on the question of the Royal Warrant with regard to this particular subject? There was almost a pledge given that the Royal Warrant would be modified.
  Mr. FORSTER: Oh, no, my hon. Friend must not think there was any question of a pledge to modify the Royal Warrant. The pledge was that the administration should be sympathetic. There was no question of a pledge. I, who spoke then, was certainly not in a position to give any pledge to alter the Royal Warrant. I should like the House to bear in mind that the Royal Warrant really only carries out the policy of the Government. The actual wording of the Royal Warrant is, of course, a matter for the War Office, but the policy is the policy of the Government. I could not give any pledge to extend its scope without the sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Cabinet, so that I could not have been in the position to give the pledge to which my hon. Friend refers.
  Sir C. WARNER: I never asked the hon. Gentleman to give us any sort of pledge, but I thought it was understood in that Debate that some representation might be made so that the system might be made rather wider to the extent of asking the Prime Minister to alter the Royal Warrant.
  Mr. FORSTER: Oh, yes, that we have done. Both my right hon. Friend and I myself have drawn the attention of the higher authorities to the matter. It is a matter, of course, for the Government to decide, and neither he nor I could give an undertaking. So far as the language of the Royal Warrant is concerned it would follow the policy which the Government adopted. I hope that what I
  630
  have said will remove the apprehensions which my hon. Friend (Mr. Ashley) assured me are so prevalent, and I would reserve anything further that I have to say until a later occasion.
  Captain Viscount DUNCANNON: Before the Under-Secretary of State for War proceeds to answer the questions that have been raised, I should like to raise a point with regard to the air defences with respect to the recent Dover air raids, and to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to make some statement upon the subject, for, as he may be aware, there are many reports in circulation, reports which have gained currency outside as well as inside this House. I have only to take as an instance the speech which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Canterbury (Captain Bennett-Goldney) yesterday. These reports are bound to cause great public concern as to the efficiency of our defences concerned, not only as in this case, Dover, but all over the country. For the moment I would only refer to that particular case. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I have during the past few weeks ventured to make constant representations to him on the subject, and if I have done so privately and not across the floor of the House, he knows that-it is because I do not wish to make any public statement which might be prejudicial to the public interest. The result of those representations has been that .the Under-Secretary of State for War provided me with an authorised statement by the War Office to be made public in Dover. Unfortunately that statement did not pass the censorship there, but, none the less, I hope he will see his way himself to make from his place in this House a reassuring statement on the subject. He will surely not think that it is in the public interest that these unauthorised and uncontradicted statements should constantly be made without any official reply on behalf of the Government.
  Mr. TENNANT: Hear, hear!
  Captain Viscount DUNCANNON: Can we not, therefore, have a candid Ministerial statement on the whole subject, so that we may be assured that it is the intention of the Government that there will be an improved state of affairs with regard to our air defences? If I might venture to say so with all respect, I would say that the speech made last week by the right hon. Gentleman did

  631
  very little, if anything, either to meet the criticisms made here or the very real and genuine concern which is felt all over the country. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman told us that divided control in certain directions had come to an end. But that, on the face of it, and without any more, is not, perhaps, necessarily reassuring. Will he not, therefore, not only tell us that divided control has come to an end. But that we are about to see a different and an improved state of affairs? I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer a question on quite another matter, namely, a report which I have seen in the "Times" this morning, which conveys the impression that our troops are insufficiently provided with trench mortars in France. Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to say whether the impression created by this report is a correct one or not?
  Mr. R. C. LAMBERT: Perhaps I may be allowed, as a member of the Board of Control dealing with canteens, coffee-stalls and so on, to supplement what was said about it by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Ross Division of Herefordshire (Captain Clive). I think the time has come when the attention of the House should be drawn to what I can only call the wasteful method under which we are forced to carry on this work. I was appointed to the Committee last July, and we have spent many hours anxiously attempting, so far as we can, to carry on this work which is necessary for the welfare of the soldier. We have paid a visit to France, and we have had impressed upon us over and over again the urgent need that huts should be built in time for the coming winter. So long ago as August the Base Commandant informed us that it was absolutely necessary that these huts should be erected and should be ready before Christmas, and we promised that, so far as we could do it, they should be put up. What has been the result? So far back as 18th October the huts were ready. There has been no fault that could be found with the contractors, but in one way or another from that time to the present, so far as the huts were concerned, difficulties have been put in the way of transporting them over to France, and even now at this very moment they are still in England. When we come to consider that they are built out of public money, that they are de-
  632
  teriorating day by day as they are left in the sidings or on the quays, and that the soldiers have to go all this time without the accommodation which is necessary for them, it is nothing short of a scandal that the attempts which are made by the Board of Control should be thwarted in the way they have been. I do not want to speak with too great vehemence. We all recognise that in time of war there are great difficulties which have to be overcome, and of course I have to make every allowance for them, but I really think it is time public attention was drawn to the way in which these matters are delayed, so far as I can see, through no reasonable cause, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that, at all events so far as these huts are concerned, these interminable delays will come to an end, and that the Board of Control will be enabled to carry out the work which it is authorised to perform. Everyone is anxious to give the War Office all the assistance he can, and we are anxious to see that our soldiers who are fighting our battles in France should be provided with those comforts and necessaries which they require, but when we get, after all our efforts and all the endeavours that we have made to expedite things, a telegram such as we received yesterday, stating that the tents, the substitute for the huts, have all been blown down in the late gale and that the officials are at their wits end to know what is to be done—these very tents which were to have been replaced by the huts which are still somewhere in England—we are justified in asking for a public explanation of what seems to me, at all events, to be an intolerable scandal.
  Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps it might be convenient if I were to deal with the Dover case first. The hon. Member (Mr. Bennett-Goldney) made a somewhat startling, and indeed dramatic, statement last night when I was absent on official duty, and it is desirable, I entirely agree with my Noble Friend, that the kind of rumour—for I think it is nothing more than rumour to which he gave currency—should receive the earliest contradiction. It is impossible for me to give an account in great detail of what actually occurred, because there are conflicting statements as to that, but I can at least assure the House that some of the statements made by the hon. Member are wholly without foundation. In the first place, I should like the

  633
  House to realise that on the date in question when aeroplanes—I think there were two of them—did come to Dover, the Admiralty were in charge of the defences. Possibly my Noble Friend might think it desirable to pursue further inquiries through that Department if he is interested in the historical question as to what actually happened. Army aeroplanes were ready, although it was not our primary duty to attack hostile aircraft at that time. I understand that the hon. Member stated that the mess to which the officers had gone for their luncheon was two miles away from the particular spot where the aeroplanes were kept. That is a mistake. It is not two miles, it is 200 yards, which is a very considerable difference. He also stated, I understand, that the pilot went up armed only with a Winchester rifle. What really happened was that the pilot went up in an aeroplane which belonged to a squadron in course of formation, and was not yet armed; but as the machine which was there belonging to that squadron was a very powerful machine the commanding officer allowed him to go up, and I do not know whether there was a rifle or not, but I believe there was. These statements show how extraordinarily far from the true facts the description given by the hon. Member was.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: I suppose there was a rifle there?
  Mr. TENNANT: The point is that the Admiralty were in charge at that time, that the aeroplanes were kept by the War Office and did in fact go up, and did in fact give chase to the hostile aircraft, but everyone knows that it is not possible to catch an aeroplane unless you start on very good terms with it, and in this case the aeroplane belonging to our countrymen did not have a fair chance and did not catch it. But to say that the whole thing was in the muddle in which it was stated to be by the hon. Member is not only wholly contrary to the facts, but is, I think, a wrong thing to do, and is calculated to spread despondency and depression among the local inhabitants, and indeed among wider circles than that.
  My Noble Friend (Viscount Duncannon) went on to ask me whether the statement which is attributed to me in the "Times" to-day is an accurate statement of the condition of affairs with regard to trench mortars at the front. I can assure him that the statement I made at Question Time yesterday was different from that which
  634
  is given currency to in the "Times" newspaper, and all I have to state is that we have had reports from time to time about trench mortars from the Commander-in-Chief at the front, and endeavours are made to carry out the policy which the Commander-in-Chief desires, and if my Noble Friend will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see the correct answer which I gave.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Is it not a fact that large quantities have been sent out lately?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes. My hon. Friend is correctly informed. Very large numbers of trench mortars have been sent out in the quite recent past.
  If I may go to my right hon. Friend opposite, I would say to him that the interruption which he was kind enough to allow me while he was speaking was quite an accurate one, though perhaps it was not complete. I am dealing now with the question of the Order in Council which he read to the House as to the distribution of duties between various members of the Army Council. I stated that it is true that the Secretary of State is the officer responsible, and his responsibility is not at all altered, but every member of the Army Council has certain duties to perform, and those duties are distributed among the various members of the Army Council by Order in Council. The particular Order in Council which he read to the House is a new distribution of functions among the various members of the Army Council, and particularly one including the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, but there is no shifting of responsibility. The responsibility remains the same. The Secretary of State for War is the officer responsible to the country for the actions of the Army Council, and I am his representative here, and therefore I am responsible in this House.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Does my right hon. Friend mean by that that the Chief of the Imperial Staff takes his orders from the Secretary of State for War or from the Cabinet?
  Mr. TENNANT: I would rather say I think the Chief of the Imperial General Staff in time of great emergency, like the present, will take his orders from the War Council, of which the Secretary of State for War is a member. I think that is the fairest way to look at it, and the proper way in which it should be described.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Do I understand my right hon. Friend correctly to say that the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War is not in any degree impinged upon by this Order in Council?
  Mr. TENNANT: I think the answer to that is in the affirmative, as I indicated in my interruption, and as I stated further in my further reply.
  My hon. Friends (Captain dive and Mr. R. C. Lambert) have mentioned the question relating to canteens. I can assure both hon. Members that we at the War Office have nothing but gratitude and praise for the services of the patriotic men who have been doing this duty of providing canteens for the troops at the front. It may be said, "It is a very odd manner in which you repay them and show your gratitude." My answer to that must be that we have to consider first of all the provision of men at the front, and to provide men with everything which they require—first of all in the way of food, clothing, ammunition, guns, and munitions of war generally. It is common knowledge that there has been very great strain upon the tonnage of this country, and if the huts which were requisitioned for the canteens were unfortunately delayed I think the House will have to put that down to the great difficulty of finding tonnage in which to send them abroad. But since my two hon. Friends have brought these facts to my knowledge I will make it my special duty to inquire into the present condition of things, and see whether we could not at this late hour make some endeavour to see that these huts are properly sent out and established. But I hope my hon. Friends will realise what great difficulties we have to cope with. It is sometimes impossible to get that expedition which one would desire.
  Captain CLIVE: Our complaint is that there was so much indecision and that opportunities to send them out were refused, and it was only agreed to afterwards when it was too late.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. TENNANT: We always regret indecision, but sometimes new facts arise and a different situation is created by something which has happened recently and sometimes one has to alter one's opinion. I have even known hon. Members in this House do that. The hon. Member asked whether these men could not be enlisted. I have ascertained that that policy is now being adopted, and it will
  636
  be put into force and the men will be allowed to join the Army and retain their position in the canteens so long as they are considered indispensable. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend will not desire that the most able-bodied men who are not indispensable should be retained for providing comforts for the troops when their services might be used to greater advantage to the State by fighting at the front. I come now to the matters raised by my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Ryland Adkins) and I desire to express my gratitude to him for the very moderate and reasonable tone in which he addressed his observations to the House. I have made it my duty, in the short interval which has elapsed between yesterday and to-day to ascertain more particularly the position in regard to the medical examination of persons who have already been medically examined and rejected for the Army. I think my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berkshire (Colonel Henderson), were quite correct when they said there had been a good deal of confusion of mind on this subject. While we have always asserted, and I have stated quite definitely—although it does not really need me to say it, because he who runs may read the Act of Parliament—that a man who has been medically rejected since 14th August last is outside the scope of the Military Service Act. Some people seem to think that the War Office has been embarking upon the policy of endeavouring to strain that Section of the Act. I should like to say that that is not really so. All that has been done has been this—when a man who has been rejected comes and demands an armlet he is asked if he will be medically re-examined, and told that if he is at all fit for any of the various types of duties in the Service he will be asked to be re-attested and join the Reserve, so that in future, should there be occasion to require his services, we shall knew where to put our hands upon the man who has undertaken these duties.
  My hon. and learned Friend asked me whether I would issue instructions that the men who have been rejected in the manner described are outside the Act of Parliament. I will certainly engage to do so. I will go further, and I will have it stated in that Order that these men who have been so medically rejected, properly medically rejected by a proper authority, cannot be enlisted against their own will. They will be asked, if they wish an armlet,

  637
  whether they will not agree—for many of them, most patriotically, are anxious to do their duty and their proper service to the country—to be put in a class and attested, and be considered soldiers of the King. I think that is not an unfair method of dealing with any subject of His Majesty. My hon. and learned Friend also wishes to have it made clear that this submission to a second examination must mean re-attestment. I think that ought to be explained to him. I do not know that it has not been done.
  Sir R. ADKINS: In some cases it has not been understood.
  Mr. TENNANT: I think it has been in nearly all cases, but my hon. Friends will realise that they only hear of the cases of complaints. The cases where we have failed are brought to my notice, but there are thousands and tens of thousands of cases where the machinery works quite smoothly and harmoniously, and we never hear anything. Another point raised by my hon. and learned Friend was that there should be a slip accompanying the yellow form.
  Mr. RENDALL: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds, I would like him to make one point clear. He has now made it clear that the men who have been rejected by the doctor since the 14th August are not to come under the Act. What I want to know from him is, What is the position of those men who have been persuaded by the recruiting officers and made to believe that they were compelled to be re-examined? There are men who have been made to understand that they must be re-examined, and they have submitted to re-examindtion and have gone before the tribunals, and now find that they were not compelled to be re-examined. These men want to be put in the same position as those men who have refused to be reexamined. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to do that?
  Mr. TENNANT: I much regret that there should have been any mistake of the kind, and I will give my hon. Friend this assurance, that I will engage to examine the cases. I hope there are not many of them, for if there are a very large number it will take a great deal of time, and there is not much time left. I will, however, engage to look into them, and where it is proved to a competent authority that the kind of improper influence has been used which has been described by the hon Mem-
  638
  ber and my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Simon) yesterday, that man should certainly be placed in the position he was in prior to the re-examination. With respect to the yellow form—and I would point out that it is an old form—my hon. and learned Friend asked whether I would not issue with the yellow form a slip stating that it is not applicable to those who have been medically rejected. I will see whether that cannot be done. Let me say this to the House, by way of caution, that it is not the intention of the War Office or the Government to issue to any man who has been medically rejected this yellow form, because it is inapplicable to him. But it stands to reason that where you have to deal with hundreds of thousands of men mistakes will occur. I am informed that in the case of the Territorials the associations kept no accurate record of those whom they rejected as medically unfit. Therefore it is obvious that a large number of persons who have been medically rejected will receive these yellow forms, but if they are accompanied with this statement on the slip I think the difficulty ought to be overcome. There is a difficult point arising out of the notice which is sent to those who become Reservists on 2nd March, and my hon. and learned Friend desires that it should be stated in anything that we issue that they do not become Reservists on 2nd March if they will attest prior to 2nd March. I do not know really that anything is required to inform a man of that fact. He might know—everybody knows it—that it is still open to a man to attest voluntarily if he so desires, and if he does so the Act will not apply to him, but if he does not do so the Act will apply to him.
  Sir R. ADKINS: I quite realise that it will be impossible at this stage to put out a printed note with the notice, but if the right hon. Gentleman will point out now that men are still able to attest voluntarily up to 2nd March it will have a very good effect in remote districts, where people think that an official form is binding upon them and do not realise that it does not apply to them if they take the last chance to avoid it.
  Mr. TENNANT: I understand that my hon. and learned Friend does not wish me to issue anything official from the War Office, but merely to state now, which I do quite frankly, that there is still time for men to attest voluntarily and go into their proper groups until 2nd March.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: There are huge posters all over the country telling everybody that very fact.
  Mr. TENNANT: In rather bad colour, and embodied in language which I am sure my hon. Friend would not have invented. I do not think my hon. and learned Friend need be very apprehensive that the depth of ignorance is so great as he has pictured.
  Sir R. ADKINS: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee in case anything more can be done that will satisfy me.
  Mr. TENNANT: I shall be very glad to do that. I have been asked about badges by my hon. and learned Friend. All that I can say is that I shall have great pleasure in conveying to the Minister of Munitions the statement which my hon. and learned Friend has made and in drawing his attention to the lucid statement of my hon. and learned Friend. Whether my right hon. Friend will be able to carry out the desires expressed in that lucid statement I really cannot say, and I am sure he would not expect me to say so.
  Sir R. ADKINS: Cannot the War Office support charges, if they believe them to be true, of loose badges being used in a certain number of factories and mills, which is very unfair to other factories and mills where they are patriotic?
  Mr. TENNANT: I will ask the Minister of Munitions to do that if it is possible, but you must remember the difficulty of co-ordinating all these things over very large areas in this country. Anything like uniformity is, of course, very desirable, and every effort is made to co-ordinate and get something in the nature of uniformity of treatment, but to get it absolute is almost beyond one's dreams. There is one other point, and that is in regard to bounties to re-engaged men. I think it is proper that the House should undertake the responsibility of finding the money, and I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will agree to that. I hope that that may be possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy asked me, with regard to the men who have been medically rejected, whether I will deal with this in a large-hearted manner, and in a manner conducive not only to the best interests of the State, but also to the dignity of a great Department. We do not want by any method at all, however straightforward and proper, or
  640
  by any trickery such as we have been accused of, to obtain the services of men who are really not going to be of value to the State. I am sure that the House must realise that that is not the policy of the Government. I hope that the House will believe, and anyone who knows me will realise, that such charges are very repugnant to me, and anyone who knows Lord Derby knows that charges of that kind are most repugnant to him.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of striking off the half-crowns, so that recruiting officers would not be quite so keen in getting rejected men?
  Mr. TENNANT: Does my right hon. Friend mean the 2s. 9d. which is given to the men?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: No.
  Mr. TENNANT: The half-crown which is given to the recruiting officer?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Yes.
  Mr. TENNANT: That has been reduced to a shilling, I am glad to say, for a very long time. Whether it is advisable to withdraw it altogether is a matter of policy which we shall have to consider. My right hon. Friend went on to complain, not improperly, that some very young soldiers were sent to the front after receiving only a very short training, and he asked whether it would not be possible for the War Office to send out, as drafts to regiments requiring reinforcement, men who had been for as long as fifteen months in training rather than those who had only received two or three months' training. I will tell him what the policy is. When the War broke out it was decided that no troops should go out to the front who had not been trained at least for a considerable number of months, and none were sent out who had not been trained as units. But it is one thing to train a man individually as a draft to go in and serve in a well composed, well trained unit, and quite another thing to train the whole of the unit. While it takes six months at least to train a unit and put it into ship-shape, it does not take anything like that period to train an individual man to take his place in a well trained unit. I think that the case put by my right hon. Friend was that some men were sent out after between two and three months.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Two months and twenty days.
  Mr. TENNANT: That was no doubt because the regiment to which they belonged had had very rough treatment and was greatly in need of drafts. Of course, it is not possible for us to say, "Here is a Yeomanry regiment; it has been training for eighteen months. It is spoiling to get out. Let us take drafts from that Yeomanry regiment and send them to reinforce the Black Watch." You cannot do that. I do not say that it has never been done. It has, but it is not a thing which I think the House would encourage the War Office to undertake on a large scale. Neither regiment likes it; neither the Black Watch nor the Yeomanry. And when we were proposing to fill up some gaps in the Welsh Division with some regiments from quite a different part of the country there was a great deal of outcry. And again, I think, when it was proposed to send some Welsh Yeomanry away from their units, not as units but as reinforcements, there was another great outcry and the thing was not carried out. So really it comes to this. If one regiment sustains a severer number of casualties than another it has to depend on the third line unit at home, or the reserve at home or the new home battalion to find drafts, and, if drafts should only happen to have had two months and twenty days' training, that must be considered, or at any rate was considered, when there was a great shortage of men for reinforcements as a sufficient amount of training to send them out with, in the hope that when they got out to their units at the front they would receive a certain amount of additional training. They are often used, especially young officers, in schools behind the line for training, and they are doing very good work by this means. I do not like, and I do not think that it would be easy for me, to give an undertaking that in no case in the future shall we send out drafts who have been only trained for two months and twenty days. We do not want to do it. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that. But we are sometimes driven into such a corner that we have to do it, and, if I were to give that undertaking I should only be hampering the authorities and should not be serving the best interests of the country, and I might have to come to the House afterwards and say, "I am very sorry I have to stand in a white sheet. I have not been able to carry out the promise which was given."
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I did not ask for a definite undertaking.
  Mr. TENNANT: I quite understand. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we do not like to send out drafts insufficiently trained, and it has never been done unless there was something in the nature of urgent necessity. I hope that my right non. Friend may consider that that is as far as I can carry it.
  Sir R. ADKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the War Office being ready to have recourse to the Civil Courts where there has been false representation for the purpose of obtaining medical certificates?
  Mr. TENNANT: It has come to our knowledge, and I cannot help thinking that we should not have heard of it unless it were true, that a certain number of men, the worst type of men in this country, anxious to avoid military responsibility, had persuaded somebody else, whose conscience was not very lively, to represent that his name was the name of the first person; in other words he made a false representation, personating the other man, the second man being a man well known to have heart disease of a very advanced kind, and doing this for a consideration. This was said to have been done, I do not know in how many cases, but at any rate in a number quite sufficient to let us know that it had been done. We are anxious to have some method of seeing that such cases of fraud are properly dealt with. Take the case of A saying to B, "You have heart disease; you go and represent me and bring me back a certificate of exemption or rejection and I will give you half a crown or five shillings." It is extraordinarily difficult to prove that it was done in that manner. Unless you have got absolute chapter and verse evidence for it, you cannot do it. So when my hon. and learned Friend says, "Would not it be wise to refer such cases to Civil Courts," I would say, certainly that would be the proper thing to do, and we shall certainly do so where we have evidence. But it would be perfectly futile without a sufficient amount of evidence. I can assure him that that will be done in any case where it is possible.
  Major GODFREY COLLINS: I do not desire to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the subjects which have been brought before us this afternoon. I wish to make some observations with regard to the

  643
  Prime Minister's speech yesterday, and to remind the House of what is the main problem before us at the present moment. It is to vote a large sum of money to bridge the gap between a daily expenditure of £5,000,000 and a revenue of some £750,000. To bridge that gap we must maintain our credit and face the situation. I do not say that the Government have concealed the true financial position from the country, but I do say that they have not revealed the true financial situation to the country during the last eighteen months. I will endeavour to make that good. I have no desire to strike a note of pessimism. There is no necessity for so doing. Our credit can readily be maintained if the Government only desire to govern. As confidence is the basis of credit, the House of Commons looks to the Government to repay that confidence which has been so generously conceded to them during the last eighteen months. This ever widening gap between our daily expenditure of £5,000,000 and our revenue can only be bridged in two ways, either by the reduction of expenditure or the increase of revenue by taxation or by loan. The Prime Minister in his speech yesterday quoted many figures and dealt with various Votes of Credit. I think that I am within the recollection of the House when I say that that speech gave one the impression that the Government had during that period properly estimated the cost of the War. But it omitted to draw attention to the fact that only eight or nine months ago the Government estimated the deficit for the year at about £860,000,000, while the actual deficit has been nearly 50 per cent. increase on that figure. I am entitled to make that point after the impression created in my mind by the Prime Minister's speech yesterday.
  Speaking last week in this House the Prime Minister said that on 1st January this year this country would be faced for a generation by the serious strain which the War places upon our resources. But are we not also entitled to ask the Prime Minister to point out, not what was the position on 1st January this year, but what will be the position in twelve months to come? The late Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, some months ago, that even if the War were at end our commitments for the next six months would be as great as for the last six months during the War. So, therefore, if the War were to last only another three months, our National
  644
  Debt on the 1st January next year "will show nearly 50 per cent. increase on the figures for January this year. The Prime Minister is constantly urging economy and referring to the financial situation. I only wish he had pointed out the position then, rather than the position of 1st January, 1916. In that speech the Prime Minister also referred to our military operations in other spheres of the War-Greece, Mesopotamia, East Africa, and the Cameroons—which he described as comparatively minor incidents. They are minor in their main issues, but they are not minor in cost of men, money, or munitions. In that connection may I refer to the remarks made earlier in the afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Lambert)? He drew attention to the great-cost of military operations in war, and also to the position of the Air Service in this country; and I think that in the Debate last week the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that every factory was occupied in making either guns or machines. The point I make upon that is that if we have to defend those distant parts to which I have referred, with machines and guns, how can we so readily defend the Midlands of this country? That observation applies not only to the defence of our Midlands, but of our merchant ships that are crossing the seas. If any representative of the Admiralty were here, I should like to ask whether every merchant ship leaving our ports to-day has cannon on board? Many of our ships have been sunk in certain quarters during the past few months without the facts having been stated to the public. We are dissipating our energies in every part of the globe, and how can we expect to defend the Midlands or provide proper guns for merchant ships to defend themselves against attack? Perhaps later on in the Debate I may have a reply to that question.
  May I remind the Minister who referred to the opertions in those theatres of war as minor incidents, and may I remind the House, of the terrible toll upon life caused by those minor incidents? For every 100 men we have lost in Flanders we have lost forty in those minor incidents. Last week we discussed the shipping problem, the main cause of which is to be found in our numerous expeditions, that have led to the shortage of tonnage, and it is also the main cause of the rise in the

  645
  price of foodstuffs in this country. It is a strange thing in these days that when men are being so destructive, Nature has been so abundant. The harvest in 1915 was abundant, though bread stuffs are high in price here on account of the shortage of tonnage brought about by these numerous expeditions. In one port alone in the Mediterranean, in December last, I counted ninety-two merchant ships. Is it an exaggerated figure to say that one expedition alone probably takes from three to four hundred ships; yet we wonder at the increased cost of living, which not only affects this country but affects the position of France, Italy, and other countries. In his speech last week the Prime Minister held out no hope of reducing expenditure. I do not know whether we are to have fresh expeditions, but I do urge right hon. Gentlemen to curtail our liabilities abroad. Finance during the last eighteen months has not been the great factor in this War, but, as this struggle develops, the power of finance will grow apace. And in that connection may I quote the words of the Prime Minister bearing upon the point I am about to make, and justifying every protest that my hon. Friends and myself have made during the last eight or nine months in regard to the power of finance in this War? These are the words of the Prime Minister:
  "When we try to get the perspectives as we ought to do in their true relative proportions, with the various interdependent and related duties which the War casts upon you, this is one that ought to bulk at least as largely as any other."
  Surrounded as the Prime Minister is by men who press the military point of view upon him that statement is a very valuable one, and shows that the power of finance is bound to determine the future conduct of this War. In his speech, yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to the Committees which are inquiring into economy at the Admiralty and in the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman knows too well that any economies, however large they may be, must be small in comparison with our daily expenditure. Our expenditure is determined by the Cabinet itself. The policy which they shape or determine is the policy which sends these Expeditionary Forces abroad, fixes the size of the Army, and the pay. The responsibility rests solely with the Cabinet. I hope that in the months to come some steps may be taken to reduce the growing expenditure of this country. I would make, passing reference to the appeals which the
  646
  Government have made to the public to curtail their personal expenditure. Previous demands have been made by the Government which have ended largely in failure. I fear that the coming campaign will have a like effect. The question I would ask is this: Why did the public turn a deaf ear in this matter to the appeal of the Government? There seem to be two reasons. One is financial. The public witness the pouring out of money in every direction. The public do not realise that that money is borrowed money. They see contractors, shipowners, and others making large profits, and they say to themselves, "If the necessity for economy is so great, why is this state of affairs permitted to continue?" They see and hear of waste in the Government Departments; but a deeper, and, in my belief, a much more far-reaching reason is this, that they have had no lead from that bench during the last eighteen months in regard to personal economy.
  Is it not hypocritical on our part to come here and urge economy while there is no reduction on that bench? The main thing to do is for every man to reduce his personal expenditure, and I hope that before many months are over, if this campaign of economy is to be launched, that the Government will give some lead to the country in this matter. The country will admire personal sacrifice and personal lead from that bench, and, if any reduction is made, I hope at the same time some steps may be taken to provide that, where men are largely or wholly dependent on their salaries, they shall receive exceptional treatment during these days. The Prime Minister received a deputation a short time ago, and he said that all economies are "mere flea-bites." They can be flea-bites, or they can be made drastic. I do not know whether it will be necessary now or later to introduce some form of compulsory saving; we may be driven to that in the near future; but I hope it will not be necessary, and that the Government will take steps, by drastic taxation or by restriction of imports, to attain their object in that and other ways. May I for a few moments turn to the other side of the question of expenditure, which is at the rate of £5,000,000 a day? The gap which we have to bridge is between our daily expenditure and our daily revenue. During the last eighteen months taxation has only been sufficient to pay the interests of debt, pensions, and a miserable pittance towards the cost of the War. I would

  647
  not be in order in going into figures on that subject, but there has been no taxation in proportion to the income of the country and the expenditure of the country.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the opportunity for discussing taxation. The opportunity will arise when the Finance Bill is reached. We are at present engaged in voting money for the Services, and later on we shall have to consider how to raise it.
  Major COLLINS: With all respects, I would point out, Sir, that we have had six Votes of Credit during the year and only one Budget; therefore we have only had one opportunity of making our protest that the War is carried on with borrowed money instead of levying a very heavy toll upon and asking for more willing sacrifices from the people. I wish, if I may, to make some passing reference to these points. This £120,000,000 is to bridge the gap between our revenue and our expenditure, and if taxation had been higher to-day there would have been no necessity for this Vote of Credit.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry to stop the hon. Member, but this is really not the opportunity at all to discuss that. As a matter of fact, we had two Budgets last year, but it has always been the practice of the House, until recent years, to put into one Bill—the Finance Bill—all taxing enactments That is the opportunity for considering the general financial situation, and to consider how the money is to be raised.
  Major COLLINS: We had only one Budget last year levying increased taxation. By the time the Budget is introduced the financial year will have ended and the record of the Government on taxation proposals will have passed. If I may remind you, Sir, there was an Amendment put down to the Address last week in which it was hoped that we would get an early opportunity of raising this subject. If we have to wait until the Budget I am afraid we shall not get that opportunity. I shall implicitly follow your ruling, and I only wish that on this occasion I had the opportunity of showing that the Government have failed to raise money by taxation and have allowed this country to live during the last eighteen months in a world of financial delusion.
  Mr. ANNAN BRYCE: There is one point which has not been raised in this Debate, and which I think it would be of some advantage to have elucidated, and that is the question of the powers of the Committees which the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday have been set up since last August to help to control expenditure. His statement yesterday did not appear to me to be quite consistent as regards two parts of it with regard to these Committees. He said he did not think it would be wise to commit the control of expenditure which had been parted with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Committee on Retrenchment, and that that had been restricted to criticism of civil expenditure. His words were:—
  "Because it was felt that supervision and interference and inquisition by an outside body with the spending Departments during the stress of war might hamper and paralyse the efficient conduct of the administration."
  Later on he said:—
  "The Finance Committee of the Cabinet discussed and considered the matter with great care all through the summer and the autumn of last year, and as a result of their deliberations, for some time past, in the three great spending Departments which are concerned with the prosecution of the War that is, the Army, the Navy, and the Ministry of Munitions—we have had established and installed Committees—a Committee for each Department—composed of outside persons, men who have had great business experience and authority—in the case of two of these Departments presided over by Cabinet Ministers who have no connection whatsoever with the actual conduct of the Departments themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February 1916, col. 458.
  What is the distinction in power and function and logicality between the Retrenchment Committee on civil expenditure and these Committees with which the Prime Minister has gilded the pill of the £420,000,000 Votes of Credit? We are told the Retrenchment Committee, being outsiders, were not the proper people to control economy in administration, but then these new Committees are also composed of outsiders, and how is it desirable that they should do so? What are the functions of those Committees? There now seems to be an enormous number of Committees, something like a hundred, I think, and I suggest to the Chancel lot-that it would be a good thing to print a list of those Committees with their functions for the information of Members who would not have to trouble Ministers at Question Time. What are the functions of these Committees? Is the proposed expenditure submitted before it is incurred, or do they merely criticise it after it is incurred? In the former case they might be of some value, but why did not the Retrenchment Committee get that work?

  649
  If they only criticise after the expenditure is incurred, why cannot that be done by the Committee of this House on Public Accounts? Surely that would have been the better way. It is the business of the House of Commons, and why should outside persons be brought in to do work which should be performed by the House of Commons? There has been a desire expressed on various sides, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy and others, that we should have Committees appointed not by the Government, because that would be no good, but by the House of Commons to examine and control these various questions. The Prime Minister does not like that idea, and I can quite understand that. It has, however, been found very useful in France, and I do not see why it should not be useful here. At all events, the Committee on Public Accounts, is of some value, and why should it not do this business? What do these new Committees do, and what is their object and powers?
  There was a good deal of talk with regard to the question of responsibility. It is very interesting no doubt, but it appears to me to be rather a waste of time to discuss the question. There is theoretical responsibility, but no practical responsibility. If you arc low down in the service, in the Army or the Navy, you probably do incur responsibility, that is to say, a risk of dismissal or supersession follows failure to do your job properly, but the higher up you go, the less the risk becomes. We know perfectly well that Cabinet Ministers and Under-Secretaries, and generals in high positions like field marshals, no matter how many blunders may be committed, never feel any evil results. It has been admitted, and in fact we have had nothing else but mistakes during the course of the War, except in the operations of the Navy. In all the other fields of war: diplomacy, administration, Army, and so on, there have been very bad failures. The Dardanelles was admitted to be a scandalous failure. The Prime Minister took full responsibility for it, and nothing has happened to anybody. He intends, as he told us, to go on to the end of the War, and I have no doubt his intention would be justified, for so far as one can see at the moment, there is no possibility of any change taking place. Therefore I think the discussion on responsibility raised by the late Civil Lord to the Admiralty was an academic discussion about
  650
  which it is not worth while bothering the House of Commons. I should deprecate this question of responsibility for anything that happens being raised again at all.
  Mr. HOLT: This question of national finance and expenditure seems to me so serious in all its bearings, and particularly on the future conduct of the War, that I propose to put some of my views before the House. There could be no more important question. It is quite plain, if we go on spending money at the rate we are spending it at the present time, our power to stay during the War is going to be very materially diminished. And very great and extravagant expenditure will have an important bearing on the power of national recuperation, which will be very seriously diminished thereby. I submit, therefore, that there is no subject to which the House could better devote its attention. It may not be a fascinating subject, but it is one of the utmost gravity. I do not believe myself it is possible to make wisely any very large retrenchment in expenditure, not connected with the War. You may even have what appears to be substantial retrenchment, as, for instance, ten or twenty or even thirty millions in the Civil Service, but that is practically nothing compared with the expenditure on the War. I do not believe you can make such retrenchment without doing the nation a great deal of harm. As to the question of private economy to which the hon. Member for Greenock (Major Collins) referred in his very excellent speech, I feel inclined to think that there is a great deal more private saving going on than many people suppose. The large trading concerns with very large profits have no alternative at the present time except to lend those savings to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that all the classes who have been in the habit of being in possession of money have done a great deal of saving. From the information I get, and this applies to all classes, the people who have been mostly engaged in extravagant expenditure are people who are very unexpectedly much better off than they ever were before. It is very natural that they should succumb to the temptation either of having a new piano or buying furs for their lady friends the first time they ever have the opportunity of doing so. Of course, they should not do it, but one cannot help sympathising with the person who, finding himself in the position of

  651
  comparative affluence for the first time, takes advantage of the opportunity of launching forth into some such expenditure.
  A good many people seem to have very extraordinary ideas as to what economy is. It does not consist in merely reducing the expenditure of money. For instance, a man who refuses to have his premises painted and who allows them to decay is not practising real economy. As regards a man's personal expenditure, it is not economy to cut it down in such a manner as to render him less fit to perform his work. When we come to try and make any large economy, I think we really must turn our attention to the expenditure on the War. That is where the money is going, and it is the only direction in which we can look for any substantial saving. The Prime Minister told the House that he did not anticipate that the daily expenditure on the War was going to increase. May I ask if, in making that statement, he took into account the expenditure necessitated by the additional million men to be raised under the Derby scheme, and upon whom there has as yet been no expenditure? If we are not to exceed the daily average of £4,400,000, and at the same time provide those extra men, then there must be very considerable curtailment of expenditure in other directions to compensate for the necessary consequences of raising those extra men. I do not know that in all respects Government Departments, as regards details, have been quite so extravagant as might have been anticipated. When we consider the extent to which they had to resort to improvisation and to the expansion of their business by about twenty times that which they performed before, it is not surprising to find, and we must not blame people if there has been wasteful expenditure. I do not think that anybody in any walk of life could expand his business to the same extent, and have failed to have adopted wasteful methods.
  7.0 P.M.
  What I think the Government ought to have done under the circumstances was to have supplied all the Departments concerned with a much greater amount of brains at the top. As far as I have been able to see what is going on, there has not been any addition to the thinking power at the top at all commensurate with the addition to the total amount of business
  652
  proposed to be carried on in the Departments. That has a great deal to do with our troubles. As far as I can judge, most of the officials in the Government Departments are being most horribly overworked, and they are not having enough time to sit down and think properly; yet careful, quiet thought is of the essence of doing any business economically and successfully. I believe that a great deal of our trouble has arisen from the fact that there has not been enough quiet, deliberate thought and planning in advance, simply because all the officials are absolutely overwhelmed with the pressure of things that must be done on the spur of the moment. The Government have not put enough people in the highest places to do the thinking in the way in which it should be done. I heard what the Prime Minister said about the various Committees. These Committees are all very well in their way. They are probably doing their work as well as they possibly can, and will no doubt, in due course, effect savings which in any other circumstances would be substantial, but which, having regard to the volume of expenditure, will probably be almost infinitesimal. The fact is we are not going to get any substantial reduction in the amount of the expenditure on the War except by people who are in a position to question policy. If you ask a Committee to overhaul the details of expenditure in connection with operations which have been decided upon, they can probably do very little. If you are going to do anything really effective you must be allowed to bring before you the persons responsible for the policy, and ascertain from them whether certain expenditure is or is not really necessary to carry out the policy upon which the Government has embarked, and also whether that policy is really worth the money.
  There are a great many things in this War which it might be exceedingly well to do, but we cannot do everything. When you come to consider what is to be done, you have to weigh the good against the best. If you ask the heads of the Army or of the Navy what they would like to have to carry on the War, there are very few things they could not quite truthfully say would assist in bringing the War to a conclusion. But they cannot have everything. That is quite impossible. If you are going to do any good, you must do it through a body which is capable of weighing the pros and cons of alternative

  653
  policies, discarding the good in favour of the best and concentrating on the best. One thing must strike everybody, and that is that our expenditure for the military operations in which we are engaged is simply colossal when compared with that of any of the other belligerents. It may be necessary that it should be so, but even apart from the fact that other belligerents are paying their soldiers very much less per diem, I feel convinced that the Germans are not spending anything like as much as our people are spending on fighting. I do not believe the Russians are, I very much doubt if the French are. There may be some reason, but I suspect that our Army produces less military result per £ sterling than any of the other belligerent forces. That is a point upon which it would be very interesting if we could get a little more information.
  I want to ask the Treasury Bench for information as to certain items of expenditure. It is matter of common knowledge, of which anybody connected with the shipping business must be aware, that during the last eighteen months, through-out which time this War has been essentially a war of trench fighting, a prodigious number of horses and mules have been brought into Europe from all parts of the world. What on earth are all those animals doing? What are they for? Are they really necessary? The matter does not end with the flooding of Western Europe with horses and mules. When you have done that, the next thing is that an enormous quantity of food for these animals has to be brought in, and one of the main causes of the difficulty with regard to shipping has been the tremendous demand made for bringing food for the horses and mules which have been brought over for the Army—animals which, apparently, as far as an ordinary man can judge, are not, under the present circumstances of the War, particularly required. We are to-day in this position, that the supply of food for the peoples of Europe is materially impeded by the necessity of bringing in these enormous quantities of fodder for horses. I think we might have a little more information on this subject. There is another point upon which information would be interesting. Every shipowner knows from his own experience that immense masses of material are being brought into this country for the manufacture of munitions of war—articles which are not found in Germany and cannot be produced there.
  654
  If our Munitions Department really require for the purposes of the War anything like the mass of material which they are bringing into the country, then the Germans must be in a very bad way for munitions. It would be very interesting if we could have some sort of account from the Government or be satisfied that some sort of inquiry had been made as to whether we really require all these things, which we are told are absolutely necessary for the carrying on of the War, and if we could be told why, if they are necessary for us, Germany apparently can get on very well without any of them.
  I want to speak about another very serious matter connected with the War. I think the Government ought to make to the House a frank statement about the naval position in the Mediterranean. It is a very serious matter. Steamship owners have been given to understand that the Mediterranean is so far unsafe by reason of enemy submarines that it is desirable that they should adopt the Cape route. Obviously, if the Mediterranean is rendered unsafe by submarines, the whole motive for holding Egypt and the Suez Canal has disappeared. The sole motive for going to Egypt originally was to secure to England the passage through the Suez Canal, and if we are prevented from securing that object it does not seem to me that there is very much advantage to us in possessing Egypt at all. We have lost the real object of possessing Egypt. The general impression among shipowners is that the difficulty in the Mediterranean is due to the want of professional competence and skill on the part of the Allied Navies. We have heard a great deal about what we are to do for the Allies on this, that, and the other occasion. I think we ought to be told what the Allies are doing for us in the way of keeping the Mediterranean reasonably free for the passage of our ships, or whether the Government intends to take any steps at an early date to make the Mediterranean as safe as the neighbourhood of the British Isles is at present. This is a very serious matter, because the loss of time involved by the diversion of shipping to the Cape route will accentuate all the difficulties in regard to food supplies and munitions of war. We ought to have a perfectly frank statement from the Government on this subject. I would remind my right hon. Friend that in these Votes we are providing for a very large sum of money—in the aggregate about £400,000,000—to be paid to our

  655
  Allies. If we are going to pay them these large sums of money, we ought to know what they are doing for the money, and we should be given an opportunity of considering whether it would not be better to have rather less Ally and rather more money. We ought to be in a position to consider frankly and openly whether these gentlemen to whom we are paying these enormous sums are worth the money or not.
  My hon. Friend alluded to the question of expeditions. This question of foreign expeditions is very interesting. We had first of all the Gallipoli Expedition, and then we had the Mesopotamia Expedition. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what the Prime Minister said on this subject on the 2nd November last. This is what he said about Gallipoli:—
  "The chances of success, as it seemed to us, and to those on the spot, were not only great, but preponderant."
  This is what he said about Mesopotamia:—
  "General Nixon's force is now within measurable distance of Bagdad. I do not think that in the whole course of the War there has been a series of operations more carefully contrived, more brilliantly conducted, and with a better prospect of final success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, I915, col. 519, Vol. LXXV.]
  I do not know what the experience of other hon. Members is, but I must confess that I cannot imagine any other position of authority and responsibility which a gentleman would be allowed to retain after having made on his own confession two such appalling miscalculations and errors of judgment. That is the confession of the Prime Minister himself. Are we really, without any information whatever as to what is going on, going to vote million after million of money to a Government, the head of which admits, in respect of the prospects of success of these expeditions, two of the very worst possible miscalculations that have probably ever been put on record. These are things which make, or ought to make, any ordinary plain person have very grave doubts as to whether the Government are to be trusted with the conduct of this War. I really submit to my hon. Friends that we in this House have duties to our constituents, one of which is to see that we are put in possession of sufficient information to be satisfied that the Government are competent to carry this War to the successful conclusion which every one of us means to obtain. What about the expeditions to Salonika and Egypt? They are vastly expensive. I wonder if there are many
  656
  enemies anywhere particularly close to them. Really, from what is going on, it looks as if the enemy induced us to plant our forces in these remote places and has then quietly gone back, leaving us to wait until later on. I think we ought to have more information. The fact is, if we are going to have a gigantic Army, we cannot afford to play a waiting game. The two policies are destructive. There was our original policy which we formed before the War and upon which we started the War, namely, that we should have a small Army and a triumphant Navy, and play a waiting game—a war of attrition. Now we have adopted the policy of a very large Army on the Continental scale, on top of the Navy, which no Continental Power has ever had, and we cannot afford to wait. You must push on with the War very much more rapidly than you are doing unless you are going to die from exhaustion. You must have one policy or the other—either that of a long war, with a comparatively small daily expenditure, or the policy which Germany adopted but did not succeed with, that of a war with a very large force, with a great expenditure, deliberately intended to be over in a very short period. Everybody in the House, and, I believe, everybody in the country, wants to see this War brought to a successful conclusion. What is more, I believe we all are determined to see it brought to a successful conclusion. But I must say I think we ought to have much more clear and decisive evidence than anything before us at the present time that this Government are the people who are going to bring it to a successful conclusion. The House of Commons ought to insist upon that information before they agree to part with the money.
  Major NEWMAN: The hon. Member who has just spoken has alluded to our expedition to Salonika. If he had happened to be connected with it, he would, I think, have found that there are enemies round about that place. He also told us that he wondered what on earth we and the Army wanted with so many mules and horses in the Western part of Europe. Again, I would say, that if he had been like some of us, a soldier in the trenches, or in the field, and had been waiting for a cooker to come along with his dinner, and that cooker was drawn with four mules, he would be the last man in the world to suggest that the mule was not wanted when it was a question of, no mule no dinner. Latterly there has been a lot

  657
  of talk about waste and extravagance, especially in the Army. In a great war like this where we have raised enormous Armies, and raised them quickly, there is bound to be extravagance and waste. If we were to get behind the scenes in the German or the Austrian armies, or the French or the Russian armies, I say unhesitatingly that we should see that there was there too serious extravagance and waste. In every country in Europe where the nations are at war there have been debates about extravagance in the Army—in the German Reichstag, in the French Chamber, and I have no doubt in the Russian Chamber, too. You cannot help it. What we can do, and what we have been doing in this House, is to point out small points of extravagance; to bring them to the notice of the Under-Secretary for War, or other Minister responsible, and let him try to put the matter right. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that some of the suggestions made to him are, at any rate, useful. Any suggestions we may make that tends not alone to economy but to efficiency must be useful. It stands to reason that where a square peg is put into a round hole it is uncomfortable for the peg itself, and the state of things typified by that illustration tends to a loss of efficiency and economy.
  I should like to point out one or two cases where, to my mind, the square peg has been put into the round hole, so that in the future that mistake might be avoided. There has been and always is a great competition for the comfortable places at home. Everybody wants to get into that portion of the Army and to stay there. A little while ago I was listening to a lecture at Aldershot by a great expert. He was telling us how in the most neat and efficient manner to kill Germans. We were told exactly what to do and almost exactly how the Germans would fall upon our bayonets. The lecturer had invited questions, and at the end a young officer alongside me got up and said, "I would like to know, sir, how I can be transferred from the Infantry back into the Army Service Corps?" The Army Service Corps before the War was not a branch of the Service very highly thought of. It is perfectly well known now that there is a very long waiting list for the Army Service Corps, especially amongst the officers. It is difficult to get there, but the work there is much more agreeable than trench work, and the Army Service
  658
  Corps is now a nice and popular service. Take, again, the Mechanical Transport Section with a pay of 5s. a day, which, I believe, has now been stopped. I wondered on seeing some of these men exactly the difference between the skill required to conduct these motor lorries along a road in Belgium and France and the work in the trenches, flinging bombs at any moment against the Germans, not at 5s. a day, but at the pay of the ordinary soldier, 1s. a day.
  There is another very popular round hole at the present time. That seems to be the Flying Corps. The other day there passed me, and probably other Members of the House, a Highland band, behind which were young fellows marching, dressed in the very tasty uniform of the Army Flying Corps. Behind them again came what looked to be a batch of recruits that were going to join the Flying Corps. I looked very carefully at the men as they passed. Five or six seemed to be ordinary postmen in ordinary postman's uniform, and the others were men who could not under any circumstances be expected to make good flying men. For this purpose you want a smart, active young fellow, not too heavy, and besides that he should be a good tiptop mechanic, perhaps men who, it may be, at present are driving ladies' motor cars. What is needed here is young men who can keep the machines fit for flight. You do not want anybody who has got a little bit of influence to get himself dragged into the Royal Flying Corps! You do not want anybody with a little influence here and a little pull there to be allowed to get into that corps, with its smart uniform and buttons. By the time some of these men are fit for flying, or by the time they are efficient mechanics, the War will long be over. We have to remember, of course, that the Army now is no longer on a voluntary basis. The Army is under a compulsory system, whereas before it was right that the man should have a choice of corps. Those days are gone. Now, without bias or favour, these men, having been put into the Army Reserve, after attestation, ought to be simply sent where they are wanted. If they are wanted in an Infantry regiment, send them there; if in the Flying Corps, send them there. Send them wherever they are wanted without bias or favour.
  There is another point which has been brought before the notice of the House.

  659
  A great many men who were not physically fit, especially at the beginning, presented themselves for active service, and managed to get themselves posted to units. All honour to them for coming forward. They came forward, as they said, "to do their bit." These men are an expense to the country. They are not able to earn their pay as soldiers. Some of them have gone abroad and broken down. They have been put into the Home Service, but again have been unable to do the ordinary work of a soldier. We are very sorry for them. We in the Army did our best for them. I remember the case of a man in my own command. He was a constituent of mine. He attested and joined, but how on earth he ever got through I do not know. He evidently had consumption of a fairly advanced type in the throat. We sent him away. Everything possible was done for him by the medical men. He was sent to hospital, and again, after a spell of work, again to hospital. He was examined before the medical board, and then for weeks and weeks he was kept, like Mahomet's coffin, suspended between heaven and earth, not knowing from morning to evening what he was going to do. The man had a big family besides. That is one particular instance out of hundreds, and, perhaps, thousands. How are we to deal with them?
  I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State that there should be instituted something in the nature of clearing camps, where, without any undue delay, or, at any rate, without any red tape, the commanding officer, or whoever it might be, could send men of this type, who obviously at the time were not fit to do their work—men who had fallen out once or twice in the last march, men who unfortunately get very heavy colds which turn to bronchitis, men with black teeth and flat feet. These should be sent to clearing camps and carefully examined medically and surgically and sifted out. Some of them, with a little attention, may be perfectly able to go back to their work, whilst those who are not fit for the work of the soldier might be able to do munitions work. Others might be sent to do clerical work and so on. At any rate, why should not at this crisis ways and means be adopted to meet these cases? We then should not be wasting the country's money and putting men to
  660
  jobs they cannot do. From my own experience, I very thoroughly agree with what the Secretary of State said about the training of recruits. It is ridiculous, unwise, impolitic, and wrong to send a recruit to the front under a year's hard training. The recruit himself does not want divisional, brigade, and other training of that sort. He requires to know how to shoot and use the bayonet, how to form fours, and how to get his feet hard for marching; and then if his heart is in the right place, a good and decent fellow who goes out to join his unit will do his work in a businesslike way. I trust the views I have put before the House will be of some service to the Under-Secretary.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1915–16.

    VOTE OF CREDIT, 1916–17.
    Resolution reported,
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £300,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1917, for General Navy and Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military Operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business, and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all Expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
    Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [21st February]
Resolutions reported,
1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, the sum of £120,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, the sum of £300,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolutions agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Montagu.

WAYS AND MEANS [21st February]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
  "to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen
  662
  and one thousand nine hundred and seventeen," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time tomorrow (Wednesday), and to be printed. [Bill 2.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of this day, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Half after Seven o'clock.