Commons Sitting of 24 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Conway and Colwyn Bay Joint Water Supply Board Bill [Lords],

Clayton Aniline Company (Railways) Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
Tynemouth Corporation Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Aberdare and Aberaman Gas Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Colchester Gas Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Gore's Divorce Bill [Lords],
River Glen Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.

EXAMINATION OF MAILS (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 23, 1916).
Copy presented of Note addressed to the United States Ambassador regarding the Examination of Parcels and Letter Mails [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (PUNJAB LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL).
Copy presented of Amendment in the Regulations for the nomination and selection of Members of the Punjab Legislative Council [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
EUROPEAN WAR.
Copies presented of Papers relating to German Atrocities and Breaches of the Rules of War in Africa [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
Copy presented of Forty-fifth Annual Report of the Local Government Board, 1915–16. Part II. Housing and Town Planning [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (EXCESSES), 1914–15.
Copy presented of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good Excesses of Army Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1915 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 106.]
ARMY (ORDNANCE FACTORIES) (EXCESSES).
Copy presented of Statement of the Sum required to be voted in order to make good Excesses of Army (Ordnance Factories) Expenditure beyond the Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1915 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 107.]

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed, with amendment, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
City of Kingston-upon-Hull
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—

1. Medway Conservancy,—Copy of Statement of Receipts and Expenditure of the Conservators for the year ending 31st. March, 1916 [by Act];

2. Lunacy,—Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made and the number of Patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on 30th June, 1916 [by Act.]

GORE'S DIVORCE BILL [Lords].
Message to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with Documents deposited, in the case of Gore's Divorce Bill [Lords].—[The Lord Advocate.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    KUT-EL-AMARA.
    Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information as to the treatment of the non-commissioned officers and men who fell into Turkish hands at Kut-el-Amara?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I regret to say that we are so far without any information as to the treatment of the non-commissioned officers and men who were taken prisoners at Kut, although the United States Embassy at Constantinople are sparing no efforts to obtain this information.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: In view of the importance of this matter I beg to give notice that I shall repeat my question on Thursday.

    DEBTS DUE TO ENEMIES.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade the value of the
    1296
    cash and property belonging to or debts due to enemies which have been vested in the Public Trustee, firstly, under an Order of the Court under Section 4 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, and secondly, under an Order of the Board of Trade under Section 4 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The value of the property vested in the Public Trustee by the Court is estimated at £4,500,000 and of that vested by the Board of Trade at £2,000,000.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that creditors of enemies whose property has been vested in the Public Trustee are unable to obtain payment of their debts in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, by reason of the legal or departmental difficulties raised by the Public Trustee, or the insufficiency of the official staff to deal with these cases, or by reason of the decision of the Court to regard the rights of creditors under this Section as entirely subsidiary to the provisions of the Act for preserving the property and money of enemies until the conclusion of peace, thus leaving the British creditors without any remedy, notwithstanding that sufficient enemy property and money may be held by the Public Trustee for payment of British debts; and will he say what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Public Trustee informs me that the realisation of the property vested in him, the settlement of questions relating to liens on the property and the investigation of the claims of creditors in the absence of the debtor necessarily involve considerable time, but that there is no avoidable delay on his part in the payment of the claims of the creditors of enemies.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can facilitate or provide for further Departmental and legal assistance to be given to the Public Trustee to enable him to distribute with promptitude the enemy property and money in his hands amongst British creditors of that enemy who have proved their debts to the satisfaction of the Public Trustee, and without the delay of the vacations of the Courts?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Public Trustee informs me that the Departmental and legal assistance which he now has is sufficient to enable him to deal with the distribution of property vested in him amongst the creditors who have proved their debts, and that the vacations of the Courts will not interefere with such distribution.

    W. AND C. T. JONES STEAMSHIP COMPANY (CARDIFF).
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attenton has been called to the report of the W. and C. T. Jones Steampship Company, Limited, of Cardiff, for the year ended 30th June, which shows that the profit on a fleet of thirteen steamers was £524,855, representing 187 per cent. on the company's capital; whether he is aware that the previous year's earnings were only £87,105, which allowed a dividend of 15 per cent.; and if he intends taking action to prevent such exploitation, which to a great extent is the cause of food prices advancing, on the admission of the Board of Trade, to 62 per cent.?
    Mr. HARCOURT: My attention has been called to the Report referred to in the question. As my hon. Friend will be aware, a very large proportion of these high profits pass to the Exchequer in the shape of Excess Profits Tax, Income Tax, and probably Super-tax. So far as can be gathered from the Report, the total amount proposed to be distributed as dividend for the year in question is £70,000, part of which will probably go in Super-Tax. Excess Profits Duty and Super-tax absorb £320,000, and the bulk of the remainder is allocated to depreciation, reserve, etc. The freight problem is a very difficult and delicate one, largely because of its world-wide character, but the present situation is not satisfactory,; and the Government are taking measures which they hope may cause an improvement. At the same time, the effect of freights on food prices may easily be exaggerated. I have no reason to suppose that the increase of freight rates is, as suggested in the question, to a great extent the cause of the rise which has taken place. However, as my hon. Friend is aware, the whole question of the causes of the rise of prices is being explored by a very competent Committee.

    ENEMY SHAREHOLDERS (BRITISH COMPANIES).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will issue a list of the enemy shareholders in British companies which, up to the present, have been vested in the Public Trustee for sale; and whether arrangements can be made so that the outside public can have the opportunity of coming in and participating in the purchase of such shares?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think that a list of enemy shareholders whose shares have been vested in the Public Trustee would afford any useful information to anyone. The Public Trustee, I understand, takes such steps to bring to the notice of the public the shares which he is selling as are consistent with the interests of the company's business and of the British shareholders of the company.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what opportunities the public have of learning that those shares are upon the market or to be sold?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Public Trustee takes what steps he thinks are desirable and necessary to advertise the fact that the shares are for sale. I do not know exactly at the moment what those steps are.

    PETROL CONTROL BOARD.
    Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Petrol Control Board have restricted taxicab-owners and drivers to the use of 1½ gallons of petrol per day whereas for a normal day's work 3 gallons are necessary; and whether, in the interest of the men as also of the public, he will consider the desirability of advising the Board to permit an increased quantity of petrol to be supplied to these men?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think that the effect of the restriction, which was based on the requirements as given by the persons interested, is always as great as stated by my right hon. Friend, but I am seeing what can be done in the matter. I am afraid though that, under present conditions, considerable restriction is necessary.

    PATENTS (ALIEN ENEMIES).
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked how many patents applied for in the names of alien, enemies have been granted under the powers conferred by the Trading With the Enemy Amendment (No. 2) Act passed last Session; if the patent in each case has been granted to the custodian of enemy property and if licences to use these patents have been and are being issued to British manufacturers; and if he will also state how many new applications for patents have been received from alien enemies during the present year?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The benefit of three applications for patents by enemies or enemy subjects has already been vested in the Public Trustee under the provisions of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1916, and the patents have been granted to the Public Trustee. In addition, steps are being taken to deal in the same manner with 2,200 applications for patents by enemies or enemy subjects. In one of the first-mentioned cases licences are in course of preparation, in another the application for a licence will shortly be heard, and in the third case an application for a licence was made but not proceeded with. It is open to any manufacturer to apply for a licence under any patent granted to an enemy or enemy subject or any application for a patent by such enemy or enemy subjects. One hundred and forty-six applications for patents have been received from enemies or enemy subjects during the present year.

    SHIPPING FREIGHTS (LONDON AND DUBLIN).
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements, if any, have been made by the Government to reduce the freights now levied by shipowners; and whether he can state if any improvements have been effected regarding the delay and difficulty of obtaining commodities from London to Dublin?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Measures have been taken by the Government to secure the economical use of existing tonnage and to increase the supply of tonnage, and these measures have their effect on the freight market. As my hon. Friend was informed on 5th July, I am not aware that the traffic between London and Dublin has been subject to any avoidable restriction as com-
    1300
    pared with traffic between other British ports and Dublin. I am, however, making inquiries into the whole question of communications with Ireland.
    Mr. FIELD: Arising out of the unsatisfactory reply I beg to give notice that I shall bring forward this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-night.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I should be glad if the hon. Member would allow me to complete my inquiries to enable me to give him some further information.

    BRITISH COMPANIES (GERMAN TRADE).
    Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the cases where the profits of British companies are or have been derived from the sale of products of Germany during the War, he can say. what action the Government proposes to take against British companies who have made profits in this way since the outbreak of war; and what action the Government proposes to take to prevent British companies trading with the enemy in the future till the end of the War?
    Mr. HARCOURT: If the hon. and gallant Member can furnish me with any facts tending to show that any British company is trading with the enemy or has so traded during the War, I will have the matter investigated at once.
    13, 14, 15, and 16. Major HUNTasked (1) whether, under the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, all profits of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Home Light Oil Company, Limited, earned and paid to the Public Trustee during the War are to be preserved for the benefit of the German shareholders in those companies, or Germany, until the conclusion of peace; (2). whether the reasons for permitting the businesses of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Homelight Oil Company, Limited, to continue and to earn profits of upwards of £300,000 a year during the War are to enable the Government to protect the Russian, French, and Belgian claims, or in what way these claims will be given preference over the Germans; (3) if he will explain whether the Board of Trade permits the British

    1301
    Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Homelight Oil Company, Limited, to continue their businesses for the benefit of the British public or the Allies of this country, or whether the businesses are allowed to continue whereby profits may be earned to be paid to the Public Trustee to preserve until peace is declared for the benefit of German shareholders or for Germany; and (4) whether the present directors of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, with the exception of Messrs. Kean and Colt, are the representatives of the Russian, French, and Belgian undertakings, who claim that almost half the beneficial interest in the shares of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Homelight Oil Company, Limited, belongs to them; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Section 5 of the Trading With the Enemy (Amendment) Act, 1914, provides that, except so far as the Board of Trade or the High Court may otherwise direct, the Public Trustee shall, after the termination of the present War, deal with money paid to him under the Trading With the Enemy Acts in such manner as His Majesty may by Order in Council direct. It must not be assumed that the German shareholders will necessarily derive any benefit. The reason for allowing the businesses of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, the Petroleum Steamship Company, Limited, and the Homelight Oil Company, Limited, to continue is the desirability that the organisation established for the supply and distribution of petroleum products should be available for the benefit of this country. As I informed the hon. and gallant Member on the 18th July, the Advisory Committee have considered these cases and reported that for special reasons it is inexpedient to wind up the businesses. With regard to the directorate of the company, I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to the question asked by him on the 18th July.

    SOUTH WALES COALOWNERS (ADVANCED PRICES).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked whether any arrangement has been reached between him and the South Wales coalowners whereby these owners are to be allowed
    1302
    to advance prices beyond the limit fixed by the Coal Prices (Limitation) Act; if so, by how much; whether this proposal, before being ratified, was submitted to Parliament, or to anyone except the coal-owners themselves; and whether it is his intention to allow increased prices to coal-owners in other parts of the country?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The Board of Trade have made an Order under Section 1 (2) of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, increasing the standard amount in respect of the mines in the Monmouthshire and South Wales district from 4s. to 6s. 6d. The Order, which does not require the assent of Parliament, was made after a careful examination of statistics relating to the increase of working costs since the passing of the Act. The only other application for an increase of the standard amount at present before the Board is one recently made by the Forest of Dean Conciliation Board.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I should like to ask from whom the right hon. Gentleman received the demand for the increase; and whether any protest has been received from the Miners Federation of Great Britain; and whether he is aware that the South Wales coalowners have been making more profit than any other group in the country?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have received a protest by deputation. As to the comparative profits of coalowners I would not like to commit myself.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Were the consumers consulted at all in regard to the question of the rise in price?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No, Sir; the consumers were not consulted.
    Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some estimate as to the amount of the increased revenue derived from the sale of coal for export and home consumption in South Wales?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am afraid that I am not in a position to give that information.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I give notice that I shall raise this matter upon a very early opportunity.

    INDIAN TROOP TRAIN (DEATHS OF SOLDIERS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for India whether his Attention has been called to the statement that, during the journey of a troop train from Karachi to Peshawar, many soldiers were taken ill and some died; whether this tragic occurrence was due to over-crowding in the train; whether there was any shortage of rolling stock; what was the temperature at the time of starting the train and what would be the average temperature passing through Sind Desert; and what steps, if any, have been taken to bring the matter to the notice of the Indian Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth on Thursday last. I have directed the Government of India that having fixed the responsibility for this deplorable incident they are to hold the person or persons responsible to strict account.

    INDIA (GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S COUNCIL).
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the Dispatch No. 3, dated 31st May, 1905, to the Governor-General of India in Council, paragraph 19, whether the Department of Military Supply, created under the superintendence of a military member of the Governor-General's Council in pursuance of that dispatch, to undertake responsibility to the Government of India for the control of Army contracts, the purchase of stores, ordnance, and remounts, the management of military works, the clothing and manufacturing departments, Indian Medical Service and Indian Marine, exists any longer; if not, when that arrangement was abolished or altered; and whether, during the present War, the control of these branches of administration has been vested in the Governor-General in Council, or in the Commander-in-Chief as a member of Council, or as head of the Army in India, and in what relation to the position and responsibility of the Governor-General in Council of supreme control of the Army under Act of Parliament?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Department of Military Supply was abolished on the 1st April, 1909. The business hitherto dealt with by it was transferred to the Army Department and continued to be controlled by the Governor-General in Council, the member in charge being henceforth the Commander-in-Chief instead of the Military Supply member. The Commander-in-Chief is the executive head of the various branches of supply, as he is of the Army generally, but is subject to the supreme control of the Government of India, of which he is a member.
    Sir J. JARDINE: May I ask if it is a fact that since 1909 there has only been one military member, the Commander-in-Chief, instead of two, of the Council of the Governor-General of India?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.
    Colonel YATE: Is there any general administration in India corresponding to a similar office held in the Army at home?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "general administration." I am not very familiar with military terms, but I am not aware of anybody who serves under that title at home.

    PETROL SUPPLY.
    Mr. VINCENT KENNEDYasked the First Commissioner of Works what steps have been taken by the Petrol Committee to secure fair treatment in the supply of petrol as between owners who made honest returns as to the amount of spirit they used and would require and those owners who for reasons of their own made returns of an exaggerated nature?
    Mr. HARCOURT: It is not easy to distinguish between honest returns and exaggerated ones, but any obvious cases of over-estimation of requirements have been subject to special reduction. A maximum monthly allowance has been fixed for all private cars, and the allocation of supplies below the maximum has been so arranged that moderate demands are restricted to a less extent proportionately than large ones.
    Mr. HOUSTON: When will these notices be sent out?
    Mr. HARCOURT: They are being sent out already. I do not know whether the

    1305
    hon. Member refers to owners of private cars. Obviously they will come last. Commercial cars and taxis must come first.
    Mr. LOUGH: When is the issue to be made to owners of private cars?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I hope in time for August, but it is possible some of them may be late.
    Mr. CHANCELLOR: Under what head will commercial cars come?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting a long way from the question on the Paper.

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

      INTERNED PRISONERS.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Home Secretary when and in what order the cases of the Irish prisoners at Reading are to be dealt with by the Advisory Committee; having regard to the breakdown of the attempted court-martial on Mr. Peadar O'Hourihane, owing to the conflict of Crown evidence and failure to connect him with any existing body of Irish Volunteers, whether his case will be dealt with at an early date; and whether the wish of this untried man to be visited by the hon. Member for North Westmeath will be allowed?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The Advisory Committee regulate their own procedure, and I am unable to say in what order the Irish prisoners now at Reading will come before them, but all the Irish cases will be dealt with as speedily as possible. I am unable to give permission for the hon. Member to pay more visits to the Irish prisoners, for reasons of which he is well aware.
      Mr. GINNELL: May I ask whether the authors and journalists who, I believe, constitute all the interned prisoners at Reading are, like those at Frongoch, confined to half a sheet of note paper for writing upon?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I must ask for notice of that question.
      Mr. BYRNE: Does the same order apply to all the other Irish Members? Why are they refused permission to visit the prisoners at Reading?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Ginnell) was refused permission to visit the camps because his visit caused disturbances in the camps.
      Mr. BYRNE: Why have other Members been refused permission?
      Mr. SAMUEL: There are necessary limits put upon the number of visits received by prisoners.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary the number of Irish prisoners released on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee; if he will consider daily their recommendations; the time that elapses from the time of receipt of recommendations and the orders for release; and when the women prisoners will be allowed to take their trial before judge and jury?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Seven hundred and twelve men have been released from Frongoch up to the present time, besides two women who have been released from Lewes. I consider the Advisory Committee's recommendations as soon as they are received and issue orders for release. As regards the last part of the question, I have nothing to add to the written answer I gave to the hon. Member on the 17th July.
      Mr. BYRNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state why he refused to allow those women to go before a judge and jury—they are quite prepared to take their trial?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I have already answered that question on many occasions. The position in respect to these women is the same as in respect to all the men interned.
      Mr. BYRNE: The answer is most unsatisfactory.

      POLICE INFORMATION.
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary whether, in regard to the death by bullet wounds of Ernest Cavanagh, at Liberty Hall, on 25th April, the police consulted the military authorities; and whether their information was based on that of the military authorities?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The reply to both parts of the hon. Member's question is in the negative.
      Mr. LYNCH: Considering that the police were not there at the time, did not they receive their information from the military authorities?
      Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
      Mr. LYNCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman instigate an inquiry into these cases if I can show him that the police have again and again contradicted their own statements and that they are, in fact, covering up assassination by the invention of lies?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question. The hon. Member bad better let me see it on the Paper.

      GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary the number of dismissals from Government service since the rising in Ireland; if he is aware of the indignation expressed in Ireland at the treatment of Government employés, who were arrested on suspicion and afterwards released by orders of the military and Advisory Committee; and if he will say on whose information the dismissals took place?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Government employés suspected of complicity in the recent rebellion have been suspended by the responsible heads of their Departments pending an investigation which is about to be held into these cases. So far no instance has come to my notice in which Departments have dismissed officials on the ground of such complicity.
      Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will these cases be inquired into at once? There are men who have been released by the Advisory Committee and who have not been allowed to get back to their positions.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I very much regret the delay that has taken place. I was hoping that the Advisory Committee would be able to examine these cases, but I find that it is not practicable, owing to pressure of work and other circumstances, and accordingly I have appointed two Commissioners to inquire into them at once, so that there shall be no further delay.
      Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Incases where after inquiry the Advisory Committee have released the men, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that they get back into their employment?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I am not sure that there have been such cases.
      Mr. LUNDON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the Commissioners?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Commission will consist of two distinguished Civil servants, Sir Guy Fleetwood-Wilson and Sir William Byrne.
      Mr. NUGENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these places will be filled in the absence of these men before the trial?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I think the heads of the Departments are awaiting the result of inquiry before taking any definite steps.
      Mr. NUGENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these places have already been filled in their absence?

      SINN FEIN VOLUNTEERS (UNIFORM).
      Major WALTER GUINNESSasked the Home Secretary whether the uniform worn by Irish or Sinn Fein Volunteers is modelled on the British uniform but of a dark green colour?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The uniform of the Irish Volunteers resembled that of the British Infantry, but was dark green in colour.
      Mr. REDDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he could not, in consultation with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Major Walter Guinness) devise some uniform for feather-bed officers in this House, who are here when they ought to be in the "big push"?
      An HON. MEMBER: Stay-at-home Major.

      IRISH VOLUNTEER DEPENDANTS' FUND.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether it is with the sanction of the Government a secret military order has been issued in Ireland prohibiting advertisements, appeals, and collections for the Irish Volunteer Dependants' Fund; whether the secrecy is to prevent the prohibition becoming known in America and the Colonies; and whether he will have the prohibition publicly withdrawn and this work of charity and mercy allowed to proceed freely?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, has

      1309
      asked me to answer this question. The War Office have no knowledge of any secret military order of the kind mentioned, but inquiry is being made to see whether there is any substance in the hon. Member's allegations.
      Mr. GINNELL: In view of that reflection will the hon. Gentleman inquire in the city of Kilkenny?
      Mr. FORSTER: I have said that I am making inquiries.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Will the hon. Gentleman also inquire whether the military authorities have issued instructions in Kerry to prevent the exposure in windows of booklets and photographs published by Unionist firms in connection with the rebellion in Dublin?
      Mr. FORSTER: That will be inquired into as well.

    DEPORTATIONS TO RUSSIA.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a request, dated 11th July, from the Foreign Jews' Protection Committee against deportation to Russia and asking him to receive a deputation; and, if so, what answer, if any, has been returned?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of whom this committee is composed, and in the first instance, am asking for information on that point.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a communication from the Jewish Board of Deputies which, while upholding it as the duty of Russian Jews to support the Allies in the War, refuses to support the policy of deporting them to Russia; if so, whether he can make known any answer which has been sent; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The terms of the resolution were:
    "That the Board supports the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the enlistment of friendly Aliens who may be Jews and offers to assist the Government in any way it may think fit as regards the composition of the proposed Special Tribunal."
    Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there was definitely and intentionally no reference to the policy of deportation?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I received no dissent from the policy which has been announced; in fact, the resolution sent to me approved of the policy.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a telegram stating that the Monarchist party were asking for the deportation of these subjects because the revolutionary movement was being instigated from other countries, and is this deportation due to this demand?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My attention has not been called to the statement in question. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that in any case the action I have taken has no relation to any such matters, and is not prompted by any suggestion, direct or indirect, from the Russian Government.

    AIRCRAFT RAIDS AND BOMBARDMENTS (COMPENSATION).
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Home Secretary whether steps will be taken to provide that workmen injured by enemy air raid or bombardment shall be compensated on the same basis as under the Workmen's Compensation Act when the accident is in any sense due to the nature of the employment?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I am advised that according to recent judicial decisions a workman injured by air raid or bombardment in the course of his employment will be entitled to compensation under the Act as it stands at present, if he can show that by reason of his employment he was exposed to special risk not shared by the public at large

    COCAINE (SALE TO SOLDIERS).
    Major ASTORasked whether cocaine can now only be sold to civilians as well as to soldiers on a doctor's certificate or prescription; whether the purchaser is obliged to give up the certificate or prescription to the vendor and whether any record is kept of the number of certificates given by and the amount of cocaine ordered by individual doctors?
    Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to two cases, in one of which a Frenchwoman was convicted of selling spirits in an infamous house in Great Peter Street, Westminster, frequented by soldiers of overseas contingents, while, in the other, two men and a woman were

    1311
    convicted of selling cocaine to members of His Majesty's Forces, a penalty of one month's imprisonment in the first case and imprisonment for a few days to a few months in the second being the only punishment that could be inflicted; whether he will introduce legislation for dealing adequately with crimes so revolting and hurtful to the Army; and whether meanwhile such premises could be seized and occupied under the Defence of the Realm Act by the police or the military authorities?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My attention has been drawn to the cases referred to. I will consider whether any steps can be taken with a view to increasing the penalties for the illicit sale of intoxicating liquor to soldiers. As regards the sale of cocaine, a medical prescription is not required under the present law. The maximum penalty for illicit sale is six months' imprisonment and a fine of £100. The new Regulations on this subject which I announced in the House recently will be submitted, I hope, at the next meeting of the Privy Council.
    Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be possible, pending legislation, to take possession of the premises as suggested in the last part of my question?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I propose to consider the hon. Member's suggestion. I should not like to say off-hand.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Will provision be made in the new Regulations for the supply of necessary quantities of cocaine to dental practitioners, both registered and unregistered?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir, that is being provided for.
    Mr. RAFFAN: For both registered and unregistered dental practitioners?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I must ask for notice of that.

    SEIZURE OF LEAFLETS, LEXHAM GARDENS.
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether he will now return to the owner the leaflets headed "Right of Asylum" taken in a recent domiciliary visit to a house in Lexham Gardens, seeing that no charge has been preferred against persons who have distributed this leaflet?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that only a proof of the pamphlet was found at Lexham Gardens. I understand that the Competent Military Authority proposes to deal with this and the copies of the pamphlet found elsewhere under Regulation 51.

    WAR CHARITIES COMMITTEE.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the Home Secretary if he will inform the House what steps he intends to take to carry out the recommendations of the War Charities Committee?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary hopes very shortly to introduce a Bill for this purpose.

    INTERNED ALIENS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Home Secretary if he will say whether his Department contemplates making arrangements for the employment of interned aliens on agricultural work; and will such arrangements provide for their employment in Ireland?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The experiments made in England in the employment of interned aliens on agricultural work have not so far been attended with much success. I do not think they are likely to be extended to Ireland.

    NATIONAL TEACHERS (IRELAND).
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Home Secretary if he can now state the result of communications with the Treasury on the subject of payment of teachers' salaries monthly; and if he will state whether a war bonus is payable to any teachers and, if so, where are such teachers domiciled?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The subject of the payment monthly of teachers' salaries was brought before me on Friday last by a deputation which included the hon. Member, and the case made by the deputation will be forwarded to the Treasury. As regards the latter part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education to the question of the hon. Member for North Meath on the 20th instant.

    DARKENED LIGHTS (LONDON).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the observation made by the magistrate at Highgate when a householder was summoned for showing too bright a light at 10.14 p.m.; whether the penalty for the offence is £10 and the householder was only fined 1s.; and whether, in view of the danger caused by showing a bright light after the specified hour, he can see his way to make some statement supporting the inspector who gave evidence on that occasion in support of the action taken by the police?
    Mr. SAMUEL: From the remarks made by the chairman of the Bench when passing sentence in this case it would appear that the justices took into consideration the explanations offered, and particularly the fact that the occurrence took place very shortly after lighting-up time. No intervention on my part appears to be called for. The maximum fine that can be inflicted in such cases is £100.

    TRIALS IN CAMERA.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General if he will state when the present practice of trying British-born subjects by Court-martial in camera and executing decisions so reached was introduced; whether before those trials or before the executions the legality of that procedure and the law, if any, on which it was supposed to be based were ascertained, and the fiat of any Civil Court, judge, or Law Officer obtained; how many British-born subjects have been executed and how many are now undergoing penal servitude in pursuance of sentences of courts-martial held in camera; and, seeing that this procedure is not warranted by any law, but only by a Regulation which has never been judicially reviewed, and that its victims are now powerless to have it so reviewed, whether he will take immediate steps to get a decision of a competent Civil Court on the legality or illegality of holding field-general courts-martial in camera, in order that Parliament may deal with the matter this Session?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Frederick Smith): The answer to the first part of the question is that the practice was introduced at the outbreak of war. The answer to the second part of the question is that the Irish Law Officers advised in
    1314
    favour of the legality of the proceedings. The third part of the question should be addressed to the War Office. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that I got an answer in this House to the effect that the Irish Law Officers did not accept responsibility, and in view of that answer, which is in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will he not have the decision of a competent Court upon this matter before the Session closes?
    Sir F. SMITH: I cannot have the decision of a competent Court. The hon. Member is in error as to the functions I discharge. As to any previous answer in reference to this matter and the Irish Law Officers, I have not any such answer in my mind, but I will inquire into that.
    Mr. GINNELL: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that the Irish Law Officers did not give any flat or authority for these proceedings, will he then act?
    Sir F. SMITH: There is no question of my acting. Whatever the Irish Law Officers advised, I am satisfied these proceedings were legal. I cannot go beyond that.
    Mr. GINNELL: In view of the fact that the Law Officers have not advised in these proceedings, will the Prime Minister himself say whether he will deal with these matters of life and death before the Session closes?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I must have notice of that question.

    CENSORSHIP (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister when the Government authorised a secret circular to be addressed by the military authorities to the Press in Ireland prohibiting the publication of blanks indicating matter censored; if he can state the cause that led to the issue of this circular; whether such an order has been issued to the Press in this country; whether it is to be enforced by the suppression of periodical publications printed with censored parts blank; if he will name any publication now due which has been prevented from appearing by this order; and, seeing that the omission of print from paper is not a positive act punishable under any Statute, that to compel concealment of the blank would be to compel a misleading

    1315
    false pretence, and that the secrecy of the circular prevents the public being informed that they are being misled, will he say under what statutory provision this circular has been issued and the publication of if forbidden?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Press in Ireland has had the benefit of the same guidance in this matter as has been given to the Press in England. The circular was a request to the Press, and has been accepted and followed in the spirit of loyalty to the national interest which might be expected. The object of suppressing blanks indicating matters censored is to avoid the suggestion of information to the enemy.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper—whether, as a matter of fact, a secret circular similar to the one mentioned in this question has been sent to the Press of this country, and whether a publisher is not at liberty to publish a blank publication if he chooses?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have given an answer to that already.

    DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.
    The following question was on the Paper in the name of Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL:
    46. Whether, regard being had to the fact that His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh, and Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, a traitor in arms with the enemies of these countries against the Sovereign and people of the British Empire, is in the line of succession to the Throne under the provisions of the Act of Settlement, any and what steps will be taken to deprive him of his position under these provisions?
    Mr. MacNEILL: I postponed this question by request from this day week until to-day, and at the further request of the right hon Gentleman I postpone it until to-morrow. This is the third and last time of asking.

    NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether the arbitration between the
    1316
    War Office and the National Relief Fund is now completed; and, if so, what amount the War Office is to repay the fund?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman not let us know whether this arbitration is now completed in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement outside the House the other day that he is going to give an extra £6,000,000? This money is due to them, and can the right hon. Gentleman let the House know when the War Office is going to pay the money back to this Committee?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot fix a date. I will do all I can to hurry it on.
    Sir C. KINLOCH COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much, if any, of the National Relief Fund has been expended in connection with the relief of men in the Royal Navy; and whether it is intended to repay the same so expended to that fund, and, if so, when?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): We have no information as to expenditures from the National Relief Fund, except those already given in the published accounts. From this it appears that from the beginning of the War until 31st March, 1916, the total expenditure from the fund in relief of both naval and military cases was £2,624,249. It is not possible to distinguish money expended on relief for the Royal Navy from similar expenditure for the Army. There is no intention of refunding from Navy Votes the money thus expended, but arrangements are in force for recovery, in proper cases, from separation allowance payments, of sums advanced from the fund in anticipation of the issue of separation allowance.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that this money was contributed for civil and not for naval and military purposes?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of that. I should have thought there could not have been very much expended on behalf of naval cases. Great care was taken to meet claims at the earliest possible opportunity.

    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in the ranks of the Dublin Metropolitan Police caused by the recent orders instructing them to go through a course of military training and musketry drill; if he can say whether this is being done on the advice of the opponents of Home Rule; if he is aware that the Dublin Metropolitan Police were called upon to pay their own expenses, including board and lodging, whilst at Dollymount Camp undergoing their drill; if he is aware that this action on the part of the authorities is resented by the men, who maintain that they joined a civil and unarmed force for the protection of life and property; if he is aware that men long over military age, with from thirty to forty years' service, were compelled to take part in these military drillings; if he is aware that the Dublin Metropolitan Police resent being turned into an armed force under a military body; if he will say whether it is contemplated to increase their pay or grant them a bonus for this military work; if he is aware that the Dublin Metropolitan Police are the lowest paid force in the United Kingdom; if he can say when their conditions are likely to be improved; if he is aware that the action of the Government and their suggestion to appoint resident magistrates to try persons who could not be found guilty of charges made against them by either judge or jury and the continuance of martial law is looked upon with distrust and suspicion by the Irish people; and if he will say what steps, if any, he intends to take to find out the views of the Irish people as to the best means of a settlement of the Irish question?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not aware of any dissatisfaction amongst the Dublin Metropolitan Police in respect of musketry training except on the part of a few malcontents. This training is being carried out by direction of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief with the consent of the Government. The cost of conveyance of Dublin Metropolitan Police to and from Dollymount is being defrayed out of public funds. In the first instance, the men remained at Dollymount during the whole course; they were provided with free lodgings and were messed at a lower rate than in their own barrackc. Arrangements were subsequently made to limit the course to a daily attendance of three hours, thus
    1318
    permitting the men to live and obtain their meals in their own barracks. Orders were issued that no man over twenty-five years' service was to be detailed for this course, but I regret to say that inadvertently a certain number of men over that service were included in the classes. It is not proposed that this force should carry rifles when on duty or otherwise except in cases of the gravest necessity. An extra messing allowance has been approved for men on musketry duty sleeping at Dollymount, and an application for the grant of a war bonus for the force is receiving consideration. It is not the fact that the Dublin Metropolitan Police are the lowest paid force in the United Kingdom. As regards the large issues raised in the last two parts of the question, I am not in a position to add anything to statements previously made.
    Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a suggestion has been made that these men should be trained in the use of firearms, this being another term for coercion?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have nothing to add to my answer.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is it not the fact, as alleged in the question, that these policemen were called upon to pay their own expenses, including board and lodging, whilst at the Dollymount Camp undergoing drill. If that be true, and I believe it, will he take steps to remedy it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will read my answer he will see that I have replied to it. It certainly is not the case.
    Mr. NUGENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dissatisfaction that exists in the Dublin Metropolitan Police, so much so that meetings have been held to protest against their treatment as well as the conduct of one of the principal officers and one of the chief advisers of Sir John Maxwell.
    Mr. SAMUEL: No; I was not aware of it.
    COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Prime Minister whether the Committee which he has appointed to consider the commercial and industrial policy after the War will have power under the terms of reference to recommend a general tariff on foreign imports for the purposes of revenue and

    1319
    for the protection of Home industries; and, if not, whether he will enlarge the reference, so as to enable these two matters to be included?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The questions to which the Government desire to direct the special attention of the Committee are set out in the second part of the terms of reference; but the reference is so drawn as not to hamper the Committee in considering any questions which they may think relevant to the main object of their inquiry.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will state why Ireland is not represented on the committee appointed to consider the Commercial and Industrial Policy to be adopted after the War; if he is aware that Ireland needs a share of the revival of trade; and if, in justice to Ireland and the Irish soldiers, he will appoint Irish representatives on the committee.
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I informed the hon. Member for Waterford on Thursday last, I shall be glad to consider any suggestion he may make.
    Major NEWMANasked whether the members of the Committee appointed to consider commercial problems after the War, and who are nominated in view of their personal ability to consider such problems, will deal with such problems as affecting the United Kingdom only or of the Empire as a whole?
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked why no representatives of the Dominions have been appointed on the Committee on industrial and commercial policy to be adopted after the War, having regard to the fact that the Committee is to inquire into the resources of the Empire and how the sources of supply within the Empire can be prevented from falling under Foreign control?
    Mr. MACMASTERasked why in the constitution of the Committee appointed to consider the terms of the report of the recent Paris Conference and industrial conditions after the War there is no one included from the Dominions or Dependencies; and what steps the Government will now take to remedy this omission?
    Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPSasked the Prime Minister what arrange-
    1320
    ments, if any, he proposes to make for the representation of the Oversea Dominions on the Committee which is to consider the commercial and industrial policy to be adopted after the War, with special reference to the conclusions reached at the Economic Conference of the Allies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will answer these questions together by reading a telegram which was sent by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Self-governing Dominions early in May:
    "His Majesty's Government desire as soon as practicable to convene a Conference representative of the United Kingdom, the Dominions and India to consider the commercial policy to be adopted after the War.
    In view of past fiscal controversies in this country, we consider it essential as a prior step in order that the Conference may have practical results, to set up a Committee here with a view of discovering how far agreement among ourselves may be possible under the changed conditions brought about by the War. But we wish to make it clear that in our judgment the appointment of this Committee, whatever may be its result, will not as we hope delay unduly the holding of the larger Conference or interfere in any way with the free and unprejudiced discussion of the problems with the overseas representatives.
    I trust that this method of procedure will commend itself to your Ministers."
    The Dominion Governments concurred in this procedure, and the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman refers has accordingly been appointed.
    Mr. MACMASTER: Was not that telegram sent prior to the sitting of the Paris Conference; was not the composition of the Paris Conference modified in order to comply with the reasonable request that the Dominions overseas should be represented; and, in view of the fact that the principle was there recognised, is it not reasonable now that, in working out the details of the scheme, the Dominions should be represented?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir Mr. Hughes went to the Paris Conference as representing the Empire, not as representing any particular Dominion.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Does the right hon. Gentleman desire the free discussion of the fiscal system throughout the country or is it to be confined to this Committee?

    CHELSEA HOSPITAL.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of altering the constitution of the Chelsea Commissioners so as to include civilian representation?
    Mr. FORSTER: As at present advised, I do not think it necessary to add to the number of civilians, who now constitute about one-third of the Commission.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the civilians on this Committee are connected with the War Office and that, in fact, there is no civilian at all on the Committee?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think it improbable, when you are dealing with Army pensions, that the majority of members should be representatives of the War Office. My hon. Friend is quite in error in thinking that there are no civilians on the Committee.
    Mr. HOGGE: I have examined every name on the Committee and there is no name that is unconnected with one of the Departments. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these pensions are now paid over a much wider area and that therefore there ought to be civilian representation; and is he also aware that the Treasury has not yet appointed its representative?

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister what Government Departments are responsible for bringing to the notice of the public in this country and in neutral countries the black list of firms which have business relations or sympathies with the enemy; what steps are being taken to make the list a comprehensive one and to ensure for it the widest publicity; and whether copies will be placed in the Library of the House and circulated to the Press?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Statutory List, which is presumably the list referred to by the hon. Member, is compiled by the Foreign Trade Department of the Foreign Office and is issued by the Privy Council Office, as a Statutory Order, and distributed by the Foreign Trade Department. The original list was issued by Proclamation on the 29th of February, 1915, additions being made by Order of Council from time to time; a consolidating list, containing all the names added up to the date of issue, is published every two months. All reasonable steps are taken to secure for it publicity, including communication to the Press.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Are there not British subjects abroad who are trading with the enemy not with standing this list?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think the Statutory List affects the question of British subjects abroad trading with the enemy.
    Mr. HOUSTON: It ought to!
    Lord R. CECIL: As my hon. Friend is aware, we issue the Statutory List in accordance with an Act of Parliament.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

      EXECUTIVE.
      Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister who is at present in control of the Executive Government of Ireland; and who is responsible to this House for the Irish Executive?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The Civil Executive Government of Ireland is being administered by the Lords Justices acting under the general direction of His Majesty's Government conveyed through the Home Secretary. In accordance with constitutional precedent, when the office of Chief Secretary is unfilled, or there is no Chief Secretary in the Cabinet, the Home Secretary is responsible to this House for Irish Affairs. In military matters General Maxwell exercises the powers of General Officer Commanding in Ireland, which include, of course, the exceptional powers conferred on the military authorities by the Defence of the Realm Act.
      Mr. DILLON: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement made on behalf of the Government on 11th July, to the following effect:
      "I say with a certain amount of confidence that under the system which exists at this moment there ought not to be much fear of Ireland getting out of hand. General Sir John Maxwell is responsible for the conduct of Irish affairs, with, I believe, some 40,000 soldiers to support him, and with the control of the Royal Irish Constabulary in his hands. Lord Midleton asked me whether he would have a free hand. I am certainly not aware of any case in which his hands have been tied by any restrictions calculated to interfere with his authority or his freedom of action. There is no Lord Lieutenant. There is no Chief Secretary. There is no representative of the Irish Government in either House of Parliament."
      That was the declaration of Lord Lansdowne, made on behalf of the Government. How does the Prime Minister reconcile that declaration with the answer he has now given?
      The PRIME MINISTER: These are rather debatable points. My answer must be taken to be the opinion of the Government.

      PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he has received information that the reasons of necessity for the safety of the Empire, which were urged on leaders of Irish political parties as making necessary an immediate settlement, exist after an interval of two months with an equal urgency, or has he information that the difficulty then apprehended is no longer of such vital character and affords no immediate justification for the introduction of controversial legislation during the continuance of hostilities?
      The PRIME MINISTER: This question raises controversial points which cannot be dealt with in an answer to a question.

      LENGTH OF SESSION.
      Mr. LOUGHasked the Prime Minister whether he can now state when he expects that the present Parliamentary Session will end, and when he anticipates that it will be necessary for the House to reassemble?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot at present answer this question.

      NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether, despite all the provision existing for allowances and pensions, there is increasing hardship due to the increased cost of living; and whether he is prepared to consider an all-round increase in the minimum allowances to overcome this hardship?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I fear that any all-round increase in the rates of separation allowances and pensions is on financial grounds quite out of the question at the present time.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is not the increase in the cost of food from 1st July, 1915, till to-day between 45 per cent and 50 per cent.—that appears in the "Board of Trade Gazette"—and in view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision he has now given?
      The PRIME MINISTER: We know all the facts.
      Mr. HOGGE: Then I will raise the question on the Vote of Credit this afternoon.

    MUNITIONS.

      CENTRAL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
      Commander BELLAIRSasked the Minister of Munitions (1), in view of the fact that the inquiries concerning the application of the Central Liquor Control Board to the south-eastern area heard the evidence of the representatives of the licensing justices of each Petty Sessional division, the licensing justices of each county borough, the municipal authorities, and the police constabulary, who all testified against the action which has now been taken, whether he can state on whose evidence the Government have relied and what was the object of going through the pretence of holding inquiries; (2) whether he will receive a deputation of members from the south-eastern counties on the application of the Liquor Control Board Regulations to those counties; if so, will he postpone the Order until he has heard their views on the matter; and (3) whether he is aware that an Order applying the Liquor Control Board Regulations to the south-eastern area comes into force to-day; whether he is aware that the Board held an inquiry at Canterbury for Kent on 8th May, and at Brighton for Sussex and Surrey on 12th May, at which every speaker expressed the opinion that there was no necessity whatever for any extension of restrictive measures, and that no useful purpose would be served thereby; and whether, in view of the fact that the decision is against the unanimous evidence of all the recognised authorities of the south-eastern counties, he will at once withdraw the Order?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): I am not able to accept the hon. Member's description of the views of the representatives of local authorities and licensing justices, who attended the inquiries which were held, as a fair summary of the proceedings at those inquiries. As the hon. Member observes, the Order comes into operation to-day, and while the Department will be glad to receive any representations respecting its operation which may be addressed to them, I am not aware of any grounds for the postponement or withdrawal of the Order, which was based upon the request of the military authorities.
      Commander BELLAIRS: Does the right hon. Gentleman state that the military authorities in Kent and Canterbury asked for this Order?
      Dr. ADDISON: Yes.
      Mr. R. McNEILL: Since the Department is not willing to accept the account which the local authorities represented at this meeting themselves gave, will the right hon. Gentleman in future have an official shorthand note taker in order that there may be no doubt?
      Dr. ADDISON: I think there was an official shorthand writer. I saw a long report afterwards and I think it purported to be a shorthand report. I will look into it.
      Mr. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that the representatives of the local authorities and licensing justices and magistrates all give an account of this which he will not accept?
      Mr. J. SAMUEL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these Regulations and Orders have been in force in the North of England for months and months?
      Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

    MERCHANT OFFICERS (UNIFORMS).
    Mr. PETO(speaking from the Opposition Gangway): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the wearing of their uniforms ashore by merchant captains and officers has been officially sanctioned by the Admiralty and the Board of Trade; whether he is aware of cases where senior naval officers have questioned these uniforms stating that, being similar to naval uniforms, they are calculated to deceive, and, as such, those wearing them are liable to prosecution under the Defence of the Realm Act; and whether, in order to avoid placing such indignities upon merchant captains and officers and for the sake of better order and discipline on merchant vessels, he will consider the desirability of adopting a standard uniform recognised by the Government for the use of officers of the merchant service, thus abolishing those uniforms of a heterogeneous kind which are adopted by different shipowners and which are liable to question under the new conditions of the law?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to ask a Question from there.

    DAIMLER COMPANY v. CONTINENTAL TYRE COMPANY.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the Attorney-General whether he will place upon the Table of the House and circulate as a Parliamentary Paper the judgment recently rendered in the House of Lords in the case of the Daimler Company, Limited, versus the Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain), Limited, and the reasons given by their lordships on that occasion?
    Sir F. SMITH: A full report of this decision has appeared in the Press, and it will, I understand, be fully reported in the various series of Law reports. It appears, therefore, unnecessary to adopt the course suggested by my hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. MACMASTER: In view of the fact that the judgment was only reported in a very few newspapers and in the Law reports, can it not be published and circulated?
    Sir F. SMITH: No one is more aware than my hon. and learned Friend how technical most of the judgments in the matter were. I was astonished that they were so very fully reported. Anyone who desires to have a technical report can find five or six Law reports.

    PROSECUTION OF MR. GINNELL, M.P.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General why the simple charge against Labras Uasal Mag Fionngail, of having written his name in Irish at Knutsford on the 25th June, was not dealt with immediately after: why it was not fully dealt with even at Bow Street on the 15th instant; whether the prosecution was instituted, and the long delay to the 28th obtained, at the instance of the Irish party, with a view to removing the defendant's opposition to the proposal for the partition of Ireland; whether he is aware that this is confirmed by the fact that Mr. Martin, of the Passport Office, invited the defendant to Whitehall, ostensibly for information already given to him but really to get the defendant arrested there; and having regard to the simplicity of the charge, whether he will have the case finally dealt with to-morrow instead of the 28th instant?
    Sir F. SMITH: The charge against the hon. Gentleman is not correctly described in the question. It could not be dealt with before the 15th July, the interval between the 25th June and that date being occupied in making the necessary inquiries previous to launching a criminal charge. It was not fully dealt with on the 15th instant, as it was impossible between the hour of arrest at 10 a.m. and the hour of the hearing, 11 a.m., at Bow Street on that day, to secure the attendance of the witnesses, some of whom reside in the country. As to the next parts of the question, the answer is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question, it is entirely a matter for the magistrate.
    Mr. GINNELL: Why was not the defendant in this case summoned before the magistrate, instead of being arrested and brought before him in custody?
    Sir F. SMITH: If the hon. Member will give me notice of the question I will give an answer.

    POST OFFICE STATIONERY.
    Major HUNTasked the Postmaster-General whether stamped envelopes and other articles sold by the Post Office are still supplied at pre-war prices; and, if not, are the prices charged commensurate with the increases in the cost of materials?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Joseph Pease): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am looking closely into the cost of production. As soon as I have the full facts in front of me I shall be in a position to decide whether any action is necessary.
    Major HUNT: Does it not strike the right hon. Gentleman that unless the prices are complete it is very unfair?
    Mr. PEASE: I think that is probably a fallacy. However, I am looking into the whole question, and will take steps to decide it at as early a date as I possibly can.

    POST OFFICE EMPLOYES, DUBLIN.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Postmaster-General if he will consider the advisability of increasing the wages of Post Office employés in Dublin; if he is aware that an immediate increase is necessary to enable them to meet the increase in the cost of living; and if he will consent to receive a deputation to hear their views on the necessity of an increased wage?
    Mr. PEASE: I have already received a deputation on this subject from the National Joint Committee which represents the rank and file of the Post Office Service generally. The case is under the consideration of the Government. I could not treat the case of Dublin specially, and there would be no object in receiving a deputation from Dublin.

    ROYAL NAVAL AIR SERVICE.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether further aerodromes are required for training in the Royal Naval Air Service; and whether the demands in this direction, although maintained by the highest expert authority and advice, are receiving the support of the Treasury?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The training schools of the Royal Naval Air Service, for which approval has been given to date, are considered sufficient to meet the requirements of that Service. All large works undertaken by the Admiralty, such as these, are carried out with the concurrence of the Treasury.

    ROYAL DOCKYARD WAGES.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is the intention of the Government to give a further 3s. bonus to men employed in the Royal dockyards; and, if so, from what date will the new payment be made?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot make an announcement at present.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make an announcement?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot.

    RETIRED NAVAL OFFICERS.
    Major HUNTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why a naval officer who has served several years on the Active List in the Navy before joining the Emergency List is, after rejoining the Active List when recalled by the Admiralty for the War, not only deprived of his seniority for the years when on the Emergency List, but also prevented from being allowed to count

    1329
    for pension those years in which he was on the Active List in the Navy before joining the Emergency List?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Officers on the Emergency List, on rejoining for active service during war, are not deprived of any seniority, nor are emergency officers entitled to any pension, but receive a gratuity at the close of their service. I imagine my hon. Friend has in mind the case of an officer who has resigned from the Active List, joined the Emergency List, and on coming up for service during war applied to be reinstated on the Active List. In cases such as this, it is the invariable practice to reduce an officer's seniority by the time he has been absent from the Active List; otherwise he would reach his turn for promotion, or for consideration of promotion, as the case may be, in the same position as though he had served continuously on the Active List, and this would hardly be fair to his contemporaries who had served on the Active List continuously. It has also been laid down that officers who resign and are subsequently reinstated on the Active List cannot count their previous service towards pension.
    Major HUNT: Why is this disability in-sited on by the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is no disability. The Emergency List of officers represents gentlemen who have retired from the Service with no pension. They are called back to the Service and get service pay plus 25 per cent. There is no disability.
    Major HUNT: Does not the Admiralty compel them to come back? Surely they should be allowed to count these years for their pensions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have explained that they were not entitled to a pension when they went on the Emergency List. What we do is to pay them active service pay plus 25 per cent.

    HERRING FISHERY, HOWTH.
    Mr. CLANCYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been directed to the danger threatened to the herring fishery industry at Howth, county Dublin, by the want of shipping facilities for the transport across the Channel to England; whether he is aware
    1330
    that already, from this cause, the price of the fish at Howth has dropped 50 per cent. or more, and that fish threatens to become unsaleable if the want of transport facilities continues; whether a large number of English as well as Irish boats are affected; and whether, in view of the fact that cheap food for the masses of the people, especially at the present moment, is a prime imperial necessity and that much of the fish consumed in England comes from Ireland, immediate steps will be taken to liberate sufficient tonnage to avert, the threatened destruction of the industry at Howth?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Apart from information furnished privately by my hon. Friend to the Admiralty, the answer to the first three parts of the question is in the negative, and, as regards the fourth inquiry, it is not possible to release vessels at present on naval and military service for this purpose.

    SPIRITS AND BEER DUTY.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the amount of spirits and beer on which duty has been paid since the beginning of the financial year in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, compared with similar periods in previous years?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I would refer the hon. Member to the figures published every quarter in the Monthly Accounts of Trade. I am sending him the figures published in the April Account; the July Account will not be ready for publication till the 7th August.

    WOOL.
    Mr. P. WHITEasked the Secretary to the Treasury when he hopes to have the Central Committee dealing with the purchase of this year's wool clip in working order; and whether he will state if merchants who bought this year's clip before the War Office signified any intention of commandeering this year's supply will be allowed cost price if clearly proved?
    Mr. FORSTER: The first meeting of the Central Advisory Committee for Ireland met in Dublin on the 20th instant. In regard to the second part of the question, wool of the 1916 clip bought, paid for, and

    1331
    delivered before the date of the Order will be licensed for sale or purchased at the market prices ruling before 8th June.
    Mr. WHITE: Can the hon. Gentleman say who are the members of the Central Advisory Committee in Dublin?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot give the names at the moment. They will be published shortly.
    Mr. WHITE: Has the hon. Gentleman selected the names?
    Mr. FORSTER: They were selected rather late. The representatives of the agricultural community were appoimted on the recommendation of the Board of Agriculture.
    Mr. BYRNE: Does it not consist of fourteen members, eleven of whom are from Yorkshire and three from Ireland?
    Mr. WHITE: Has the hon. Gentleman kept his promise to put upon the Advisory Committee those connected with agriculture in Ireland?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope, when the names are published, the hon. Gentleman will see that that promise has been kept.

    INCOME TAX (REPAYMENT OF CLAIMS).
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can arrange that the Inland Revenue Department should expedite the repayment of claims under the Income Tax Acts in order to relieve the hardships that are now being suffered by persons who are only liable for small amounts or for no payment whatever and from whom substantial sums are being withheld owing to the high rate of taxation and the system of deduction at the source?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As my right hon. Friend no doubt is aware, claims for repayment of Income Tax are not spread evenly over the whole year, but are received in very great numbers during a limited period of time. I am glad, however, to be able to tell him that claims which do not necessitate inquiry are now being dealt with, and the money order issued, within an average interval of fourteen days. Where inquiry is necessary every effort is also made to accelerate the repayment.
    Mr. WATT: Have not schemes for repayment been laid aside by his Department until the Department gets leisure to deal with them? They never seem to get the leisure, so these matters are not dealt with.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that many old age pensioners have been driven to seek relief in the Wexford Workhouse Infirmary owing to the increase in the price of the necessaries of life and have freely given their pensions as part payment for their support; and, seeing that the pension officer is raising questions apparently with a view to deprive these people of their pensions, will he, by legislation, or otherwise, restrain such action on the part of pension officers?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My attention had not previously been called to the facts alleged in the first part of the question. I do not think that a case has been made out for amending the Old Age Pensions Acts in the manner suggested in the second part of the question.
    Mr. FFRENCH: Is it the intention of the Treasury to put Irish old age pensioners on the rates; if not, why do not they allow the Poor Law Boards to supplement the pensions, which are admittedly too low to support poor people?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That would be contrary to the whole principle of the Old Age Pensions Act.
    Mr. KENNEDYasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether in dealing with old age pensions in Ireland regard is had to the increase of income due to receipt of Navy or Army separation allowances; and will he have instructions issued to the proper authorities dealing with this matter and thus avoid endless trouble to representative bodies and others concerned?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my predecessor gave to the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow on the 27th April last, of which I am sending him a copy. As regards the last part of the question, I shall be glad to have inquiry made if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any particular case in which difficulties have arisen.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not in reviewing the amount which these old age pensioners receive the question of separation allowance is taken into account?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That depends upon the circumstances. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the answer, in which that point was dealt with.
    Mr. KENNEDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any differential treatment of the old age pensioners in this country and in Ireland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: No.

    ROYAL HORSE ARTILLERY (BOMBARDIER J. MILLS).
    Mr. HOHLERasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Bombardier J. Mills, No. 63118, V Battery, Royal Horse Artillery, now serving in France, lost his father on 14th June, 1915, leaving his mother, Mrs. Mills, of 66, Rochester Avenue, Rochester, a widow; that the son, on hearing of his father's death, allotted his mother 3s. 6d. a week, now increased to 7s., out of his pay, but the widow receives no separation allowance; that on the 12th May last the case was represented on her behalf to the War Pensions Statutory Committee and separation allowance asked for; that beyond a printed acknowledgment the Statutary Committee appear to have done nothing; and will he at once take steps to see that separation allowance, with arrears, be issued to Mrs. Mills?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The grant of a separation allowance in a case of the kind referred to is a matter for the War Office. It has not, I believe, been their practice to grant separation allowances in such cases, but they have been approached on the subject by the Statutory Committee, and they are giving consideration to it. As regards Mrs. Mills, the facts appear to be as stated in the question, except that her case has received attention from the Statutory Committee. They have been in communication respecting it with the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, who, pending the taking up of their duties by the local committee, have been carrying on the work. They are informed that, in addition to the allotment
    1334
    of pay from her son, Mrs. Mills receives 7s. a week from her daughter, and that she does laundry work herself. She does not seem to be in need of help at the present time, but arrangements have been made by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association for giving her assistance should the need for it arise.
    Mr. HOHLER: Is the right hon. Gentlean not aware that the Financial Secretary to the War Office stated that these pensions would be granted by the Statutory Committee, and has he made any inquiry as to what is the charge of 7s. a week upon the wages of the daughter?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Statutory Committee are perfectly willing to consider the question, and the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association have, in fact, already considered it.
    Mr. HOHLER: Did not the Financial Secretary to the War Office state, in this House, that the Statutory Committee would grant this separation allowance in cases of a widow becoming dependent after the War?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am not aware that he made any statement affecting this particular case.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.
    Mr. HOGGE(by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say if the capital sum of £6,000,000 which he proposes to give to the Statutory Committee is to be used for current expenditure or whether it is to be funded and the income there from only used; whether he proposes to introduce another Naval and Military War Pensions (Expenses) Bill, and if so, when, or whether the amount will simply be paid from the Treasury as and when it is required; and whether he can state how long he anticipates the amount will last if it is to be used for current expenditure?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The intention is that the capital sum shall be invested, and the income used so far as it will go in meeting current expenditure. But as the pensions and allowances will be terminable the capital sum will itself be gradually realised and used for the same purpose until it is exhausted. The necessary legislation will be introduced at an early date.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: Will the £6,000,000 promised follow the £1,000,000 voted last year?
    Mr. McKENNA: Five millions beyond the £1,000,000, making £6,000,000 in all.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that means only an annual income of £300,000?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. Inasmuch as the pensions are terminable it is quite clear that the mere interest upon the capital sum must not be taken as the proper charge to be made.
    Mr. HOGGE: On what authority does the right hon. Gentleman say that the pensions are terminable?
    Mr. McKENNA: Because persons are mortal.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any anticipation that the grant of this sum will prevent soldiers having to have recourse to charity in any form?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have no doubt whatever that the amount alone paid by the State would be or should be sufficient to prevent the state of things to which my hon. Friend refers. The present proposal is to pay a rate in addition to the flat rate which has already been authorised by this House.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me a moment ago apply to members of the Cabinet?

    NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.

      Land Purchase (Ireland).
      Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary (1) whether, in regard to the Tiermanagh farm, Kelly-Kenny estate, West Clare, the Congested Districts Board will take note of public sentiment in the locality and act in accordance with the spirit and intention of the Land Act, 1909, and now proceed to divide the land for the benefit of the congests on the estate and not for the benefit of a farmer who has had no interest in this farm, who already possesses three substantial holdings, and whose case could be otherwise dealt with; and (2) whether, in reference to the division of the Tiermanagh farm, Kelly-Kenny estate, West Clare, he is aware that M'Mahon, the farmer to whom the block in dispute was given, is an unmarried man of middle age who previously had no interest in the farm, and that those
      1336
      who were excluded were some of them married men with families of the type indicated in the Land Act of 1909; and whether, in view of local allegations of favouritism, he will order a public inquiry into the whole transaction?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The facts regarding this case were explained at length in my reply to the hon. Member's questions on the 6th instant. The Congested Districts Board are aware that M'Mahon is an unmarried man, but they are of opinion that the exchange of land which they arranged with him enabled them to do much more for the relief of congestion in the neighbourhood of the land vacated by him than they could have done by the distribution of the land given to him in connection with Doolough Lodge. They are satisfied that they have made the best arrangements in the interest of the relief of congestion and that they have acted in accordance with the spirit and intentions of the Land Acts.

      Southampton Post Office.
      Mr. W. THORNEasked the Postmaster-General whether he will now give a decision regarding the application from the Southampton Branch of the Controlling Officers asking that the Southampton office should be granted similar higher grade appointments as at other offices where the unit value of work is less than at Southampton; whether, if the decision is given in favour, he will, on account of the delay, make it retrospective; and if he is aware that similar superior appointments as those asked for at Southampton were authorised at Cardiff in 1908, where the unit value of work was 1.920, as regards the Southampton unit, which is 2.058?
      Mr. J. PEASE: It will not be practicable during the continuance of the War to undertake any revision of the grading of higher appointments in provincial post offices. The allocation of such appointments at Cardiff in 1908 was based on then existing conditions. The volume of work at Cardiff at that time was greater than at Southampton, but that feature would not of itself determine the number and grading of supervising posts.

      Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway.
      Mr. THOMASasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to a strike of milesmen, whose wages are only 13s. per week and 1s. war bonus, on the Londonderry and

      1337
      Lough Swilly Railway, which is partly owned by the Irish Board of Works, owing to the refusal of the controlling company to pay the same rate of wages as is paid on the adjoining Midland N. C. C. narrow gauge line, Derry to Strabane; and, in view of the fact that these lines are partly State-owned, and that this is the second strike that has taken place there of late owing to the abnormally low wages paid, whether he will take steps to ensure an amicable settlement of the question at present in dispute?
      Mr. HARCOURT: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am informed that, the surfacemen having tendered notices in support of a claim for an increase of wages, an interview between their representatives and the directors of the company took place, at which the company intimated that the men would be given the same pay and conditions as existed on the Donegal Railway, which is partly owned by the Midland Railway Company. This decision was, apparently, not accepted, and a stoppage of work took place on the part of certain of the men. I will inquire whether the wages and conditions on the Donegal Line are the same as those on the Midland Company's line from Strabane to Londonderry, to which my hon. Friend refers. Part of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway is owned by the Board of Works, and that portion is worked by the railway company under an agreement with that body, but I understand that the Board of Works have no control over the conditions of service.

      Prison Warders, Ireland.
      Mr. CREANasked when the Irish prison warders will receive the benefits of the scheme which was sanctioned by the Treasury on the 11th April?
      Mr. SAMUEL: It is hoped that the arrangements which are being made to increase the pay of Irish prison warders will be completed at an early date.
      Mr. CREAN: We were told that more than three months ago by the late Chief Secretary.
      Mr. SAMUEL: It is not only a question of finance. There are certain questions of reorganisation of staff bound up with the question of finance, and that is why there has been some delay. I am assured that it is unavoidable.
      Mr. P. MEEHAN: Will the benefit scheme apply equally to female warders?
      Mr. SAMUEL: That is one of the points which is at present under consideration; it is not quite decided. I hope that it may

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.

  PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether the Government have decided to depart from the terms of the agreement arrived at by Irish parties, accepting the proposals put before them by the Secretary of State for War, and whether they have determined to insert in their draft Bill new proposals at variance with that agreement without even consulting the Nationalist party, and whether he has received an intimation that any Bill so framed in violation of the agreement come to will be vigorously opposed at all its stages by the Irish party?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The agreement come to on this question was, as I said a fortnight ago, arranged by my right hon. Friend, subject to reference to and approval by the Cabinet. Two main principles embodied in that agreement were accepted by both sections of the Cabinet, Unionists and Home Rulers. The Unionists of the Cabinet, as they said, and I am sure quite sincerely, influenced very largely by the attitude of the hon. and learned Member and his Friends during the War, agreed that the Government of Ireland Act should be called into immediate operation; on the other hand, the Home Rulers in the Cabinet agreed that six Ulster counties should not be brought in except by their own consent, and with the express authority of a new Act of Parliament. In the course of the settling of the Bill effecting these objects two questions arose which required consideration. The first was as to the form in which the exclusion of the Ulster counties should be provided for. We believed that it was common ground among all parties to the agreement that this area should not be subject to automatic inclusion, and we did not propose to do more than make that sure. The other question was the retention, after Home Rule, of the Irish Members in the

  1339
  Imperial Parliament, in undiminished numbers, as provided by one of the heads of the agreement. But on a full examination of the matter the Government felt that they could not themselves agree, or have any expectation of the House of Commons being brought to agree, to accept this arrangement, to continue after the next election except for the purpose of any proposed alteration in the Government of Ireland Act or of the Amending Bill. With this explanation the answer to the question of my hon. Friend is that the Government do not propose to introduce any Bill in regard to which there is not beforehand the prospect of a substantial agreement between all the principal parties concerned.
  Mr. REDMOND: The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is, of course, in the nature of an argument, and cannot be answered by me in the form of a question, but I must be allowed to say this, that I emphatically repudiate the interpretation which he has put upon one Clause in the agreement. That Clause in the agreement is in existence, and the right hon. Gentleman can publish it. Further than that, that Clause was inserted in the draft Bill by the Government We stand by every word of that. I conclude by asking him whether it is not a fact that on Saturday last the Secretary of State for War and the Home Secretary sent for me and said that they had been entrusted by the Cabinet with the duty of conveying to me a message, and that their message was that a decision had been come to by the Cabinet upon these two points one of which I had never heard mentioned as having any objection taken to it at all, and that they informed me further that they were not empowered to discuss these matters with me, or to consult me at all, but were only empowered to convey the message that this decision had been come to?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not quite sure what my hon. and learned Friend's question is directed to, but I have told him, and I hope quite simply and explicitly, that we shall not introduce any Bill for this purpose unless we are satisfied beforehand that we have the assent of all the principal parties concerned.
  Mr. REDMOND: In the circumstances I will ask the permission of the House to move the Adjournment to call atten-
  1340
  tion to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the rapidly growing unrest in Ireland and the deplorable effect on the Irish situation which must result from the fact that the Government do not propose to carry out in their entirety the terms proposed by them for the temporary settlement of the Irish difficulty, and which were submitted by us to our supporters and accepted by both Irish parties.
  The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. and learned Member will allow me for a moment, I agree that this is a perfectly proper subject for discussion, but I do not think that the Motion for the Adjournment at a quarter-past eight would be the most convenient way of dealing with it. To-morrow would, I think—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. REDMOND: This matter does not rest with me, but as far as I am concerned I do not desire to postpone for one hour a discussion on the subject, and I must persist in asking for permission to move the Adjournment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Small nationalities!" "Scraps of Paper!" "You will betray Belgium if you betray Ireland!"]
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the rapidly growing unrest in Ireland and the deplorable effect on the Irish situation which must result from the fact that the Government do not propose to carry out in their entirety the terms proposed by them for the temporary settlement of the Irish difficulty which was accepted by Irish parties," is it your pleasure that leave be given?
  The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a quarter-past eight this evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "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.]
  4.0 P.M.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I would like to know how far the Government propose to go to-day? There are sixteen Orders on the Paper, and I presume that it is not the intention of the Government to take a large proportion of those sixteen Orders. I think that no one on either side of the House will object to the Government having the Vote of Credit, but I do think after what has just taken place that we ought to have an assurance from the Government that they will not go beyond the Vote of Credit. It is evident that there will be a discussion later on which cannot be over before eleven o'clock, and I do not think that it would be at all fair in the circumstances to enter on the other Orders on the Paper on a day like this. The right hon. Gentleman will see that I am making a reasonable request, that if we agree to allow the Vote of Credit to be taken we should not be asked to sit until twelve or one o'clock in the morning disposing of other matters.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us whether the Government adhere to their announce-on Thursday, that they intend to take the Bill in reference to the Committees on Mesopotamia and the Dardanelles through all its stages to-day, because that has an important bearing on this Resolution? How much business do they propose to take?
  Mr. LOUGH: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will allow me to call attention to the Amendment to the Vote of Credit which appears on the Paper, and to ask him whether this question will be proposed before the Vote of Credit is taken to which the Amendment is to be moved, or how the matter is to be disposed of, in view of the shortage of time?
  Sir E. CARSON: I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he would not recon-
  1358
  sider the question, having regard to what has taken place, whether he can get the Vote of Credit to-day at all? It is one of the few occasions open to us of raising a very large number of questions. I do not think, with the interruption from a quarter past eight until eleven o'clock, we could take all the business which is before the House, and I suggest that, if it goes on, the Vote of Credit might be continued to-morrow.
  Mr. W. O'BRIEN: As we have been refused a proper opportunity for full discussion, may I ask if it is necessary that the Motion for the Adjournment must conclude at eleven o'clock, or whether it may not be possible to continue the discussion to-morrow, so that Irish Members shall be fully entitled to avail themselves of the one opportunity they have had for the past twelve months of discussing vital Irish questions?
  Mr. SPEAKER: In reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. O'Brien), the Motion for the Adjournment, which comes on at a quarter-past eight, must terminate at eleven o'clock. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington (Mr. Lough), I will put the Question, "That I do now leave the Chair," and then he can move the Amendment which stands in his name on the Paper.
  The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the questions which have been addressed to me, I do not propose to take more than the Vote of Credit in Committee of Ways and Means. With regard to the question of my right hon. Friend (Sir Henry Dalziel), we do not propose to take all the stages of the Bill for the Commissions of Inquiry into the operation in Mesopotamia and the Dardanelles to-day. The Bill will be printed and circulated.
  Question put, and agreed to.

DARDANELLES AND MESOPOTAMIA

  INQUIRY BY SPECIAL COMMISSIONS.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to constitute Special Commissions to inquire into the conduct of operations of war in the Dardanelles and into the conduct of operations of war in Mesopotamia."
  This Bill was promised last week to constitute Special Commissions to inquire into the conduct of the operations in the Dardanelles and in Mesopotamia. The form of the Bill is on the precedents of the Special Commission Acts of 1888, of 1885, and of the Metropolitan Police Commission of 1886. This Bill for this, the first inquiry since the War started, follows the lines of those Acts. Having regard to the special conditions of this inquiry we propose to insert a Clause empowering the Commissioners to consider whether their proceedings ought to be in public or in private.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Does that discretion mean in any particular case or generally for the whole inquiry?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think in any particular case; of course, that may include a great deal. Provisions are inserted authorising persons to be represented by counsel. One particular novel and very important provision of this Bill is that which is necessitated by the special conditions of the case and full provision is made for sittings of the Commission in India. It is very undesirable that when the Commission are in India they should not exercise compulsory power to command the attendance of witnesses, and the production of such documents as they may require, and so forth.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: Is that in Mesopotamia as well?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Mesopotamia is not subject to civil law. As the military authorities are dominant there it is not necessary to make special provision for that yet. If sittings are required elsewhere—if, for instance, sittings in respect of the Dardanelles are required in Egypt or any Crown Colony—the necessary provision is made to empower the Commissioners, by Order in Council, to require the attendance of witnesses. In regard to my hon. Friend's question about Mesopotamia, as it is not under British sovereignty, the military authorities will be relied upon to order any persons subject to military law to attend the Commission. I think the Bill ought to be circulated in order that its provisions may be ascertained before we proceed to a general discussion of the measure, and I will put it down for to-morrow.
  1360
  Bill to constitute Special Commissions to inquire into the conduct of operations of War in the Dardanelles and into the conduct of operations of War in Mesopotamia, ordered to be brought in by the Prime Minister, Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Balfour, and the Attorney-General. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

SUPPLY.
  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT.

    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    The PRIME MINISTER: This is the third Vote of Credit for the present financial year that has been presented to the House of Commons. Previous Votes for the same year were on the 21st of February a Vote for £300,000,000, and on the 23rd of May a further Vote of £300,000,000; then follows this for £450,000,000; and the totals of the three Votes altogether are £1,050,000,000. I ought to remind the House of the total number of Votes of Credit since the outbreak of the War, although by this time they are generally familiar. There were taken for the financial year 1914–15 three Votes, amounting in all to £362,000,000. In the financial year 1915–16 there were six Votes, amounting in the aggregate to £1,420,000,000. If the House assents to the present Vote the aggregate, since the outbreak of the War, of the whole of the Votes amount in all to £2,832,000,000. The amount of the Vote now submitted is £450,000,000. It is substantially larger in amount than has ever been asked for before. The Vote of that magnitude is asked for, not because we anticipate any great expansion in the near future of the rate of expenditure, but because we are asking the House on this occasion to provide a sum that will last rather a longer period than ever before—to cover, for instance, any necessary Parliamentary Recess.
    I understand there is rather widespread misapprehension in regard to the statements made last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer

    1361
    that the expenditure in recent weeks has risen from £5,000,000 a day to over £6,000,000 a day. The statement has been interpreted to mean that for some time past the expenditure on the Vote of Credit has been £6,000,000 a day. It has been suggested that the present Vote had to be hurried on in consequence of that reason That is a misconception. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was referring not to the expenditure out of the Vote of Credit with which I am alone concerned to-day, but the total outlay in respect of all the services. The Budget framed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided for a total expenditure for all purposes and the daily average amounted to an expenditure of £5,000,000 a day. Of this £5,000,000 a day about £4,380,000 was the average daily expenditure on the Vote of Credit, and the balance, about £620,000, is to cover all other services—the Consolidated Fund Services (which include the service of the Debt), the ordinary supply services, the Civil Service of the country, the Inland Revenue and the Post Office. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his statement, explained to the House the reason why borrowing powers have become exhausted sooner than had been anticipated, but for this purpose the only relevant figure was the total outgoings on all accounts. I will point out the reason why the figure has risen from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000 a day. I am dealing for the moment, in presenting this Vote to the House, only with the expenditure out of the Vote of Credit, which is a different matter; and, in recent weeks, the expenditure out of the Vote of Credit has been, approximately, £5,000,000 a day The difference between that figure and £6,000,000 a day mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is accounted for partly by the Consolidated Fund payments, including Debt and ordinary Civil Service, and partly by the fact that expenditure in respect of the purchase of American securities has been heavier than the dollar expenditure in America. The excess of the amount spent on American securities over the amount of dollar expenditure in America does not of course represent the true figure; it is merely a transfer of assets from this country to America. For the moment the securities have to be paid for in cash and the money, therefore, has to be provided here. That is the whole explanation of the matter.
    Turning to the Vote of Credit itself that I am now submitting to the House, I
    1362
    will first review the progress of expenditure since my last statement on the 23rd May; and the figures which I am about to give show the true expenditure for the period in question, after allowing, as we always have to allow, for unexpended balances in the Army and Navy accounting offices, and for the advances made for the purchase of American securities, which, as I have said, are not disposed of in this country, and, therefore, are an asset in hand. The Vote passed by. the House on the 23rd May raised the total Grants in respect of Votes of Credit for the current year to £600,000,000. I then estimated that the Grant sanctioned by the House on that day would suffice to carry on the public services to approximately the middle of the first week in August. The total expenditure for the period from the 1st April to the 22nd July was £559,000,000, and the Votes passed by the House in Votes of Credit £600,000,000. That shows a balance in hand of £41,000,000, sufficient to carry on the services for a little over one week. It follows that the existing Grant of £600,000,000 will be exhausted a little earlier than was anticipated. I said the middle of the first week in August, and actually it will be the end of July. Coming back again to my statement of the 23rd May, I dealt then in detail with the period from the 1st April to Saturday, 20th May, fifty days, and I pointed out that for those fifty days the expenditure under the various relevant heads was as follows:

    Navy, Army and Munitions, £149,000,000;

    Loans to Allies and Dominions, £74,500,000;

    Food supplies, railways and miscellaneous items, £17,500,000;

    making a total for the fifty days of £241,000,000. We have to-day to deal with the period from the 21st May to the 22nd July, last Saturday, a period of nine weeks, or sixty-three days. Under the corresponding heads to those I have just cited, the expenditure for that period was:

    Navy, Army and Munitions, £230,000,000;

    Loans to Allies and Dominions, £82,500,000;

    Food supplies, railways and miscellaneous items, £5,500,000;

    making a total of £318,000,000 for the sixty-three days. Adding those figures

    1363
    the totals for the period from the 1st April to the 22nd July work out as follows:

    Navy, Army and Munitions, £379,000,000;

    Loans to Allies and Dominions, £157,000,000.

    Food supplies, railways, and miscellaneous items, £23,000,000;

    Making a total of £559,000,000.

    If you reduce those totals to average daily rates you will find that whereas the total expenditure out of Votes of Credit for the fifty days ending the 20th May were, approximately, £4,820,000, for the next sixty-three days the average daily rate rose to, approximately, £5,000,000, while the average daily expenditure for the whole 113 days was £4,920,000. I come now to that expenditure a little more in detail. The principal, but not unforeseen, cause of the increase lies in the expenditure on the Army, Navy, and munitions. For the first period up to the 20th May the expenditure on those services was just under £3,000,000 per day. In the second period the average rose to £3,600,000 per day. I must warn the House, as I often have had occasion to do since the War began, that these figures are only partly estimated, and the true expenditure cannot be exactly ascertained until long after the event. It is quite possible that some of the expenditure which is here attributed to the second period properly belongs to the first. Accordingly, the average expenditure on these three services for the second period has been a somewhat lower figure than £3,600,000. The average expenditure on the first period was underestimated in the statement I last made. However that may be, the fact remains that at the present moment the expenditure on Army, Navy, and munitions is at the rate, approximately, of £3,600,000 per day.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Does that include munitions supplied to our Allies?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no; our own.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Irrecoverable?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Irrecoverable. The House will recollect—I have quoted the figure more than once before—that £220,000 per day represents the estimated figure on peace expenditure. You have got to strike that out to show the extra cost of the War, so that a sum of £3,600,000
    1364
    minus £220,000 is the expenditure directly attributable in these services to the War, or a little more than £3,300,000 per day. I cannot think it expedient or in any way desirable that I should give precise details under the different heads, but I may make one or two general observations about these three heavy branches of war expenditure. The Navy expenditure proceeds at a fairly uniform rate. It is little, if anything, above the amount allowed for in the Budget estimate, nor is it anticipated that the Navy expenditure will appreciably increase in the near future. To come to the Army, so far up to now the high-water mark of Army expenditure, exclusive of munitions, was reached in November of last year, and fell off slightly, as compared with November, in December. From 1st of January to the end of June it remained fairly constant, with a slight dip, to the figures, the somewhat less, of November of last year. The total for July, the present month, will probably be rather higher than the total for November, and it is anticipated, if there is no change of policy, that the present level will be maintained in the near future.
    I come now to munitions, the third head. Here, for reasons which I need not explain, the expenditure increases steadily and continuously up to the month of May. There is a slight falling off then, but May, June, and July is proving fairly constant. The general position therefore as regards those three Departments, the Navy, Army, and munitions, is that we may hope that the expenditure on the Army and Navy will not exceed their present level, at any rate in the near future, unless some great change of policy should be decided upon. Munitions expenditure at the moment is stationary at the highest level yet reached, but that, I am afraid, will possibly expand even now a little more. I come next in this detailed survey to the item "Loans to Allies and Dominions," which, as I have pointed out, amounts for the second period to £82,500,000, or an average of £1,320,000 per day. It was £74,500,000 for the first period, showing an average of £1,490,000 per day, but those figures axe very misleading, stated without qualifications, because for the first period the average of £1,490,000 per day included an item of £12,000,000, which, as I explained in my last statement of the 23rd May, was really a total from the previous year. When you allow for that, the expenditure in the second period

    1365
    in respect of advances to Allies has been on the average higher than for the first period.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Does that only mean money, or does it apply to supplies, too?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It may mean either or both. The figures of loans to Allies and Dominions are swollen as regards the period from the 21st May to the 22nd July by the fact that His Majesty's Government recently consented to advance a sum of £11,000,000 to the Commonwealth of Australia beyond the amount already agreed for war expenses, in order to enable that Commonwealth to deal with financial questions which have been impracticable hitherto, and in connection with the supply of wheat.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Does that include the purchase of ships?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No, wheat. The total of this expenditure could not have been foreseen in the Budget estimate which was raised for the second period to the 22nd July. To come to the last item—food supplies, and various miscellaneous heads—the expenditure for the last sixty-three days has been £5,500,000, or only one-third of the expenditure for the previous fifty days which under this head amounted to £17,500,000. That completes the analysis of the various items of expenditure in the past. If we look to the future, concerning the Vote of £450,000,000 for which we are now asking, I think that after what I have said and the figures I have given the House will agree that we would not be justified in assuming that our daily expenditure from the Vote of Credit in the immediate future will be less than £5,000,000 a day. On this basis the Vote now proposed will last until the end of October. But some margin must be allowed for contingencies, and it will be remembered—a very important fact—that any fresh Vote of Credit must be proposed ten days or a fortnight before the exhaustion of the current Vote, in order to allow time—that is, at any rate, five days—for the passage of the Vote and the Consolidated Fund Bill which follows. Therefore, if the House agrees to the Vote which I am now proposing, it will be necessary to submit a further Vote about the middle of October. That may seem a long time off. It would not, however, be practicable to have another Vote of Credit and another Consolidated Fund Bill extending over five Parliamentary days, if the House is to adjourn for a Recess, and it will prob-
    1366
    ably be convenient so to arrange that on the resumption of our proceedings time may be available for the discussion of other topics before a fresh Vote has to be proposed.
    Perhaps it will be convenient if I summarise the figures which I have given for the present financial year. From the 1st April to the 22nd July, 113 days, Army, Navy, and munitions, £379,000,000; loans to Allies and Dominions, £157,000,000; food supplies, £23,000,000; making an aggregate of £559,000,000—call it £560,000,000 for 113 days. The averages per day work out as follows: Army, Navy, and munitions, £3,350,000; loans to Allies and Dominions, £1,400,000; miscellaneous, £200,000; making a daily average of £4,950,000, or just under £5,000,000. Those are the figures, subject, of course, to adjustments, as they have worked out during the currency of the present financial year, of which one-third has now passed.
    Sir G. YOUNGERasked a question which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to that.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): We buy the securities here in England and pay for them here out of the Vote of Credit. The securities are then shipped to America and sold there. With the proceeds of the sale in dollars we pay for the munitions that we have bought. Therefore, it is a payment on account of munitions. We do not pay necessarily at the exact moment we buy here.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I observe that there is a Motion standing on the Paper in the names of hon. Members in various quarters of the House. I believe it appeared on a previous occasion, but was not then moved. I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the various points contained in that Motion; but there are one or two topics to which I will refer. One is the suggestion that these Votes of Credit should be moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With regard to that I am in the hands of the House. If they like to approve that suggestion, nothing would give me greater satisfaction. My right hon. Friend would do it much better than I can.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    An HON. MEMBER: It is a silly idea!
    The PRIME MINISTER: The only other point with which I will deal is the suggestion that Votes of Credit should be presented for smaller amounts. Let us see what the facts are about that. In 1914–15, the first year of the War, three Votes of Credit were taken, covering eight months of the War. In 1915–16, six Votes were taken. The average amount of the Votes was £237,000,000, while the biggest single Vote was that in November, 1915, and nearly equalled the Vote I am now moving; it amounted to £400,000,000. The magnitude of that Vote was due to the necessity of providing a sum sufficient to cover the Christmas Recess. The Vote actually lasted from November to the end of February. In the current financial year there have been two Votes, each for two months' expenditure, approximately. The present Vote is the third in the current financial year, and will provide, roughly speaking, for three months' expenditure, so as to cover the remainder, I will not say of the present Session, but of the current sittings and some short Recess, leaving time on the resumption of the sittings for the discussion of other matters before a fresh Vote is proposed.
    I must again remind the House that owing to our procedure, devised in time of peace, and perhaps better adapted to times of peace than to times of war, each Vote of Credit and the necessary Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill takes five days, or has to be put down on five Parliamentary days. You cannot get it in less than five days. I do not propose to alter that procedure; I am rather a stickler for our time-honoured procedure. Of course there may be exceptional cases, like that with which my right hon. Friend had to deal the other day, when he was coming to the end of his borrowing powers and it was absolutely necessary for him to renew them. But, as a rule, I am in favour of sticking to the old procedure. Although I am proposing these large Votes, I am and always have been a very jealous custodian of the rights of this House over finance, and I do not propose to abridge them in any way. Under our ancient procedure five Parliamentary days are allotted to proceedings of this kind. In addition to that, it must be remembered that the preparation of a Vote of this kind with the necessary calculations as regards the past and the forecasts of the future takes another ten days. That makes fifteen days, or three Parliamen-
    1368
    tary weeks before you can propose a fresh Vote of Credit. Therefore I do not think the House will regard this as an illegitimate extension of its confidence to the Executive of the day, although, as I admit, the Vote is unprecedentedly large. It might be serious if in the middle of critical operations of the War, or when domestic or foreign events required the close attention of Parliament, we had to earmark a corresponding amount of time for a second Vote, instead of taking the whole sum now. I trust that the House, in that spirit of generous patriotism which it has shown throughout the War, wihout relaxing any of its vigilance or traditional and ancient safeguards, will give the Government of the day this sum of £450,000,000.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The House will certainly not quarrel with the Prime Minister for adopting the practice of introducing these Votes himself. If any criticism is required upon the statement to which we have just listened it is that it has been too strictly limited to questions of finance. We have not had from the Prime Minister what he alone can give and what his moving these Votes would enable him to give, namely, a broad survey of, or at any rate some reference to, the general progress of the War and the state of the great enterprises for the furtherance of which this money is asked. I made the same observation when I had the opportunity of following my right hon. Friend on the 23rd May. As on that occasion, he has again confined himself to a simple, concise, and lucid, but bare statement of the national accounts, which might equally well, if the statement were limited to that, have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Very grave and important events have taken place in the two months that have passed. I had certainly looked forward to hearing from the Prime Minister, in asking for this immense sum of money, some reference to events like the naval battle, or the brilliant tactics of General Brusiloff, or the sustained and magnificent defence made by our Allies at Verdun. Even if it were not possible to comment on the other operations which are now in progress, I believe a statement from the Prime Minister on this subject would be bound, as on other occasions, both to instruct the country and to encourage and to gratify our Allies. I trust, while the precedent of the Prime Minister introducing these Votes of Credit may be

    1369
    adhered to, the right hon. Gentleman will be more and not less willing in future to take advantage of this event to inform the House of Commons and the country of the way in which the Government view the general state and progress of the War.
    The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that this Vote of Credit really regulates the Parliamentary Recess, and from that point of view it is important. No one wishes to begrudge the Government the most abundant supplies or to hamper them in any way in acquiring the necessary funds, but it is very important that Parliament should keep control over the course of affairs. I do not gather from what the Prime Minister says that he contemplates any lengthened period in which Parliament will not be sitting. No one is desirous that Parliament should sit continuously, or for prolonged periods at a time. But it is to be deprecated, in the present state of affairs, that long intervals without Parliament being called together should occur. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentlemen contemplates more than five or six weeks interval without a meeting of the House of Commons and Parliament? There were questions on the subject to-day as to the intentions of the Government in regard to the Recess. It is not a matter which bears very much on the money Vote. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can say whether or not he contemplates more than six weeks adjournment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should not like to commit myself, but I am sure it will not be a very long adjournment.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My own view is that the House should facilitate the Government getting through the business, and that there should be meetings at frequent intervals in order that the situation may be kept well in hand. On the financial aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I have only one observation to make, and that is, I am very glad indeed that he has corrected the unfortunate impression created by the loose and slipshod statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day. The right hon. Gentleman had to make a very considerable reference to that remark, but the reference was, I think, received with relief and satisfaction on both sides of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in effect, that the War expenditure was now £6,000,000 per day. Those were his very words. That, he
    1370
    said, was one of the facts of the War. It was a very misleading way of stating the actual facts! It was calculated to cause unnecessary depression and anxiety. It now appears that the irrecoverable expenditure is only £3,600,000 per day. That is what the Prime Minister said.
    The PRIME MINISTER: Out of the Votes of Credit.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The irrecoverable expenditure out of the Votes of Credit. Oh, I see!
    Mr. McKENNA: It is only loose and slipshod!
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It now appears that the expenditure is under £6,000,000 a day, and is a very much more manageable sum. The immense proportion of the money will, of course, be in the class which is not recoverable. I, myself, do not desire to deal with what may be called the general issues of policy to-day. But I desire to ask the House once more to turn its attention to the administration of the Army. I rejoice to see that we have at last a Secretary of State for War in this House. The War Office is the mainspring not only of the War but of the social life of this country at the present time. The fortunes of every family are in their hands and are affected by them. The continuous demand for decisions from day to day from the Minister responsible to Parliament must be extraordinary in the War Office administration at the present time.
    In time of war these great Departments cannot possibly continue to work smoothly without the official head being continually present, and able to give his whole time to the business. The late Lord Kitchener did very hard work each day. He began soon after eight o'clock in the morning and he worked to eight o'clock in the evening, with hardly any interval. After dinner he was always, or almost always, engaged in further labours. My right hon. Friend has not been a very long time at the War Office. I understand he is working from morning till night. Persons of consequence beseech him continually to give decisions, and to give his attention to matters of grave consequence and of urgency. It was impossible that the War Office in time of war should be conducted by the Prime Minister in the odd hours that he could snatch from his own laborious duties, and from adjusting the recurring crises of the Coalition Government. When the office became vacant it ought to

    1371
    have been filled within forty-eight hours in the interests of the War. It ought not to have been left vacant, with only such time as the right hon. Gentleman could spare from his already most severe labours. It was not at all a satisfactory event, and I think it is one of those cases which illustrates the undue importance which is attached at the present time to mere political adjustments as compared with effective, energetic means to prosecute the War.
    At last we have got a Secretary of State in the House of Commons, and responsible to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman will, I venture to think, find a vast accumulation of administrative problems awaiting his attention. I shall, therefore, return to the subject which I brought before the House on two occasions in May, and I wish to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman what progress has been made in regard to the various matters which I then raised. The great question which the right hon. Gentleman finds awaiting him—apart from questions connected with the actual strategical or tactical conduct of the War—is the use of our man-power by the War Office. The facts and arguments I brought before the House when I last spoke were not seriously challenged. They were very far-reaching and startling statements. They were not seriously disputed. I do ont believe they can be seriously disputed by authority. They disclose a very unsatisfactory situation in many respects. I quite recognise what is due to a Minister who is only just in the saddle, and therefore I gave my right hon. Friend notice that I wished to raise certain points. I quite recognise and understand that he may wish to reserve his answer until he has been longer in his new Department. But I want to know what has been done, if anything, to increase the proportion of rifle-strength to ration-strength, and to keep the units—possibly difficult when a very great battle is going on—up to their full strength, and whether the right hon. Gentleman sees any prospect of being able to raise the battalions in the field from their present strength of just under 1,000 men to about 1,200? That, as I pointed out, would make the increase in the rifle-strength as compared with ration-strength out of all proportion to the actual number of men required.
    5.0 P.M.
    Secondly, what is being done to secure, as far as possible, that all fit men shall take their turns, especially men between
    1372
    twenty and thirty years of age, in the trenches in the fighting units? What has been done to provide, as far as possible, substitutes for young, fit, military males who are at present engaged in non-combatant services far from the front? What has been done to afford relief to war-worn soldiers, and particularly to wounded men, who are sent back time after time to the trenches which others have never visited at all? Does my right hon. Friend know—I am informed that it is the case and it seems so extraordinary that I put it in interrogative form—that wounded men on being discharged from hospital are immediately placed in what is known as category A? That is to say, they go back to their depots and home units as first for service. One would have thought that when a wounded man recovers from injury he would have been put at the bottom of the roster of trained and fit men, and would only have gone out after the whole of the list had been exhausted. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can confirm or contradict that statement, that the wounded men are immediately placed in the first category? That seems to be very unreasonable and undesirable, and in many ways a harsh thing to do. I should have thought that it was one that, without the slightest detriment to supplying men for the Army, could have been attended to. What has been done about natives? We heard a eulogy of the services of India from the Secretary of State for India last week. I do not hesitate to say—because plain-speaking is not only legitimate but necessary at the present time—that India at the present time is playing an inadequate part in the waging of this great War. Those who have the true interests of India at heart should insist that she should take her proper place in this world struggle—of events which will so long after be recorded and looked back to by the world. I have heard nothing which indicates that any attempt is being made to use the manpower of India, or India's great resources effectively in the War. The India Office attitude is one of general apathy and obstruction. What about Africa? I asked before what use was the Government making of the African population, whether for war or for labour? There are the natives of East Africa about whom encouraging reports are spread by those who are acquainted with the country and with the military quality of these men. There are possibilities in South Africa. There

    1373
    is the native population of Nigeria. There are the native populations of the Soudan. All those great fields ought to be developed to the fullest possible capacity, and merely to say, "Oh, there are great difficulties," and "It is difficult to find officers and interpreters," and so on, is not dealing with the subject as its urgency and importance require. I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether anything has been done to reduce redundant administration training staffs at home. I am quite certain, if he looks into the condition of some of those large fortresses at home, with depots in them, he will find great overlapping, great confusion and complication of machinery, undue multiplication of persons engaged in the training staff proportionate to the number of recruits they are turning out and handling, and generally the possibilities of reduction in the staffs, which will both save the public purse and liberate more men for the fighting front. Then the Prime Minister, on the occasion of the last Vote of Credit, promised that the brains of the New Armies should be brought into use in administrative posts on the Staff here and at the front, and I ventured to point out then for the first time there has happened in this country, what has all along been the rule in Germany, that the brains of the nation have gone into the military service. Now, after two years' fighting, it is astonishing they should be so little represented in the organisation and administration of the immense fighting machine which has now been brought into existence. All these matters are serious and urgent. I make no apology for bringing them before the House. We are fighting for our lives, and any useful means of advance towards the strengthening of our war effort is legitimate, and Parliament ought to give its attention to these matters. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure us that he will look at these figures—the administration of the Army at home, the supply of men, and the use made of men—with an open mind, and with a desire to repeat in the field of personnel the very great public service he has already rendered in the region of materiel.
    I wish to touch upon another matter which is one of detail, but which matters very much to the officers and men who are fighting at the front—I mean the question of honours and rewards to the fighting troops. I am not concerned with the
    1374
    honours and rewards of the Staff and of the higher ranks, because, I believe, they are tolerably well provided for at the present time. Indeed, the proportion of rewards which goes to people who are not engaged in what I may call dangerous pursuits is very different from that which goes to the men on whom we depend for our lives and for the carrying on of the War at the present time. It is the privates, the non-commissioned officers, and the regimental officers whose case requires the sympathetic attention of the House and of the Secretary of State. Honours should go where death and danger go, and these are the men who pay all the penalties in the terrible business which is now proceeding I have not got the exact figures of the number of Victoria Crosses, Distinguished Conduct Medals, Military Medals, Distinguished Service Orders, and Military Crosses which have been issued in the War, but I am familiar with the general figure, and I have no hesitation in saying that the total is lamentably low considering the continued severity of the fighting, the great numbers of men engaged in it, the extraordinary frequency with which acts of gallantry and good service are performed, and the terrible losses both of life and limb with which the fighting is attended. I do not believe that you would be erring if you issued three or four times as many decorations and rewards to the privates and regimental officers of the Army at the present time. I do not think you would go one step beyond what was right and justified, nor would you go one step beyond what would be useful. People who never themselves go into danger talk airily about cheapening the British standard of decoration and reward. If you gave three or four times, or even five or six times, as many as you have given to the lower ranks of the Army, I am certain you could do it without conferring any reward upon a man who would not have gained the highest possible distinction, or, at any rate, marked distinction and notice, in any previous war. There is no question whatever of lowering the standard. The question is only that of meeting adequately the extraordinary performances of gallantry and courage which very large numbers of individuals are constantly displaying.
    The House will forgive me for going into these small details, because they make such difference to the lives, the hopes and encouragement of our soldiers at the front. The Distinguished Conduct

    1375
    Medal has a money grant attached to it, I think of £8 or £9 a year, and that renders it not very suitable for a wide distribution such as I am recommending. It would be very expensive, and I venture to think that possibly it might be found advisable to restrict the Distinguished Conduct Medal more to cases where there is an injury and where there is an act of gallantry, and with the money saved, if you wish to do it in an economical manner, make a much larger issue of decorations to which an annual monetary payment does not attach. At any rate, I put that to the Government in case any objection is raised on that ground. I believe that there was a very good scheme prepared by Lord French's military secretary, General Lowther, who proposed to devote a portion of the money, that would otherwise be expended in the annual grants consequent upon the award of the Distinguished Conduct Medal, to a far freer distribution of a medal which carried with it no financial reward, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he called for that scheme. It was, I understand, rejected by the then administration of the War Office, but it was very carefully worked out, and I believe it had the approval of the then Commander-in-Chief in France.
    Mr. HOGGE: Have you forgotten the Military Medal?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I know that a new Military Medal has been started and granted, but the distribution has been so limited and so niggardly, and the cases in which it has been given promptly on the spot are so rare and exceptional, that it has practically made no sensible impression at all upon the immense Armies we have now got in the field. I am well aware of that, and I am simply urging that a far larger and more prompt administration of that medal should take place continuously now. While I am on that point, let me draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the great importance of promptness in the issue of these rewards. If you wait for Royal Birthdays, or other auspicious occasions, over and over again the men are dead before receiving the reward which they have so richly won. That has occurred in hundreds and hundreds of cases. What is wanted is a very much freer distribution of those Military Medals, which could take place on the spot, without reference to home. The
    1376
    Commander-in-Chief should be assigned certain numbers proportionate to the Armies he has, and he should be able to distribute these to the corps and divisions, according to the fighting, for the immediate reward of the men who perform acts of gallantry. With regard to the Distinguished Service Order and the Military Cross, I would urge strongly upon my right hon. Friend that they should be confined, as far as possible, in future to actions performed under fire or in the danger zone. The Military Cross particularly should be safeguarded in that way. This new decoration, brought into existence by this War, has been illuminated by a long series of actions of the highest military conduct and devotion by the young officers who have gained it, and I say it is nothing less than debasing its character when it is awarded at the same time to persons who have done very valuable and useful work 20 or 30 miles from the enemy lines. I do not underrate the importance of this work, but an enormous amount of the work being done in France is similar to what is being done in this country, and there is no reason why it should receive the rewards which are associated with acts of gallantry, and which derive their distinction from the fact that they are associated with those acts of great gallantry.
    I wonder if my right hon. Friend is aware that promotion in the battalions at home is much quicker than promotion in the battalions at the front? It certainly seems to be a very anomalous state of affairs that one man should be a year or a year and a half in the trenches, in continual danger, and should actually make slower progress up the military ladder than his brother who has joined a Home service battalion and has not been ordered to the front. I was the other day given a copy of the French "Bulletin des Armées," which is a military publication circulated freely through the French Army, and which deals from week to week with cases of gallantry. They are recorded in a paper which is about the size of the "Spectator" newspaper. The long lists are written with the greatest care by the generals and the commanding officers of all the brave acts done by soldiers under their command, with their names mentioned, and where men have lost a leg or an arm. This circulates throughout the Army, and it is also sent to the homes and villages of the soldiers who are mentioned in the record. I have not considered very

    1377
    much in detail what the difficulties are, but I think it might be very well worth my right hon. Friend's attention to see whether in some way or other this might not be of use to our Army.
    Then there is the question of posthumous honours. I dare say there will be differences of opinion on that, but it certainly seems anomalous that only the Victoria Cross can be given after death. For my own part, I certainly think that honours for gallantry ought, as far as possible, to be given when they have been earned, whether death has taken place or not, and I do think the decoration or medal when given should be forwarded by the War Office to the home, wherever there is a child or a woman who bears the name and who preserves the memory. Let us never forget how much these things are thought of by the people who are risking everything for us. To quote from Sir W. F. P. Napier's History of the Peninsular War:—
    "Napoleon's troops fought in bright fields, where every helmet caught some gleams of glory; but the British soldier conquered under the cool shade of aristocracy. No honours awaited his daring, no despatch gave his name to the applauses of his countrymen; his life of danger and hardship was uncheered by hope, his death unnoticed."
    After a hundred years of change in this country and of democratic government we are again engaged in a great War. Immense alterations have, of course, been made in all our systems, but I believe that substantially there is as much difference between the standard of rewards for deeds of gallantry in the French and our own Army as existed in Napoleonic times. I do not believe that people in this country have any comprehension of what the men in the trenches and those who are engaging in battles are doing or what their sufferings and achievements are. Although we are reading full accounts of them, I do not think that realisation or imagination have been impressed on the people in any real or active sense. The trench population, these fighting men, are the people who require the care and attention of the House and the Secretary of State. Now I turn to material. It is, I think, a fact that in the ordinary day-to-day trench warfare, apart from battles, we lose more heavily than the Germans on an equal stretch of front. I dare say that statement will be disputed.
    Sir GEORGE REID: When we are attacking?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I was not talking about that. In the ordinary currency of day-to-day trench warfare along our lines apart from battles, I believe—I have heard a great many people who are living continually there express the same opinion—that our losses on the whole from day to day are greater than the Germans'.
    Mr. J. SAMUEL: That is what the Germans are saying.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not care what the Germans say. The point is whether there is anything we can say which will lead to useful results. I think it is admitted to be the fact that the Germans have better trenches, deeper dug-outs, better communications, and better lights to use at night. I think all these facts are true. This, again, is due to the fact that the Germans have decided for a great many months past to make a permanent resistance on their present lines, and have prepared those lines from that point of view, whereas for the last twenty months we have always acted in the expectation that we are about to move forward at any moment. Of course, if the present offensive succeeds in breaking up trench warfare or rolling the enemy back to the Meuse or the Rhine the measures I am going to urge will not be needed so much, but I think it is prudent to keep the other contingency in mind. I urge upon my right hon. Friend very strongly that we ought to begin now our preparations to put the British lines in a thoroughly good state for the winter, so that our men will have as good a chance as the Germans, so that they may have as much comfort in their life in the trenches as the Germans, so that they will not lose more life than the enemy, and in order that the lines can be held by as few troops as possible, and our Armies have the utmost possible rest during the winter months. The foundation of a good trench line is a system of light railways far more extensive and elaborate than anything we have at the present time. It is only by means of light railways that all the enormous varieties and quantities of trench stores necessary for the making of a solid line and keeping them in repair can be conveyed to the Front, such as pumping machinery, steel dug-outs, revetting material, and all that variety of trench stores can only be brought in sufficient quantities to the front by a very elaborate and extensive network of railways and light railways. We know the enormous railway

    1379
    development with which Germany prepared the attack on Verdun, and even from the point of view of offensive and defensive operations the organisation of railways is essential to the highest realisation of ammunition supplies. Instead of light railways, we block our roads with enormous and costly motor transport. On the box of every motor sit two or three sturdy fellows who, I believe, unless it has been altered very recently, draw much higher pay than the men who are serving in the trenches, and all our arrangements are made as if our Army was continuously on the move or in a state of mobile warfare. I am not suggesting for a moment that the mobile transports should be broken up or dispersed, but rather that the light railways on a much larger scale should be added to the existing methods of transportation. In this War, proposals which seem enormously large and provision which seems generous and abundant three or four months later is found to have fallen far short of what was actually needed.
    I am now coming to something which I hope will not strike unnecessary prejudice, but I hope my right hon. Friend will not hesitate to use African and Asiatic labour behind the lines for all purposes of carrying material and strengthening our fortifications. There must be great resources there, and in this matter I would not even shrink from the word Chinese for the purpose of carrying on the War. These are not times when people ought in the least to be afraid of prejudices. At any rate, there are great resources of labour in Africa and Asia which, under proper discipline, might be the means of saving thousands of British lives and of enormously facilitating the whole progress and conduct of the War. Remember that the Germans have what we have not got—that is, an enormous reserve of prisoners of war who have fallen into their hands in the early phases of the struggle. I have repeatedly spoken to my right hon. Friend on the subject of lights, and I know this matter began to receive his attention when he went to the Ministry of Munitions. The House, I do not suppose, realises what an important part they play. I am referring to the little rocket lights to illuminate No Man's Land. Unless the situation has been altered within the last few weeks I have no hesitation in saying that the German lights are in every way superior to ours. The German light
    1380
    burns brighter and longer, and goes much further. Let the House observe what follows from that. Our wires are repeatedly illuminated by the German lights and the machine-gun fire is directed upon them, consequently the work of constructing the wire entanglements become more dangerous and more costly. On the other hand, our lights cannot reach the German lines, and consequently the Germans do not have the same difficulty in keeping their wires in order; their wires are stronger, and consequently a much greater proportion of ammunition is required to cut them. These are very important things for the successful conduct of the War, and there is no excuse for these lights not being as good as the German lights, because they are only fireworks, and I should have thought that it would have been possible long ago to have supplied us with lights, not merely as good, but superior to any that have up to the present been used.
    Then there is the question of telephones. This, again, is a vital matter, upon which the safety of the troops and the success of operations largely depend. The field telephone system of our Army now on the front, where it has been for twenty months, ought to be as good as that of New York. It is much more important in the fortunes of the War that it should be so, instead of which the worst experiences that have ever occurred in the London telephone system are enormously better than the best results ever achieved by the field telephone system as at present in existence. The Germans again have a better telephone system. It is larger and more effective than the field system we have. It is somewhat heavier, but it is quite portable enough even for mobile war, and, living in fortress lines, as we are now, there is absolutely no reason why the telephone system should not be raised to the highest possible pitch of perfection to meet what is necessary for the security of our lines and to facilitate the course of great operations.
    The story of the steel helmets is one which reflects very little credit upon the perspicacity of our administration. We were about six months behind the French and even the Belgian Army in the general adoption of this valuable means of protection. [An HON. MEMBER: "Far more!"] Perhaps more, perhaps eight or nine months, and there was no reason why our men should not have had this protection at the same time that the French and the

    1381
    Belgians began to adopt it. Many men might have been alive to-day who have perished, and many men would have had slight injuries who to-day are gravely wounded had this proposal not been put aside in the early stages of the War. The Minister of Munitions the other day stated that the proportion of serious cases in the present offensive was exceptionally low As far as one may judge from the published list the fatal casualties appear to be about one to three or four of the total number which is not very different from the ordinary proportion; but if there had been any mitigation in the serious character of the wounds which on the face of it appears to be very difficult to understand, that can only have been derived from the fact that the number of serious head casualties have been diminished by the use of the steel helmet. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be prevented from pursuing inquiries as to whether there are not other means of personal protection which can be adopted, having regard to the peculiar and special conditions of this stationary form of warfare. I hope that he will not be deterred by old-fashioned views from pressing experiments and the adoption of measures of this kind when the best method of protection has been devised.
    There is only one other point which I wish to mention. The right hon. Gentleman, in regard to the supply of heavy guns has rendered an immense service to this country. When the whole of the story of the heavy gun supply has been made known, the House and the nation will know how much they owe to his persistency, foresight, and courage in the face of extraordinary opposition from the most unexpected quarters. We have a very great supply of heavy guns, actual and prospective, but no one knows better than my right hon. Friend that not only cannot you have too many, but you cannot have enough. There is no such thing as a maximum. The more heavy guns, the more ammunition, and the more long range guns you have behind your trench lines, the more you save the lives of our own soldiers and accelerate the conclusion of the War. I only make this suggestion to my right hon. Friend, because I think it is worth his attention, and that of the sister Department, the Admiralty. The use of old ships was very carefully considered before the War, and of course they were intended to be a reserve. When the newest ships on each side have injured
    1382
    each other in a naval battle, the old ones regain their old fighting virtue, because everything in warfare is relative. But after the decisive sea battle which has been fought—now that we know that we have an ample margin of superiority and strength, and that there are no unexpected features in the German naval warfare which they have devised in the last two years, and that they cannot face us at sea in a well fought-out action—I am of opinion that the results of that battle fully justify a reconsideration by the Admiralty of the use which might be made of the armament of some of the oldest class of cruisers and battleships.
    After all, if these very old ships, and even ships that are not very old, but are of middle age are brought under the fire of modern ships it simply involves the hopeless and almost the instantaneous destruction of the vessel and all on board, without their being able to influence the course of events in any way. The Admiralty ought to press on night and day with every form of new construction, as I have no doubt they are doing, because that is the only form of construction that is really effective against the enemy and that ought to be brought under the fire of the enemy. That is the construction which saves the lives of our men, and does not expose them to needless and hopeless peril, On the other hand, I venture to think that a reconsideration of the position of a number of the older ships, the oldest ships on the list, might provide a very considerable reserve of powerful weapons with their ammunition which could be used to sustain our Army in the field. In case objection may be raised on this point, let me say that I do not believe that the difficulty of the mountings is a real one for this stationary warfare, with proper concealment. The ships, even with proper foundations, could be used while mobile mountings were being prepared. There may be other sources from which these guns may be acquired. I have ventured to take advantage of this Debate for the purpose of offering a few practical suggestions to the House and to my right hon. Friend, not in the slightest spirit of captious criticism, and before I sit down I would only wish to say with what high hopes the House looks forward to his tenure of this the greatest administrative office in the State, and how confident we are that his fertility, his resource, his energy, foresight, and determination will in this

    1383
    be productive of great and sensible results upon the fortunes of our struggling Army and will work towards the determination of the War.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): I have listened with great interest to the suggestive and instructive speech of my right hon. Friend. He was good enough to give me notice of the questions which he intended to raise, and I am infinitely grateful to him for doing so. After all, I am new to this office, and, as he knows very well, it will take a very long time to master even some of the elements of the problems which he has suggested for my consideration. I have also had the pleasure of re-perusing the speeches which he delivered some time ago, more or less on these lines, in the House of Commons. They contained some very fertile and resourceful suggestions, but they are all suggestions which require the most careful and some of them even prolonged consideration. He knows very well with regard to some of them that they have been occupying my attention before I ever became Secretary of State for War, and I have been urging them with others for consideration. They are now being considered, but I am at this disadvantage that even if we have come to a decision with regard to some of them it would be highly inadvisable for me to announce it. There is a good deal of work and organisation. They will have certain effects upon Army policy, and it would be very injudicious on my part to give any public information with regard to them. All I can say is that some of the most important suggestions which he has made are receiving attention. I can assure him that I am not using that word in the official sense. On the contrary, they are being discussed, and I shall be very surprised if they do not lead to action. There are questions like the improvement of the trenches, and the improvement of transport. Those questions, as he knows very well, have been under investigation for some time, and already there has been a very considerable improvement in both. I am certainly not one of those who say that more cannot be done. I think that a good deal more can be done. That is the view of my advisers as well, and I think he will find that steps will be taken to continue the improvement which has undoubtedly been effected especially in some parts of the line. With regard to helmets, it is true that it took a long time
    1384
    for the military authorities to accept the French view as to their utility, but the moment they decided, there was no delay in the manufacture. The task was undertaken by the Trench Warfare Department of the Ministry of Munitions, and that particular branch I consider to be one of the most efficient business Departments that I have ever been associated with or that I have ever come into contact with.
    Mr. O'GRADY: How long is it since they undertook the manufacture of helmets?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I speak from memory, and if I am wrong my hon. Friend will allow me to refer to the letter, but my recollection is that the requisition with respect to helmets came in November. I believe it was stated in the House in answer to a question. Since then they have been manufactured at a prodigious rate. Hundreds of thousands—something approaching a million—have already been manufactured. There is this to be said, even with regard to the delay. I think it is without any challenge the best helmet on the battlefield at the present time. I am assured that it is a better helmet than either the French, Italian, or German helmet. It is not a thing of beauty. You could not comment on it for its artistic qualities, but it is an extraordinarily efficient helmet. It has saved thousands of lives, and wounds have been considerably modified as the result of wearing it. My right hon. Friend knows that I take his view with regard to protection. This idea of protective shields, whether for the head or any other part of the body, I believe, will be developed very considerably. Up to the present no Army has thought fit to utilise it. It has been tried by most Armies, but not very successfully. I believe that we shall, in this respect, as in respect of the helmets, revert to the old methods of warfare when protection of the body was not regarded in the least as detracting from the valour of the men who wore it. There is the question of rewards. A very considerable number of rewards have already been issued. Decorations: Total number issued and in course of issue up to date:—V.C., 160; D.S.O., 1,676; M.C., 3,851; D.C.M., 6,279; Military Medal, instituted, as be knows, I believe in March of this year, already issued, 2,046; total, 14,012. Approved, but not yet notified from the War Office: Military Medals, 8,000. My right hon. Friend will notice that they are considerably better than he apprehended.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I had in mind, of course, the list which the right hon. Gentleman has read out, but I had not the knowledge that an extra 8,000, or four times the existing issue of military medals, was under consideration. Of course that goes a very long way to meet my argument.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Those are the facts at the present moment. I can assure my right hon. Friend that my military advisers very largely take the view which he has urged so eloquently on the present occasion, except that they do not agree that some of these medals should not be issued to men who have done effective and distinguished work in an administrative sense either in the field of battle or beyond its range. A good deal of the work which has been done is essential to victory, and some of that work certainly ought to be recognised by some decoration. Whether some of my right hon. Friend's views are correct, whether there is an undue proportion given to the administrative side in comparison with the fighting side, is a matter I am not competent at the present moment to express an opinion upon, but it will be looked into very carefully.
    With regard to other questions, there is the question of the increase of the proportion between ration and rifle strength. There is no doubt that the whole question of the use of the man-power of the nation has got to be passed under review, and under very searching review. It is being done at the present moment, and there is no doubt that a decision will have to be taken with regard to it. I could not pretend to come to that decision myself. It would be extremely rash for me to do so in the course of the few days I have been at the War Office to come to a definite decision upon a matter of such magnitude and such moment. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman what a very difficult Department it is. There is no more difficult Department than the War Office. One has got to walk very warily. All professions are very tenacious of their traditions and their methods and principles of action, and I do not believe that any profession is more tenacious than the military profession; and therefore one must walk very cautiously and carefully before coming to a decision. I can assure him that this important problem which he has put before the House so forcibly is engaging the attention of the War Office, and a decision
    1386
    —an important decision—will be taken in a very short time. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Major Wedgwood), who has been in another service, have been studying the possibilities of man-power and has got very strong views upon them. He has given me some important facts with regard to them and the limits of our resources in other parts of the Empire, and he is at the present moment putting those views before the officials of the War Office and giving them further particulars. This is a matter which you cannot come to a decision upon immediately. There is no doubt at all that our resources are infinitely greater than they appear to be in any of the papers which have been issued, and it is well that the enemy should know that. I am in general agreement with my right hon. Friend upon these topics. To what extent these resources could be utilised, the best way to utilise them, the time to utilise them—all these are subjects which call for careful consideration, and upon which there may be a good deal of difference of opinion; but as to the possibilities of victory, I have never had the slightest doubt about that. I am perfectly certain. I have no doubt that action will be taken, and will be taken soon, with a view to putting us in a position to enable us to make use of those great extra resources, those resources outside the United Kingdom which are at the disposal of the British Empire. The French, as my right hon. Friend knows, have freely utilised them to a very large extent, and there is absolutely no reason why we should not follow their example in this respect.
    As to the question of lights, I believe ours were very inferior at one stage of the War to the lights which were in use by the Germans, but there has been a very considerable improvement on our side in that respect. Of course, the German lights make a greater impression upon the soldiers in our trenches than their own lights do, for two reasons. One of these reasons, is that the British light is a long way off from our men, and it does not seem to them to illuminate the whole sky. Naturally it has to be nearer to the German trench, whereas the German light is uncomfortably near you, and to that extent the illumination appears to be much greater in comparison than it really is; and besides there is a sense of danger which adds to the appearance of their light and affects to some extent the men's

    1387
    imaginations and tends rather to exaggerate its brilliancy and the illumination which comes from it. I am told that our lights now compare very favourably with the German lights. Of course, when my right hon. Friend first spoke to me about it our lights were rather inferior, but since then very considerable improvements have been introduced, and I am not at all sure that they are not better than theirs. At any rate, I do not receive the same complaints about them as I did about six months ago. Then we received many complaints, for the reasons I have given, about the impressions made upon the minds of the soldiers. The light which shows our soldier up to the machine gunner on the other side appears to be much more powerful than that which shows up the machine gunner to him. With regard to field telegraphs, I do not feel in a position to give an answer, but I will look into that and see if we can effect an improvement. There are some suggestions which I am afraid it will be impossible to carry out—some suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman has made with regard to the alteration of the proportion between ration and rifle strength. Some of them are practicable, others are not, and those which are impracticable are impracticable for reasons which I do not think it would be wise to give in public. I shall be happy to give to him or to any Member of the House in private the reasons, which are quite adequate, as assigned by me by those who are responsible for looking after that matter.
    I agree with him as to the importance of increasing our gun power. I have always taken a strong view about that, and I shall never forget a conference which was held at Boulogne over a year ago between the French and English Artillerists. [An HON. MEMBER: "Between the British and the French!"] Quite so, between the British and the French. I have not often offended in that sense, and I stand corrected. It was a conference about the work of the guns between the British and the French Artillerists. Of course, at that time the French had more experience than we had in the War. They had much more powerful artillery, and they had used it on many occasions with great skill, and I remember there was a very expert French officer—I forget his name for the moment, but he was Irish in name. He may have been a descendant of the old Irish Brigade
    1388
    who fought at Fontenoy or some of those fields, and I remember how he impressed upon me the importance of the heavy gun at that time. The great programme which started then is very largely attributable to the advice given by this distinguished young Frenchman of Irish descent. who had been fighting in the battles in France with the Artillery for twelve months before that, and I think this country owes a debt of gratitude to him for the advice which he then gave, and also to General Du Cane, of the staff of Sir John French, who now occupies a post in the Ministry of Munitions, for his readiness to accept the views of a man who had this experience. [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you got his name?"] His name, I think, is Walsh. There is no doubt at all that not only in the earlier fighting and the fighting at Verdun, but also particularly in the recent fighting on our front, the heavy gun has saved life. [An HON. MEMBER: "Saved life?"] Yes, in the attack, it has saved British lives. It destroys the entanglements, it destroys the trenches, and, although it does not always destroy the thirty or forty foot deep dugout, it abolishes the exits and entrances, and smothers them up, and enables our troops to advance with less danger and less risk than attended their efforts about a year ago.
    6.0 P.M.
    I will say this, although I have left the Ministry of Munitions, with regard to the number of guns. It is perfectly true that we are turning out in a single month considerably more heavy guns than the whole British Army possessed at the beginning of the War. The British manufacturers and workpeople have successfully coped with our shortage of big guns. It is a triumph for our industry, and the greatest credit is due to the manufacturers and the workpeople for the way in which they have applied their skill and energy, and given their strength and time for the purpose of equipping the British Army in the field. All the same, we want more, and considerably more heavy guns, and considerably more heavy shells, which are the machinery for saving the lives of our men as well as for making a way to victory. And that is why I am delighted at the readiness with which the manufacturers, both employers and workmen, are prepared to give up their holidays, which they must now stand badly in need of, after the terrible strain which has been placed upon them for the last two years. I am delighted to

    1389
    believe that until the equipment is complete, until it is overwhelming, they are prepared to still go on turning out the guns and shells which are required to enable the British soldier to get a fairly clear road to fight his way through. The right hon. Gentleman has complained that the Prime Minister has not surveyed the military situation. I think it is a bit premature to do so. You cannot survey military prospects in the middle of a battle. I think it would be unwise to do so. My right hon. Friend knows what a battle is, a great confused struggle which appears to lean at one moment to one side, and at the next moment to the other side; and until the last moment of the decision comes no man can be certain of victory. Our prospects are good. I think I am entitled to say that our generals are more than satisfied with the progress they are making. I think I am entitled to say—brave men do not boast before the deed is done—that they are satisfied and more than satisfied, and they are proud of the valour of their men who are fighting. There is nothing in history to compare to them. Great as the British Infantry were in the days of Wellington and Napoleon, never have they been greater than they are now. One thrills with pride to think that one belongs to the same race as these men. And they are making headway against enormous difficulties; they are pressing back a formidable, a very formidable foe, a foe who has made a science of war for two generations, and given the best brains of his nation for the purpose of making it. They are a new Army, they are a citizen Army, in many respects an amateur Army, and yet they are hurling back veterans who have had all the thought and science of a great military empire at their back. I have no doubt at all in my own mind that, whatever happens in this battle or in any other battle, I feel now confident that victory is assured to us. There is the quality which our men are showing, the leadership that has been displayed, the improvement in the equipment. The fact which has given more encouragement to those who have watched it than anything else is the fact that these men, who have had only a few months' training, have shown that they know how to use the equipment. That was what gave us most anxiety. You cannot have gunners who take years to train as you have them in the Con-
    1390
    tinental armies, yet I have seen photographs taken from the clouds of German trenches which have been battered and there the craters followed the lines right through, and great gunners who have been at it all their lives came to me and showed with pride the work of men who have been only six months in training. It was the only anxiety which was felt. We had no doubt that British manufacturers could equip the Army. We knew the equipment was pouring in at a rate at which no Army in the world has ever been equipped. We knew that the guns were of the best patterns. Some of the best of the guns on the battlefield are of British design. What we were doubtful about was whether, in the course of a few months, you would be able to turn out men able to utilise these very delicate, subtle, complex machines in such a way as to hit a target three or four miles off, and a very small target at that. They have done it. It shows what we were certain of. There never was an Army composed of better material or a more intelligent Army. It is not merely that you have the intelligence and brains of a nation there. One could feel that they had put the whole of their brains, the whole of their intelligence, the whole of their energies and thought into it, and were concentrated all on perfecting their skill in such a way as to win victory for their country. That is why, beyond everything, that I feel confident. Numbers are on our side. All the other resources are on our side. There was only one fear that one had; that the years of training and thought on the part of the great military Empire might be something which would be insuperable. This battle has demonstrated that that is not so. British resourcefulness and British intelligence, as displayed in the fields of commerce in the past, has been able to snatch victories out of what appeared to be complete commercial disaster. It is going to snatch victory again in a few months out of what appeared at one moment to be something that was invincible There is no doubt at all that the lesson of this battle is that we have simply got to press on with all our resources and with all the material at our command and victory will be ours.
    Mr. LOUGH: I desire to direct the attention of the House to the Vote of Credit. I do not in the least grudge the time that has been given to the interlude which has brought us this charming

    1391
    speech from the Minister for War. I am sure the whole House was delighted to hear the cheering words he has said about the situation, and we cannot but rejoice that he has given us so practical an illustration of the advantage we derive from his presence here. To turn to the question of finance, these Votes of Credit, which are so big, are the only opportunities we have for discussing the most momentous subjects with which the House of Commons can deal. The Vote before us is the largest with which the House has had to deal, not only during this War, but in all its long history. I, therefore, hope that my hon. Friends will turn their attention to one or two points in connection with it. After consultation with some of my hon. Friends, I have been able to formulate two or three propositions with regard to Votes of Credit. We ought to realise the reason for the existence of Votes of Credit, which is that there may be expenditure which is unforeseen and that there may be amounts wanted in a hurry in consequence of the War. For those two purposes we must have Votes of Credit. Although they are an invasion of the usual financial system, I do not wish to say a word against them, but would confine myself to the criticism that instead of the Vote being restricted to the necessities of the case, I fear that in a great many instances already there has been a disposition to extend it far beyond any necessity. Therefore the first proposition that we make is that with a view to the proper control of this House over finance we ought to do certain things.
    Everyone will agree that this House has lost very largely its control over finance. The answer is made that this is war time, and the question is asked, "How can you control finance during a war?" I do not wish in any way to obstruct the progress of the War, but rather to assist it. We do not assist it by doing away with the system of checks on finance we have had in the past. Our control over finance in peace time has suffered almost as much as in war time. Since the automatic Closure of Supply was introduced, any Minister has been able to get any money he wants almost without any examination by this House. A very dangerous situation has been created, and it is quite time we should look into it. If at the end of the second year of the War within certain limits, this House can exercise very useful functions, it would be well to do so. We have had
    1392
    a curious announcement made within the last few days in regard to finance. At Question Time to-day a question was put about £6,000,000 which has been allocated to pensions. Why was that not mentioned to this House instead of to a casual deputation at the Treasury the other day? The amount involved is a large one and a great many Members are interested in the subject. There was also an amount of £8,000,000 spent on separation allowances which was announced for the first time outside the House. The control of the House over finance would be better maintained if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would remember the old traditions of the House and give us the first information with regard to such important matters as those I have mentioned. The control over finance is greatly limited and in the best interests of the State that ought not to continue any longer.
    The second proposition we make is that the Votes of Credit ought to be for smaller amounts. We have had a little argument on that point already this afternoon. My speech has been answered before it was made by no less an authority than the Prime Minister himself. I should have liked to have had an opportunity of explaining what I meant, but it is equally satisfactory to do so to-night to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Prime Minister entirely misunderstood the reason why I suggest that Votes of Credit should be of smaller amounts. He answered the argument by satisfying the House that it was necessary to have a Vote of Credit for 100 days. I agree with him. I do not want the Vote diminished in order that the time might be shortened. I want it diminished for another reason and by another method. The way these Votes can be reduced is by abandoning the Ministerial plan of putting everything into a Vote of Credit. Whatever we can leave out of the Vote of Credit with safety to the State ought to be left out I will mention two or three things that have been included in the Votes of Credit since the commencement of the War which could have been left out, whereby the Votes could have been reduced and yet would have stretched over all the time the Prime Minister mentioned. First, there is the question of loans. All the great loans which have been made since the War started have been made under a Vote of Credit. This afternoon, when the Prime Minister was giving us an account of expenditure, he told us of the huge

    1393
    sums that had been loaned out of the Votes. I protest against that method. There is another method of dealing with these loans which would be fairer to the House, and it is time it was adopted. They ought to be dealt with in a Bill, introduced to authorise the Treasury to make the loans under any conditions the Government wish. The amount should be mentioned in the Bill. Then the Government could give any explanation of how the amount was used and could account to Parliament for it. That is the constitutional system; that is the way the matter has been handled in the past. I could mention many precedents; for instance, the Naval and Military Works Bills were all carried through in that way some twenty years ago. During the South African War the great loans made to South Africa were made by means of Bills passed through this House. Although there is no exact precedent covering this case, yet the old machinery established by precedent might easily be adopted. If it were, all this loan matter would be withdrawn from the Votes of Credit. That would be a very great improvement. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has from time to time exercised a most depressing effect on the country by his statement of the total amount of the expenditure on the War. I hardly exaggerate if I say that for a long time on Thursday, and for a substantial part of this afternoon, we have been occupied in having that statement explained away—that unfortunate statement that the expenditure on the War now amounted to £6,000,000 a day.
    Mr. McKENNA: I did not state that. It was so reported in the Press, but I did not say so.
    Mr. LOUGH: Here are the words from our OFFICIAL REPORT:
    "The expenditure for some time now has been over £6,000,000 per day. That is a fact of the War."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1916, col. 603.]
    That was the statement, and if my right hon. Friend did not intend to say so he ought to have been more careful, because it has been commented on and telegraphed over every part of the country. This was on the Monday. The explanation given by my right hon. Friend on Thursday and to-day, and by the Prime Minister, is that there was no such expenditure—that it was far less and is not likely to reach that sum. Is it not deplorable that we should have from the Treasury an erroneous statement of that kind getting circulated to every
    1394
    part of this country for the best part of a week? This evil would have been entirely avoided if we dealt at once with these large matters of loans. The loans which figure so largely in what is called the expenditure are a regular part of the business of this country. The great source of the wealth of this country arises from making loans to foreign countries and to our Dominions, and now during the War necessarily all that business is done by the Treasury. We have the Treasury acting instead of the Stock Exchange. The amount of the loans is not very abnormal. It is a regular and a profitable business, and I suggest that this mixing up of that business now necessarily done by the State with what is generally understood as national expenditure is a very deplorable thing. It seems to me that the effects of reforming that practice would be threefold. In the first place, the whole amount would be removed from the expenditure account, and everyone would know what the expenditure on the War is more accurately than they can possibly know under existing circumstances. In the second place, this House has a right to know more about these loans than is told them. They are suddenly put into a Finance Bill, or mentioned in Votes of Credit, and we know no more about it. It is highly desirable that as much information as possible should be given to this House with regard to them. We hear what the total amount of the loans is from time to time. The amount is so gigantic now that the House is hardly doing its duty to the people unless it watches the growth of the loans and asks for such particulars as can be given with due regard to the interests of the State. I believe also that if the loans were handled in the way I say, the security for repayment would be greatly improved. I do not doubt that the large majority of the loans will be repaid. If we emerge victoriously from the War, as we shall do, they will be good investments for the State, and, at any rate, we ought not to do anything now which gives a suggestion even that they are not perfectly good and well secured and that they will not be repaid in due time. I think these and other great benefits will arise from treating the loans in that way.
    Then I come to a more extraordinary thing still—the purchase of the American securities. It seems to me a most astounding thing that this should be done casually under a Vote of Credit. My right hon.

    1395
    Friend made his statement last week about the great increase of expenditure, but when he came to explain the matter on Thursday he said that—
    "During the last seven weeks the total Exchequer issues have been in round figures £300,000,000 …"
    To-day we have had that reduced to £259,000,000. That is a very substantial difference.
    "On the one hand this includes a large payment for dividend on War Loan …"
    That ought not to have been included. That is a regular matter, quite different from expenditure. My right hon. Friend went on to say:
    "The unforeseen and unforeseeable causes were, first, the rate at which American securities were sold to the Government; and, secondly, the rate at which the advances made to the Allies and Dominions were drawn upon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1916, col. 1179.]
    How was the purchase of American securities unforeseen and unforeseeable? We have been fighting over it for weeks past in this House, and there was a great Debate on it in the Finance Bill, and for my right hon. Friend to say it was unforeseen seems to me a most extraordinary statement.
    Mr. McKENNA: The rate.
    Mr. LOUGH: My right hon. Friend did everything he could to accelerate the rate. He imposed an Income Tax of 2s. in the £ on those who did not sell, and then said it was unforeseeable that people would sell. I think it could have been easily foreseen.
    Mr. McKENNA: Not the rate.
    Mr. LOUGH: That is the amount we might have to handle. I think it could have been foreseen in two ways. First, I do not think he ought to have bought any more than he wanted to buy, so he could foresee it that way. He could say he wanted £50,000,000 or £100,000,000 worth, and he need only have bought what he wanted. The whole purchase of these securities should have been done under a Bill also, and it would have been quite easy to keep everything secret.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Must not all moneys that require to be provided in a Bill, or anywhere else, be provided for in a Vote of Credit afterwards? We are under that impression.
    Mr. LOUGH: No. It is quite clear. A Vote of Credit is only an alternative method of finding money. The constitu-
    1396
    tional method is by Estimates laid before the House, which some Minister has to defend, and which any Member of the House may question. The Estimates are not included in the Vote of Credit at all.
    Mr. RUTHERFORD: Everything else ought to be.
    Mr. LOUGH: No, there is no need for it, and everything dealt with in a Bill would be excluded from a Vote of Credit too. Now my hon. Friend will see the argument I have submitted. We ought to follow, so far as we can, the precedent of our own financial system, which is putting forward Estimates, giving Members of the House information and letting everyone see what is going on as far as possible, but we must not pursue it to an extent which would be dangerous to the national interest. It is monstrous that a proper account should not have been opened. Just think what the securities are! They are paying these dividends. It is not expenditure at all. It is an investment. It is as good as gold in your pocket, and surely the amount ought to be provided for under a Bill. All this ought to be kept entirely separate from the expression "National Expenditure." Then there is the question of the commodities for sale or purchase—sugar, wheat, ships, meat, all those articles which are resold, and we understand resold at a good profit. Surely a separate account ought to be opened and there ought to be a Bill authorising the Government to do this, and they ought then to be kept out of the Vote of Credit. I am not making these suggestions in any way obstructively. I am suggesting an alternative method of handling the finance of the War, and the advantage which I suggest would arise would be that the huge figures of expenditure which we hear of, where everything is lumped together in a very unbusinesslike manner, would be avoided, and the statement of expenditure would bear some close relation to the fact. The Prime Minister has put a different complexion on the expenditure from what was current last week owing to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe the Prime Minister has practically reduced the expenditure to £3,800,000, apart from loans. That must be a great relief to the country.
    Mr. McKENNA: No!
    Mr. LOUGH: £5,000,000 a day altogether, including loans. It has been £4,950,000 per day excluding Estimates——
    Mr. McKENNA: And the Consolidated Fund Services.
    Mr. LOUGH: It is £4,950,000 for 113 days. In those 113 days £180,000,000 have been disposed of by the methods I have just mentioned—loans, purchase of securities and commodities. They are not expenditure. The total expenditure on the War, if you take those off, amounts to a little more than £3,750,000 even during those 113 days. If that is so it is a great pity that these great figures should be mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend appears to be a little impatient, but I believe if we recall for a moment the figures of the Finance Bill of last year, all through last year the expenditure was very little over £3,250,000, and now, leaving out these points which I have mentioned, it is only £3,750,000. Look for a moment at the alternative statement which could be made of the cost of the War from that which the Treasury presents. At £3,750,000 in seven days the expenditure would be £24,000,000 or £25,000,000. But £10,500,000 a week is coming in from taxation, so that the amount we might have to borrow is only about £15,000,000 a week. The world is astounded at the readiness with which this country is bearing the tremendous expense of the War, and it is a gigantic expenditure even thus. But the reason is that the amount is very different from what we hear thrown at us sometimes casually across the Table. Last week there was ridicule expressed in the City at the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is a pity that that should be so, and if these matters of the loans and the purchase of commodities, which are not expenditure, were dealt with in a business like way these great mistakes would be avoided. What would be the benefit of avoiding the mistakes? The mention of these huge amounts depresses our own people and must elate the enemy. I do not see why there should be any such exaggeration, and it is time a more correct figure was presented to the House.
    The Prime Minister then directed attention to another matter, in which, quite unintentionally, he did not do me justice, and that was my suggestion that the Vote ought to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer instead of the Prime Minister. I wish he was here for me to say to him that I do not intend the slightest disrespect to the Prime Minister. Indeed, quite the contrary. The view I
    1398
    take about that is that this is a business proceeding. This afternoon, when we asked questions of the Prime Minister, he had always to get the information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I desire to strengthen the hands of the Government in the great crisis in which it is involved, and I resent having to make any attack on the Prime Minister. Our criticisms are levelled at the Department which is itself responsible, therefore the object I had in suggesting that the Chancellor should deal with these matters was also misunderstood. The Resolution says that relevant figures should be presented to the House. I think we have said enough to show, and that the whole Debate has shown, the need for relevant figures being given as time goes on. The sums of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 that have been mentioned are really very irrelevant to the capital expenditure. The House does not nearly realise the extent to which this matter has been carried. We have not yet had the accounts for 1914 presented to us. Why should not everything that can be presented to us with safety to the public respecting the year 1914 be put at our disposal?
    Mr. McKENNA: Here is a copy (handing a document to Mr. Lough) .
    Mr. LOUGH: That is simply the summary we had at the time of the Budget. I do not mean a copy of that kind. I mean detailed expenditure, in order to prevent many of the complaints that have arisen about extravagant expenditure during the War. We have never had any Debate on the Report of the Auditor-General. We have had many complaints about extravagance, and, of course, one or two have been dealt with. My point is that after a certain length of time all these matters might be brought before us for discussion. I compained, when the last Budget was before us, of how wrong the Estimates were. I believe these complaints arise from the fact that all these large figures have been mixed up with the necessarily heavy expenditure of the State. I am not criticising the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a captious spirit. I am simply suggesting that this method of loans, purchases of commodities, the purchase of securities, and all these other extraneous matters, being lumped together, and speaking of them as expenditure, is very unsatisfactory, and especially when afterwards it is necessary to correct certain statements. I think that is a most unsatisfactory way

    1399
    of dealing with finance. In the Budget this year I think it was said we considerably underestimated the expenditure. But this is not the time to go into that. I only regret that such few opportunities are given to the House of examining this question. The details I have spoken of are matters of the greatest financial interest, and no other authority in the country except the House of Commons has any opportunity of dealing with them. We resent the question of finance being touched in another place. Therefore, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer might endeavour, in connection with the Votes of Credit in this House, to restrict them to a smaller amount than that for which the present Vote has been drawn. Perhaps, having regard to the shortness of time within which the Debate can be carried on, if I moved my Motion it would exercise a restrictive effect upon the Debate; but if my hon. Friends think I ought not to do it, I will not close my speech by doing so. I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider whether he might not adopt a different system.
    Mr. BARNES: I cannot claim to be a financial expert like my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lough), and I know very little of matters which are so familiar to him—methods of finance, all about American securities, and so on—but I am in agreement with him that the method which we are adopting to-day, and as has been adopted before, of asking for very large sums of money in a sort of omnibus Resolution covering all sorts of things, cuts into the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. I, therefore, want to support my right hon. Friend in his view that what is expenditure should be covered in the Vote of Credit, and what is not really expenditure should be left out and dealt with in some other way. That, I understand, is the gravamen of the charge brought by my right hon. Friend against the present system. It is not often that the Prime Minister leaves any doubt in anybody's mind as to his meaning, but even the Prime Minister, in moving the Vote of Credit to-day, left doubt in a good many minds. For instance, a question was raised as to what was going to America, whether it was money or goods. The Prime Minister did not clear that up. He made some ambiguous reply, and I question if many people know now whether it is goods or money, or both. That point
    1400
    is covered by transactions in securities. It does seem to me that some separate means for dealing with that question ought to be adopted, apart altogether from the Vote of Credit. Again, in regard to loans, so far as I could gather from the Prime Minister, I think he said that the loans to our Allies would amount to, roughly, one million and one-third per day. I cannot see how that can be lumped in as expenditure. We hope to get it back, and I have sufficient confidence in countries like France and Russia to believe that we shall get it back.
    Mr. LOUGH: There are loans to the Dominions.
    Mr. BARNES: I understood that £11,000,000 represents money which has gone to Australia quite recently. I suppose that is lumped in with the £450,000,000. These moneys are not expenditure in the ordinary common sense acceptance of the term. It seems to me they are good securities, and good investments. We must get the money back some time, and, therefore, it will be far better, as my right hon. Friend suggests, that the House of Commons should be treated more fairly, and that these matters should be dealt with separately from expenditure in the Vote of Credit. We want to have in the Vote of Credit all money that is expenditure pure and simple, and money which is not expenditure in that way should be dealt with in another manner. As my name was down in support of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, I desired to say these few words in support of him. I desire now to say a few words as an engineer, and as more or less representing the engineers in this House. In that capacity I want to welcome very cordially the speech of the Secretary of State for War to which we have just listened. I want to welcome it as being in such striking and pleasing contrast to a good deal that has been said by the Secretary for War and other people in times gone by to munition workers. Men can be led but they cannot be driven. I am afraid that in the early days of the War especially, and up to quite recently, a great deal was said in the way of driving men to do one thing or another, and in making statements about their drunken habits, and so on, which had not the effect of increasing the output. I am perfectly certain it had not that effect. On the contrary, in many cases it irritated the men. Give a man

    1401
    a bad character, and he very often lives up to it. In the early days of the War men were said to be drunkards, and figures were given as to the time lost through drink, which, as I know, were not true. It is very often said that figures cannot lie, but at any rate liars can figure, and I know that that is perfectly true in regard to a great many of the figures that were produced respecting the time lost by munition workers. A false basis was taken in many cases. I remember, for instance, figures being given in this House as to the amount of time lost in Manchester, where fifty - three hours were taken as the normal week. The night and day shifts were lumped together. As a matter of fact, the normal night shift is only forty-five hours. Therefore, the figures given presented quite a false impression of the amount of time lost by these men. Figures were given respecting other parts of the country conveying in the same way a false impression. Speeches were made by those occupying the seats of authority, putting down the average British workman as a drunken slacker. I am glad to know that a different tone and attitude is now adopted, and that instead of maligning the men in that way, the Secretary of State for War has made a good start by encouraging the men, as the First Lord of the Admiralty has so often done. I hope that that tone will be maintained.
    I am very glad that recently, instead of promoting legislation to get a postponement of holidays, the plan was adopted of getting the men's leaders together and presenting the case to them fairly and squarely. That has had the desired effect so far as the men's leaders are concerned, and if necessary, I think, it might be extended, and the men themselves should be got at in the same way in the various districts. If that is done, and the tone adopted to-day by the Secretary of State for War is maintained throughout, I believe that not only shall we maintain our greatest record in the way of turning out guns and shells but we shall largely increase it, because, as I know, the men in the workshops on the whole, in spite of some lapses, are now at all events whatever may have happened at any particular time in some places, fully aware of the needs of the situation. Although the men may have been a bit slack sometimes, in some places—the men are sometimes unimaginative, as we are sometimes in this House—they are to-day throughout the
    1402
    length and breadth of the country seized with the absolute need for turning out more guns and more shells for the men at the front than ever have been turned out before; and I think that if they are encouraged by the sort of speeches we have had to-day from the Secretary of State for War, they will do it.
    Sir F. CAWLEY: I wish to join the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barnes) in congratulating the Secretary of State for War on his improved opinion of the working men. I agree with him that the workmen now are seized with the absolute necessity of doing everything they can to find the requisite munitions of war. I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lough) in his remarks upon finance, because he is an authority and I am not; but I do agree with him that the loans that we are making to our Allies and our Dominions ought not to be lumped in one large sum in our expenditure on the War. I think the two things ought to be kept separate. I merely rose to say that I think the House is very much to be congratulated upon two things. In the first place, I think the House is to be congratulated upon the fact that the Secretary of State for War is now a Member of this House. The arrangement we had previously, by which the Secretary of State for War. was in the House of Lords, and that he happened to be a man of very great eminence whom it appeared almost a crime to criticise, was a very great misfortune and a very great disadvantage to this House, and I believe it was a great disadvantage to the country. In the second place, I would like to congratulate the House upon the fact that we have the right hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) as a critic of the Government. The two speeches he made a little time ago, and the speech he made to-day are, I believe, of the greatest service to this House and the country. For two years we have been allowed to know very little about what is taking place. It has been almost a crime to criticise the Secretary of State for War, and this House has really not been allowed to take very much of an intelligent interest in what has been going on. The Debate that we had on the speeches of the right hon. Member for Dundee a little while ago, and the speech we have had from the Secretary of State for War to-day in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's criticism are extremely useful. I very much question whether if we had had the same

    1403
    state of affairs previously as we have today, namely the Secretary of State for War in this House, whether our troops would have gone so long without helmets. I believe they would not. I believe we should have heard more about that question in this House and the soldiers would have got the helmets sooner.
    There are many things which will now come before this House and be debated, to the great advantage of the country and the Army, and of which we have not heard before. I believe that the country has suffered during the last two years very much from the fact that we have had the Secretary of State for War in another place. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee referred to the question of promotions and decorations. The system whereby men who have never been out at the front have been promoted to a higher rank than those who have been fighting almost all the time has become very little less than a scandal. It is not the best way to get the best out of our officers, and the matter requires a great deal of looking into. In reference to decorations, I think it a pity that the same decorations should be given to men who have been fighting at the front risking their lives as are given to those who have merely been doing administrative work thirty or forty miles behind the firing line. It is really depreciating the value of the decoration, and it is not fair to those men who have carried their lives in their hands and done brave things, far more than their duty called them to do, to find that they have only got the same decoration as those who have filled the post of successful administrators thirty or forty miles behind the firing line, or not even that sometimes, but have been working in London. There are other matters which I might mention, but I will not trouble my right hon. Friend with them, but will merely repeat that the House is to be congratulated, not only on the fact that the Secretary of State is now a Member of this House, but that the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Munitions has taken that office. We all know that he is a man who does not shirk responsibility, and I hope and believe that our Armies in the field and in this country will benefit very much, not only from having a Secretary of State for War in the House of Commons, but for having the right hon. Gentleman himself as Secretary of State.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. If it is inconvenient in the public interest to answer the question, I will not press it. I understand that a very considerable sum of this Vote of Credit is being devoted to loans to our Allies—I believe over £1,000,000 a day. Is there any objection to our knowing, first, how much has been lent to Russia, how much to France, how much to Italy, and Belgium and our Colonies, and can we know the figures as to whether any terms of repayment and similar matters have been entered into? If it is contrary to public policy that we should know this, I should be the last person to press it, but if there is no reason why we should not know it, surely it is a matter which the House of Commons, when dealing with this very large figure, should have before it.
    Mr. J. M. HENDERSON: I support my hon. and learned Friend in his application, and, of course, I join with him in saying that if it interferes with public interest in any way I will not press it. But we have this fact that the public believe that a very large sum—£6,000,000 a day—is being spent, and we know perfectly well that that is not so, and that a great deal of that is being lent and is also being used in the purchse of securities, and is also being used—here we are on delicate ground—largely for the purchase of copper, sugar, and a great many other things. Ordinary commercial men would not treat this as expenditure, except in so far as it has been spent and the money used. I do not know how far the right hon. Gentleman can enlighten us, so that we should know how much of the total expenditure is represented by loans and how much—and I would suggest to him that he should lump the goods and, say, copper, sugar, and so forth—has been expended on the purchase of these things, and how much has been resold, so that one can see how much remains in capital account. Also we might have some similar information as to American securities. We should then see how much we have really had to expend—of course, excluding the loans to other people—as proper concrete expenditure. We know that a very considerable sum remains in stock and that a very considerable sum remains on loan.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am very glad to have the opportunity of answering the question which has been put to me. When the Budget was introduced the total expenditure was stated by me to be anticipated

    1405
    at £5,000,000 a day. That expenditure was divided up by me at the time into various items: Army, Navy, and munitions, so much, civil expenditure so much, Consolidated Fund expenditure so much, and £450,000,000, if my memory serves me, advances to Allies and Dominions. The £5,000,000 a day expenditure which was stated as the average rate running over the whole year was an expenditure which covered all these items, including the recoverable items. No one could demur to my use of "expenditure" at that time as being total expenditure covering all our outgoings. Quite recently when explaining why it was that our borrowing powers were exhausted I used the term "expenditure" again in relation to the £5,000,000 a day, and I take all the fault to myself for not having made my explanation clearer, but I submit to my right hon. Friend that the term "expenditure," which I used in connection with the £5,000,000 a day as it was, if he had read the whole of my speech, ought to have been connoted with all the meanings which it had in connection with the £5,000,000 a day. I then stated that the expenditure for some time past had not been £5,000,000 a day but had been at the rate of £6,000,000 a day. I might tell the House now that during the last week the expenditure, using expenditure in the same way, has not been £5,000,000 a day but £4,000,000 a day. During last week up till last Saturday the expenditure issued during the week was just under £28,000,000. Consequently the average expenditure for the week was only £4,000,000; and I was explaining to the House why our borrowing powers had been exhausted and why we had not foreseen them being exhausted I ought, perhaps, to have gone at greater length into the matter, but I assumed that everybody was as familiar with the figures as my office compels me to be.
    I know that anybody who analyses with care the figures week by week will see that the total figures are given every week, every Wednesday morning, I think, in the Press, and anybody could have seen for himself that in the preceding seven weeks the total issues have been £300,000,000 for forty-nine days, or at the average rate of £6,000,00 a day, instead of the figure of £5,000,000 a day which was the Budget estimate. While there is not going to be a permanent expenditure at the rate of £6,000,000 a day, yet certain circumstances which usually on one side
    1406
    balance the other all co-operated together to lead to a temporary increase, just as I hope other circumstances will co-operate together to lead to a temporary decrease below £5,000,000 a day in the weeks to come as they have done in the last week. Those circumstances were the very rapid rate at which American securities for some weeks came to the Treasury on sale, and the rate at which our Allies and Dominions drew their borrowings from us. Those are matters of which, of course, the House can see no one can ever be certain in advance. My right hon. Friend says that we ought to be certain as to the rate at which American securities can come. But we want all we can get. We do not want to stop the flow. If we shut them down at any given moment, when people were ready to come forward with securities it might have a most injurious effect upon the steady stream which we hope to get of securities of that kind. It so happened that for three weeks they came in at a very rapid rate indeed. They are still coming in extremely well. I cannot tell how fast they will come in next week, but if they come in more slowly the amount of issues to pay for them will be reduced. Against that I have a large dollar balance in the United States with which to meet munitions expenditure as it comes along.
    I hope that I have made the point sufficiently clear now and that there will be no further misunderstanding as regards the statement of the expenditure being at the rate of £6,000,000 a day at a given period. Expenditure in that sense has the same meaning as expenditure in the Budget statement and includes the whole issues during the year. I have no reason at the present moment for anticipating that the Budget Estimate will be exceeded over the whole year. I hope that it will not be. My right hon. Friend assumed in the month of July that it was going to be up. He is wrong. But it is quite beyond my power to give him a guarantee that the expenditure will not be in excess of the Budget Estimate. I have not at the present time any reason for thinking that the Estimate will be exceeded. My hon. and learned Friend opposite has asked if I could give specific figures as to the advances to each of the Allies and the Dominions without injury to the public service. I am not sure that it would be a wise thing to do. Certainly I could not give all of them. I might give some with

    1407
    the consent of the Powers concerned. A total I have given. The total of the Budget Estimate was £450,000,000.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Up to date?
    Mr. McKENNA: That was given by the Prime Minister—£139,000,000. But I do not think that it would be consistent with the public interest to give the items in detail.
    Mr. RAWLINSON: Or anything about repayment?
    Mr. McKENNA: As regards repayment, the terms generally are that the loans are made on Treasury Bills which are to be rediscounted up to a certain period, varying I think, but not a long period, after the declaration of peace.
    Sir C. HENRY: There is no fixed rate of interest?
    Mr. McKENNA: No fixed rate. The rate was to vary according to the rate for the time being in this country. We take from the various borrowing countries bills corresponding to our Treasury Bills, which we undertake to rediscount as they fall due up to a certain period after the end of the War; the rate of discount at which we take the bills must depend on the rate of money for the time being in this country.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Not necessarily the same?
    Mr. McKENNA: No; the terms are not identical in every case. We have to consider the terms of variation. But the general rule is that out of those loans we do not make money, but we think it quite reasonable that the rates which we have paid should be repaid to us.
    Mr. LOUGH: Rates of discount?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes; because what would be the interest is paid by way of discount.
    Mr. J. A. BAKER: What proportion is allocated to the Dominions?
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot answer that. In these Estimates it is quite impossible to prepare an exact estimate for each. The only thing that I could do would be to take a general survey of what probably we should be called upon to lend, not only having regard to the requirements of the Allies, but having regard to the power of
    1408
    the producer to produce the necessary goods. I should like to point out that probably the sum total which this country will need to find in excess of the needs for its own requirements is somewhere within the limits of the figure I have given.
    Mr. HENDERSON: Will the loans be repayable in London in sterling?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes; they are all sterling loans. My hon. Friend asked me if I could make any statement as to how far the expenditure we have made in buying American securities and commodities of all kinds has been recouped to us by the sale of those commodities and securities. So far as sugar is concerned, the balance of trade now is fairly equal. We keep a stock more or less of some magnitude in this country, and consequently our weekly incomings and outgoings are fairly equal. Of course, there is always a balance to our credit in the capital stock which we possess. With regard to American securities here, another complication arises. If I were to speak of our total dollar balance in the United States—and I hope the House will not press me to state the figure—I should state a figure which would be in excess of what we have bought and paid for, because our dollar balance is made up of securities that we have borrowed, but a large proportion of those securities which we have bought have been themselves pledged as securities for loans with which we have paid for our munitions in the United States. I am not familiar with the figures as regards copper.
    Sir C. HENRY: There is scarcely any.
    Mr. McKENNA: We have stocks of some other commodities in large amounts, but the biggest item is American securities, and the next biggest is sugar. My right hon. Friend raised the question as to whether we could not take off the loans from the Vote of Credit and put them into some other Parliamentary form which would enable us to ask for a smaller sum by way of Vote of Credit. I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend has appreciated all the difficulties. If we are to make advances to the Allies and to the Dominions, I must first receive Parliamentary authority to issue the money from the Exchequer. If I am to receive that authority by Bill, then it is simply another Vote of Credit, in which case the Bill would correspond to the Consolidated Fund Bill. I would remind my right hon. Friend that the effect of this would be, in practice, that we would always have two

    1409
    Votes of Credit instead of one, each of them, of course, much smaller in amount. We would have one Vote of Credit for all other Services, and for loans we would have a Bill to authorise the issue out of the Exchequer of moneys required for loans. That would be substantially the same thing.
    Mr. LOUGH: It would keep the items separate.
    Mr. McKENNA: I agree; but it would mean that we would have to go through the same process of two Consolidated Fund Bills concerning really nothing but expenditure on the War. As the Prime Minister explained earlier in the Debate, each one of these operations encroaches upon five days of Parliamentary time. We have one Vote of Credit already every two months. Would it be reasonable to have it over twice in two months? It would not be a satisfactory way of spending our time. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington—although his strictures on myself were, I think, unduly severe—has again and again called attention to the fact that the whole of our expenditure is not irrecoverable expenditure. It is very important to bear that in mind. The right hon. Gentleman must equally bear in mind that expenditure out of Votes of Credit is not wholly irrecoverable expenditure. We have always irrecoverable expenditure on the Civil Service Estimates and to meet the Consolidated Fund Service, and these two Services are growing day by day. We pay out of the Consolidated Fund interest on our Debt, and what was before the War an expenditure of well under £30,000,000 might very well be an expenditure of £100,000,000 a year for the Consolidated Fund Service. That item, as well as the Civil Service, has to be added to the Vote of Credit expenditure in order to get our total expenditure.
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the suggestion that the Vote of Credit should be proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than by the Prime Minister. It is a great advantage to have a periodical statement made by him. Me you have always with you, like the poor; and I think the Prime Minister, with his authority and great power, should make the regular statement in moving the Vote of Credit.
    Mr. LOUGH: Will my right hon. Friend give us an explanation about the purchasing of securities?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is only a means of exchanging pounds sterling into dollars. We do not buy securities to keep them; we only buy the securities as an intermediary between the sovereign and the dollar. We buy the securities here with sovereigns; we sell them in America for dollars, and with those dollars we pay for munitions, instead of using sovereigns to pay for munitions from here. It is a mere matter of exchange, and the securities are only used as an intermediary in effecting this exchange from sterling to the dollar. There is no more reason why there should be a separate account for this than in any other transaction by which we pay for our munitions. Let me put it in another way. We pay for munitions over here by cheque and my right hon. Friend would consider that a perfectly proper proceeding; but, instead of paying for munitions by cheque we pay for munitions by handing over American securities. They become as it were a new currency in the international market between ourselves and the United States, and it would be impossible to treat munitions paid for in that way on a different footing from munitions paid for over here by cheque in the ordinary way.
    Sir C. HENRY: I was rather disappointed when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, for I thought he was going to give us some idea as to how this unprecedented Vote of Credit is to be financed. He told me the other day in answer to a question, that the present issue of Treasury Bills was over £800,000,000, and by this time there may be close upon £850,000,000. I believe the large majority of the financial world view with great apprehension this enormous amount, and I really think that when the right hon. Gentleman comes forward with a Vote of Credit of this amount he should give the House and the country some idea of how he is going to raise the money.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been out of order if he had attempted to do so, and I should have had to stop him. We are now concerned with the expenditure of the money, not with the method of raising it.
    Mr. DAVID MASON: On the point of Order, Sir. I find that the Vote of Credit covers advances by way of temporary loans which otherwise would be raised by the issue of securities. Is not the hon. Baronet therefore entitled to refer to the temporary floating debt?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is a Vote of Credit to place the Government in funds for the purpose of spending money. The question of how the money is to he raised, whether by loan or taxation, or in any other way, is a matter which does not come before the Committee of Supply at all; that goes before the Committee of Ways and Means.
    Sir C. HENRY: Would I be in order in criticising the arrangements in reference to Treasury Bills?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We are now going into Committee of Supply, and we have nothing to do in Committee of Supply with the method in which the money is to be raised. We are only now concerned with the advance of the money which is to be spent.
    Mr. MASON: I do not wish in any way to traverse your ruling, Sir, but I hope I am in order if I protest against this Vote of Credit without some guarantee from the Treasury that some limit will be put to this enormous floating debt. I would ask if I am not in order in referring to that subject.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think so. It does not seem to me to have anything to do with expenditure.
    Mr. MASON: I regret that, because I had intended to support the hon. Baronet, but no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give the matter his attention. I should like to endorse what has been said by the right hon. Member for Islington, as to dividing up our expenditure. If I apprehend the sense of the country, what they wish to get at is the actual expenditure on the War at present. The Chancellor of the Excheqeur confuses the question by his misuse of the word "expenditure." It cannot under any circumstances be expenditure to invest in American securities or to advance money to the Allies or the Dominions. Expenditure surely is money expended in the conduct of the War. I do assure the right hon. Gentleman that the effect in the City and elsewhere by his statement was a very anxious one, and the way in which he has met the criticism shows that he recognises that fact. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks of "issues" surely that is not the correct term. The usual acceptation of the term is an issue of securities.
    Mr. McKENNAmade some observations which were inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. MASON: I do think that if the right hon. Gentleman were very precise in these distinctions it would be very much appreciated. Any slight expression which is not quite technically correct is misconstrued and has a very severe effect on our credit, on the stock exchanges, and in other places where they are very susceptible to any such statement. The statement as to the six millions per day, which was made very emphatically by the right hon. Gentleman, as he will see from the record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, undoubtedly created a bad impression. With regard to this Vote I feel that we might have had some more definite survey from the Prime Minister. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill). I think it was rather disappointing that the Prime Minister did not in some way give us a more definite idea of policy, and even as to the holding out of some hope as to the possible termination of this War. I recognise that is a very difficult thing to state, but this is a very large sum to be asked to vote, and I think we are bound to appreciate the enormous responsibility attaching to every single Member of this House, and that we are entitled to a more definite outline of policy with regard to his views as to the future of the War. Then there is the question, what may happen after the War and as to peace. We had recently the very important pronouncement made by the President of the United States, and probably the most important statement on policy on the part of the United States for many years. The President spoke of joining partnership with all the nations. Has the Prime Minister any idea possibly of meeting that proposal, or does he regard it as likely to terminate the War? We should like to know what he thinks of a proposal of that kind, which was a sort of qualified intervention of the United States. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to meet or support that proposal, or has he any idea of bringing it seriously before this House? Perhaps the Chancellor may convey that observation to the proper quarter. When we are asked month after month to vote these enormous sums we are entitled to some definite statement of policy, some more idea of finality on the part of the Government. What is their policy with regard to the War? or are they drifting on. We are entitled to something more definite with regard to the Near East, the Balkan Peninsula, Serbia, Macedonia and Bulgaria, and Salonika

    1413
    and their views as to our movements there. What are they going to do with this enormous sum of money? Have they any policy to offer us? I very respectfully ask to have some regard paid to that on the Report stage, when perhaps the Prime Minister may again speak, and when I hope he will give us some definite conception of policy on which such enormous sums are voted.
    Mr. KING: I would point out to the hon. Member that his speech ought to have been made on No. 2 of the Orders of the Day, which is Ways and Means Committee. I assume that both the speech which he wished to make and the speech which the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Henry) began will be quite in order on that Order. As it is very important, and he has light to throw on the subject in question, I hope the hon. Gentleman will be in his place when that Order is reached so that he can deliver his speech.
    Mr. MASON: That is with regard to the floating debt.
    Mr. KING: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us a great deal of information that we ought to have had given to us before about the loans to our allies. Although I have asked questions on the subject I never knew before the way in which those loans were arranged, and that they were discounted every year, and up to a certain period after the end of the War. That is very important information which we have all been anxious to hear. We are greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington West (Mr. Lough) for the way in which he raised the whole question of the financial control of this House. I have pointed out, and I think others have done so, that previous to this War there has never been any case of a loan to a foreign Power which was not embodied in a direct Bill for that purpose with the amount of the loan and the objects for which it was given definitely and clearly shown. Therefore, it is a very great departure, which has prevailed ever since this War began, to give large loans to Allies without the names or the amounts or the conditions being given. Though we all as a body irrespective of party have been very glad to assist the objects of the Government in the carrying on of the War in every way in our power, yet some of us have great respect for the traditional forms and rights of control the House of Commons always
    1414
    exercised over public expenditure, and we feel, not unnaturally, that a little more respect should be given to those forms and rights.
    There was another important matter raised in debate, and I wish a fuller House had been here to listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, and especially the frank way in which he stated to the House the actual superiority in certain military work and in certain military methods which the Germans show in face of the enemy. We heard to-day, very frankly stated, what he said about the superiority of the German trenches at the front, and his frank acknowledgment that, in his opinion, the losses in trench warfare suffered by ourselves were greater than the losses suffered by the Germans in the corresponding area of war centres. That is a very important statement, and I was very glad that the Secretary of State for War faced the matter so fairly and candidly. The statements which have been made, although heard in private, were not faced in public before, and now that we have got the vigorous and original genius of the new Secretary of State for War facing these questions, I am sure that it is only for the good and something probably to the benefit of our military forces. I would ask the attention of the Home Secretary to a matter which I regard as of really great importance and to which I directed a great number of questions recently. I refer to the policy which the right hon. Gentleman announced on the 29th June and the 11th inst., of approaching aliens who live in our midst and are of military age with a view to getting them to join the Army. Months ago I asked questions whether aliens would be allowed to join the Army and to hold the King's commission, and the answer for months was that they could not be admitted to the Army and would not be granted the King's Commission. But now a total change has come over the Government, and they have got to face the question. Having introduced compulsion upon all our men of military age, what are they going to do with the aliens in our midst? Enemy aliens, of course, have either all been interned or there are such few exceptions that enemy aliens can be disregarded: All neutral aliens, of course, we leave alone, though in some cases neutral aliens may be, and often are, very dangerous enemies. But I am not going to speak of that to-night.

    1415
    I wish to speak of aliens who are members of friendly allied countries. How are we going to treat them? Before we had any opportunity of discussing this question the Home Secretary announced the policy which I venture to think was not well stated, and which has certain elements of danger. He announced suddenly to the House, without any discussion being held here, and when people who are interested in it had been asking in vain for information as to the intentions of the Government, that he was going to ask all alien friendly Allies to join the British Army, and that if they would not join the British Army they might have the opportunity of going before a tribunal which he would set up. If from that tribunal they did not get extension or exemption they were to be deported. His policy was put forward with a threat of deportation. I am going to tell the Home Secretary that, industrious, and in many ways eminently successful, as he has been—I acknowledge that very gladly—in beginning his policy for friendly aliens with a threat that they must be deported if they did not join the Army, he made a great mistake. If you want these people who are not citizens to join our Army do not go to them with a threat in one hand and the attestation paper in the other. Without any of these people really knowing that they were able to join the Army—because, although a notice has been published by the War Office, it is not generally known to the Press, and it was certainly not placarded all over the streets—the right hon. Gentleman goes to thousands of people who have been living in this country, and doing very useful work in the country, and tells them that unless they join the Army they are going to be deported. That was, if I may say so, a great error of tact, and I am afraid it is only going to make a difficult case—it is a really difficult question which has to be faced here, and I recognise that as much as he does—more difficult at the start if he is going to deport these aliens. I want to ask the Home Secretary whether in this policy he is really proceeding with the real approval of all our Allies? We know that with regard to sending Frenchmen of military age from this country to France to join the French Army we are acting with the consent and full approval of the French Government, and the same may be said with regard to the Belgians
    1416
    of military age of this country. They are, through the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act, and Regulations, practically forced to join the Belgian Army. That may be all right. But when you come to the question of Russians, Italians, Serbians, Japanese, and Portuguese, all of which countries are our Allies, you have not received from a single one of those countries, as far as questions up to Thursday last have been able to find out, a request that you will deport their citizens back so that they might join the Army. In fact, with regard to Russia and Italy, there is no necessity, and no desire, to have their men deported. What they want is money and munitions. In both cases, the Italians and Russians have plenty of men for their Army without wanting any of their citizens who are within our bounds deported. Of course, the case is really most difficult with regard to the Russians. There are in this country several thousands of Russians. They are mostly Jews, who have come largely through the unfortunate political and social disabilities under which they suffer in Russia, and largely as the result of actual religious persecution. They have come to these shores for a refuge and an asylum. There are probably at least 10,000 Russian Jews of military age in this country at the present time. I have had the opportunity of seeing several of them, and of receiving three deputations of different societies which have come to me on this subject. I find that all of them are, first of all, surprised beyond words that, without have any attempt made at anything like a voluntary recruiting campaign to get them to join the British Army, they are being threatened with deportation; and the feeling—I am quite sure I am right in saying so—where there is a large body of Russian Jews, as there is in the East End of London, and as there is also in Manchester, and in Leeds, is one of intense bitterness and indignation that they are threatened with deportation. Would it be a good thing, I am going to ask the Home Secretary, at the present time to deport any number of these Russian Jews to their own country? First of all, you have the fact that the Russian Government has not asked for them. Secondly, you have this fact, that Russia has no need of men at the present time, but has great need of munitions and of money. Thirdly, you have the difficulty of having to deport them

    1417
    by a long sea voyage to Archangel, where they are many hundreds of miles from any district in which they can be trained and mobilised for war. I suppose the duration of the journey of a Jew deported from here to some place where he could take part in warfare would be at least from three to four weeks. I think that is a very doubtful proposition, if I may say so. It would be, in my opinion, a very costly and unnecessary proceeding to deport Russian Jews to Russia.
    I enforce my argument for two reasons. The first is that these Jews are all of them of great economic value at the present time. Anyone who is a good industrious worker, whether a British citizen or an alien friend, is of economic value at the present time. I am told there are at least 20,000 to 25,000 Russian Jews in the clothing trade working on khaki cloth, and that many of the firms, especially in London, could never have carried out their contracts for the War Office if it had not been for the Russian Jews. Why, therefore, deport them? I do not say that all these are men of military age. Some may be women, some older men, and some children; but I maintain that it would be a great economic mistake to deport any number of these Russian Jew tailors at the present time. Let me point this out. They are not taking jobs from anyone else. I know a certain section of the Yellow Press has declared that these Russian Jews are job-stealers. There never was a greater mistake, or a more absurd accusation. The Russian Jews especially are organised in special trades which they have established themselves. They have established quite a number of the woodworking trades in the East End, and I am told that the boxes in which our ammunition is stored and sent to the Armies in the field are mostly made by East End Russian Jews. I believe no inquiry has been made upon this subject. I believe the Home Secretary has really not acquainted himself with the fact. If he has, the facts that have been given to me by people who are of authority in this matter go to prove not that the Russian Jews are stealing people's jobs, but that they are making jobs for others. Of course, it is one of the facts of the history of our land and of that of other lands that the influx of a Jewish population is always of benefit for the country to which they come. Three hundred years ago there were no Jews in
    1418
    this land. We owe the influx of Jews into this country to the enlightened policy of Oliver Cromwell. I think he was enlightened in his policy, because though he was cruel to one small nationality let us remember that he was at any rate fair and just to another small nationality. What a position they take in society! There are twenty Jewish Members of this House. There are two in the Cabinet, and of those twenty Jewish Members ten have titles. I ask you to take any twenty Members of this House at haphazard and find two of them in the Cabinet and half of them with titles, and I am sure you would say at once that you had made a very fortunate selection of a very fine lot of men at haphazard. That shows what folly it is, what cruel folly it is, to embark on a policy which means setting the Jewish world, and especially the Jewish immigrant, against the Government of the country. I believe the Jews have enriched this land, have contributed to every class of intellectual and artistic work, that they have been great in finance, great in industry; and I believe they can be great in every department of life. I must say that whether a war is on or not, and whatever happens, it would be the greatest folly if you were to start on any policy of deportation of the Jews.
    I am not going to sit down without making a definite suggestion to the Home Secretary. I want him to consider two definite proposals which I am going to put before him. First, let me say that, of course, I recognise this is a very difficult question. There is a strong feeling in our midst that these aliens who have been sheltered and asylumed here must make some definite and great sacrifice which we have a right to ask of them at this time. The problem is how we are to offer them opportunities for this sacrifice. I am going, as I have said, to make three definite suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman. I am going to say first: Do not be, in a hurry to deport them. You began your policy by threatening to deport them. Let that be a threat in the background, in case your proposals and other methods do not succeed, but do not go to them without attempting anything like a voluntary recruiting programme. There has not been a single recruiting meeting for Jews in the East End of London, and I am told there could not be now because this policy has been begun with a threat of deportation. Let the Home Secretary tell us to-night that he is not going to deport these men at once, but that he

    1419
    is going to give every consideration to their case and every possible inducement for them to enlist, and that he is going to give exemptions at least on a fair and generous scale, so that any man who is really doing national work and who is serving this nation to which he has come in an economic manner shall not, at any rate, be deported. My first proposal, therefore, is: Do not press the deportation threat more than necessary. My second suggestion is: These aliens, especially these Russian Jews, say, "We have been driven out from our own country by persecution and the disabilities under which we have suffered, and now we are here, as outcasts upon the earth, and we may have to go to another country before long." Cannot you give to these men as soon as they enter the British Army the full rights of British citizenship? If we offer to take them into the Army we ought, at any rate, to give such men the same pay, the same prospects, and the same pensions as we give to our own men. I also go further and say give them the full rights of citizenship. Do not force men to fight for you, and then tell them that, after all, they are aliens all the time. The third proposal I am going to make—and I do not put it forward with the same confidence—is this: I ask the Home Secretary to give serious consideration to the idea whether a special unit corps, regiment, or battalion might not be formed into which these men can go? They would then go into a "pals" company, as it is called, knowing one another, and you thus get over the language difficulty. There are thousands of Russian Jews, and many of them, I am told—at least 3,000 have come from or through Belgium since the War began—do not know the English language. Give them a special Jewish unit, and you get over the language and the religious difficulty. You get over the difficulty of special religious observances, like that of Kosher meat, which is a very serious difficulty now for many of these alien Jews who are strict and orthodox. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider these proposals. Do not scatter these men over the various regiments of the British Army. Give them a definite unit where they can work and fight together; and further, I repeat, consider seriously whether you cannot, as soon as they enter the British Army, admit them to the full rights of British citizenship.
    1420
    Above all, let the Home Secretary not press his idea of deporting them until that threat is made wholly and absolutely necessary.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The hon. Gentleman has spoken, as I am sure everyone of us wishes to do, with a single-minded and philanthropic desire to be of service to a body of men who, and whose forbears, have suffered much, and who desire to find in this country a secure and lasting haven. There is no man more than myself in this House who can sympathise with that desire, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit of his speech. He recognised that there is a widespread public opinion amongst the British population generally that all who reside in this country, whether British subjects or the subjects of Allied nations, should be ready to make some sacrifice in the great cause in which the Grand Alliance is engaged. He recognises, as we all do, that there is in the East End of London, and in other parts of the country where large numbers of these Russian immigrants are collected, a very deep feeling—which may grow into a bitter feeling—if these able-bodied young men are not found to take some part in the burden which lies upon us all. The British population in these districts have been called upon to make the heaviest sacrifices. British young men are being compelled, where compulsion is necessary, to enter the Army. They have appealed frequently to the tribunals for exemption on the ground of business hardship, and have often been refused. They see, too, other young men, frequently at great inconvenience, even at heavy financial and other sacrifices, drafted into the Army in neighbouring streets; while in the neighbouring houses in those streets they see young men, many of whom have lived in this country all their lives, and who belong to the nationalities who are engaged in this War, exempted from all sacrifice, taking no part in the War and conducting their ordinary avocations just as if Europe were not plunged into this great cataclysm.
    With regard to the Frenchman, the Belgian, and the Italian who lives in England action has been taken long ago. Those who are of military age and liable to military service in those countries have been sent to the countries from which they came in order to serve in the Army. That

    1421
    has not been done with the Russians, and the Russians have, therefore, hitherto been exceptionally treated. The Russian Government announced some time ago that that Government would be quite content if those nationals living in the territories of Russia's Allies would serve in the Armies of those Allies. There are in the United Kingdom probably about 25,000 men of Russian nationality between the ages of eighteen and forty-one. As the hon. Member stated, they were not until recently eligible for the British Army. On the representation of myself and others the War Office agreed to recruit a certain number of these—up to the limit of 2 per cent. of the total establishment of the British Army. That is a statutory limitation of the number of aliens who are allowed to be enlisted into the British Army. When that assent was given steps were taken to make it known to the population concerned that they were now eligible for the British Army. My hon. Friend minimised, somewhat unduly, the steps that were taken in order to bring this offer home to the persons concerned. It is not the case that I began with threatening them with deportation if they did not. serve in the British Army. Posters were issued in the East End, both in English and Yiddish, informing them they were eligible for the British Army, and inviting them to serve. Leading men amongst them were interviewed, a recruiting committee which had been established at Lord Rothschild's offices was set actively to work, and it was made known throughout the quarters chiefly concerned that they were invited and desired to join the British Army. It was only when it was found that those offers had what must be confessed to be very inadequate numerical results that the Government found it necessary to take further steps. Nor is it the case that the only alternatives open are: Enlistment on the one hand, or repatriation on the other.
    There is a third alternative. Men may apply to the tribunals for exemption. If they are of great industrial value to this country, as the hon. Member suggests—and as I have no doubt a great many of them are—the tribunals can give them exemption from service exactly on the same footing as British subjects. On any other grounds of exemption which apply to British subjects these men may also obtain their certificates of exemption. I have stated that the tribunals will be specially constituted so as to contain men who are familiar with these classes of resi-
    1422
    dents in this country, and sympathetic to their point of view. There shall certainly be representation upon the tribunals of persons who may be regarded as well-disposed towards this class of the population. It is only when they have appeared before the tribunals, and exemption has been refused, and they have nevertheless declared, and definitely declared, that they will not serve in the British Army, that any question of repatriation can arise. Then, at that stage, if the individual concerned claims that he is a political refugee, and appeals for the observance of the continued right of asylum, that I have already undertaken at that stage—I have made it quite clear to the House, though it has not been recognised outside these walls—that that point will be further taken into consideration. We are most unwilling to do anything that may be regarded as an infraction of the right of political asylum which has always been regarded as one of the glories of this country.
    Mr. KING: Will the same tribunal that grants exemption also consider the plea of political refugeeism or will it be another tribunal?
    Mr. SAMUEL: These questions of procedure are being worked out by a Committee that I have appointed for the purpose, and whose Report I have not yet received. I think it is very possible that they will recommend that the Committee which is dealing with exemptions on the same grounds as British subjects will not deal with the other question.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the political refugee be allowed to continue to live in this country after exemption from military service?
    Mr. SAMUEL: That was just the point with which I was dealing. If they have been refused exemption, and consequently make an appeal on the ground that they are political refugees, that will probably be considered by a special tribunal.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Has anything been done in practice?
    8.0 p. m.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Nobody has been deported at all under this system. The whole thing is in the future. I will deal with that point in a moment. My hon. Friend asks, What has been done? There is no question at the present time of deportation. In respect to their treatment in the Army, the War Office have undertaken that they shall have the same conditions with regard to allowances and pen-

    1423
    sions as British subjects in the Army. I come now to my hon. Friend's three specific practical suggestions. We are always glad to receive suggestions of positive and practical value which are not put forward merely to make our proposals of, no effect or as negative criticism. The first suggestion is that these men, if required to fight for this country, should be given the rights of citizenship. If they are good enough to be England's soldiers, they are good enough, it is urged, to be England's citizens. There is undoubtedly very great force in that contention. Men who are willing to fight for a country have shown by that very fact that they have, at all events, many of the qualifications to make them worthy of its citizenship. I took these considerations into account, and before I made any proposals I approached the Treasury on this subject—because it is partly a question of fee. The Treasury agreed that these men—that was the proposal at the time—if serving in the Army at the end of the War, should be eligible, without fee, for naturalisation if they conform to the statutory requirements. The conditions of naturalisation are laid down by Statute. There must be five years' residence, and the person must be of good conduct—for we cannot naturalise a person; for instance, of a criminal type. There must be certain qualifications. I think my hon. Friend agrees with me that these people who fulfil the statutory requirements, whose cases ought to be pressed forward at once and granted every consideration, are those to whom he referred, and because of their forming part of our Army. The Treasury agreed to that, and it has been announced that they would be made eligible specially for naturalisation without fee, but I quite agree there is much weight in my hon. Friend's contention that as soon as they have entered the Army, or, perhaps, very shortly after—as soon as they have given proof by good conduct and so forth, that they are worthy citizens—within two or three months, and before they are required to go out to fight, their case for naturalisation should be taken into consideration. I am now examining that proposal, and in a very sympathetic spirit indeed. It is not only the Home Office that is concerned, but some other Departments have to be considered in the matter. But, so far as I myself am personally concerned, I should greatly desire to accept the suggestion
    1424
    that my hon. Friend as well as others have made, and secure that, if the statutory qualifications are fulfilled, then on the ordinary rules which we apply as regards naturalisation those people should be naturalised at once and without fee. With reference to the suggestion that they should be enrolled in a special corps, there are disadvantages in that into which I need not enter at this moment. It will, perhaps, be enough if I say that that proposal is not at the present moment favoured either by pur military authorities or by representative men of the Jewish community in this country. I do not say finally and definitely that, under no circumstances, could it be considered, but from the expressions of opinion I have obtained from various quarters I do not think it has general approval, and, as at present advised, it is not a proposal I should desire to press the military authorities to accept. Thirdly, my hon. Friend urges that we ought not to be in a hurry to carry out deportations, and that time should be given to enable men to enlist voluntarily if they so desire. There is no question of any hurry. There seems to have been an idea abroad that already men are being sent to Archangel under deportation orders because they are not serving in the British Army, and although the special tribunal promised to consider their case has not been set up. That is not so. No action of any sort or kind has been taken in that direction as yet. The first step in dealing with this matter is to secure the registration of all persons concerned, and a Regulation has been made under the Defence of the Realm Act requiring them to register if they have not already registered under the previous Order. That registration is proceeding, and it will take some little time to be completed. Then there is the process of hearing cases for exemption before the tribunals, so that in any case some interval must necessarily elapse before final action can be taken. I need hardly say I have no desire, and the Government have no desire, to proceed to extreme measures in respect of any individual at all, and if my hon. Friend thinks that an active propaganda amongst them would yield fruitful result, I should be only too glad to give every facility for that propaganda to take place. If he himself would take part in it I am sure his influence would not be inconsiderable and that the result of his effort would be of no small value. That certainly can be done. There is time for such a propaganda to take place, and by all means let it take

    1425
    place, but I am sure the whole House, I think without any exception, will agree that we cannot allow the matter to rest entirely. There is a very real problem which must be dealt with, and I submit that the steps taken by the Government in no harsh or inconsiderate spirit are likely to have results of benefit to the cause of the Allies.
    Mr. LYNCH: I will call attention at the beginning to the fact that on a day when some hundreds of millions of pounds are being voted we have before us a listless House which would be almost depleted were it not for the presence and good service of my Irish colleagues. On the whole I think that that listlessness of the House is a bad augury. It is not the calm and confidence of men who are sure of victory; it is rather the listlessness of men who have been accustomed to bad fortune, bad leadership, but have come to accept those as their normal condition. On previous occasions it has been my lot to criticise the Government somewhat tentatively and mildly. If time permits I will to-night lay my hand on the Ark of the Covenant. We see a Front Bench in which incapacity and vacillation find a home, on which sit those who are past masters of all the negative virtues, but where we find few of the qualities that make great leaders of a great nation at a great crisis.
    In the present aspect of the War there is one bright spot and that is the dazzling courage of the soldiers themselves, so brilliant and so inspiring as to rival, not only the best days of this country, but perhaps throughout the whole range of history the best days of any country in the full pride of its martial fervour. And as to that I will make no invidious distinctions—nothing in the way of invidious comparison between the irresistible dash of the Irish, or the cool determined courage of the Australians, and the stubborn John Bull pluck of Englishmen. As I do not wish to offend any susceptibilities I will, of course, mention the Scottish and the Welsh, the gallant representatives of that gallant little country which is showing its prowess, not only on the fields of France, but also in the intellectual arena of this country. Of course, to be a Scotsman almost is to be brave and gallant in the time of danger.
    But, if we vaunt this courage of the individual soldier, this splendid and dazzling heroism, surely we must recognise that there is some great weakness to off-set
    1426
    these great qualities, a weakness which leaves the Allied nations of which this should be one of the predominant partners in time of War, in such a plight as they are at present. Let us look at matters steadily in the face, and let us dispose of all mere assumptions of official optimism. Optimism is a good quality in itself, but if optimism was all that was necessary to win wars we would not send soldiers to the front, but poets and flute players and professional politicians. Optimism is a weapon of the Government. With a sort of nickel-plated optimism they parry every grave situation. One of the most disquieting features of the campaign in which we are engaged at present is this: whereas there has been no great plan of action conceived or sketched out by the Cabinet, yet the Cabinet is continually interfering even in the strategy of the War. When, for instance, we read accounts given by eyewitnesses of the campaign of Mesopotamia we are reminded of this, that at one time, when the situation was grave and serious in this House, and when the Prime Minister found it necessary to come down for one of his periodical demands for a renewed Vote of Credit, he dangled before our eyes the glittering bauble of Bagdad, and used this marvellous campaign of Mesopotamia as an off-set against the dilatory methods, or even the disasters, which had overtaken our arms in France. We have seen the results of the Mesopotamia campaign and we have seen the outcome of those brilliant feats of Government strategy; the most distressing feature of the whole of this War from the very beginning is that many of these expeditions and many of these attacks have not been military expeditions or military attacks at all, but they have been Parliamentary attacks and political manoeuvres to mask from the country the real nature of a disastrous campaign.
    A great deal of the fault rests not merely with the Front Bench as a whole, but, in order, as I say, to lay my hand on the very Ark of the Covenant, with the Prime Minister himself. There was a time when I admired the Prime Minister, when I set before my eyes that type as representative of the British nation, and gave myself the task earnestly to strive to believe in its great and superior virtues, and even by comparison to acknowledge our own Celtic deficiencies. That has been an uphill task, and it has been continually defeated by the conduct of that great exemplar. Time and time again we have seen him come down to this House the very embodiment

    1427
    of British law, giving himself one of those poses of the strong man who has taken his stand against wrongdoing and incidentally the man who was afterwards his right hon. colleague when he destroyed the Cabinet on whose shoulders he had climbed. But after admiring him as the strong man, the man who, having given his word, would at all costs carry it into reality, the very embodiment of those splendid British virtues, celebrated in song and story and history, yet, if the truth must be told, three weeks afterwards we have seen this man, the embodiment of British law, the very type of the nation's leonine qualities, turning tail and running away from the very shadows which his own timidity had created. I see a smile on the face of the right hon. Gentleman to whom allusion was made. While bearing no personal ill will, I would, had I been in the Prime Minister's place, have put him in a stone jug till the troubles he had created had been allayed.
    It being a quarter past eight of the clock, and leave having been given to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
  PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    Mr. J. REDMOND: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
    I would not venture to interpose between the House and the important business before us were it not that the subject I desire to bring before the House is one which affects not only the interests of Ireland, but also—as we have high ministerial authority for the statement—the highest Imperial interests. I have not risen for the purpose of attacking anyone. I desire simply to make a dispassionate statement of the facts, and to allow those facts to speak for themselves. When, on the 25th of May last, two long months ago, the Prime Minister returned from Ireland and announced in this House that the present system of government in that country had hopelessly broken down, and that the Cabinet had unanimously requested the present Secretary for War, who was then
    1428
    the Minister of Munitions, to bring about, if possible, a provisional settlement of the Irish question by consent, everyone I think of all parties in this country was thrilled by the hope that in the interests not only of Ireland, but of the Empire, the Irish question might be put out of the way, at any rate until the War had concluded. The Minister of War, with characteristic energy, addressed himself immediately to this task. He put himself into communication with all sections of thought in Ireland, and finally he put before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Sir E. Carson) and his friends on the one side, and before me and my hon. Friends on the other, a series of proposals for a temporary and provisional settlement of the Irish question as a war emergency measure to cover the period of the War.
    These proposals were in no sense our proposals. After considerable negotiations and after many changes had been made, it was agreed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College on the one side, and by me upon the other, to recommend these proposals to our friends. We did not go further than that, and we could not, and we were not asked to go further than that. We were requested by the Minister of War to proceed at once to Ireland and to endeavour to obtain the consent of our supporters in that country. We were urged to use the utmost dispatch, and it was pressed upon us again and again that every day and every hour counted, and that in the highest Imperial interests it was essential, if the agreement was endorsed in Ireland that it should be put into operation immediately. That is two long months ago. Accordingly we proceeded to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University obtained the consent of his friends to these proposals, and we obtained the consent of our friends and supporters in Ulster and elsewhere. We obtained the consent of our friends with very great difficulty indeed. We never concealed from ourselves that these proposals entailed very great sacrifices on the part of our supporters. We never concealed from ourselves that these proposals were unpopular everywhere in Ireland. We felt, however, as these proposals had been put before us that it was our duty, not only to Ireland, but, as I have said, to the Empire, to obtain the assent of our supporters if that were possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "What were

    1429
    the proposals?"] If the hon. Gentleman will wait. The agreement was, in the words of the Prime Minister himself, for what he called a provisional settlement which would last until the War was over, or until a final and permanent settlement was arrived at within a limited period after the War. This was the chief feature of this plan, and I say that without it not one of my colleagues or myself would for a moment, have considered it, much less have submitted it to our followers. The exact words of the agreement on this point are plain and unmistakable, and were arrived at after considerable consultation and consideration. The first words proposed were:
    "The Bill (that is, of course, the whole Bill) to remain in force during the continuance of the War and for a period of twelve months afterwards."
    But we were informed, or I was informed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University took the objection that if Parliament took no action whatever during the twelve months after the War then the six Ulster counties to be excluded from the operations of the Home Rule Act of 1914 should automatically come into that Act, even though no permanent provision for the government of Ireland had been made at all, whereas it was the intention of us all that this new provisional arrangement should remain in existence until this permanent settlement of all the problems of the Irish question had been considered, and had been finally determined immediately, or as soon as possible after the end of the War. In order, therefore, to meet the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, the following words were added to this provision:
    "But if Parliament has not by that time made further and permanent provision for the government of Ireland, the period for which this Bill is to remain in force is to be extended by Order in Council for such time as may be necessary to enable Parliament to make such provision."
    I was informed that those words had been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University and had been accepted by him. They were accepted by us, and they were then incorporated in this agreement. Let me say that none of us desired, and none of us desire now, that any county in Ulster which objects to Home Rule should be coerced into accepting it. Our hope was—it was a generous hope, and I believe it had some foundation of probability behind it—that the interval would, by its experience of sane and moderate and tolerant government in the rest of Ireland, show
    1430
    these fellow countrymen of ours that their fears were to a large extent groundless, and that, having fought and bled side by side in this War with our countrymen of the South and West, they would be willing when the permanent settling came to be made to join in a common government of their country. But we never for one moment contemplated the idea that this great question was to be foreclosed and settled now. Another fundamental proposal in the agreement was that during this transitory period pending the permanent settlement of the government of Ireland the number of Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament was to remain as at present. This we regarded as an indispensable safeguard of the temporary character of the whole arrangement.
    Having obtained the consent of our followers to this agreement, we returned to London. The very day that I arrived back in London I was faced with an entirely new proposal which had been put forward by Lord Lansdowne—a proposal, mark you, that formed no part whatever of the agreement. It had never been discussed between us and the Secretary of State for War, and, as far as I know, though of course I have no actual means of knowing, it was never discussed by him with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. This proposal was that there should be inserted in the Bill a Clause providing for the full maintenance of Imperial authority over the Army, Navy, and all matters pertaining to the Defence of the Realm. When this proposal was put before me I at once pointed out that none of us disputed the fact for a moment that this authority ought to rest in the hands of the Imperial Government, but I pointed out—and in this, from one statement made in this House by the Prime Minister, I think he entirely agreed with me—that this reservation of power was fully provided by a Section of the Home Rule Act of 1914, and that a further Clause of this character was absolutely unnecessary. But rather than break down the agreement which had been come to, I consented to a declaratory Clause of the kind desired being inserted in the Bill, and I was then informed that that concession on our part would enable Lord Lansdowne and his Friends in the Cabinet to consent to our agreement being carried out. Accordingly, immediately afterwards, the Prime Minister came down to

    1431
    this House and made a statement to the effect that an agreement had been arrived at, and that——These are his words:
    "Notwithstanding the reluctance of some of his colleagues in the Cabinet they had surrendered their convictions in the matter and were willing, for the sake of high Imperial interests, to become parties to and sponsors for the new experiment, and that a Bill to carry out the agreement would be forthwith presented to Parliament on behalf of the Government as a whole."
    I confess after that statement I felt convinced in my own mind that the chief obstacles in the way of this temporary settlement had been removed, that the objections of Lord Lansdowne and his friends had been overcome, and that a Bill would be immediately introduced giving effect to the agreement. But like a bolt from the blue two days afterwards Lord Lansdowne made a speech in the House of Lords in which he declared that the Bill which was to be introduced would make certain structural alterations in the Acts of 1914—these are his words—
    "Which would be permanent and enduring."
    I felt it my duty the very day I read those words to enter my protest, and in the statement which I published on 13th July I used the following words, which the House must forgive me for repeating:
    "The agreement arrived at was that the Home Rule Act of 1914 was to be put into operation as soon as possible, subject to certain modifications which were to be all on the same footing. One of these modifications was that the Act should not extend to the six counties of Ulster, and there was a further modification that the number of Irish Members in this House during the transitory period was to remain as at present. And the other modifications——"
    Then I proceeded to quote the ipsissima verba of the Clause that had been put into the agreement—
    "were to remain in force during the continuance of the War and for a period of twelve months thereafter or for such other period to be settled by Order in Council as would enable Parliament to make further and permanent provision for the government of Ireland."
    I stated that a Bill to carry that agreement out must—such was my trust—and, of course, will, in all its provisions and details, be strictly temporary and provisional. Lord Lansdowne replied to that the next day, and substantially stood by his statement made in the House of Lords. I had only one recourse left open to me then, and I called for the immediate production of the Bill. At that time the Bill had been drafted. I had seen the draft, and I had reason to believe—I do not know whether I am correct or not—that the draft had been circulated to the Cabinet, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had also seen it.
    Sir E. CARSON: No, I had not.
    Mr. J. REDMOND: Well, of course, I accept anything the right hon. Gentleman says, but I had some reason to believe when it was circulated to the Cabinet that it would be sent to him.
    Sir E. CARSON: Oh, it was sent subsequently.
    Mr. J. REDMOND: I will not enter into these points. I do not know what "subsequently" means. At any rate, the draft Bill to which I have referred was submitted to the Cabinet, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman at some stage also saw it. What I want to say is that this draft Bill on these questions of the provisional character of the measure and on the representation of Ireland was strictly in accordance with the agreement we had come to. Having seen that Bill, I continued to press all the more for its production, because its production would have set all doubts at rest, but I was told that the Bill could not be produced until it had been formally approved by the whole Cabinet. I then urged that a Cabinet should be instantly held for this purpose, but the Cabinet was postponed for a week, for what purpose I do not know. It was finally held on Wednesday, the 19th of July, and I do ask the House to mark what I am now going to say. The Cabinet meeting was held on the 19th of July, and on the 20th of July, the next day, I received a most extraordinary message from the Cabinet to the effect that the consideration of this draft Bill had been postponed, and that a number of new proposals had been brought forward. When I asked what the nature of these proposals was I was informed that the Cabinet did not desire to consult me about them at all, and that they would not communicate with me on the matter until they had again met and had agreed upon what new proposals they would approve of. That is to say, on Wednesday last the Prime Minister was asked a question in the House as to whether the draft Bill to be introduced would be submitted to the Member for Dublin University and myself before it was introduced, and in his reply he said, "Communications are still going on between the Government and these two hon. Gentlemen," and on the next day I was informed, on behalf of the Cabinet, that negotiations and communications and consultations with me had been struck off, and that I would receive no communication from the Cabinet until they had come to a decision,

    1433
    behind my back, upon proposals which I had never seen and which they refused to submit to me. I asked them what the nature of these new proposals was, and I was told that the Cabinet did not desire to consult me about them, and until they had come to a decision I would be told nothing. I asked, was my new proposal submitted on the question of the provisional character of the Bill? I was told it was quite impossible to answer my question. That is to say, I repeat, that communications and consultations with me and my Friends were absolutely cut off.
    I am approaching the end of this somewhat sorry story. The next communication I received was on Saturday last, when the Minister for War and the Home Secretary requested me to call and see them at the War Office. They then informed me that another Cabinet Council had been held, and that it had been decided, mark you, decided, to insert in the Bill two entirely new provisions, one providing for the permanent exclusion of Ulster, of the six Ulster counties, and another cutting out of the draft Bill and out of the agreement the provision for the representation of the Irish Members in full force at Westminster during the transitory period, and I was given to understand in so many words that this decision was not put before me for the purpose of discussion or consultation, that the decision was absolute and final, and the right hon. Gentlemen described themselves to me simply as messengers, without any power or authority to discuss these questions in any way whatever with me, and they informed me that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill containing these provisions practically whether we liked it or not. I need not say that I protested on the spot against any such procedure. I said, and I repeat it here now, that the assent of my supporters in Ireland had been obtained solely on the basis of the agreement come to, and that I had publicly pledged myself, and the Members of the Government knew that, those who are interested knew, those who are interested in this matter and read the Irish papers and the English papers knew, that I had publicly pledged myself that if any attempt were made to alter the agreement in any real vital particular, I had pledged myself I would oppose the Bill. I have said that I did not intend to attack anybody, and I do not. I will not bandy words about breaches of faith or viola-
    1434
    tion of solemn agreement, but I want this House and I want the Government clearly to understand that they have entered upon a course which is bound to increase Irish suspicion of the good faith of British statesmen, a course which is bound to inflame feeling in Ireland, and is bound to do serious mischief to those high Imperial interests which we are told necessitated the provisional settlement of this question. Let me say, and I speak in this for all my colleagues, I stand by the agreement we came to, every word of It. If anybody repudiates that agreement it will not be my colleagues or myself, and I cannot and I will not agree to new proposals which would mean an absolute and disgraceful breach of faith on my part towards my supporters in Ireland, and I warn the Government that if they introduce a Bill on the lines communicated to me my Friends and I will oppose it at every stage. Some tragic fatality seems to dog the footsteps of this Government in all their dealings with Ireland. Every step taken by them since the Coalition was formed, and especially since the unfortunate outbreak in Dublin, has been lamentable. They have disregarded every advice we tendered to them, and now in the end, having got us to induce our people to make a tremendous sacrifice and to agree to the temporary exclusion of six Ulster counties, they throw this agreement to the winds and they have taken the surest means to accentuate every possible danger and difficulty in the Irish situation. It is not necessary for me to say that my attitude and the attitude of my Friends on the question of the War is well known. That attitude remains unaltered and unalterable, but I must beg leave to say that from this time on we will feel it our duty to exercise an independent judgment in criticising the ever-increasing vaccilation and procrastination which seem to form the entire policy of the Government not only with reference to Ireland, but with reference to the whole conduct of this War. I hope I have kept my word to attack no one. I simply desire to put the facts before the House and the country, and I let those facts speak for themselves.
    Mr. HAYDEN: I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated a very difficult case with characteristic lucidity and moderation. With one or two exceptions I

    1435
    would not wish to vary his statement of facts, but I shall in a few minutes point out in what respect I cannot quite accept the accuracy of his narrative. Let me, first of all, state that I entered into these negotiations with very great reluctance——
    Mr. DILLON: So did we.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Apart altogether from the natural reluctance to enter into any negotiations which might end in a compromise, I was engaged in a very big task—a very absorbing one—and I did not wish in the least to be taken away from it I knew there was a great battle coming on, which would tax the whole energy of any man engaged in supplying material for that battle. For days, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knows, I refused to have anything whatever to do with it, mainly because I felt that I really could not give as much time as I knew it would absorb once it began, and for a second reason which has been completely justified by the event. There is no more invidious task—I have had a good deal of experience of it—than to get two conflicting parties to agree. I have had a great deal of experience of it in labour disputes, and very often as mediator I have been the recipient of the unpleasant attentions of both parties. There is always this difficulty: No record is kept of the interviews. They are prolonged, they are varied, they are constant. There is a good deal of argument, a good deal of talk, and if you introduce shorthand writers there they never answer their purpose, and in the end there is always failure on one side or the other to agree upon everything that has been said upon one side or the other. One party attaches very great importance to one statement that is made, another party attaches very great importance to another statement, and perhaps they do not always remember everything that has been said. However, in spite of that, I say I substantially accept the accuracy of the narrative of the hon. and learned Gentleman, except in one or two particulars.
    The agreement has broken down, I hope only temporarily. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] I hope it will not be regarded as an offence if I say that I shall regret it deeply, not because I had anything to do with it, but because I think it would be disastrous, in the middle of a great war, that we should be diverted from giving the whole of our thoughts
    1436
    and energies to the prosecution of it to a matter of domestic strife, and I certainly regret it as one who has all my life fought for the principle of self-government for Ireland, that we should be driven to contemplate the Government of Ireland by other methods. It has broken down upon two points. I will deal with both. The first is the phraseology dealing with the exclusion of the six counties. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that it was contemplated that this arrangement should be a provisional one, and that at the end of the War there should be a review of the whole situation. It was suggested that the particular method by which that review should be entered upon—it was suggested in the terms of the agreement—it was contemplated that there should be a Conference representing the whole of the self-governing Colonies of the Empire to reconsider the relations of the self-governing Colonies to the Imperial Government, and that, in the course of this Conference, the whole problem of Ireland should be passed under review. Not that that Conference should decide. It is only the Imperial Parliament that can decide. If we could get the assistance of such advice, counsel, and experience as the self-governing Colonies could give us in attempting to arrive at some sort of a conclusion with regard to the permanent government of Ireland, that would meet the views of, all parties and would strengthen the British Empire in Ireland as well as elsewhere. That was the idea. Therefore, it, was contemplated that this should be a purely temporary and provisional arrangement. But with regard to the exclusion of the six counties, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the statement which he made announcing to the House the appointment of a conciliator, or mediator, or whatever you like to call him, stated distinctly that he never contemplated the coercive application of Home Rule to any part of Ireland. It was also made perfectly clear, and the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts it, that the excluded areas should never be automatically included.
    Mr. DILLON: Oh, no!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have taken the very words of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, namely, that there should be no automatic inclusion of the excluded areas at the end of the twelve months period. My right hon. Friend

    1437
    the Prime Minister announced that in the House. When he announced the terms he stated distinctly:
    "They can only be included by an Act of Parliament."
    Mr. DILLON: When did he say that?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will read the extract:
    "Sir E. Carson: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. He talked of the arrangement as a provisional arrangement, I understand. I also understand, from what he said, that the six counties would be definitely struck out of the Act of 1914. Of course, at any time afterwards they can be included by a Bill?
    The Prime Minister: They could not be included without a Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 11) 16. cols. 61–62.]
    Mr. DILLON: Was that before or after we had obtained, on the faith of the written statement, the consent of our supporters in Ireland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, but——
    HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it would be a great advantage if we could discuss the matter quite dispassionately. I am just giving the announcement made by the Prime Minister without challenge.
    Mr. DILLON: It was not heard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that is worthy of my hon. Friend. That was on the 10th July. At any rate, it was published in every newspaper.
    Mr. DILLON: It was challenged on the 12th.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend allowed the hon. and learned Member for Waterford to make his statement, which I only repeat, that the six counties were not to be automatically included. That statement was made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, and I accept that.
    Mr. REDMOND: That was not what I said. What I said was this: The intention of all of us was that the new provisional arrangement should remain in existence until this permanent settlement of all the Irish problems had been considered, on terms finally determined as soon as possible after the War.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I accept that. Ulster could only be included on two conditions, first of all, with its consent.
    1438
    The Prime Minister stated that. That was not part of the arrangement. It was stated in the House of Commons before I was appointed. The second thing which was made perfectly clear was that Ulster could only be included as part of a permanent settlement, which means, of course, that if it is part of a permanent settlement it must be an Act of this Parliament. There is really no difference here. If there is a difference at all, it is purely a difference in the phraseology by which you carry out an agreed purpose. The purpose was that this should be a provisional arrangement to be reviewed, first of all, at an Imperial Conference, and as the result of that conference confirmed by a measure introduced by the Government of the day and submitted to the Imperial Parliament. The second is that under no conditions did the present Government, or any member of it, ever contemplate bringing in a measure to force the six counties into a Home Rule Government for Ireland against their will. If anything was made clear those two things were made absolutely clear. It would be a great misfortune if this agreement were to fall through, not because there is any difference in substance, because I accept as absolutely accurate the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Redmond) of what happened, but purely and simply because we cannot arrive at a form of words which will enable that to be carried out.
    Mr. REDMOND: The form of words was considered very carefully. It was drafted by a highly skilled draftsman, and it was approved by us. I understand it was approved by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson). It was put into your draft Bill, and why not stand by it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My hon. Friend knows that there is a great difference between drafting on a sheet or two sheets of foolscap the heads of a settlement and drafting an Act of Parliament. We were not attempting to draft an Act of Parliament. It would have been utterly impossible to put that agreement bodily in the form of an Act of Parliament.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is it a fact or is it not a fact that that part of the agreement was taken bodily from the agreement and incorporated by the draftsman in the Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the preliminary draft that is so. The actual words were embodied in the preliminary draft.
    Mr. REDMOND: There were two drafts.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: But after all, I still adhere to the statement which I made that words of that kind which are only put in three or four sentences cannot be incorporated bodily in an Act of Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did it!"]—if they leave any ambiguity at all. In the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) there was one point which was left out. The point was that if at the end of the term there had been no permanent settlement the Privy Council was to extend the time. Supposing the Privy Council did not extend the time, what would be the result? You cannot say "the Privy Council shall," for the simple reason that you cannot issue a mandatory order to the Privy Council to perform a certain act, and for that reason my right hon. Friend insisted upon a condition of the agreement that Ulster should not be automatically included.
    Mr. DILLON: That was not in the agreement.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Redmond) without interruption, and I am sure my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed. I had not even concluded my sentence. It was to be made absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that the Ulster counties should not be automatically included. That is all the Government asked for, and that is the only thing they say at present, that any form of words which will make it clear that the Ulster counties cannot be included until there is a definite decision of the Imperial Parliament shall be made clear on the face of the Bill. The second point is the alteration in the form of the agreement with regard to the number of the Irish Members. Here I say at once the heads of the settlement have been departed from. The heads of the settlement were perfectly clear. The Irish Members were to remain in undiminished numbers in this House until the permanent settlement had been carried through and embodied in an Act of Parliament. There is no ambiguity as far as that is concerned. My hon. Friend asks why
    1440
    have we departed from that. It is perfectly true that the suggested alteration was placed before my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Redmond) after the statement of the Prime Minister absolutely accurately. The position was this. Some of my hon. Friends, in fact, the whole of my hon. Friends who represent the Unionist party, found it quite impossible for them to support a proposal—I hope my hon. Friends will allow me to state the facts, because I have been quite candid in stating what the position was—which would maintain the Irish Members in undiminished numbers in the Imperial Parliament after a General Election and after a Home Rule Government had been set up in Ireland. They informed us that if they supported the proposal there would not be a single supporter of it in their own party, and that even those who were prepared to agree to bringing Home Rule into operation immediately would object to that particular proposal. What, therefore, was the alternative proposal? It has not been completely stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I think if the agreement is to be broken off it is very important that it should be distinctly understood what it is broken off upon.
    HON. MEMBERS: It is lamentable.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it is most lamentable. The proposal was this: That until a Dissolution the Irish Members should remain in the Imperial Parliament in undiminished numbers; that after the Dissolution the provisions of the Home Rule Act should come into operation, but that the Irish Members should be summoned to the Imperial Parliament in undiminished numbers whenever the Imperial Parliament came to consider the permanent settlement. [Laughter.] I am only giving the proposal, and I think it is right that the House should know it.
    Mr. REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why we are hearing of these exact proposals for the first time now?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I cannot accept that statement of my hon. and learned Friend. I have got my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. Samuel) here, and I am perfectly certain that that proposal was put before my hon. Friend on Saturday.
    Mr. DILLON: On Saturday!
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will come in a moment or two to the point why it was put on Saturday. At any rate, I think on reflection my hon. and learned Friend will agree that that proposal was put in that form to him. The proposal was—and I want it to be thoroughly understood—that until the Dissolution the Irish Members should remain here in absolutely unimpaired numbers, and that after the Dissolution the Home Rule Act should come into operation with those provisions, and that the Irish Members were to be summoned to the Imperial Parliament in unimpaired numbers whenever the permanent settlement of Ireland came to be considered.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: How could they if they were not elected?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is provision in the Home Rule Act, Clause 26, which enables that to be done. It was proposed to extend that provision to the consideration of the whole question, so that when the question of the inclusion or exclusion of Ulster, or any part of it, or any other proposal with regard to the Government of Ireland, financial or otherwise, came to be considered, the Irish Members were to be here in undiminished numbers. They would not be here for other purposes. That was the proposal. The objection raised by the Unionist Members to that proposal was this: They said, "Home Rule for three-fourths of Ireland will have come into operation. After the Dissolution, if the Irish Members are here in undiminished numbers, it may make the difference between, say, a Liberal and a Unionist Government.
    Mr. DILLON: That is patriotism and no party.
    An HON. MEMBER: What about the War now?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I hope hon. Members will be patient. I am giving them a perfectly frank statement. Between one Imperial policy on the one side, and one set of ideas for the government of the Empire on another, they considered that proposal to be perfectly unfair, from the point of view of the ideas which they represented. They stated quite distinctly that it would be impossible for them—and in this respect they were absolutely unanimous—to consent to it, and, therefore, we were face to face with the fact that the agreement could not be put through without that modification. That
    1442
    is the position. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that he was not informed of that particular alteration until, I think, about a week ago. What was the reason for that? The reason was that, having proposed modifications to him after he had returned from Ireland, we felt that before we put this before him that we ought to know that that represented the whole of the demand.
    Mr. REDMOND: That is what I was told about the first demand of Lord Lansdowne on the question of the defence of the realm, and so forth. I was clearly told that if I made that concession Lord Lansdowne and his friends would come in.
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not quarrel in the least with that statement of my hon. and learned Friend. I do not mind saying that that was my impression, and that is the very reason why before either my right hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel) or myself put this proposal before my hon. and learned Friend we felt that it ought to be distinctly understood that this really represented the proposal which the Government had come to. That is the position. Let the House realise what the position is at the present moment. The Government are in a position to introduce a measure to bring the Home Rule Act into immediate operation for all the counties of Ireland except six. The powers of the Home Rule Act in respect of that part of Ireland will be absolutely unimpaired, except in one part, which has already been agreed to, and that is the appointment of the Court of Appeal. The Bill affects the whole of Ireland except the six excluded counties. With regard to Ulster, it is only proposed that it should be made clear on the face of the Bill in a way which will leave no obscurity or doubt, that the Ulster six counties cannot be brought in automatically by the mere lapse of Orders in Council, that it must be a definite part of the settlement of Ireland. With regard to the Irish Members, the proposal is that they are to remain here in undiminished numbers until the dissolution, but after the dissolution the Home Rule Act should come into operation, except in respect of a Parliament, a Session, or a Sitting which considers the settlement of Ireland, and in that respect the Irish Members would come here in unimpaired numbers. That is the proposal of the Government.
    My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Redmond) says that if there is any attempt to force a Bill with these modifications upon the Irish Members they will resist it.

    1443
    What, I understand is this, That he will not merely resist these provisions but he will resist the whole Bill. If that is the view of Irish Members, of course it would be idle for the Government to introduce a Bill for bringing Home Rule into immediate operation under any conditions. If that is the view of hon. Members for Ireland I deeply regret it. I think it is a disaster. I wish it had been possible to bring Home Rule into operation even with these conditions. But hon. Members from Ireland know their own country, and those who believe in self-government for Ireland would be the last to challenge the right, or even the wisdom, of their decision. They know their difficulties. The difficulties of Ireland are very great. The difficulties, even if Home Rule came into operation under the most favourable conditions, are very great. For reasons over which they have no control, for reasons which they have done their very best to avert, and for reasons for which I naturally, as a man who believes in self-government, must hold the present method of government responsible, difficulties were created for them which I will not say would be insuperable, but which I can well imagine would make them shrink even from Home Rule, from undertaking the task of governing Ireland, under the most favourable conditions. But at the same time I wish that they could have seen their way. Let them believe that it would be impossible for us to attempt to bring the Home Rule Act into operation during the War except under those conditions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not tell us that?"] I told my hon. Friend everything which was in my knowledge. I did not withhold from him the fact that there had been considerable opposition inside the Cabinet to bring it into operation at all. I have repeatedly told him that, and what I said was that I felt certain that we should do our best to put it through.
    I certainly could not guarantee that the Cabinet would as a whole accept the proposals. I pointed out to him all the difficulties. I simply said, "I shall do my best." I consulted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in respect of every turn and every move of the negotiations. I kept him informed every day of every interview, and everything that took place in reference to the proposals was put before him, and all that I said was that we should try to do our best to get these proposals through. I can say on my conscience that we have done our best. We
    1444
    have failed. I regret it in my heart. I have been for twenty-six years a Member of this House and I was elected on Home Rule. The contest was fought entirely on Home Rule in a Constituency which cared perhaps far more for Disestablishment than anything else. I have had differences of opinion with my hon. Friends from Ireland on many points, but on one point I have never had any difference—I have voted consistently for every proposal to give self-government to Ireland. I still believe at this moment that you cannot govern a high-spirited and courageous race—and not even the bitterest opponents of Home Rule will deny those qualities to the Irish people—against their will. You cannot govern them except with their consent, and I regret from the bottom of my heart that misunderstandings, failures to get consent—and, after all, we are a composite Government: there are men, who have agreed to this settlement who cordially detest the idea of self-government in the form in which it has been framed; but while I still believe that in the Bill, with these variations, there would be the beginning of self-government and liberty for Ireland, from the bottom of my heart I regret that my Friends from Ireland cannot see their way to accept it. But they know their country, they know its difficulties, they know the conditions-It is for them to decide. The Government ought not, and will not, force this proposal upon them.
    Sir E. CARSON: I shall certainly imitate the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in one respect, and that is I shall not, I hope, in the course of the observations that I have to make say anything which could be construed in any way as an attack upon anybody. I desire to present to the House a simple narrative of the facts as I know them and a statement of my own position in relation to those facts. I think, if you are to understand the negotiations at all, that the first thing that you have to remember is that the Home Rule Act is upon the Statute Book. It was put upon the Statute Book shortly after the War began, but there was accompanying it a statement by ray right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that before it was put into operation there would be a further Bill dealing with the Ulster question, and that they never contemplated the coercion of Ulster. I think that it is very important, when I come to the negotiations and my part in them, to

    1445
    remember that that is the actual situation. I am bound to say that, after that statement had been made, so far as I am concerned, in the terrible operations of this gigantic War, Ireland to a very large extent, except that it was an asset to the Armies in the field, had passed out of my political consideration altogether. I thought only of the War from that day forward, because, after all, what does Home Rule or anything else matter? The War swallows up everything, and so I told those who trust me in Ulster—and many of my Ulster friends have only within the past few days made the supreme sacrifice for the Empire. I remained for a time in that state of mind. I do not think that I had been in Ulster for nearly a year and a half before the rebellion in Ireland. For my own part I resolved as regards that matter, which in other times might very easily have been made a capital matter in party politics, that I would be no party to drag it into party politics and thereby raising a party question. I did not want to play the German game, which really wants to divide us in Ireland and to distract attention from the War.
    Then came the statement of the Prime Minister upon the 25th of May. I am bound to say that that statement came to me as a surprise. I am not now challenging the wisdom of it, but I did not know that they were going to make the then circumstances of Ireland a reason for holding the immediate settlement of the outstanding questions in relation to the Home Rule question. I certainly was not, nor indeed had I any right to be, consulted about it, and I knew no more about that settlement going to be made than any other Member of the House who had not been either in the Government, or prominently identified with Home Rule questions, as I have been in the past. But that statement is of vast importance in relation to this whole question. It was a statement made on the part of a unanimous Cabinet, that there ought to be, in their opinion, having regard to the exigencies of the War, a settlement of outstanding questions, with a view to the future government of Ireland. I do not for a moment suppose that any member of the Cabinet came to that conclusion lightly. I, at all events, took it to mean this, that my ex-colleagues in the Cabinet, and those who had been with me in the fight over Home Rule for so many years, though that, in the middle of the War, the exigencies of the
    1446
    Empire demanded that we should all make some sacrifice in trying to come to a settlement, thereby avoiding further unpleasantness in Ireland. That, at all events, was my reading of that statement. Let anybody read it as judicially as he can, and I think he can make no other meaning in it.
    What more did I find in that statement? I found again in that statement the policy laid down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the idea of coercing Ulster could not be dreamed of. How could it be done? How could any man, having the incidents of this War in mind, when the Dublins died in the ditches beside the Ulsters, and the Ulsters helped the Dublins, and each and all were for the common cause—how could anybody say that the forces of this country would ever be used, or be dreamed of being used for coercing the men and the people who had made these sacrifices? No; I think the Prime Minister was laying down there what I had always hoped and expressed in the House in the old fight, would be the better way, that we should rather try to win Ulster than to coerce her. The Prime Minister said something more. He said that if we could arrive at this settlement it would be the greatest boom to the nation and to the Empire at large. That was the unanimous view of the Cabinet. Do you think I could resist it, and that I should not enter into those negotiations? It was impossible. I would have been a faithless citizen and a faithless son of the Empire if I had done so. Therefore I entered upon those negotiations. It was not that I liked Home Rule; I see no reason whatsoever for altering the opinions I had already expressed, that a Parliament of the United Kingdom was the best—and I still believe it to be the best—form of government for the United Kingdom—for England, for Scotland, for Ireland, and for Wales. I believe this firmly, but, on the appeal made to me, I went, without any ulterior motive whatsoever, except for the sake of the War, into these negotiations. May I say, to make my position perfectly clear, that I entered into negotiations for Ulster, and not for the rest of Ireland, which was represented, and many representatives were seen, I know, by my right hon. Friend, who showed us a courtesy during the whole of these negotiations and a patience which were beyond all praise. Letters that I received from the South and West of Ireland asking that certain

    1447
    views should be represented were all sent by me to the right hon. Gentleman, and he at once saw anybody, I think almost anybody, who wished to see him upon the subject.
    When I went into these negotiations my right hon. Friend said—this is of importance in relation to certain attacks that have been made upon me—that he never would have touched this matter were it not as a war measure; and I never would have touched the matter except as a war measure. And I told him this at the outset: that I could not negotiate with any success, with any chance of success, unless I was made an offer of what they call a "clean cut"—that is, of striking Ulster out of the Home Rule Act of 1914. I told him that, because there was no use in he and I wasting our time. I told him I could not go to Ulster without an offer of that kind—and, indeed; I was saying nothing new. I have said that, I suppose, twenty times in this House. I made it perfectly clear from the beginning that Ulster must be struck out. I put forward the claim of Ulster, but when I was told that I could not obtain the whole of Ulster and was offered six counties, I agreed to put it before my friends in Ulster. I made it clear from the very beginning, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Waterford, that I had no power to bind the Ulster people. I have here a document, which I put in writing, that while I had no power to bind the Ulster people, still I would go to them with the offer, and that, as I think any man who professes to lead anybody ought to do, I should put my own view strongly before them as to whether they ought to accept or whether they ought not. From that time down to the very end I have never deviated for one moment from this cardinal point in the negotiations, that so far as the six counties were concerned—which was the offer made to me—they must be definitely struck out of the Home Rule Act or I would not submit it, or would not have the chance of submitting it, to the people of Ulster. I put that in the document, which it is not necessary for me to read, because I do not think there will be any controversy between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. I put into that document what I conceived were the propositions made to me. Now are we not playing somewhat with words? You talk of "permanent." Some people say, "You are asking us for the per-
    1448
    manent exclusion of Ulster." Mr. Speaker, nothing is permanent to this Parliament. All I could ask of permanence, all I could get, all I have ever demanded to get, was that these six counties should be struck out of the Act. If any subsequent Parliament desired to put them in, whether by the good will of Ulster or a change of policy of right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench, and I think of the policy of hon. Members for Ireland, if they wished to go in, while they were protesting against the policy of coercion here for three-fourths of Ireland, if they wished to go in to coerce Ulster, well, then, of course it would have been open for this Parliament to do it, and they could go forward to the electors and proclaim openly the policy "we are out to coerce Ulster and we ask you to give us authority to do so." They could do that in this country. Therefore, so far as words are concerned, "permanent," "provisional," and all these, let us look at reality, at what was asked for and what was agreed to and not trouble ourselves about those words at all. I asked to have these six counties struck out of the Home Rule Act of 1914, which would comply with what was laid down at the time the Act itself as passed by the Prime Minister, and which would come exactly within what was laid down on the 25th of May, and his suggestion that we ought to try and commence to come to a settlement where we broke off at the Buckingham Palace Conference which the King summoned. That was the position in which I stood and have stood and now stand in relation to the question of the exclusion of the six counties.
    There was one thing more. I made it perfectly clear that Departments would have to be set up in Ulster for the government of Ulster under the Home Office here or some Secretary of State here, Departments in every branch of government. Not going into memorandum now, I drew attention I think to every branch of government, from the judiciary and down through to the Post Office and the various different Departments which govern Ireland, and I made it quite clear, and it is quite clear upon the face of the document which is relied upon by the hon. and learned Member, that all these separate Departments were to be set up, and that no officer or no Department which had anything to do with the new Irish Parliament was to have any jurisdiction whatsoever of an executive

    1449
    character or an administrative character in the six counties. Does anybody suppose that that was set out on the face of the Memorandum as a matter that was merely to continue for a few months, and that then that these six counties were automatically to come in? The thing would be ludicrous. You actually set up a whole system of new government, at enormous expense in relation to the six counties, to say that those six counties at the end of the War, or at any time automatically, were to come in. Why, I do not think you could do it. What would become of your Departments and your officers? You would have to deal with them by some Act of Parliament, and you would have to abolish the system of government which you had set up there. Therefore, to talk of this as provisional, if you mean by provisional that it was to stop, and that the six counties were automatically to go back into the rest of Ireland, seems to me, on the face of the document, to be absolutely absurd.
    But I am bound to say this: When the provisions of the document were shown to me with the words that have been quoted by the hon. and learned Member, although I did not think myself that they related to the exclusion of the six counties, because there was plenty else for them to operate on—for instance, there was no election to be held in Ireland pending the settlement of the matter, and other matters of that kind—I drew the attention of my right hon. Friend to them and I said, "Let us take care there is no confusion over this." I said it must be distinctly understood that these words do not in anywise limit what I have all along demanded, namely, that the Ulster counties cannot be put back save by an Act of the Imperial Parliament, and I said I am going to Belfast, I am asked to go to Belfast, and I must make that matter perfectly plain to them. My right hon. Friend told me that I could state over there, and I did state over there, upon his authority, that those Ulster counties would not be put back, and could not be put back, under Home Rule save by an Act of this Imperial Parliament. But my right hon. Friend said something more. He said if you desire to make that matter clear, you can, when it comes up in the House of Commons, put a question to the Prime Minister; and the matter did come up in the House of Commons on the 10th of July. And I think the Prime Minister either gathered from the terms themselves or
    1450
    from my right hon. Friend exactly how the situation was, because, having said that the Bill was to be provisional, he went on to say this:
    "In other words, in a sense and in a very true sense, the Bill is a provisional measure, but I see all sorts of possibilities of misapprehension in the use of the term. To relieve any possible doubt on that point let me say, speaking for those who like myself look forward to and are anxious for a United Ireland, we recognise and agree in the fullest and sincerest sense that such union can only be brought about with, and can never be brought about without, the free will and as end of the excluded area."
    Then to make the matter still more clear, if I could, I asked—
    "Sir Edward Carson: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. He talked of the arrangement as a provisional arrangement, I understand. I also understand, from what he said, that the six counties will be definitely struck out of the Act of 1914. Of course, at any time afterwards they could be included by a Bill?
    The Prime Minister: They could not be included without a Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1916, cols. 61–62.]
    I stand to that as the agreement as announced by the Prime Minister in this House on the 10th of July. I go back on nothing, and I say that, so far as I am concerned in every respect, what has been stated to me by the Secretary of State for War all through these negotiations, namely, that I might state the position in Ulster as I have stated it, and that I might put a question to the Prime Minister in this House to make it perfectly clear, have been carried out to the very letter. I go back now for a moment to when I went to Ulster. I put the whole of these provisions before them. I am bound to say they did not like them. I am bound to say they hated the idea of any Home Rule being adopted in any part of Ireland. I am bound to say they received me as coldly as any audience has every received any man who had a proposition to put before them. But in the end, when I explained to them the exigencies of the War, and the difficulties of the Empire and the great advantage in the face of our Allies, aye, and in the face of the enemy, of showing that the rebellion in Ireland had failed, and that we were still a united people in face of the Empire, then I got from them the applause that I knew would lead to their passing of the resolution, and they passed the resolution, and upon the face of it they stated that they understood that the six counties were to be definitely struck out of the Act of 1914, and those resolutions were published on the 13th of June in every paper. I came back to London and I saw the right hon. Gentleman from time to time, but I never heard one demur or one idea that I had gone one iota beyond what

    1451
    I ought to have gone in the negotiations in getting the resolutions passed in the form in which they were passed. That is the way the matter stands as regards this question. I go back on nothing. I can assure you I have not had altogether a pleasant time. But I know perfectly well what I was doing when I went over to Belfast. I know perfectly well that some have been trying to undermine what has been done there. They have not succeeded. I adhere to what we did there, and the people there adhere to it.
    Let me say this to my opponents from Ireland, some of whom have had a very anxious and difficult time in relation to this matter, more especially and above all one whom I do not know and to whom I have never spoken—the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Devlin). I know well what he has had to do there to get his part of this matter through. Yes, Sir, he played a whole man's part in the matter, and I gladly recognise it. Let us not lose it all now. I have fought this battle for a very long time—practically the whole of my political life. What I have promised to do I am prepared at all hazards certainly to myself see through. Do not think lightly of these mattters in relation to Ireland. Now that the policy has been unanimously declared by the Cabinet and the thing must be settled, it would not be a bad day for this country or for Ireland—nor a bad day's work in the War—if the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and myself were to shake hands on the floor of this House. Yes, Sir; but if that is to be done, and if anything is to come of it, let there be no idea of the coercion of Ulster. Let it be completely struck out of the Bill, and then go on to win her if you can. I will tell you how she can be won. She can be won when good government is shown and administered in the rest of Ireland, and when the people in the rest of Ireland find—as they soon will—that it is their interest, one and all of them, to be loyal as the rest of the Empire, and to put aside from them for ever any idea that separation from this country is either a possibility or a benefit to any one of them. When they are loyal—and many of them are; most of them are—then there will be no difficulty. Meanwhile, you would have in Ireland, in the six counties—not such a bad thing, after all, for even those Nationalists who are left there—the protection of this Imperial Parliament. You
    1452
    would have running side by side the British Government and the new Irish Government—may I say, I hope running in good fellowship one with the other in the attempt each to emulate the other in the interests of Ireland, in the interests of the United Kingdom, and in the interests of the Empire.
    I do not deal with the other objection made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford with regard to the continuance here of the Irish Members. I am bound to say that my mind was not very much directed to that question when the negotiations were going on. I only say that, with all my long life against Home Rule, with all the strong views that I hold against Home Rule, having regard to the declarations made upon the 25th May, to the negotiations which have proceeded so far, and to the hopes raised both in Ulster and in the rest of Ireland of a settlement of the question, I cannot but think it will be a calamity if we break up the settlement at the present moment. And if we do, what are we to look forward to? What have I to look forward to? What have other Unionists to look forward to? I know they hate this Bill just as much as I do. But what have you to look forward to when the War is over? The Act will be the Act there upon the Statute Book, and we will resume our old quarrels over how Ulster is to be excluded when we have just come to terms as to how she should be dealt with. I look forward to it with horror. Perhaps I shall not be here even to see it. It may be that others will have to take the matter up who will not know the history of the difficulties in the same way as we do. There is one thing: At the end of the War we will have had enough of fighting. We will have other great questions—reconstruction for the whole Empire, the reconstruction of the whole basis of society, financial difficulties so great that one does not like to ponder upon them, questions of trade so far reaching that one can hardly contemplate them. In the middle of all that we are to resume, forsooth, our old quarrels. I know that many things I say do not please some of my own party, but I would rather say them, because I know they are true.
    Mr. W. O'BRIEN: I have no desire to refer at any length—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I have no doubt that the Minister for War has had in this matter somewhat the same experience as he has had in the rest of his unhappy relations of

    1453
    the last six years. I have, however, a shrewd suspicion that if the Minister for War has, to some extent, run away from the verbiage of his Memorandum that the hon. and learned Gentleman behind me and his friends have, under pressure in Ireland, run away from the substance. The performance is painfully reminiscent of the historic change of front on a former occasion. There is the same readiness to adopt one set of views, or the contrary, at twenty-four hours' notice. I do not altogether blame the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. I make every allowance for him, but it has, I might say, taken a second rising in Ireland to convince him how dangerously the tide of opinion and indignation in Ireland is running against this proposal. He has apparently found no resource except to pick a quarrel, upon any pretext, in order to extricate himself and his friends from their mess by a pitiful hairsplitting about the mere verbiage of this Memorandum and the original draft. It is, in my humble judgment, too late for the hon. and learned Gentleman either to recede or to advance. One fact connected with this Memorandum, to which the Irish people attach the smallest importance, is that a majority of their representatives agreed to a separation from Ireland of six of her richest and most historical counties and of one-third of the whole population of Ireland under conditions which nobody except a quibbler or a fool could represent as really temporary or provisional.
    10.0 P.M
    That is one point about this whole Debate to-night to which the Irish people will attach the smallest importance. I really thought we had heard the last of this miserable plea that the amputation of Ulster from the body of Ireland was to be a mere temporary or provisional operation. No man in all Ireland will be gulled by a statement of that kind. The whole question is this: that the Irish people have been asked to agree to split our ancient nation into two antagonistic States which were specially delimited with the view to amassing or collecting under each of them the maximum of old religious and racial instincts. That is to say, the Irish people have been asked—and this is what the great majority of the representatives of Ireland have bound themselves to do—to agree to the terms of the original Memorandum. The Minister for War to-night has repeated the history of what happened in reference to
    1454
    the partition of Ireland. Lord Lansdowne has only brought to a head, to a test, a system of deceit that has been going on in Ireland for the past two years. The Irish people have been shamelessly assured that the moment the War was over the Home Rule Act would come into operation automatically for all Ireland. That assurance was given by gentlemen who heard the Prime Minister solemnly pedge himself that it could never be brought into operation without an amending Bill, and that the notion that Ulster could ever be brought into obedience to it by coercion was absolutely unthinkable. As the Minister for War has recalled to-night before Lord Lansdowne's speech at all we had the Prime Minister in this House announcing that six counties, with three Irish boroughs, would be definitely struck out of the Home Rule Act, and that they could never be replaced except by a new Act of this Parliament. What does that mean? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, whose eloquent speech is still ringing in our ears, is a winner, and can afford to be in good humour. He made an offer which I am sure is a very genuine one. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can afford to be in good humour because he is not-depending upon what have been called scraps of paper for his guarantees. We are told the original Memorandum did not guarantee Ulster permanent exclusion. No, Sir, but did it guarantee the contrary to Ireland? That is the whole marrow of the question, because that agreement would have left Ulster absolute mistress of her own future. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College has a far more solid guarantee than that of both parties in this House. Perhaps the most solid guarantee of all. He has the guarantee that the representatives of Ireland, who are prepared, temporarily and provisionally, of course, to exclude Ulster as a separate State, with separate rights and interests and a separate history, would never join in coercing Ulster to give up that privileged position. He has the guarantee, practically speaking, of this whole House that nothing of the kind—the coercion of Ulster—can ever be attempted without a new Act of this House. Need I say to any man in this House that such an Act is about as likely as that this Parliament should pass an Act for the people of London to annex themselves to Germany? I noticed that the hon. Member

    1455
    for Waterford to-night made no reference to the unspecified miracle, of which we have heard a great deal in Ireland, that is to be performed in some shadowy future by the Imperial Conference, but I noticed also that the War Minister took very good care to refer to it. I believe I was one of the first to suggest the Overseas. Ministers as mediators, but how can they be mediators if, before they meet at all, you decide beforehand the question which is the main kernel of the whole dispute? Do you really suppose that an Imperial Conference, when they are confronted with the fact, as they would have been if this Bill had passed, that by an enactment of this Parliament, with the assent of five-sixths of the representatives of Ireland, that Ireland had been split into two different States of different racial origin and creed—do you really want us to believe that those gentlemen from the Overseas, knowing that that Act had been passed on the express ground of a divorce between those two States in Ireland as the only condition of avoiding civil war, would immediately proceed to order this Parliament to pass an Act to annul that divorce and order out an army to reconquer Ulster? The thing is farcical. This whole talk about provisional or temporary is the most abominable part of the whole deceit that is going on.
    It is our belief—and it is my answer to the right hon. Member for Trinity College—that if once Ireland were, by the votes of its own representatives, to accept dismemberment, that Act could never be undone except by a bloody revolution. I will not make any attack upon the conduct of the Irish Members in this House. It is not the proper venue. The proper and the constitutional way would have been to send them back to their constituents. They have already exceeded by more than twelve months their mandate. Send them back to their constituents, and give the Irish people at least some voice in the most tremendous change that was ever proposed in our behalf on an issue which is practically whether the Irish nation is to take her life with her own hands. On the contrary, in the original proposal you sought to relieve those Gentlemen for years from any responsibility to their constituents, and I have a very strong belief indeed that the overwhelming reason for the breakdown of this arrangement is that the Government have dropped that plan. You proposed, instead of the democratic and
    1456
    constitutional way of taking the opinion of the country—you may be ashamed of it now—what really would have staggered Pitt or Castlereagh. They only transferred men from one part of the country to another, while you propose to give the same Gentleman a Parliament in Ireland and at the same time to leave them masters in this House. Was there ever such a proposal? Your simple method of constituting an Irish Parliament, you democratic and Radical Gentlemen, was to transfer sixty Members of the party who sit behind me from their party room upstairs to some unburnt building in Dublin. Instead of taking the constitutional opinion of the country, you proposed to set those Gentlemen up as a sovereign oligarchy over Ireland with a reign of at least two and a half years—men elected by nobody, and to the indignity and the abhorrence of their fellow countrymen. And this caricature of a Parliament nominated by this House, paid £400 a year apiece by the British Treasury—even if they are self-denying enough to refuse this additional remuneration for themselves in Dublin—this is the beautiful constitutional experiment begotten of martial law, and which would have to be supported by martial law! This is what you call making Ireland a nation once again! This is what you call fighting the battle of the small nationalities, by making Ireland a nationality, small enough already, smaller still. This plot has broken down, I am glad to say, but it will never be forgiven nor forgotten.
    Propositions have been made which would have appealed to the imagination of Ireland and the United States. Those proposals, I believe, would have gone nearer to the heart of the right hon. Member for Trinity College and they would have left Ireland an indestructible entity in a federal arrangement. It is too late to go back upon that. The work, I am afraid, will have to be left to other men and other times. The real cause of the recent rebellion in Ireland was not pro-Germanism or German gold. The real cause was that you have driven all that is best and most unselffish among the young men of Ireland to despair of the constitutional movement by all your own bungling, your ignorance, your double-dealing in reference to Home Rule in this House, but, above all, by the methods by which you have governed Ireland during the last six months. You have thereby filled the hearts of multitudes of the best men of our race with loathing of Parliamentaryism,

    1457
    British or Irish, and by an inevitable reaction you have raised up another more formidable secret society whose ideals are, at all events, pure, and who have proved their courage to fight and die like men for those ideals. If this Parliament could have succeeded in anything it could only have succeeded in re-establishing the evil power of that secret organisation which has been your undoing as well as ours. You could never have succeeded. The thing is too monstrous. You would have against you all those in Ireland who are teaching the young generation, and all those who are ready for any sacrifice of liberty or life for the old ideas of Irish nationality. Luckily, however, yourselves you have broken down this plot for partition. If you could have succeeded with it you could not have saved a war there, but you would have lost perhaps for ever the key to the heart of national Ireland. You would have handed over the future politics of Ireland to the Irish republicans, and you would have once more made the quarrel between Ireland and England incurable and everlasting. Happily, and fortunately for England and Ireland, this particlar partition plot at all events is dead and damned to-night, and millions of the Irish race will rejoice with all their hearts to-morrow at its failure.
    Mr. DILLON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College, in a speech of extraordinary eloquence, moved me and many of my colleagues by the spirit displayed in it, and the hopes of a better future for Ireland. He said in the course of that speech that he was appealed to by the Minister for War, acting on behalf of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, to go into these negotiations, not only for the peace of Ireland, which after all is a very considerable matter, but for the sake of the War and the interests of this Empire. Those considerations were pressed upon us with equal force. We did not originate those negotiations. We did not come to the Government asking for this settlement. We were content to have it distinctly understood, in face of some of the statements of the Prime Minister, to allow this settlement to come after the War, and be amicably arranged. It was the Government who appealed to us in the interest of the Empire, as well as in the interests of the future government and the peace of Ireland, to go into these negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman
    1458
    the Member for Trinity College stated, I have no doubt with absolute truth, that he went into these negotiations unwillingly. The Minister for War knows that I was dragged into them very unwillingly. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College said he had a very unpleasant time in Ireland, and I have no doubt of it. We had a very unpleasant time in Ireland, an extremely unpleasant time, and I told the Minister for War before I went across to Ireland to put these terms before our people and to recommend them—and he will remembr our last interview—I said I thought we would be defeated in Ireland after we had used our utmost exertions to get our people to accept them. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien), in a great burst of eloquence, spoke of the unpopularity of these terms in Ireland. Of course they were unpopular. Nobody liked them; nobody pretended to like them, but we were asked by the Government to accept them in the interests of the peace of our people and to save them from the system of government which they may now fall back upon, and in the interests of this Empire. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his powerful speech, said, "I asked my people to think of the War and not to look at this solely from the point of view of Ireland." So did we. I have looked at this War from the beginning not solely from the point of view of England and her interests. I say frankly, that if it were solely a question of the interests of England I would not have fought so hard as I have done both in regard to America and my own people at home to interest them in this War. I regard this War as a great struggle for liberty throughout the world, and it is for that reason I have always been so heartily with you. We tried honestly, whatever some Members may think, to ask our people to look at this question not only from the point of view of the peace of Ireland as one means, the only means that was offered to our hands, of bringing peace to our people and rescuing them from the horrid system which now prevails of military dictatorship and government as was demonstrated by Lord Lansdowne in his speech the other day, but also because we desired to continue as honestly as we could to work with, to support, and to strengthen this country in this just War in which she is engaged.
    Mr. GINNELL: Yes, at the expense of Ireland.
    Mr. DILLON: I do not believe that it is at the expense of Ireland. We have always endeavoured to be on the side of justice. Sometimes we have been against this country when we believed that, she was engaged in an unjust war, but we believe this to be a just War, and therefore we are heartily with Great Britain. There has been a good deal of argument about details to which I must, as briefly as possible, refer, but to my mind this is a question of public faith. We knew, and we told the Ministers honestly and straightly, that we were going on a very hard and serious task, and we asked them, "Is this the last word?" It is no use the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University talking about understandings. I listened to his speech very carefully, and it seems to me that there must have been some understandings behind our back. 'That is not the way——
    Sir E. CARSON: I did not say understanding; I said assurances.
    Mr. DILLON: Then assurances were given behind our backs, which were never given to us. I rest on the written document, and I say that before we went to Ireland, knowing we were undertaking a thoroughly unpopular task, and that we should be attacked by the hon. Member for Cork and a dozen other bodies in Ireland, and that we should find a great deal of discontent among our own loyal supporters, we asked "Is this the last word?" If we succeed in obtaining by our influence the consent of our people to this sacrifice—because, what ever you may say, it is from their point of view a great sacrifice—shall we be in a position to say that we shall deliver the goods? This is a great question of good faith. How c an negotiations of this kind be carried on with British Ministers if men are to be treated as we have been treated? It is no use for the War Minister—and I want to imitate closely the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Redmond), I do not want to attack the Minister for War—he is an old colleague and comrade of mine, and has fought with me in many hard struggles, and I recognise that he has been a faithful friend of Home Rule all the years he has been in Parliament—it is no use for him to give his views of the modifications that have been made in this scheme. It is not for him to judge. We are to judge. We have the written document and the pledge
    1460
    of Ministers. We stand by that pledge. We hold it in our hand, and we hold them to our meaning, on which we obtained the consent of our people in Ireland. We obtained that consent by straining our influence to the very uttermost. We were very near being defeated. I am not ashamed to admit that. I see no reason to be ashamed. Our people were against us. We went to our own supporters, and only by straining our political influence to the breaking-point did we succeed in getting these terms accepted, and then we came back to London and we were told that Ministers were prepared to break their word—that, forsooth, the Marquess of Lansdowne will leave the Cabinet if they adhere to their pledge. I had hoped that the words of British Ministers were more valuable than the retention of the Marquess of Lansdowne, and after all what is the history of the Marquess of Lansdowne in this transaction? I will tell it, and I challenge Ministers to deny it. The Marquess of Lansdowne was one of the men—it is quite true the terms were not submitted to the Cabinet before we went to Ireland, but that was not our business. The Prime Minister had seen them and that had to be authority enough for us; he knew all the terms and pledged himself to them. But the Marquess of Lansdowne also saw them, and he took no exception to them publicly.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): That is not so.
    Mr. DILLON: He did not take public exception to them because he believed, as I think, that the Belfast Conference would repudiate us if he did not. He was told by our enemies in Ireland to remain silent, not to trouble about it; the Ulster Nationalists would turn round upon Redmond, Dillon, and Co. and then he would be all right. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true."] Why did the Marquess of Lansdowne wait until the Belfast Conference had endorsed the terms before he said one public word against these terms and then he comes forward and makes a speech in which every circumstance of insult is held out to the Irish people? [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Yes; and he raised such a storm against us in Ireland by that speech that he made it almost impossible to go on with these negotiations. That is the history of these terms, and I say you should look at this from a broad point of view. We are the judges of the relative

    1461
    importance of the different conditions on this Paper, and from Ministers who sent us to Ireland on the faith of that Paper we are entitled to demand that they will stand by their pledge to us. I am bound to say that the consequences of this breach of faith with us puts an end to all prospect of a settlement on those lines during the War. This thing cannot be attempted again. The only chance it had was as a matter of war urgency and to put it through hot foot after the Irish party had other parties in Ireland had accepted it. You have struck a deadly blow at the whole future government of Ireland. How will you ever get the Irish people to have confidence in the terms and the words of British Ministers? Let me turn for one moment to one or two points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson). I am bound to reply to some of them and explain them. If I do so, I do not intend to depart from the tone, the friendly tone—if he will allow me to call it so—which he manifested throughout his speech. He said that when he commenced these negotiations he demanded, first of all, a clean cut of all Ulster, and that when he found it was impossible to get that, he said he must have the six counties. Then he talked of the unthinkable proposition that any Government in the future, after all that has occurred, would coerce Ulster. He knew perfectly well, for he v as at the Buckingham Palace Conference, the controversy that settled round that very proposition. What is Ulster? He has abandoned three counties of Ulster. What right has he to call the six counties Ulster? We did not wish to coerce and we do not desire to coerce Ulster. I do Dot think myself it will ever come to a question of coercing Antrim or Down. What right has he to coerce Tyrone and Fermanagh, where we have a majority and which are Nationalist counties of Ireland? That is the old controversy which at the King's Palace, under the presidency of Mr. Speaker, was debated for two Hays and upon which we could not agree. What we said when this proposition was brought before us was: "We cannot be expected to solve that during the War, but what we are willing to do, and it is a great sacrifice which we shall find it very hard to get our people to accept, is that we are willing provisionally to let you have the six counties excluded, always provided that at the end of the War both parties revert to the status quo ante, and that neither party is
    1462
    damaged in its position. Was not that reasonable and fair? Do you not see now what has happened? You have lost your settlement. Observe what has happened, in the words of the leader of the Ulster party. The settlement is dead, and after the War you will not have the status quo ante, because you have the Home Rule Act on the Statute Book. You cannot take it off. You are not going to repeal it during the War; therefore you are face to face with the whole Ulster problem after the War, with the Home Rule Act the law of the land. You cannot get away from that. It is no use denying it. Therefore all we asked was that this great question should not be prejudged and that we should leave it in that way for the period of the War. Whatever may be the secret assurances given behind our backs to the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College, the words of the document remain, and in all its provisions this proposal was to be, according to the undertaking of the Minister, on the faith of which we went to Ireland, a strictly provisional war emergency measure in all its details.
    Mr. GINNELL: Let us have the document.
    Mr. DILLON: How, then, can anybody say that part of the measure was to be a Clause for which the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College says he got an assurance cutting definitely and permanently out of the Act of 1914 the six counties in Ulster? Let me carry this point a bit further. If that was part of the assurance given by the Secretary of State for War to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College before he went to Belfast, how did it come about that when the Cabinet drafted the Bill last week there was no reference to that proposal at all and the Bill in all its Clauses and details was strictly temporary and provisional and quite acceptable to us? That, in my opinion, disposes absolutely of that statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not challenge the accuracy of his statement, unless it be true, which I shrink from believing, that the Minister for War was telling the right hon. Gentleman one story behind our backs and quite a different story to us. I therefore say that there never was presented to us in any part of these negotiations, and there is not contained in the written document on the faith of which we

    1463
    went to Ireland, any proposal to strike the six counties out of the Act of 1914 or any proposal permanently to exclude them from Ireland. The proposal is exactly that which has been stated by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Redmond), and was a strictly war emergency, temporary arrangement which, when it terminated, would leave the whole question in the status quo—in the same position in which it will now be left when the whole of this arrangement is dead—and the whole question will remain to be settled after the War is over. Then, said the right hon. Gentleman, the resolution of the Belfast Convention, in which he spoke not of permanent exclusion, but of what I think he called definite exclusion—whatever that means—was published in all the newspapers for six weeks and was not challenged. But he forgot to mention that the resolution of the Nationalist Convention of Belfast, which took place a week after the Convention, and which based its consent on the provisional and temporary character of this exclusion, was published equally in all the newspapers and was never challenged by Ministers or anyone else; and my hon. and learned Friend announced publicly in Ireland that these were the terms which had been offered to him by Ministers, and this statement was never challenged.
    There is one other detail I must deal with. I suppose the Government will now publish the original document. The right hon. Gentleman said they also claimed that there should be set up for the six counties a regular system of government. Of course, in a sense that is absolutely true. I remember the Clause of the document perfectly well. It was to be a government entirely under the control of an English Secretary of State sitting in this House—that is to say, the six Ulster counties were to be governed from this House by an English Secretary of State—and furthermore the document provided that the Order in Council setting up any Department—of course there had to be a Department and a Secretary of State—someone to carry on the work in Ulster—should be drafted by a committee composed of Nationalists and Ulster men, a joint committee, so that they could agree on that part of the agreement. Therefore it was an arrangement which would put the government of the six counties under the control of this
    1464
    Parliament, under a machinery agreed to by the Nationalists and the Ulstermen of that district.
    It must not be said—it cannot be truthfully said—that we have killed this agreement. We stand by our agreement. We are willing now, as we have been willing for the last four weeks, to settle on the terms which the Minister asked us to settle upon. We have gone back on nothing, but we are not going to consent to a breach of faith, and we are not going to attempt to do what we could not do even if we were willing, and we are not willing, to attempt to force upon our people new conditions after we had given them solemn pledges that we would do nothing of the kind. We revert to the old state of affairs. Responsibility for the government of Ireland is cast upon this Coalition Ministry. They will find it a very difficult task. I think they will live to regret the day when they were too cowardly or too divided to face a great problem which, although it may appear small in the debates on this terrific World-War, is really far greater than hon. Members realise. Its consequences are very far-reaching. If you destroy the faith of Ireland once more in the reliability of the pledges of British Ministers, and in the justice of this House, you are doing one of the greatest injuries; to this Empire that human imagination can conceive. I believe during the past year, in spite of repeated warnings from those of us who really knew what we were speaking about, you have created this rebellion in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I speak of what I really understand. When the rebellion was over, Lord Midleton himself declared that nine out of ten of the population of Ireland were absolutely opposed to the rebellion and the Sinn Fein movement. He was absolutely correct; indeed, I think he understated the case. I think the proportion was greater. Now you have a much worse state of things to face than before the rebellion. Make no mistake about that. That is the problem that is before you.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: You are endorsing it.
    Mr. DILLON: I think that is a very unfair and untruthful statement. I do not want to have any temper now. I say that the responsibility that you have undertaken is a terrible responsibility. That responsibility cannot be shifted from the shoulders of the Government. Our attitude on the War will remain unchanged, but we can

    1465
    no longer place upon ourselves the self-restraint that we have exercised during the past two years. I unhesitatingly ask even those who are most hostile to the Nationalist party to compare our record in this War with the record of any other party in this House. Have we ever uttered a word, or have we ever done anything to embarrass the Government, even when we thoroughly disapproved of the Coalition? We have exercised more restraint than any other section of this House, and have more consistently and persistently abstained from criticism and embarrassment of the Government. We have done that because we did not want to hamper them in the conduct of the War, but after what has happened we cannot continue to maintain exactly that attitude.
    I would say to the right hon. Member (Sir E. Carson) when he spoke of the coercion of Ulster, that I have long made up my mind that the way to get Ulster in is not to coerce her. I have been led to that belief largely by speeches of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson) because, although we differ very bitterly and have pitched into each other very strongly from time to time, there is a change in the tone of his speeches, and I recognise that he has enormous influence in Ulster. We do not want to coerce Ulster, we do not want to coerce those counties of Ulster which are more Unionist than Nationalist; but when the final settlement comes I do say to the right hon. Gentleman that he ought to exercise the same qualities which he desires others to exercise to him, and if we agree to wait for a considerable time in the hope that the Unionist counties of Ulster will of their own free will—and I hope and believe they will—come into a united Ireland, he ought to abandon the idea of coercing the Nationalist counties of Ulster to remain out. Be that as it may, I shared the hope, and I share it still, that after this War we will lay aside all idea of civil war in Ireland, and that we may be able to arrive at some understanding. I am sorry that this arrangement has broken down. Make no mistake about it, it has broken down, finally and for ever, and we must make up our minds to face the problem of governing Ireland during the War by some other means—a very, very difficult problem. After the War, Home Rule will be the law for all Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Yes. It is the law to-day for all Ireland. That is what the right
    1466
    hon. and learned Member for Trinity College said. That is the argument which he used——
    Sir E. CARSON: I said that we had been promised a Bill by the Prime Minister.
    The PRIME MINISTER: There are some things in the speech of my hon. Friend to which I have just listened which I regret, but I am sure that the whole House will agree with me in acknowledging the fairness and the justice of the criticism which he made that the Nationalist party, of which he has long been one of the most distinguished leaders, has responded loyally and patriotically to every demand made by the War, and in this House in its criticism of affairs has shown forbearance, moderation, and even consideration for the Government of the day. It is to me, or it would be if I thought it necessary, a most unwelcome thing to come into any kind of collision with my old Home Rule friends; like my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lloyd George) who sits beside me, though for a rather longer term of years—I have now been thirty years in this House—I was elected as a Home Ruler. I have supported Home Rule consistently from that day to this, and I may fairly claim, I think, without undue complacency, that I have done as much as any man to translate Home Rule from a formula and a phrase into a statutory reality. The Home Rule Act would not be upon the Statute Book now if it were not for the steps which we took, in which we were assisted by the hon. Gentlemen who sit below the Gangway. Sir, you have an opportunity now, let me remind my hon. Friend, with the consent of all the members of a Coalition Government, some of them lifelong opponents of Home Rule, as others have been lifelong supporters, you have an opportunity now of bringing Home Rule into immediate operation. Are you going to throw away that opportunity? That is the question. Those who are still strong supporters of Home Rule, as I am, have got to consider to-night are you going to take that step?
    How has the present situation arisen, with the possibility of bringing Home Rule into operation for the first time in history? It has arisen, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said in his speech, out of two facts. In the first place, there is the War, which has united all of us, Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen, and

    1467
    Irishmen, in one common desire to concentrate our energies on the success of our arms in what they believe to be a righteous cause, and which has made Irishmen of every shade and. complexion of opinion look forward, not only with repugnance and distaste, but with nausea and disgust, to the possibility, when the War is over, of a recurrence in their own country of internecine domestic struggle. And next we have this unhappy rising in Ireland, which has made the immediate problem of Irish government—from which we would gladly have diverted our attention, so that we might have concentrated our attention upon the War—a problem that we cannot ignore and cannot put aside. Those are the two items which have transformed the situation and which enabled me, on my return from Ireland, having seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, and reported to my colleagues, to say here, on the 25th of May, in the name of a united Cabinet, that I believed that an opportunity had come which might never recur, and of which it would be not only foolish but criminal not to take advantage, to bring about the foundations of a settlement of this long-standing controversy.
    All my colleagues agreed; the House agreed. There was not a dissentient voice in any quarter of the House when I announced that my right hon. Friend, who sits beside me, of whom some hard things have been said, some very unjust things by the hon. Member who has just sat down—that my right hon. Friend in a spirit of unselfish patriotism, absorbed as he was in other duties, had taken upon himself the most anxious task that any man could have undertaken, and to devote to that task assiduity, tact, yes, and a straightforwardness and sincerity which I hoped, and still hope, will yield abundant fruit. My right hon. Friend intimated most plainly that any agreement come to between the parties as the result of his mediation must be subject to ratification by the Cabinet and by the House of Commons. That my right hon. Friend intimated most plainly, and I am perfectly certain there is nothing that he said to my right hon. Friend that he did not say to the representatives of the Nationalist party. He intimated most plainly that any agreement that was come to between the
    1468
    parties as the result of his intervention must, as was obvious, be subject to ratification by the Cabinet and the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend intimated equally plainly, I believe at a very early stage, that there were points, serious points, upon which Members of the Cabinet differed. Therefore any agreement come to must be an agreement, necessarily ad referendum, in regard to which the Cabinet must be consulted before it was submitted to the House. There can be no shadow of doubt about that at every stage of the transaction. I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend who has just sat down say something about Lord Lansdowne Lord Lansdowne has never concealed his opinion. It was known to all his colleagues and to my right hon. Friend that a settlement on these lines was, to say the least, problematical, and probably might be found to be more injurious than beneficial. That view was conveyed by my right hon. Friend to those who were interested in the negotiations. There was on his part no concealment of any sort or kind, and no partiality shown to either one party to the negotiations or the other. What happened? This agreement was come to subject to these conditions and with that knowledge. What were its fundamental parts? They are two! On the one handmdash; contrary to the wishes and to all the prepossessions of my Unionist colleagues—that the Home Rule Act should be brought into immediate operation. On the other hand—contrary, I believe, to the wishes and prepossessions of many of us, my right hon. Friend himself and I myself—as part and parcel of that arrangement, that the six Ulster counties should be excluded from the operation of the Act. That is the essence of the whole thing. I do not think there could be anything fairer in the history of political negotiations. All the rest is subsidiary and unimportant and secondary. For instance, as to the number of Members who are to sit here after Home Rule has been granted to Ireland, I quite agree that under the heads of agreement negotiated by my right hon. Friend it was distinctly provided that they should continue. When we came to consider the agreement in the Cabinet, our Unionist colleagues pointed out that to an arrangement of this sort they would never consent, and, what is more, they would never get their party to consent, and to proceed with

    1469
    the arrangement would wreck the whole agreement and postpone the operation of Home Rule.
    Realising that, we felt we were not only entitled but bound to defer to their wishes as a matter of political expediency and necessity, and to substitute for the proposal in the original agreement the proposal that the Irish Members, after Home Rule has been established, and after there has been a Dissolution, should come here, as provided by the Home Rule Bill, in proportionately reduced numbers, but, as was provided by that Bill, in their old undiminished numbers in the case of financial revision, and whenever any question arose either of the Amendment of the Home Rule Bill or the Amending Bill. I ask the House of Commons, men in all quarters, and I shall ask the country if necessary, is not that a fair and reasonable arrangement? I have no doubt whatever what answer would be given to that appeal. There are only two minutes left to me—not that I want to go on, but the House will understand that I am not able to cover the whole ground. I want to say one final word with regard to Ulster. I laid down, speaking on behalf of the Government here on the floor of this House and at this Box, and in the clearest possible terms, our view, first of all there must be no coercion of Ulster, and that I think is now generally agreed upon; and next that those six counties, which it was part of the arrangement should be excluded, should not be brought back by any automatic process, but only by express Act of Parliament. No demur, no protest of any kind was made on the floor of this House when I asserted those two propositions. I held myself entitled to assume, as did all my colleagues, that as far as that was concerned there was general agreement. And it cannot be said because we are now seeking the best form of words by which that common intention can be carried into effect that we are making a departure from the agreement.
    I have only one word more to say. My hon. Friend who sat down just now said the arrangement had broken down. I should like, as an old Home Ruler, as an ardent Friend of Ireland, as one who all through his political life has been in close sympathy and co-operation, as they know, with the Nationalist party, to ask them to reconsider their decision. I should like once more, it is the last thing I have got
    1470
    to say, to ask them to listen to the appeal which none of us listened to unmoved, which was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), even now to listen to that appeal which I, on behalf of the Government, renew and repeat, that they should not after all this time and labour, allow an opportunity, which once missed may never recur, to pass by, but should heart and soul on all sides endeavour to bring about an arrangement which would redound, as we believe, in the long run to the good of Ireland and certainly to the strength and safety of the Empire.
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Motions for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

SUPPLY.

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. LYNCH: At a quarter-past eight I was speaking on the deficiencies of the Prime Minister, and I propose briefly to continue in that direction, which is but another way of exposing the main lines of the present situation. That very remark was greeted with a smile of incredulity, in which I dare say the right hon. Gentleman himself would participate. Having been acquainted for some time with the general tone and traditions of this House, I am not in the least disconcerted by that point of view. It, to my mind, really indicates the general prevalence of false standards. In saying that at this great crisis of a great nation we should have a great leader I will not in any way make an excessive demand. I would compare the qualities of our present leader with those of the great leader of a great nation in a great crisis at another epoch of history, namely, Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was not a man of genius——
  Mr. J. SAMUEL: He also was denounced.
  Mr. LYNCH: Unless experience, foresight, a certain guilelessness of spirit, and the plain directness of an honest man may be called marks of genius. But in the

  1471
  cause of the North he stood forth as a tower of strength, as one who was able to secure full respect for his almost infallible correctness of judgment, and to inspire and strengthen his country. I ask any Members here who have followed the course of the War whether the Prime Minister has stood like that. Another type of mind which we have a right to demand in a Government leader of a great nation is that which I find typified in the person of, say, Carnot, the great organiser of victory—a man of scientific mind who was able to plan and mark out great strategic lines as an architect marks out his plan, so that victory was but the realisation of a plan which he had already seen in his own mind. Has the Prime Minister, in any respect whatever, come near to the realisation of such a type as that? No! His is not a scientific mind. His is not the mind to foresee. To see and to prepare beforehand, to set forth with judgment, is the sign of the great mind; not that of the man who has no other course for the future except to drift. The Prime Minister is not a man of science, but he is an artist. The great feat of his artistry is to distort the entire prospective of the present situation. In face of manifest exterior disasters of the greatest gravity he comes down to this House in order to paint a picture before the eyes of this House, and of the entire nation, which completely distorts all the features, and by making us see unrealities makes us believe that we are being well led by the Government in this great campaign. That is the work of an artist, but it is a very dangerous gift for the leader of a nation. The greatest of the qualities that we should demand from him is that of judgment. Has the Prime Minister shown judgment in the great crisis of this country? Did he show judgment when in the beginning he was unable to foresee that Conscription was inevitable and, as he afterwards declared, unnecessary? Did he show judgment when he went to Newcastle at one of the critical phases of the War, and, instead of stimulating the country to new effort, to throw back the work of preparation for another few months? Did he show judgment when the question of the aeroplanes was first mooted in this Mouse, and when it was shown that one of the great arms of warfare and possibly of victory was being neglected, and when twelve months after this first warning
  1472
  there was the fact of the establishment of machinery for taking in hand what he was urged to do at the beginning of the War? Did the Leader of the Cabinet, who at any rate is not a master of strategy, show judgment on the Dardanelles Expedition? Did he show it on the Mesopotamia expedition? or on Serbia? or, recently, has he shown judgment in regard to Ireland?
  What is a man of judgment? Is he not a man who, from a certain standpoint of the present, is able to foresee, and to foretell, what will arrive in the future, so as to make the necessary preparation, so that in future days he will be able to point to these preparations as the best sign of his prescience? The Prime Minister, instead of giving us these exploits of judgment, has given us merely a show of judgment! Where a man whose judgment is tested by reality is found again and again to fail, and yet gives us a show of judgment, I say that that man is not a great statesman; he is simply a great comedian! Again and again he has come down to this House to demand huge Votes of Credit, and again and again he has been unable to justify those Votes of Credit by pointing to any real progress in the conduct of the War. Amidst all this hesitation, vacillation, and disaster one truth remains constant, the mighty river of blood which is the tribute to the weakness of the Government, the mountain of corpses which is the monument to their incompetence. This Coalition Government is not a union of Liberal and Tory Members. It has become a Tory Government, the Prime Minister again showing his ignorance and going down in the conflict between those forces. I might utter an aphorism which will become verified again and again, as it has been in the past, that whenever a Liberal party unites with a Tory party the coalition becomes a Tory party.
  We have now reached a stage of this War when reasonable men may ask how much longer are we prepared to continue. The financial resources of this country, great as they are, are not inexhaustible. For this tremendous expenditure of treasure and life we are entitled to demand real valid results. We have had nothing so far but a deadlock. How much longer is that deadlock to continue? Is the final result to be a deadlock? Have we reached, or are we about to reach, a stalemate, and is this War to end in a draw? If it is to end in a draw, it

  1473
  would be better now to east about for reasonable terms of peace. If this War ends in a draw, then that is the beginning and end of the life of this country as a great nation. It is the logical consummation of a policy of drift. It is the Nemesis of the Unready Ethelred. I think it would be the greatest of all disasters if the War ended in a draw, and, therefore, the War should be prosecuted with the utmost vigour, and we should face the question boldly as to whether these men who have two years' experience and have led us into disaster after disaster are to continue to ruin the chances of this country in the end. While I believe a draw would be the greatest of all disasters, I also believe quite sincerely, weighing the matter out as impassionately as I can, that the men who are now leading are not competent to win. They must go. Better men must be found to fill their places. The inquiry so often heard, "Where are these better men?" I will answer at the proper time. And I say if that is all your resources, and that is all your gauge of victory, you have already in your own words sealed the doom of this country if you place as the high-water mark of your energy, intelligence, judgment, and power those men who have had control during the last two years. There are many ways in which the present aspect of circumstances can be changed into a new appearance. One is by an energetic resumption of the Balkan Campaign, and the second is in the development of a great aeroplane fleet. There is a point on which I have insisted from the very beginning, and for verification I go no further than your own Front Bench itself, for after twelve months they attempted to realise it, not by giving us that aeroplane fleet which they then considered necessary, but by giving us a Board—a Board which has become, apparently, affected with the prevailing maladies of incompetence, vacillation, and drift. Even to-day we have had the inspiring example of what it is possible to accomplish in aeroplane warfare. Recently a French aeroplane traversed Berlin, and almost reached the Russian lines. If at the beginning the Government had shown foresight and energy and had begun to build like an engineer, we should now
  1474
  have had another Army and one of our greatest Armies in the shape of an aeroplane fleet of 20,000 machines. It is possible that this could have been realised, and that it has not been realised is the charge I make against the Government. With an aeroplane fleet of 20,000 this great push would have had another meaning, and the whole aspect of the War might have been changed. These words I utter now. Even if they do not convince all the Members of this House, they will at length find their meaning and echo in the country, and from the country will come a demand to replace these incompetent men by men of energy and power who have faith in ultimate victory, which I am beginning to doubt that the Government possess—not only faith and determination, but the intelligence to foresee and devise the means necessary to carry out their plans; and above all, the power of electrifying the country so that it will believe no effort too great, no sacrifice too great, to secure a glorious victory under the folds of the banner which they have placed in the van in this fight for the progress of humanity.
  Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY,—Considered in Committee.
  Resolved, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £450,000,000, 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 re-sale 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."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Tuesday). Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
Resolved, "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 £470,262,480 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Mr. McKinnon Wood.]
Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one minutes after Eleven o'clock.