Commons Sitting of 26 July 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Ferndale Gas Bill [Lords].
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Great Central and Sheffield District Railways Bill [Lords]
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Copy presented of Headings of a Settlement as to the Government of Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
City of Bradford
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SUPREME COURT (RULES).
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court (Vacations in Courts and Offices), dated 26th July, 1916 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    MERCHANT OFFICERS' UNIFORMS.
    Mr. PETOasked 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;
    1650
    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?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The whole question is receiving the consideration of the Admiralty and of the companies and persons interested, and the suggestion in the last part of the question will be borne in mind.
    Mr. PETO: Will the right hon Gentleman bear in mind that this is a matter of some urgency, as it is more necessary in time of war than in time of peace?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I assume that.

    NAVAL LEAVE.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the men on board H.M.S. "Doris" have not had any leave since the beginning of the War; that some dissatisfaction exists among the ship's company owing to the fact that so many men belonging to other ships have been given leave, including the sister ship "Talbot"; and can he see his way to give the same privileges in respect to leave to H.M.S. "Doris"?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answers already given. Leave must depend upon the exigencies of the Service. The process of relieving men as circumstances permit is still proceeding.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us are receiving many letters on this matter, that he has given me the same answer

    1651
    over and over again; and cannot he make some representations to their lordships with regard to leave for these men?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If I have given the same answer more than once it is because there is no other answer. Leave must depend upon, the exigencies of the Service, and we do our best in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

    ROYAL DOCKYARDS (WAR BONUS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the clerical staff in His Majesty's dockyards will participate in the new war bonus; and, if that is not to be the case, will he explain the reason for the omission?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on Monday last.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to say when these bonuses will be paid?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot make any statement whatever upon that.

    NAVAL WRITER BRANCH.
    Mr. FLAVINasked (1)when it is intended to open up to the writer branch the possibility of gaining wardroom rank, as is open to most other branches in the naval service; and (2) whether, in view of the increase in the duties of experienced writers during the period of hostilities through the abnormal condition of the accounts arising out of the War and the greater responsibility involved whilst working under Reserve officers of limited experience in naval accountant work, as well as training junior writers entered for temporary service, it is proposed to reward them by giving them a proportionate number of commissions as accountant officers, the number of which it has been found necessary to increase to meet war requirements?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In answer to these questions I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by me on the 28th September last to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what progress has been made since last September in the promotion of these men who are eligible for promotion?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say offhand, but I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the answer to which I have referred him.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that seamen, signalmen, wireless operators, enginemen and others receive promotion?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: From the answer I gave on the 28th September my hon. Friend will get information. As to what progress has been made I cannot say offhand, but it does not follow from my ignorance that no progress has been made.
    Mr. FLAVIN: I will put another question.

    SEAMEN AND WARRANT RANK.
    Mr. FLAVINasked what is the earliest age at which a seamen can gain warrant rank, and what is the earliest age at which a writer can gain warrant rank; and how many writers have been promoted to warrant rank at an earlier age than thirty-nine?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The earliest age at which a seaman can gain warrant rank is twenty-four, as compared with thirty-five in the case of a writer. The answer to the last part of the question is one.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say at what age seamen can attain warrant rank—is it twenty-two or twenty-five?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is neither; it is twenty-four, that is the earliest.

    COURT-MARTIAL (PORTSMOUTH).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if Mr. J. Broadbent, who is described by the Army as Gunner Broadbent, No. 84,768, Royal Garrison Artillery, was, by a district court-martial held at Portsmouth on 8th June, 1916, sentenced to undergo detention for 112 days; if he is now in the military detention barracks at Gosport; why the Army Order of 25th May last was not obeyed in this case and a sentence of imprisonment and not detention given; and if steps will be taken immediately to correct the decision of this court-martial?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Inquiry is being made.

    MOTOR TYRE TUBES.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the War is now costing £6,000,000 a day and that there is every possibility of a .still further increase, and having regard to the Government's action in spending large sums on posters and propaganda for the purpose of obtaining national economy, will he say whether, in the motor transport depots all over the country, slightly damaged motor tyre tubes, costing from 20s. upwards, are being scrapped; and, seeing that the Government Departments are in possession of a new and adequate means of permanently repairing these tubes in a few minutes without the aid of expensive plant or highly paid mechanics at a low cost, can he state why this method is not being used more extensively; and whether it is the custom for the motor transport depots to sell these damaged tubes in bulk to dealers at any price they think fit, and at considerable loss to the country?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have no reason to suppose that motor-tyre tubes which can be repaired by any means and made serviceable again are being scrapped. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.
    Mr. F. WHYTE: Will the hon. Member say whether the Committee which is inquiring into possible economies in the spending Departments is still in existence?
    Mr. FORSTER: That does not arise out of this question.
    Mr. STANTON: Will the hon. Member grant me facilities for proving that I am right in what I have put down?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, certainly; if the hon. Member can give me any assistance of that kind I shall be very grateful to him.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of John Foley, Kilgobnet, Beaufort, county Kerry, who joined the Army in February, 1916, any allowance has been made to his father; whether he is aware that the father is in very poor circumstances, is over sixty years, and has only this son; and whether, under these circumstances, his case will be specially considered?
    Mr. FORSTER: If the hon. Member will let me know the soldier's regiment, rank, and regimental number, inquiry will be made.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary of State for War why the mother of Private Joe Sullivan, No. 12,840, No. 8110 Gordon Highlanders, attached to 40 Company, British Expeditionary Force, France, Mrs. John Shiels, alias Sullivan, of Ballylahiff, Newcastle West, county Limerick, is not receiving her allowance, although her son says he is contributing towards it; whether when he was in the Irish Guards, which regiment he left to join the Gordon Highlanders, she received last November £l 9s. 6d. from the War Office; and whether, as she is a poor woman, he will take steps to see that she receives her allowance without any further delay?
    Mr. FORSTER: The hon. Member has written to me about this case and inquiry "is being made.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Seeing that the question was asked a week ago, why has not the hon. Gentleman received a reply?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has not had a reply. I am sure it is an, over sight and I regret it.
    Mr. BOLANDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital have considered the application of Private Denis Donnelly, Irish Guards, Caherdaniel, county Kerry, who was invalided home from service at the front; and, if so, what increase has been granted on the conditional pension previously granted to him?
    Mr. FORSTER: The Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital have recently received this case and given the man a conditional pension of 12s. 6d. a week for six months in lieu of his former pension of 5s. 3d. a week (9d. a day).
    Mr. BARNESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the question of the amount of allowance to dependants, part and wholly dependent, has yet been settled; and, if so, when the amended warrant will be issued?
    Mr. FORSTER: It has been decided to amend the scale of pensions of partially dependant parents of soldiers who have been killed. In future the present pension of 5s. a week will be increased by such an

    1655
    amount as will, with ,any income received by the dependant, make up the total income to a sum not exceeding 10s. to 12s. a week according to the soldier's rank or to the amount of ascertained dependence if less. The amending warrant will be published as soon as possible.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can my hon. Friend say whether that is for one or both periods?
    Mr. FORSTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, whilst the whole question of war pensions is now under review, he will favourably consider the proposition that pensions for wounds, being a gift from the nation, shall be free from taxation?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): I do not think it would be possible to single out this class of pension for special treatment in" the way suggested by the hon. Member.

    RECALL TO COLOURS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that many time expired warrant officers and non-commissioned officers have received notices, addressed to them by their surnames only without specifying their military rank, calling them to the Colours; whether such men are entitled to be recalled instead of called to join the Colours; and if he will give directions that the procedure by which old soldiers are recalled to the Colours shall distinguish them from men called up for the first time under the Military Service Act?
    Mr. FORSTER: The necessity to adopt a somewhat different procedure in the case of those mentioned in the first part of this question is fully recognised. Some form of notification will, of course, be necessary, but it has been arranged that it shall be of a different colour from that used in calling up men for the first time under the Military Service Act, and that it shall instruct the men in question to rejoin the Colours.

    SOLDIERS IN ASYLUMS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the misprint in the Criminal Lunatics
    1656
    Act, 1884, copied into the Irish Lunacy Act, 1901, by which the word person was substituted for the word prisoner has led to invalided soldiers being classified as criminal lunatics, whether he will introduce a short declaratory Bill to rectify this mistake, and so put an end to a misunderstanding which is causing pain to and resentment by the soldiers so classified and their friends and relations?
    Ths SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion, but, as he is no doubt aware, the change of classification which he desires would have financial consequences which have hitherto rendered controversial the Bills introduced for the purpose. I would add that the description of insane discharged soldiers as "Criminal Lunatics" is merely one of classification in the official records, and in no way affects their treatment, and there is no information to show that it has caused pain or resentment to the soldiers so classified or their friends.
    Mr. McNEILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why this financial business should be involved in correcting misprints?
    Mr. SAMUEL: On the present classification, the Treasury Grant is paid in respect of these persons. If the classification was altered the Treasury Grant would cease, and the local authorities would suffer.
    Mr. McNEILL: Am I to take it, then, that we are to continue to have invalid soldiers classified as criminal lunatics?
    Mr. SAMUEL: There are soldiers whose minds are unsound who are confined in military asylums.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN NORWAY
    Mr. BARNESasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information to the effect that British naval prisoners at Forstadmoen, Faaberg, Norway, are subject to harsh treatment, inferior food, and deprivation of liberty; and, if so, will he have inquiry made with a view to securing their better treatment?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The Admiralty have received an official report, dated 14th July, which

    1657
    deals with the treatment of the British naval prisoners interned at Forstadmoen. The men appear to be well treated and fed and to enjoy a reasonable amount of liberty. Certain privileges, including leave, were temporarily stopped owing to the escape of two of the prisoners.

    PASSPORTS
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether American representatives in this country have been consulted with reference to the refusal to give Mrs. James Connolly, of Dublin, an American citizen by birth, a passport for herself and her daughters to America; whether he is aware that one of the said daughters also was born in America, and that American authorities hold that in the circumstances in which Mrs. Connolly has become a widow she is now an American citizen; and, she having sold her home under promise of a passport to America and there being no charge against her, whether a passport to the United States will be given to her without further delay?
    Lord R. CECIL: Passports are only granted to persons resident in Ireland on the recommendation of the Lords Justices of Ireland. No such recommendation has been received in the case referred to.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the Noble Lord say why?
    Lord R. CECIL: The passport was not granted on the recommendation of the Lords Justices of Ireland.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the Noble Lord find out on what ground it was withheld from Mrs. Connolly?

    AMERICAN VISIT TO IRELAND.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the text of any objection raised by His Majesty's Government to the proposed visit of certain American citizens of repute to Ireland this season for a philanthropic purpose; to whom communicated; the nature of any correspondence to which it has led; whether the objection is persisted in; and what result favourable to this country is expected from this treatment of citizens of a neutral State?
    Lord R. CECIL: No objection has been raised, as suggested in the first part of the question; the other questions do not, therefore, arise.

    GERMAN SUBMARINE TRADER (" DEUTSCHLAND ").
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the entire correspondence between the American and British Governments with reference to the German submarine "Deutschland" will be submitted to the House of Commons before any change in the policy of this country towards America is introduced or any irrevocable step taken?
    Lord R. CECIL: I see no ground for the apprehensions which the hon. Member appears to entertain, and have nothing further to add to what I stated on this subject on 17th July in reply to the hon. Member for East Mayo.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the Noble Lord not undertake to consult this House before taking any irrevocable step?
    Lord R.CECIL: I have answered that.

    SERBIA.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the condition of affairs in Serbia and as to the composition of the Army of occupation?
    Lord R. CECIL: It would not be desirable, as I am sure my hon. Friend will see, to discuss in public the subject raised by the latter part of the question. With regard to the condition of things in Serbia, the information which reaches us is to some extent conflicting, but unfortunately there seems little doubt that in parts of the country, at any rate, the distress from want of food is very serious and reflects grave discredit on the occupying Powers.

    GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to establish a camp for prisoners of war at Bostall Heath, Plumstead; and, if so, whether due consideration has been given to the fact-that such a camp would overlook the Royal Arsenal and the river, and

    1659
    might be a menace to the safety of the Arsenal and the borough of Woolwich generally?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): The suggestion to established a camp for prisoners of war at Bostall Heath has been abandoned.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN TURKEY.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Turks in their communiqués have from time to time claimed during the Gallipoli Campaign to have captured a large number of British prisoners in the Dardanelles; and, if so, whether the British Government, through the American Ambassador, will inquire what numbers of British prisoners so captured are now in Turkish hands?
    Mr. FORSTER: The numbers of officers and men captured in the Dardanelles who are now prisoners in the hands of the Turks are believed to be nineteen and 359, respectively. These figures represent the totals of the lists received from the Turkish Government, after check and verification at the War Office and collation with information received from other sources. The figures as thus checked were also referred back to the United States Embassy at Constantinople for further check.

    MUNITIONS.

      ENROLMENT OF WORKERS AS VOLUNTEERS.
      Colonel ALAN SYKESasked the' Secretary of State for War whether difficulties are being put in the way of munition workers enrolling in the Volunteers as the munition authorities are afraid that, should the Volunteers be mobilised, they will lose the services of such munition workers; and whether he can issue regulations to satisfy the apprehension of the munition authorities, making it clear that munition workers will not be mobilised, unless such an emergency arose as to necessitate the mobilisation of every available man in the country, including even munition workers?
      Mr. FORSTER: Munition workers are not the only category in regard to whom this point arises. A discussion between
      1660
      the various Departments concerned has taken place, and as a result a line of action which will safeguard the position of the workers concerned as regards possible withdrawal from their civil employment has been agreed upon. It is hoped that full particulars will be available very shortly, but various Departments have to be consulted.

      HOUSING OF WORKERS.
      Captain DONELANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will furnish a Return of all the Grants given by the Treasury for the purpose of building houses for munition workers, together with the names of the local authorities to whom Grants have been made?
      Mr. McKENNA: It is not considered advisable to give the names of places where munition workers have been housed. In these circumstances I fear the Return asked for must be deferred.
      Captain DONELAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the amount of the Grants given in connection with Great Britain as compared with the amount of Grants given in Ireland?
      Mr. McKENNA: I will consider the question from that point of view. I am not sure that I quite understood what my hon. Friend's point was.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Treasury exercises any authority or jurisdiction in connection with money paid by the Munitions Department for contracts given, and whether the Treasury will see that the lowest tender handed in for the construction of these buildings is accepted?
      Mr. McKENNA: In time of war it is quite impossible for the Treasury to interfere with individual contracts given by a Department.
      Mr. FLAVIN: On what principle does a Government Department give a contract to the second, third or fourth highest man who tenders, while the lowest, and very often the second and third lowest tenders are not accepted, and no reason is given?
      Mr. McKENNA: If my hon. Friend will address a question to the Minister of Munitions he will give him an answer.
      Mr. FLAVIN: The Ministry of Munitions, like every other Department, will tell me that in the interests of the State they cannot make it public.

      DEPORTED CLYDE WORKES.
      Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Munitions if he can yet say whether the deported engineers from the Clyde can return to their homes on assurances being given; and, if so, will he indicate the nature of the assurances required?
      The MINISTER OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Montagu): The matter is receiving my careful consideration. I am in communication with the trade union on the point, and I hope to be able to announce my decision very soon. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will put a question down for Monday.
      Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does that mean that this is being done in consultation with the trade unions?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Yes.

      YATE CHEMICAL COMPANY.
      Mr.RENDALLasked the Minister of Munitions whether the Yate Chemical Company, of Yate, near Bristol, is a controlled firm; if so, whether he is aware of the rates of wages paid there; has any war bonus been given to the workers; and whether such has been applied for and ignored by the company?
      Mr. MONTAGU: The firm has recently been controlled. I am causing inquiry to be made with the questions raised by my hon. Friend, and will communicate the result to him as soon as possible.

      CONTROL OF LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
      Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Minister of Munitions how many selected munition areas there are where the State now controls the liquor traffic; and whether he can give any particulars as to the working in each case of this arrangement?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): There are twenty areas in Great Britain in which the liquor traffic is controlled by General Orders made by the Central Control Board, and a system of direct control has been established in smaller districts contained within three of these areas. Particulars of the working of these different forms of control are given in the recently published Second Report of the Control Board (Cd. 8243).

    DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND

      DOMICILIARY SEARCHES.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for War by whose order the officer, accompanied by detectives, when searching Miss Maeve Cavanagh's house in Dublin, threatened to shoot her; if without authority, what notice has been taken of his conduct, promptly complained of; why the property taken from the house has not all been restored yet; why, out of the £50 in gold then taken, notes for only £43 have been returned; and when the balance will be returned?
      Mr. FORSTER: A report on these allegations has been asked for. In the meantime I must, of course, not be taken as accepting them as correct.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the hon. Gentleman return the goods, and then it does not matter?

      FRONGOCH CAMP.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that, since in all prisons in which any considerable number of tried and convicted Catholic prisoners are detained there is a Catholic chaplain to attend to their spiritual needs, several such chaplains should have been appointed for the requirements of some 1,800 Irish prisoners at Frongoch, and none have yet been appointed; whether he is aware of the resentment of those untried men at being treated worse than convicted prisoners in many respects but especially in this; whether several Catholic chaplains will be appointed without further' delay; whether he will arrange for a visit of inspection of dormitories 3 and 4 at Frongoch by a representative of the American Government accompanied by an independent sanitary inspector, and the prisoners to be interrogated; if not, what is to be done with reference to the insanitary condition of the camp; whether it is with his concurrence that the prisoners are restricted in writing to a small halfsheet of notepaper widely ruled, and required to pay postage on these scraps; if not, whether he will have this restriction removed; why Mr. Sears, a vegetarian for reasons of health, is denied cheese in the camp though he was allowed it in prison; and, seeing that all these grievances are verified by the censor at the camp though previous complaints of them have been denied, whether the Government as a

      1663
      whole will either have them remedied immediately or accept responsibility for the neglect?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to this question. The hon. Member's allegation that Catholic chaplains have not been appointed to minister to the Irish prisoners detained at Frongoch is quite unfounded. At the outset the War Office had arranged for the attendance of a priest on Sundays. Representations were made by the Home Office that a chaplain giving his whole time to the camp would be appointed. This was done, and that arrangement now continues. The appointment of an additional chaplain is not considered necessary, especially in view of the large reduction in the number of prisoners at Frongoch. In answer to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a similar question yesterday. When the camp was occupied by German prisoners it was reported upon most favourably by representatives of the American Embassy. In answer to the third part of the question, the rule in all internment camps is that letters from prisoners must not cover more than two sides of a sheet of the regulation notepaper. The postage must be prepaid. I have no information as to the diet of the vegetarian prisoner mentioned.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that prisoners at Frongoch continue to complain bitterly of the want of an adequate number of chaplains, and how can he reconcile the supply of only one chaplain to such a number of men, while in ordinary prisons there is one chaplain to some thirty or forty men; and will he further answer the last part of the question, which asserts truly that the notes upon which this question is based have been verified by the censor at Frongoch?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member is quite mistaken. His question contains a number of allegations which are quite unfounded. I have had no representations made to me recently of any complaint. I had some time ago, and a resident chaplain was appointed.
      Mr. GINNELL: The last part of the question asserts that the notes on which the question is based were verified by the censor. Some corrections were made, and the question was put on the Paper in accordance with these corrections. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that?
      Mr. BYRNE: The right hon. Gentleman refers to American citizens. Is he aware that two American citizens who landed at Liverpool on Tuesday from the "Philadelphia" were refused permission to land by his Department?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.
      Mr. BYRNE: The right hon. Gentleman referred to American citizens.
      Mr. SPEAKER: It does not arise out of the question.

      NORTH KING STREET DEATHS.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will state the reasons why the Government refuse a public and sworn inquiry into the deaths in North King Street; if he is aware that the coroner's jury returned a verdict of murder in these cases; if he is aware that the military authorities were represented at the inquests; and if he will consider the demands of the Irish people for this inquiry?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I have nothing to add to the full answer I gave on this subject to the hon. Member for East Mayo on the 17th of this month.
      Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the first question, Why the Government refuse an inquiry?
      The PRIME MINISTER: No such inquiry was ever promised.
      Mr. NUGENT: Has the right hon. Gentleman been in the district himself?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, yes, I have been there.
      Mr. NUGENT: What is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion?

      PUBLIC INQUIRY.
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister if he will now state the composition of the tribunal and the character of the promised public inquiry into the killing of non-combatant civilians by the military in Dublin in connection with the recent insurrection; whether the inquiry will embrace the cases of the three non-combatant civilians, Francis Sheehy Skeffington, Thomas Dickson, and Patrick M'Intyre, shot at Portobello Barracks and buried in the barrack yard; the cases of the seventy-one prisoners, including women, shot in Richmond Barracks and buried without identification; the cases of Ernest

      1665
      Cavanagh, John Hewson, William Maguire, Harris, Casey, and Fowler, shot in the Eden Quay area the cases of Thomas Hickey, Christopher Hickey, Peter Connolly, Peter Lawless, James M'Carthy, Patrick Hoey, and George Ewing, shot in houses in North King Street and buried in cellars and yards there; the cases of Councillor Carroll, Patrick Nolan, and a boy named Coade; the case of Patrick Derrick, shot in the yard of his father's house in Eustace Street; the case of the Reverend Father Watters, shot dead by soldiers when on his way to administer the last sacraments to the dying; Nurse Kehoe, shot by soldiers while engaged in her professional duties; Mrs. Naylor, shot on Great Brunswick Street bridge; if all those cases are not to be inquired into, will he state the grounds for differentiation; whether all the officers and men involved in all those cases will be produced for examination and cross-examination; whether civilian witnesses will be allowed to appear and give evidence without adverse consequences from the Government; and when the inquiry will open?
      The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question the composition of the tribunal of inquiry into the shootings at Portobello Barracks, which are the only cases in which a public inquiry has been promised, is in course of settlement, and I hope to make an announcement on the subject very soon. Public inquiries have not been promised into the other cases mentioned in the question. I stated my reasons for this decision on the 17th of this month in reply to a question by the hon. Member for East Mayo.
      Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the public inquiry include the shooting of one man in Phoenix Park who was a non-combatant?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know to what the hon. Member refers. I said shooting at the Portobello Barracks.
      Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: One man was shot in the park.
      Mr. GINNELL: Does the Prime Minister maintain that the failure to give a ministerial pledge deprives the people in Ireland of rights they otherwise have? Will the Prime Minister explain why he distinguishes between the Sheehy-Skeffington case and other cases under precisely the same circumstances, and how he reconciles the answer he has just given with that
      1666
      given on the 10th May, in which he said that similar cases would be followed by similar procedure?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I have already answered this question many times. I do not want to repeat what I have said.
      Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman pursue the policy announced by himself on the 10th May?
      Mr. P. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, why he refused permission to the hon. Member for North Meath to visit Arthur Griffith, an untried prisoner detained at Reading?
      Mr. BYRNEasked when the twenty-seven prisoners at Reading will take their trial before the Advisory Committee; whether Arthur Griffith is in Reading, why he is refused visitors, what charge is against him, and when he is likely to be released?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Arthur Griffith is interned at Reading. The grounds for his internment are stated in the notice of the Order which has been served upon him. I have not yet received any recommendation about him from the Advisory Committee, but they are dealing this week with the cases of all the Irish prisoners at Reading who have not previously appeared before them. Griffith is allowed to receive visits in accordance with the rules. Applications from Members of Parliament to pay special visits have been exceedingly numerous, and are allowed as far as possible, but a certain discretion had to be exercised in the matter.
      Mr. WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many visitors he is allowed to see per week, and why I have been refused permission to see him?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I will see what
      Mr. WHITE: The right hon. Gentleman himself has refused me. Will he state the reason?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Owing to the very large number of visits that have been had
      Mr. WHITE: How many visits has this man had?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I will ascertain.
      Mr. WHITE: You must have known when you refused me.
      Mr. SAMUEL: As hon. Members are aware, very large numbers of permissions to visit have been given.
      Mr. T. M. HEALY: Not to this man man. You have treated him most shamefully and cruelly.
      Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member who has put the question is specially desirous of visiting this man I will certainly arrange it.
      Mr. WHITE: I have applied twice for permission. To my first application there was no answer whatever. To the second there was a refusal.
      Mr. SAMUEL: I will give the hon. Gentleman permission if he attaches importance to it.
      Mr. HEALY: They should move the Adjournment more often.
      Mr. GINNELL: Has he had any visits during the last few weeks?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that he has.
      Mr. HEALY: He has not.
      Mr. SAMUEL: There is a very large number of visits, and it is quite impossible for me to know about every one of them.
      Mr. HEALY: Go to Potsdam!
      Mr. BYRNE: I made application to be allowed to visit this man, and I was refused. Can the right hon. Gentleman say why?

      IRISH PRISONERS.
      Mr. BYRNEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the names and addresses of all persons arrested during the rising in Ireland were published broadcast in Irish newspapers; and if he will, in justice to them, so as to enable them to return to their employment, cause their names to be published when their release has been ordered by the Advisory Committee?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think it desirable to make any official publication of the kind suggested. When a prisoner is released, his presence is sufficient evidence that he has been discharged.
      Mr. BYRNE: Considering that the names of these men were published in every paper in Ireland when they were interned, will he not allow their names to be published when they are released?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Their names were published in order that their friends and families should be made aware of what had happened.
      Mr. LYNCH: What is the reason for any kind of secrecy?
      Mr. SAMUEL: There is no secrecy at all. The men are released and go home to their friends.
      Mr. FITZPATRICKasked if the case of Edward J. Brennan, Dublin, arrested during the recent rebellion, has been inquired into by the Advisory Committee; and, if so, has his release been ordered?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. The Advisory Committee have recommended Edward Brennan's release, and he was released on the 22nd instant.
      Mr. P. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Brennan is in the employment of a firm controlled by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, and will the Government see that he shall be reinstated in his employment?
      Mr. FFRENCHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen a letter from a Unionist justice of the peace, Charles H. Peacocke, Esq., Belmont, Wexford, advocating the release of Miss Ellen O'Ryan, now in Lewes Prison; whether he is aware that Mr. Peococke states that he is a neighbour of Miss O'Ryan's family, and that he has known them since 1871 as quiet and industrious farming people, and that Miss O'Ryan was at home in her father's house during the Sinn Fein disturbance, and that she took no part whatever in it; whether he is aware that the only charges against Miss O'Ryan are two letters, one written to her some two years ago with reference to a proposal to pass a resolution at the Wexford Board of Guardians, the other an invitation to a picnic; whether he is aware that the writers of these letters used some words which have been construed into a breach of the Defence of the Realm Act; whether Miss O'Ryan is to be held responsible for other people's words; and, if not, can he say when she will be released?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I have received from the hon. Member a letter from Mr. Peacocke, which shall have my consideration; but, as I informed the hon. Member for West Clare on the 18th July, the Advisory Committee, after personally hearing Ellen Ryan and carefully considering the evidence against her, have recommended that her internment should be maintained.
      Mr. HEALY: Did the hon. Member for Newry concur in that decision?
      Mr. LYNCH: Has any definite charge been formulated against this lady?
      Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.
      Mr. LYNCH: Can we see what that charge was?
      Mr. FFRENCH: May the Members of the House have an opportunity of seeing the letters so that they may be able to judge?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that the letter to which the hon. Member refers is by no means the only evidence on which the Committee came to their decision. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that it is not possible to retry each individual case across the floor of the House.
      Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this lady is prepared to go before any public tribunal and meet her accusers, and have the charge investigated?
      Mr. SAMUEL: This lady has been before the tribunal, and they have made their recommendation.
      Mr. FLAVIN: She does not know what is the charge against her.
      Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that Irish soldiers are fighting for the rights of small nationalities, and why does the Government insist on making war on Irish women?
      Mr. SAMUEL: In connection with the rebellion—
      Mr. HEALY: She had no connection with the rebellion.
      Mr. SAMUEL: In connection with the rebellion eighty-two women were arrested by the military. They were all released except five. Of those five two have been released by advice of the Committee, and only three ladies are still retained.
      Mr. HEALY: Is it the fact that the Irish Nationalist Member for Newry is a concurrent in this woman's continued detention?
      Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say what view is taken by individual members of the Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newry, who is a member of the Committee, has given every case full consideration.

    WAR OFFICE HAY PURCHASES.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary of State for War whether farmers and others in many parts of Ireland are ignorant of the Regulations governing the commandeering of hay by the military authorities; and, as there are many people in the cities and towns who have to buy hay at the present time for their horses, will he state what those Regulations are?
    Mr. FORSTER: Large numbers of posters giving full particulars have been distributed throughout Ireland since the date' of the Order, and I hope that by this time farmers and others interested are sufficiently acquainted with the Regulations. Generally it is provided that no hay may be sold without a Government licence, which may be obtained from officers described as District Purchasing Officers of Supplies. I will furnish to my hon. Friend a list of the officers in Ireland.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is it not a fact that these officers live a very long way from these country districts and is not great delay caused through a small farmer having to apply for a permit to such an officer? I will give the hon. Gentleman a case. Is he aware that at a market about a week ago a load of hay was brought in and many people with horses wanted to buy it, but the farmer could not sell it, and it had to be taken away? Will he see that the permits can be got without any unavoidable delay?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will do my best to meet that point.
    Mr. HEALY: Is it a fact that while the hay crop of Ireland is about 4,000,000 tons, the Government only want 100,000 tons, and that they are holding up the 4,000,000 tons to get the 100,000 tons?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will look into that. I do not carry the precise figures in my mind.
    Mr. KILBRIDE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only the other day in a certain town in Queen's County hay wholly unfit for the feeding of horses, soft hay only fit for feeding cattle, was prohibited from being sold, and cannot he stop that kind of thing at once?

    ROYAL DOCKYARD EMPLOYES (BONUS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the employés in His Majesty's Gunwharf, Devonport, will be placed in a similar position to the employés in His Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, with regard to the extra bonus of 3s. a week?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am afraid that I cannot answer this question till I know what the Admiralty decision is.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to have that information?
    Mr. FORSTER: I hope to have it shortly.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: That is what I wanted to know.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      DISCHARGED MEN (MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION).
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary of State for War whether men discharged from the Army in consequence of ill-health or disablement are being called up for re-examination by recruiting officers; whether he is aware that such men were expressly excluded from the Military Service Act by Section 5 of the First Schedule; and whether he will take steps to prevent these men being called up?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think that soldiers discharged in the circumstances mentioned are being actually called up, but they may in some cases be receiving notices. This might occur where a man settles in an area where he is not known and does not take the trouble to communicate with the recruiting officer, who has no means of knowing who a man is or what his history is except from himself. The man has, however, only to explain who he is and to show to the recruiting officer his discharge certificate in order to receive cancellation of his notice, if he is in fact not liable for service. When men discharged on account of ill-health settle in an area where they are known, it is unlikely that they will receive a notice.
      Mr. HOGGE: Does my right hon. Friend know that the discharge certificate
      1672
      very frequently contains only the words "unfit for further service," and does not state the specific nature of the ill-health? Does he, further, know it is a fact—I can give him information locally—that men who have been discharged for these causes, many of whom are eligible for pensions, are being asked by recruiting officers to go up and see if they are fit for any other work?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that there have been mistakes in the issue of notices with regard to discharged men, and steps have been taken to correct that.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recruiting officers are calling up men who have been discharged from the Army to submit themselves to medical re-examination, and that when a medical certificate is produced the recruiting officers insist that they shall undergo that medical examination? I can give him cases.
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If my hon. Friend will give me one or two cases, I will look into the matter.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is there any objection to stating on the discharge certificate the specific reason for the man's discharge, instead of this general statement?
      Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will consider that point.

      PUBLIC TRUSTEE'S DEPARTMENT.
      Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, according to the General Report of the Public Trustee just issued, forty-nine married and twenty-two unmarried men of military age are still available for active service; and can he say, seeing that the men on the staff of the Public Trustee's Department are exceptionally young, whether arrangements will be made to replace the men available for active service by men of non-military age or by women?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Of the eligible staff of the Public Trustee Department 58 per cent, have already been released for active service, and 423 women are employed (out of a total staff of 650). The Department has undertaken a large amount of war work in connection with the enactments dealing with trading with the enemy, and in addition the ordinary business of the Department has increased

      1673
      greatly. In these circumstances it is not considered possible to release any further trained officers at present, but the matter is kept under constant consideration.
      Mr. R. McNEILL: May I take it from the answer that the figures actually given in the question are correct?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have no reason to doubt that they are.

      CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if the cases of men in prison for refusal to obey military orders on conscientious grounds are now being considered under the scheme recently announced by him; if any decisions have already been arrived at; if any men have been released from prison under this scheme; and if the cases are being considered in the order of the commitment of the men to prison?
      The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second and, consequently, to the third parts in the negative. With regard to the last part of the question, I understand that the order is not yet definitely fixed, but that the cases will be dealt with in the way most convenient to everybody concerned.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Am I to understand that no decisions have yet been arrived at?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, the hon. Member may understand that.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman do something to accelerate it?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, they are being accelerated.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked, in view of the contradictory statements which have recently been given, what it is intended to do with conscientious objectors at the end of their terms of imprisonment in cases where the War Office and the advistory tribunal have not accepted the genuineness of the claim of conscientious objection, and in cases where the man has refused to accept alternative civil employment where such has been offered to him; and will the men in both cases be sent back to the Army to repeat past experiences, or will they both be discharged from the Army, or will the two cases be treated differently?
      The PRIME MINISTER: Men whose claims are rejected by the Central Appeal Tribunal will be held to serve in the Army and, on the termination of their terms of imprisonment, will be sent back to their unit. As regards men who refuse to undertake civil employment under the Home Secretary's scheme, I can add nothing to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on the 17th July.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made on behalf of the Government recently in the House of Lords that these men who refuse to obey military orders will be altogether discharged?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider it.
      Mr. KING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the return of these men to military authority, where they will be of no good and will be a great cost to the country, is really a great economic loss?
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Home Secretary if the Committee appointed to prepare a scheme of alternative civil work for conscientious objectors committed to prison has yet formulated such a scheme; and, if so, can he announce the details of the scheme, particularly in regard to the rate of pay, the system of control, whether the conditions will be penal, and if the contract will terminate at the end of the War?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The Committee has submitted proposals which are now the subject of correspondence with the Treasury. As soon as sanction has been obtained for the necessary expenditure, I shall be glad to give the hon. Member further particulars. I can, however, say at once that all conscientious objectors employed by the Committee will be under civilian direction; they will necessarily live and work under control but not under penal conditions, and their employment will expire at the end of the War. I would add that the correspondence with the Treasury is not causing any delay in the application of the scheme, as the Central Tribunal which is investigating the individual cases has not yet forwarded any recommendations.

      ARREST FOB DESERTION (COUNTY ROSCOMMON).
      Mr. NUGENTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Charles Shannon was

      1675
      arrested on Monday, 17th July, at Roosky, county Roscommon, by a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, on the charge of being a military deserter; if he is aware that Charles Shannon was in Ireland when the registration was being effected in Great Britain; that he is at present in Ireland and has been there since January last, having been in England only temporarily; that a police official in Blackburn made inquiries and concluded that Shannon did not come under the Military Service Act; that Shannon was brought to Sligo and refused bail by a magistrate; and if he will state where Shannon is at present and by whose instructions he was arrested?
      Mr. SAMUEL: The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. As regards the third part, I understand that Shannon was fourteen years resident in England prior to registration. He was taken to Blackburn a few days ago by a military escort after having been arrested by order of the recruiting officer at that place. The answer to the fourth part is in the negative, and to the fifth in the affirmative.

    EGYPTIAN OPERATIONS (OFFICIAL BULLETINS).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for official bulletins to be issued when any fighting takes place in the theatre of war east of the Suez Canal?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am informed that what my hon. Friend asks for has always been done, and it will continue to be done as far as the exigencies of the military situation permit.
    Sir E. CORNWALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the War Office has not issued any official bulletin in regard to Egypt for some time, and that, although recently there has been a report of very severe fighting at Katia, no information has been given by the War Office to the country?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I was not aware of that. I will look into the matter.

    INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT (BANKERS).
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the
    1676
    assessment for Income Tax, bankers are allowed to deduct sums deemed to have been lost by reason of depreciation of securities; and, if so, whether banks are in this respect treated differently to other trading concerns?
    Mr. McKENNA: If a bank or other trading concern varies its investments and turns them to account as an essential feature of the business carried on, any profit or loss arising on the realisation of such investments is taken into account in computing liability to Income Tax. Mere appreciation or depreciation in the quoted values of investments which have not been realised is not taken into account.

    AGRICULTURAL SHOWS (ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY).
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Board of Customs and Excise has decided that the Queen's County Agricultural Show and the Ossory Agricultural Show do not fall within any of the exemptions from the Entertainments Tax; if he is aware that these shows are promoted not for the purpose of profit but for the express purpose of improving live stock, crops, and cottage industries and for general agricultural educational purposes, and are subsidised by the Department of Agricultural and Technical Instruction for Ireland; and if he will state whether all other agricultural shows in Ireland will be dealt with in a similar manner by the Board of Customs and Excise?
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Board of Customs and Excise have decided that the Ossory Agricultural Show shall not be exempted from the Entertainments Tax because the programme included horse-jumping and dancing competitions; if he is aware from figures submitted to the Board of Customs and Excise that this show, organised for the purpose of improving the agricultural resources of the district, is run at an annual loss; if he is aware that the remainder of the items or competitions, numbering nearly 100, are strictly of an agricultural character; and whether he will explain why the introduction of a horse-jumping competition and a dancing competition have been held to justify the refusal of the exemption, in view of Section 1, Subsection (5) (d), of the Act?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on the 20th July to the hon. Member for Queen's County in answer to his question in identical terms to that which he is now putting. The Board of Customs and Excise are advised that the inclusion of such items as horse-jumping competitions debars an entertainment from the privilege of exemption.

    DOLLAR SECURITIES.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the institution of a purely policy tax of 2s. in the £, imposed on the holders of certain dollar securities in order to induce them to sell to the Government, has produced the desired result; and, if so, will he take steps to impose a graduated policy tax on holders of more than an economic area of land, in order that they may be induced to subdivide and sell at an economic price to discharged or returning soldiers, and thus avoid the cost and delay involved in administration and in the resistance offered by landowners in all legislative schemes for the public acquisition of land for the purpose of small holdings?
    Mr. McKENNA: The results obtained by the imposition of the additional tax on American securities have, so far, proved satisfactory. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

    COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROBLEMS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister whether, before appointing an Irishman on the Committee to consider commercial policy after the War, he will consider the advisability of appointing one having a knowledge of Ireland's undeveloped peat resources, and an interest other than personal in the founding of peat industries for the utilisation of bogs in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister if he will state the proposals of the Government with reference to the
    1678
    future government of Ireland; if a Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary are to be appointed; and if martial law and coercion are to remain?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This question can be raised on the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member for East Mayo.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to grant a day for that?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman wait?

    EXCHEQUER BONDS (SCOTTISH OWNERS).
    Mr. WATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Exchequer Bonds of which the owners are domiciled in Scotland, but which are registered in the National Debt Office, can be transferred to legatees of a deceased holder under the processes of the law of Scotland, or whether the Debt Office will insist that English law methods be adopted in such cases before transferring to the names of the new holders?
    Mr. McKENNA: No Exchequer Bonds are registered at the National Debt Office.

    ROYAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY (REPORT OF COMMITTEE).
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the hon. Member for Rugby, as the Parliamentary Representative of the Air Board, whether the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the working of the Royal Aircraft Factory at Farnborough will be published this week?
    Major BAIRD(representing the Air Board): Yes, Sir.

    IRISH MODEL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
    Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Home Secretary if he has received a statement from the Irish Model School Teachers' Association in reference to the distribution of the fees collected in model schools; and whether he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that the Commissioners of National Education have received a statement of the nature

    1679
    referred to, but that financial conditions preclude any action being taken in the matter at the present time.
    Mr. MEEHAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that up to now male teachers in model schools in Ireland have received free residence or rent allowance, and that before 1900 the headmistresses of model schools in Ireland have received £30 per annum from the Treasury in respect of their residence?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must put those details upon the Paper.

    ALIEN FIRMS (CHANGE OF NAME).
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Home Secretary whether the Government will arrange for the publication in collected form of both the old names and the new names of firms or individuals who have changed their surnames since the War 'began, together with their addresses?
    Mr. SAMUEL: As no official sanction is necessary for a change of name, there are no records in any way complete from which such a list could be compiled.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not perfectly easy to collect this information?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, I think it would be quite impossible.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is it not a fact that most of these names have been changed by deed poll?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: If they have not been changed by deed poll, how have they been changed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: They have been changed simply by the use of a new name.

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. BOOTHasked if any naturalisation certificates have been cancelled when former enemy aliens have proved themselves unworthy of British citizenship; whether the Government have power to abrogate the citizenship of any alien who has abtained naturalisation by fraud and misrepresentation; and whether the Gov-
    1680
    ernment intend to take powers to deal with naturalised aliens who break the laws and favour the enemy by restoring these aliens to their former nationality?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The only power which the law confers of cancelling naturalisation certificates is in cases where they have been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. The British Government has powers of dealing with British subjects of enemy origin who have shown themselves hostile to this country, but it is not within the power of any Government to restore a person to a foreign nationality.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a case recently where at the beginning of the War the grant of naturalisation was given to a German; and is he aware that the Ministry of Munitions have asked that that man should be interned, that the Government have refused to intern him, and allow him to keep his naturalisation certificate?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The naturalisation certificate was not granted by me, but by my predecessor. I answered a question on the subject the other day.
    Mr. R. MCNEILLasked the HOme Secretary if his attention has been called to the conviction at the London Sessions on 18th July of Ernest Lindner, a German of military age, for an offence against the Defence of the Realm Act for which he was sentenced to four months' imprisonment; whether Lindner and his father were both interned at the beginning of the War and Lindner was afterwards released and was several times given travelling permits; and if he will say, in view of the declaration by the Prime Minister on the 13th May, 1915, that all enemy aliens of military age were then to be interned, for what reason Lindner was released and allowed facilities for travelling about the country?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the statement of counsel for the Crown prosecuting at the London Sessions one, Ernest Robert Joyce Lindner, a German engineer, sentenced to four months' imprisonment in the second division for not notifying his change of address, for travelling more than five miles from his residence without a permit, for having military handbooks, and for entering a prohibited area; that Herr Lindner had been interned for two days at the

    1681
    beginning of the War but, on the representations of influential friends, the Home Office had given him exemption from internment; and whether, having regard to the fact that this alien enemy, described as a man of means with three motor cars, on whose account an officer who made his acquaintance has been arrested, has been at large in this country for upwards of two years through the patronage of influential friends, any and what steps will be taken to secure that there should be no differentiation in treatment between alien enemies and British subjects of alien associations in good positions in society having influential friends and alien enemies and British subjects with alien associations who are poor and without influential friends?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Lindner, who is the son of a German father and Scotch mother, was brought to this country at the age of ten years, has been educated here at an English public school, and has not since been back to Germany. In 1912 inquiry was made on his behalf whether he could be naturalised, as he wished to obtain a commission in the Territorial Army. Naturalisation was, however, refused by the Home Office because he was a minor. In October, 1914, he was arrested and interned, but was released on sureties shortly afterwards, on the recommendation not of influential friends, but of the police. Last year, in pursuance of the policy announced by the Prime Minister on the 13th May, 1915, he was notified that he would be reinterned unless exempted. His application for exemption was granted on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, in consideration of his English upbringing and connections with this country, and in view of an exceptionally strong recommendation from the Chief Constable of the district where he resided. His father applied for naturalisation at the beginning of the War, but was refused. He was also refused exemption from internment, and was interned in September, 1915. In view of the conduct which led to Lindner's conviction and sentence, I propose to direct his internment on his release from prison.
    Mr. REDDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware from this and other questions, of tie spread of Germanphobia or German fever; whether a lot of persons are affected with it in this House, and that it creates extraordinary delusions such as war babies, channel tunnel, and other crazes; and whether he can take prompt steps to
    1682
    check it; if not, will he fumigate this side of the House, so as to allay the effect upon our nerves?

    ENEMY ALIENS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of John Sieling, a registered German, and Bertha Sieling, his wife, who were remanded at Bow Street Police Court on 21st July on a charge of keeping a private hotel for immoral purposes; whether these enemy aliens were exempted from internment and repatriation, respectively, on the advice of the Advisory Committee; and, if so, will he say on what grounds such exemption was recomended?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The man was exempted from repatriation on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. He is sixty-five years old, and has been in this country for forty-two years, has a British-born wife and five British-born children, two of whom are in the Army and have been serving abroad. The wife being British-born did not require to apply for exemption from repatriation.

    DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
    The following question stood in the name of Mr. NUGENT:
    76. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that discontent exists amongst the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police because of the inadequacy of their present wages; whether a demand has been made by the men for an advance of 12s. per week, with an addition of 4s. per week as war bonus, to date from the commencement of the War, in order to bring the present inadequate rate of pay up to a living wage; whether he is aware that meetings of the men have been held and that feeling amongst them is very excited and irritated over this matter; whether he will state when the last increase in wages was given to the Dublin Metropolitan Police; what the income received from the Dublin police rate totalled at the time that the increase was made; what was the actual cost of maintenance of the force at that time; what the income from the police rate is to-day and what is the present outlay; whether he is aware that Major Price, ex-Royal Irish Constabulary

    1683
    officer and adviser of Sir John Maxwell, has put forward a scheme to bring the Dublin Metropolitan Police directly under the control of the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether he can name any city in the United Kingdom with a similar population to Dublin which has not control of its own separate police force; and if he will explain why Dublin is treated differently in this matter to any other city in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I understand that this question has been postponed.
    Mr. NUGENT: I have not heard that it has been postponed.
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that the hon. Member received warning of the postponement. I shall be very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman if he will postpone it.
    Mr. NUGENT: I shall be very happy to oblige the right hon. Gentleman by postponing it, but I may say that his messenger is just as unreliable as his information.

    CHINESE SAILORS (BRITISH SHIPS).
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade the numbers of Chinese sailors on British ships and the wages paid to them as compared with British seamen; and if he is aware of a feeling of resentment in British ports at the employment of such men at low rates of wages?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I am unable to state the actual number of Chinese seamen now serving on British ships, or to give detailed statistics as to the wages paid to them as compared with those of British seamen. The number of engagements at mercantile marine offices in the United Kingdom in 1915 of Chinese seamen for service on British ships was 14,224, and of British seamen 384,602. The wages of Chinese seamen and of British seamen vary from time to time and from port to port, but the former are generally lower than the latter. I am aware that the employment of Chinese seamen on British ships is not often popular with British seamen.

    RAILWAY COMPANIES (ATTESTED AND UNATTESTED EMPLOYES).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Board of Trade, as chairman
    1684
    of the Railway Committee, if he will cause inquiry to be made into the action of the railway companies in issuing cards to all their clerks who have attested, stating that they are indispensable, regardless of the nature and value of the individual employe's work, while unattested men holding in many instances far more important posts than attested men are being released for military service; will he have special inquiry made into the action of the Cheshire Lines Committee, who have refused cards to two clerks, named Sanders and Wright, at Warrington, who have respectively sixteen and fourteen years' service with the company, while two juniors have been declared to be indispensable; and will he take steps to stop this discrimination by the railway companies?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Railway companies do not, so far as I am aware, differentiate between attested and unattested men when considering the possibility of releasing their staff for military service. As regards the two men specifically referred to, I understand that it is not the case that any junior (single men of military age and medical fitness are being retained by the railway company in the office in which they are employed.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously tell this House that it is not the fact that railway companies are discriminating between attested and unattested men?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I believe that the matter is settled.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us know of many cases?

    INSURANCE AGAINST WAR RISKS.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make arrangements whereby policies of insurance against war risks may be renewed for periods of three instead of twelve months; and whether, in view of the fact that the risk of damage by air or sea has diminished, he will provide that policies covering all risks from hostile attack may be renewed at a fixed rate, for all parts of the country, equal to the present rate against damage from air attack, hiving regard to the fact that such a rate vould be sufficient to maintain the insurance scheme on a sound financial basis?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think it would be practicable to renew the ordinary policies for shorter periods than twelve months, and I doubt whether it would be wise to abolish the distinction between the two classes of policy now issued, but the Board of Trade are considering whether some relief can be given to the insured without impairing the soundness of the scheme?

    FOOD SUPPLIES.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade the reasons why the number of refrigerated boats belonging to Messrs. Lamport and Holt were employed all last year in carrying meat from Buenos Ayres to New York;and why were these boats not employed in bringing meat to England, which could have been put in cold storage and sold to the public during times of acute shortage?
    Mr. HARCOURT: Several of Messrs. Lamport and Holt's insulated steamers were utilised last year in carrying meat for the Allied Forces. Others were partly engaged in connection with a mail contract for the United States Government, and there were other reasons affecting the general utilisation of the British mercantile marine which made it desirable to keep these vessels in their regular trade. As the needs of the Allied Forces have increased, all Messrs. Lamport and Holt's insulated steamers are now engaged in carrying meat to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy.
    Mr. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Trade who was responsible for permitting a quantity of bright frozen beef to be put into store and leaving it unexamined until it was rotten; if he is aware that Sansenina's store men say that no one came to look at the beef from the time it was deposited until its withdrawal was ordered and its condition discovered; whether the Committee now inquiring into the high prices of foodstuffs will inquire into this state of things; and whether he is prepared to give instructions that all food supplies n cold storage should be examined from time to time?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have nothing to add to the answers given to my hon. Friend on 22nd June and 17th July. As I have already stated, the meat condemned formed part of a consignment which was in process of
    1686
    issue during the time it was in store, and I am assured that there was no neglect in supervision or inspection.
    Mr. THORNE: Is there any inspection of cold storage places with a view to preventing meat going rotten in this way? There have been several cases.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I believe there is, but, if the hon. Member desires it, I will obtain for him accurate information.

    LEYLAND COMPANY.
    Mr. FIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the profits of the Leyland Company increased from £387,000 in 1914 to £1,196,000 for 1916; whether he is aware of the rise in the price of shipping shares; whether he is aware that within the past two years certain companies have earned more than their subscribed capital; and whether, in view of this fact, and that consumers and the community are unduly taxed by this system of profiteering, the Government will make an endeavour to protect the public from unnecessary expenditure for food supplies and raw materials?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am informed by the Leyland Company that the figures are £412,000 for 1914 and £1,196,000 for 1915. I am aware of the rise in price of shipping shares and the large earnings of some shipping companies. These large earnings are, of course, subject to high taxation. Every endeavour is being made to deal with the point mentioned in the last part of the question.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to give notice that in consequence of the unsatisfactory answer I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

    CONRAD W. SCHMIDT (F. A. GLAESER), LIMITED.
    Mr. TICKLERasked the President of the Board of Trade if the business of Conrad W. Schmidt (F. A. Glaeser), Limited has yet been vested in the Public Trustee, as recommended by the Advisory Committee; and is that Committee aware of the fact that there are in London at least twelve firms who manufacture and can supply all the articles made by this firm and who employ British capital and British labour only?
    Mr. HARCOURT: The right to transfer the shares held by enemies in Conrad W. Schmidt (F. A. Glaeser), Limited, has been vested in the Public Trustee, who will now sell those shares to British subjects, with the result that the capital in the business will be British. The Committee had information before them that there are British firms which carry on a similar business, but they came to the conclusion that the business is one which it is desirable to maintain and that the shares should be sold instead of an order being made to wind up the business.
    Mr. TICKLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the present German management will be continued?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the shares are to be offered at public auction or how they will be sold?
    Mr. HARCOURT: That I cannot say. I should have to ask the Public Trustee, and I will do so if the hon. Gentleman wishes it.

    BASINGSTOKE CORPORATION.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board whether an application for a Provisional Order to amend the Basingstoke Local Act of 1815 and 1829 so as to provide for the audit of all the accounts of the corporation and their officers by the district auditor appointed by the Local Government Board, in like manner as the accounts of an urban authority and their officers are audited under the Public Health Act, 1875, if made by the Basingstoke Corporation under Section 303 of the Public Health Act, 1875, could be granted?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am advised that it would be competent to my Department to make a Provisional Order for the purpose mentioned. If the corporation decide to apply for such an Order I suggest that they should consult the Department upon the mode of proceeding.

    MRS. ANNIE BESANT.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for India whether Mrs.
    1688
    Annie Besant has been prohibited from entering the Presidency of Bombay under the Defence of India Act; and, if so, will he state what reasons are given by the Government of India for taking such action against Mrs. Annie Besant?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The Order of prohibition was made by the Government of Bombay, with the approval of the Government of India. Such a prohibition against entering a specified area is within the power of the local Government if they consider that the person is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety, and, as in the case of similar Orders in this country under the Defence of the Realm Act, it is not necessary to specify reasons.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: What reasons have the Government of India specified why this lady should not be allowed to go abroad 1
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply is that under the Defence of the Realm Act in this country it is not necessary to specify the reasons which the Government hold.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not the fact that the only reason why Mrs. Besant wanted to go to India was that she wished to advocate, constitutional methods in opposition to revolutionary methods, which have gained so much ground in India owing to the conduct of the Government of India?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I have never heard that before.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: That is so.

    PERSIA (KERMAN CAMPAIGN).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now state the result of General Sykes' campaign in the direction of Kerman?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Brigadier General Sir Percy Sykes left Bunder Abbas in the latter half of May. He arrived at Kerman, without encountering any opposition, on June 12th. He was welcomed there and found the officials anxious to do all in their power to carry out the instructions of the Persian Government in restoring order and controlling the disturbers of neutrality.

    INDIAN TROOP TRAIN (DEATHS OF SOLDIERS).
    Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Secretary of State for India what regiments of Territorials took part in the journey by rail from Karachi to Peshawar; and whether he can state the total number of deaths and of sickness?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Drafts for several regiments aggregating over 1,000 men were sent out together from this country, and I cannot at present give details. They will, no doubt, appear in the Report which I am expecting to receive from India. One hundred and thirty-six cases of heat stroke occurred, of which nineteen have, according to the latest information in my possession, proved fatal.
    Mr. ROCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who was responsible for sending these men under those conditions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will wait to hear my answer to the next question.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether the senior officer from the Indian Army Headquarters and the specially selected medical officer deputed to investigate the case of the fatalities that occurred early in June in the troop train at Rohri and other places between Karachi and Lahore have been instructed to report as to who was responsible for the dispatch of these troops up country at that time instead of retaining them in Karachi till the weather was suit- able for travelling; and, if not, whether orders to that effect will now be issued?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already given to the House all the information in my possession as to the mission confided to the two officers referred to in the question. I have also informed the House that I have instructed the Government of India that when they have ascertained the facts and fixed the responsibility for this disaster they are to hold the persons responsible to strict account. I have nothing material to add to these statements, but my hon. and gallant Friend may be glad to know that I have asked the Government of India to report specifically on the following questions: Whether the loss of life was due to the route selected or to the lack of proper arrangements for the journey or to both causes combined; and as regards the route chosen, whether it was urgently necessary to send the drafts
    1690
    by that route at once or whether the drafts could not have been taken to Bombay and detained in stations in the Deccan till the monsoon broke in Northern India?
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Did the Government of India take any steps when this matter was mentioned in the House of Commons, and what is the reason why there should be delay in settling the responsibility in the case of these unfortunate men who lost their lives?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; the Government of India instituted an inquiry, I think as soon as the case came to their knowledge, and they informed me of this lamentable occurrence in a telegram—speaking from memory—dated, I think, 15th June; and in the same telegram they reported that they had instituted this inquiry, and also that they are awaiting the result of that inquiry before fixing the responsibility.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Does it take six weeks to find who is responsible for sending these men?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the whole question.
    Mr. KING: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Indian newspapers of dates previous to 15th June, showing that there was in the public opinion of India grave ground for inquiry and apprehension?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I do not remember to have seen them, and I think I can say I have not seen the extracts to which the hon. Gentleman refers, if they are previous to 15th June.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Will the Indian Government reply by telegram to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. I expect a reply from the Government of India by telegram as soon as they are in a position to make it.

    INDIAN TROOPS (SUPPLY OF VEGETABLES).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the vegetables for the Indian troops at Aden, Sheikh Othman, and other places in Arabia are shipped from Bombay as cargo on the Peninsula and Oriental boats not in cold storage, and consequently, owing to the heat on the passage, continually arrive in an uneatable

    1691
    condition, to the detriment of the health of the troops; whether arrangements can be made to obviate this and save the waste incurred; and whether, considering the bad quality of the rations issued to the British officers at Aden, money compensation in lieu of rations can be given to them there as was done in Egypt?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have telegraphed to India for information, and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend when I receive the information asked for.
    Colonel HERBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that until recently no vegetables were sent by the Government of India to men in Aden, that the flour sent was bad, that the officers were asked to pay for rations, and the ice supplied was cut off when the so called cold weather began?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of any of the circumstances. If my hon. Friend will put his statement in the form of a letter to me or a memorandum, I shall be glad to make inquiry into them.

    Dublin Fort and Docks Board.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the resignation of one of the members, Sir John Griffith, and the engineer of the Dublin Port and Docks Board; if he is aware that they have resigned as a protest against the management of the port and the ill advised treatment of its employés by the Economic Committee of the Board; if he is aware that the changes and the dismissals of workmen proposed by that committee were started as a result of a circular sent by the Government asking the Board to economise; if he will state whether the Government approve of economy that tends to reduce employment and injures the principal harbour in Ireland; if he is aware of the growing demand in Dublin for an alteration in the laws and franchise that elects members to the Dublin Port and Docks Board; and if he will say what steps, if any, he intends to take that would enable the people to elect popular representatives to safeguard the interests of the port of Dublin?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have seen a newspaper report of these resignations, but I have received no official intimation of the reasons for them. In May, 1915, the Board of Trade issued a circular to harbour authorities urging the importance of economy as regards new works for both labour and financial reasons. I understand that the Dublin Port and Docks Board have asked the Minister of Munitions if he can find work for some 200 of their employés, as they are of opinion that these men can be spared for the period of the War without detriment to the working of the Port, and that the matter is receiving consideration. I have no knowledge of any demand in Dublin for an alteration of the franchise upon which the Port and Docks Board is elected, and I see no occasion to take any steps in that direction.
    Mr. BYRNE: Can any guarantee be given of employment for these 200 men, who were dismissed owing to a circular sent by the Government, and do they believe in economy effected by dismissing workmen from their employment?
    Mr. HARCOURT: If the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper, I will deal with it.
    Mr. BYRNE: The question is on the Paper.

    Board of Control Vote.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister when the Lunacy Vote will be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Board of Control Vote was second on the Order Paper on 29th June, but was not reached. The first Vote—Home Office—was not passed. If there is any general desire on the part of the House for a discussion of this Vote, I will endeavour to arrange it.

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a memorial, signed by the principal residents of Dingle, was sent to the Congested Districts Board, requesting that Mr. M'Carthy, of Dingle, be reinstated in the lands of Milltown, of which he was some years ago dispossessed; and whether, seeing that these lands have been left unoccupied ever since Mr. M'Carthy left them, and were so unoccupied when the Board purchased the Ventry estate seven years ago, the Board will reinstate the evicted tenant?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Congested Districts Board are in communication with the Estates Commissioners with reference to McCarthy's application to be reinstated in a holding on the Ventry estate from which he was evicted, and a decision will be arrived at as soon as practicable. The holding in question was tenanted by a man named McDonnell when the Board purchased the estate, and at a recent date the Board purchased McDonnell's tenancy interest, and are now in possession of the land.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that it is now over five years since negotiations for the sale of the Mahony congested estate at Mount Collins, county Limerick, took place, and at that time the Estates Commissioners agreed to buy a farm from Mr. William D. Curtain, of Caherlevoy, Mount Collins, for the purpose of relieving this congestion, and that they have not yet paid him the price of same; and whether, as there is dissatisfaction amongst the subtenants and small holders in the district at the fact that this farm is not yet apportioned amongst them, he will take steps to see that the sale is completed without further delay and that the vendor be paid the purchase price of it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am informed that the Estates Commissioners acquired this estate in 1908, and proposed to rearrange the holdings thereon, but as some of the tenants refused to consent, the rearrangement could not proceed. The Commissioners then approached William Curtain, who holds adjoining lands, and informed him of the price they were prepared to offer for some 50 acres provided formal proceedings for sale under the Land Purchase Acts were instituted by him and the statutory requirements as to title complied with. Under the Act of 1909 the purchase money would be payable in Guaranteed 3 per Cent. Stock, and as the stock in existing financial conditions would not realise the money which Curtain required, the acquisition of the land has had to be postponed for the present.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Is it not a fact that the town tenants in this village promised the inspector of the Estates Commissioners to make up the balance of the deficiency in the stock long ago, and yet
    1694
    they have not been told how much the deficiency was, and the sale has consequently been delayed?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have not been informed as to that fact, but I will make inquiry.
    Mr. P. WHITEasked whether the Estates Commissioners have acquired untenanted land on the Nicholson estate, Balrath, county Meath; if so, what quantity; and when they propose to distribute it?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Estates Commissioners have intimated to the owner the prices which they would be prepared to offer for some 370 acres of untenanted lands in his occupation, and the negotiations are still pending.

    Land Dispute (Moore, County Roscommon).
    Mr. HAYDENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that trouble has arisen in the parish of Moore, county Roscommon, over the efforts of a landowner to dispossess a number of people in that parish from certain lands to which they allege they have a legal claim, and that the police have interfered in this dispute on the side of the landowner; whether the police are acting under the orders of the military authorities in this matter; whether, through the police, the military authorities have cautioned editors of newspapers in Ireland against publishing resolutions passed on the subject by representative public bodies or any reference whatever to this agitation; whether he will state what is the authority for making such representation; and whether such matters come properly within the jurisdiction of the military authorities and were ever contemplated in connection with any Statute under which they may be presumed to be acting?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The trouble referred to having resulted in cattledriving the police in the ordinary discharge of their duty were obliged to oppose illegal violence. I understand that the Censor prohibited the publication of one resolution about this incident passed by the Joint Committee of the Ballinasloe Lunatic Asylum, the terms of which were in contravention of the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
    Mr. HAYDEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry as to whether the police called upon the editor of the "Roscommon Messenger" with a caution from the military authorities not to publish anything bearing upon the matter?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir. That is not my information.
    Mr. HAYDEN: Has complaint been made to the right hon. Gentleman that such caution has been administered?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No. I am not aware that such caution was administered. I am informed that a particular resolution which contravened the Defence of the Realm Regulations was not allowed to be published. If the hon. Member will send me particulars I will inquire.
    Mr. HAYDEN: I have sent them.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—

    Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill.

    Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill.

    Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill, without Amendment.

    Amendments to—
    Aberdare and Aberaman Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
    Gore's Divorce Bill (Lords).
    That they communicate the Minutes of Evidence taken before this House together with the proceedings and documents deposited in the case of Gore's Divorce Bill [Lords], as desired by the Commons, and request that the same may be returned.

    CONSOLIDATION BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
    Report from the Joint Committee in respect of the Government of India (Amendment) Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords) brought up, and read;
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [109.]

    OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION) BILL.
    Lords, Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]
    BILLS PRESENTED.

      LAW AND PROCEDURE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (IRELAND).
      THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. H. Campbell) presented a Bill "to amend the Law and Procedure of Civil Courts in Ireland in relation to conditions arising out of the recent disturbances in that country."
      Mr. GINNELL: Is it in order to introduce in this stealthy manner a Bill of the character described on the Paper and which is almost certain to be highly controversial, and will you not require the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House what this Bill proposes to do?
      Mr. SPEAKER: The Standing Orders provide for presentation of Bills, and this follows the Standing Order.
      Mr. GINNELL: Do they provide for a Debate on the Bill now?
      Mr. SPEAKER: No.
      Bill read a first time; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

      TRADING WITH THE ENEMY COPYRIGHT
      (No. 2) BILL,—"to make provision with respect to Copyright in works first published or made in an enemy country during the present war "; presented by Mr. PRETYMAN; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
    Mr. JOHN REDMOND: I desire to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the notice of Motion standing on the Paper with regard to the Government of Ireland in the name of -the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and whether he can give an early day for its discussion?—["That, in view of the announcement by the Government that they do not intend to introduce their long promised Bill to settle the Government of Ireland, it is vitally necessary and urgent that the Government should immediately disclose to the House their plans for the future Government of Ireland during the continuance of the War."]
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; Monday next.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Third Heading of the Consolidated Fund Bill will be taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Either on Monday or Tuesday.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Will it be the first Order on Tuesday?
    The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Gentleman asks tomorrow I will tell him.

  SPECIAL COMMISSIONS (DARDAN-ELLES AND MESOPOTAMIA) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  4.0 p.m.
  In moving the Second Reading of this Bill there are two points on which the House is entitled, I think, to further information than that which is actually contained in the Bill itself. The first and most important one is in the first Clause with regard to the names of the Commissioners who are to undertake the two Inquiries. I acknowledge the Government found it a difficult matter to arrange a set of names with regard to either of these Inquiries, which, as is necessary,
  1706
  should command general confidence and assent. In our view, in the first place, the Commission should be small in numbers. I think a large body, everybody will agree, is not well fitted for an investigation of this kind. In the second place they should, if possible, be names of persons who are not only unconnected in the sense of direct or indirect responsibility with any of the matters inquired into, but also persons who had not committed themselves by public declaration to what I may call a biassed or partial point of view. Further, we have thought it desirable, since the original Motion was a Motion for a Select Committee of this House, that the composition of these bodies should, as far as possible, be Parliamentary. Finally, I may say the names which I am about to give to the House are names which we merely suggest. We are quite willing to accept any proposal which may be made for strengthening in any way the composition of these bodies. The names which we propose to the House to insert in the Bill are as follows:—
  Mesopotamia—
  Chairman, Lord George Hamilton, an ex-Secretary of State for India, and for many years a Member of this House.
  Lord Donoughmore, Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and former Under-Secretary of State for War.
  Three Members of this House—

  Lord Hugh Cecil,

  Sir Archibald Williamson, and

  Mr. John Hodge.

  With regard to the Dardanelles, the Chairmanship of the Commission has, I am glad to say, been accepted by Lord Cromer, whose wide administrative experience makes him eminently fitted for this position. We propose to associate with him—

  The Right Hon. Andrew Fisher, High Commissioner for Australia.

  Sir Thomas Mackenzie, High Commissioner for New Zealand.

  Three Members of this House—

  Sir Frederick Cawley,

  Mr. J. A. Clyde, K.C., Dean of Faculty, and

  Mr. Stephen Gwynne, a member of the Irish party.

  That is five in one case and six in the other. There is one other point to which I wish to direct the attention of the

  1707
  House before they pass the Second Reading, and that is as to the terms of reference. Hon. Members will see that, in regard to both these Inquiries, we have accepted as the terms of reference the actual literal words of the Motion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) of last week with regard to it—to inquire "into the conduct of operations of War in the Dardanelles (or in the second case Mesopotamia), including the supply of equipment to the troops, the provision for the sick and wounded, and the responsibility of those Departments of the Government whose duty it has been to minister to the wants of the forces employed in that theatre of war." I purposely read this, in order that there may be no misapprehension hereafter. If anyone desires to urge that these terms of reference are not sufficiently comprehensive, the Government will gladly listen to any suggestions on the point. We have taken, as I think we were entitled to take, the terms of the Resolution and put the ipsissima verba in the body of the Bill. These are the only two points I think which I need bring to the attention of the House on the Second Reading. I certainly understood last week that there was a general desire that the Bill should pass as quickly as possible through all its stages in order that the opening of the inquiries might not be delayed. If, as I trust, there is something like general agreement both as to the names of the Commissioners and as to the terms of reference, there is no reason why we should not proceed with the various stages to-day.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman will not, I hope, suppose that I am offering any criticism of the statement he has just made, when I remind him of the undertaking which he gave us at Question Time yesterday that there should be an interval of twenty-four hours between the announcement of the names and the discussion of the Bill. There is no reason at all why the discussion of the Bill should take a long time or why it should not pass rapidly through the House. But certainly, as he himself has said, that he would accept suggestions from the House with regard to the membership and the terms of reference, I think it would be convenient if we were allowed an interval
  1708
  of twenty-four hours in which to consider his proposals which at first sight appear entirely to meet the wishes of the House.
  The PRIME MINISTER: As I said yesterday, I am entirely in the hands of the House. It is a most reasonable request that there should be time to consider the names and the terms of reference. Therefore, if we take the Second Reading now the Committee stage and so on could be taken to-morrow.
  Mr. HOLT: Would it not be more to the convenience of the House that we should take the Second Reading to-day and then have time—
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is exactly what I suggest.
  Mr. HOLT: I beg pardon.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: So far as I am concerned, the statement of the Prime Minister will, I think, meet all the points we desire to raise in regard to the time when the Bill should be taken. It is most important that we should have time to consider the names before we finally embody them in the Bill. I am sure the Prime Minister will admit that the names are really almost the whole thing in this matter. With my knowledge of Select Committees, I am agreeably surprised at the proposals which the Government have made. As far as the Dardanelles Commission is concerned, it seems to me a very satisfactory body on the whole, though I have not had much time to consider it. Personally, I would have wished that the chairmanship had been in younger hands than those of Lord Cromer. We all recognise Lord Cromer's great administrative abilities and his long public career, but we know that he has recently got over a very serious illness, and I think that when we get to the Committee stage it will perhaps be considered necessary to suggest that Lord Loreburn, or somebody of that kind, should be Chairman of the Commission. We are at some disadvantage in taking the stage to-day at such short notice. In regard to the Mesopotamia Commission, I shall certainly oppose the chairmanship of Lord George Hamilton. Lord George Hamilton is receiving at the present moment, and has been receiving for about twenty years, a pension from the Government. Although we have from time to time raised the question whether these political pensions ought not to be stopped,

  1709
  through the action of the Government Lord George Hamilton has continued to draw his pension. Therefore, for the reason alone that he is under an obligation to the Government, I shall certainly oppose his appointment as Chairman. We do not want any Government hacks on either of these Commissions. As far as I know, there is none on the Dardanelles Commission. I think the chairmanship ought to be in the hands of someone who has no interest and who is under no obligation whatever to the Government.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Lord George Hamilton is under no obligation of any kind.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the question of stopping these pensions has been brought up from time to time. The Government have been urged by their own supporters to put an end to political pensions, and they could at any moment stop Lord George Hamilton's pension if they so desired. From that standpoint he is under an obligation to the Government. Apart from the personnel of these Commissions, the whole thing turns on the power which the Commissions are to have. I would like to ask the Government here and now whether it is their intention that the word "conduct" shall cover the initiation of these campaigns? I admit that the Prime Minister rightly said that he had taken the exact words that were placed on the Paper by the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson), and to that extent he is entitled to say that he is meeting the wishes of those of us who supported that Motion. But it all depends on what the Government regard as the "conduct" of the operations. Does it cover the initiation of these campaigns? In Committee it will certainly be our duty to move the insertion of the word "initiation," so as to leave no doubt whatever about it. These Commissions are going to sit in judgment on the action of Ministers themselves. If they are not going to do that, I am afraid they will not serve the purpose which those who originally asked for them have in view. We want to know, for example, the whole circumstances attending the decision of the Cabinet in regard to the Dardanelles. We want to know whether the whole Cabinet was consulted, and the date on which it was consulted. We want to know whether the original intention was
  1710
  that a naval force and a military force should begin the operations at the same time. We want to know what advice the naval authorities gave with regard to it. We want to know whether there are any memoranda of the members of the Naval Board issued to the Cabinet, and what their effect was. Therefore, it must be made clear beyond all doubt that these Commissions have power to crossexamine Ministers and heads of different Departments, and to go into every question affecting the intitiation of the two campaigns. We want to know further who ordered the advance of Bagdad. The Commissions must have power to demand all Papers with regard to that, and to know what part the Cabinet played in that most important blunder.
  With regard to the Clause in reference to the production of documents, I suppose it is clearly understood that the Commissions will be able to demand all documents of a relevant character, not only official but unofficial. We know perfectly well, in connection with correspondence and telegrams sent abroad, the official telegrams do not always really give the views of Ministers. There are a number of unofficial telegrams which are never reported at all. I hope it will be made perfectly clear that these unofficial telegrams also will be available to the Commissions if they so desire. With regard to the question of publicity, it is most important that these Commissions should sit in public as often as possible, and that the only condition under which they should sit in private is that they are of opinion that the giving of the evidence in public would be against the public interest. Therefore I think, instead of making the assertion that the inquiry is to be in public when possible, it ought to be said that it should be always in public except when it is clearly shown that it would be against the public interest. With regard to the Indemnity Clause, I shall suggest in Committee that it ought to be a little more clear so far as concerns officials giving evidence. I have good reason to know it is important that this Clause should be altered. There are many officials now in London who will be willing to give important evidence before the inquiries, but it is impossible for these men to risk their official positions unless they have the fullest and clearest indemnity that their public career will not be damaged if they give evidence which might be against the

  1711
  interest of the Government. Therefore, I hope we shall be able to strengthen the Indemnity Clause.
  With regard to the Commissions sitting abroad, I hope the Prime Minister will be willing in Committee to give the Commissions power, if they have not it already, to send delegations abroad instead of the whole Commission themselves going. I notice that the Clause is the same as in the case of the Parnell Commission, but I think it ought to be made quite clear that they could send one or two of their number abroad to take certain evidence which might not be available at home. On the question of a time limit, I think we ought as often as possible to have Interim Reports from these Commissions. That is provided for in the Bill, but I am not sure that it would not be advisable to make it clear that we ought to have a Report, say, every three or six months, so that the House of Commons may know exactly what is going on. My right hon. Friend seems rather amused at that. I hope we are certainly not to have Commissions which are going to postpone their proceedings for the next two or three years. I see no reason why they should not report within the next six months. I hope there will be an expression of opinion that there should be as little delay as possible in the presentation of their Reports. When we reach the Committee stage on some of these points I shall be prepared to move Amendments.
  Mr. DILLON: There is one point to which I wish to direct the attention of the Government at this stage, and that is the question of the medical arrangements in Mesopotamia. That question stands on a wholly different footing from all the other subjects of inquiry dealt with in the Bill. It is a continuing evil to some extent. The subject has not been at all cleared up. I was horrified to read last week a telegram from India to the effect that the Commander-in-Chief had recommended that full rations should now be issued to the troops on the Tigris. That is a most appalling statement, because it implies that the troops have been on less than full rations up to the present moment. Therefore I say that the whole question of the medical arrangements in Mesopotamia, and of the officers responsible for the awful breakdown in those arrangements, should be put on a differ-
  1712
  ent footing and not referred merely in a general way to this Commission. I am old enough to have had considerable experience of Royal Commissions. When a Statutory Commission or an ordinary Royal Commission is appointed it becomes absolute master of its own proceedings. If you press the Government in this House as to delay or secrecy, or any other matter, the answer always is that the Commission is master of its own proceedings, and the Government have no right whatever to advise, counsel, or harass them in any way. Therefore the moment this Bill is passed all control over the matter goes from this House.
  Judging from my experience of Royal Commissions, we shall be extremely lucky if we get a Report from this Commission within a year. I think it is much more likely to arrive after the end of the War. Remember, once you refer these matters to Statutory Commissions your mouths are closed, and every criticism put forward on these matters will be met by the Government with the one stereotyped answer, based on universal custom, "This matter has been referred to a Statutory Commission, and we have no further responsibility until we get the Report of that Commission." I have seen many very urgent matters shelved in that way, with the result that they remained on the shelf two or three years, and the House was unable to interfere with them further. I think it would be nothing short of a scandal if the question of the medical administration of the Mesopotamia Expedition is dealt with in any such way as that. As I say, it is a continuing evil. We have never yet had any informing answer from the Government as to whether the men or any of them who were responsible for the breakdown of the medical organisation in connection with the Mesopotamia Expedition are still in control either here at home or in Mesopotamia. I have some reason to believe that some of them are. It is, or it ought to be, impossible for this House to rest content to refer such a Report to a Committee which may not give us any information for a year to come until these matters are somewhat cleared up. Therefore, I would desire to give notice to the Government that when we come to Clause 6, if they do not in the meantime think of some other arrangement directing the Commission to make a full Report within two months of all matters relating to medical organisation, the provision of

  1713
  medical supplies and comforts, and medical officers, and also the provision of food to the troops in Mesopotamia, I shall myself direct attention to the matter.
  Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he cannot see his way to add a naval man to the Commission, either in respect of the Dardanelles or of Mesopotamia? The question is one that very largely affects the Navy. There are hundreds of people who are quite fit, on behalf of the Navy, to be on the Committee. Five years ago there were a hundred retired officers engaged in giving the most excellent advice in relation to the Declaration of London; if it had been followed it would have saved a great deal of money.
  Mr. HOLT: There are several criticisms which might be offered on the Bill now before the House. The object with which we have introduced this inquiry—at least, I hope it is so—is to find out the cause of what are two very discreditable failures, and who are the persons responsible for these mistakes. I hope it may be possible to bring some of them seriously to account, and to make them suffer for all they have done wrong. I do not care who are the wrongdoers, whether politicians, or soldiers, or sailors. It is the people responsible for these failures whom we want to get at. In regard to the terms of the reference, I want to understand whether it includes an inquiry as to the reason why the military and naval operations at the Dardanelles were not begun simultaneously? I do not know whether under the actual words of the reference an inquiry into that will or will not be possible, but I do submit that any inquiry which does not cover the question as to why these two operations were not commenced simultaneously will only be a farce. I have been told—and I believe it to be quite true—that in the first instance British sailors were actually on the top of Achi Baba. I think it ought to be made quite clear that the inquiry will go as far as the initiation of the enterprise. I do not want to inquire as to the political reasons which caused these operations to be undertaken, but we ought to have a full inquiry into the matter from the very commencement and of the reasons why the naval and military operations took the form they did. We do not know what is the truth of the matter.
  1714
  The Prime Minister stated most candidly on 2nd November last that if anybody was more responsible than another for the initiation of the enterprise it was himself, and I am quite sure he will not object to having the fullest inquiry.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Hear, hear!
  Mr. HOLT: I do not know that I very much like Clause 4 of the Bill. It seems to me we are dealing out indemnities too freely. It appears to me that under Clause 4 anybody who comes before this Commission and tells the whole truth has an absolute indemnity. I do not think that ought to be so. Look at some of the facts known to the public. We have had Sir Ian Hamilton's report published, and in it there were charges against General Stopford, and then we have had a charge against Sir Ian Hamilton himself. The charges in both cases are almost identical. They comprise the offence for which Admiral Byng was shot. Admiral Byng was convicted and shot for not having done his utmost to bring the hostile fleet to action. So far as I can make out, this is exactly the thing which these generals are guilty of having done.
  Mr. BOOTH: Charged with having done!
  Mr. HOLT: Yes, charged. I do not of course, say that they may not have a complete answer to the charge. What I do think is this: If we are to have a public trial of the persons who are believed to be guilty of incapacity and slothfulness; if we are to bring home to them the fact that professional incapacity and slothfulness are criminal offences when we are engaged in military operations, that will be to the good. It is all very well for people to look at good intentions, and to say that that is the only thing that matters. A man is supposed to have professional capacity for the work which he undertakes to do. If he has not got it he may properly be dealt with very severely for the absence of that which he holds himself out as possessed of. I will not go so far as to advocate the shooting of anybody in the way that Admiral Byng was shot. I have always thought that was a very harsh sentence, and that it was very cruel to carry it out.
  Mr. LYNCH: It saved the Government.
  Mr. HOLT: But there is a long distance between sending a man to be shot and

  1715
  giving the same man comparatively comfortable employment at home. I do think officers who can be proved guilty of incapacity and who have been incompetent ought to be given, not certificates of indemnity, but dismissed from their positions in the Army or Navy.
  The PRIME MINISTERmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. HOLT: That is as I understand it. As I understand the Bill, these men will get certificates which will prevent courts martial being brought against them.
  The PRIME MINISTERwas understood to dissent.
  Mr. HOLT: Very well, then, let us have this thing made quite clear. I should like to be satisfied that this inquiry is going to bring the matter home to the people who have done what is wrong, and to make sure that proceedings will be taken against them, and that you will not have, as has happened in the past, endless delays, a Report mildly censuring everybody concerned, and finally complete oblivion. Do let us get to the bottom of the matter, and see that the people who are incapable are severely dealt with.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: The Bill as it is drafted is for the purpose of inquiring into the conduct of the operations. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept an Amendment purposely inquiring into the initiation, or the origin, of the operations in the Dardanelles 2 Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in his reply will be able to tell us whether he would accept such an Amendment, and whether it would be considered as part of the conduct of the operations to include an inquiry into the initiation of the operations at the Dardanelles? That is the first point I want to put. The second point is rather more important. That is as regards the present position of affairs in Mesopotamia. The Prime Minister stated when he introduced this Bill that he hoped, and believed, that adequate and ample provision is now being made for all the requirements of our troops. Does that hold good? Is the Prime Minister quite satisfied that there are sufficient rations and a sufficiency of medical equipments for all the troops in the Mesopotamia campaign? I should strongly object to this Commission if not
  1716
  responsible for the provision of medical equipment in Mesopotamia at the present time. That seems to be a matter for the War Office.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain)made an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Do I understand the Secretary for India accepts responsibility, or is it the responsibility of the War Office?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The War Office, of course.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Then if the medical provision for the troops in Mesopotamia is not sufficient we shall still be able to question the War Office?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAINassented.
  Mr. LAMBERT: And the War Office will not shelter itself behind this Commission? That is the only question I want to ask. I do suggest to the Government that the most important point at the present time is to give the troops in Mesopotamia that ample medical equipment which we are assured has been given. I have received letters from my Constituents in Devonshire as to the deplorable lack of things necessary. Having had the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India that the War Office will not shelter themselves behind this Commission and that we shall be able to hold the War Office responsible—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As to the present and future?
  Mr. LAMBERT: I do not desire to go further for the moment.
  Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I do not want to make a speech or offer any criticism except so far as is contained in a very simple question I desire to put. The hon. and gallant Gentleman below me (Sir H. Meux) has forestalled one part of the question. Is it by express intention that in these Commissions which are to inquire into the conduct of the operations of war there is not a single Member, so far as I can see, who has any knowledge or practical experience of naval or military affairs? And that in regard to the Mesopotamia Commission, there is no Member upon it, so far as I know, who has any knowledge of military medical affairs!
  Colonel AUBREY HERBERT: There is one thing I should like to put to the Prime Minister in regard to this inquiry, and that is that the Commission, in order to be able to strengthen itself, should be allowed to co-opt other members. For instance, there are many names of individuals of special experience which will occur to one at once. I know I have no right to put forward these names, as I have not discussed the question with those concerned, but there is Sir William Garstin, Lord Lamington, and Lord Sydenham. The latter has really got triple qualifications for the task. He is a man who has had military experience. He has had experience of India. He has had administrative experience. I quite agree with what fell from the hon. Member for East Mayo. I think that the medical question and the strategical and political questions should be completely divided. If you try to go into the strategy and policy of the Dardanelles you will bring in practically every statesman in Europe, and I do not see where the thing is ever going to end. What we want is a categorical statement as to what happened at Anzac and Suvla Bay. That can do no harm. The same equally applies to Mesopotamia. My hope about the Commission is this: That its immediate effect is going to be greatly more than its ultimate effect. There are a great many men in high position now trembling in their shoes. Now that this Commission has been started these men will put in such work as they never before put in in their lives. That is going to be good for our people in Mesopotamia. I hope and believe that the bonds of red tape will be loosened, that the pigeon holes will be rather less glutinous than in the past, and that the appointment of this Commission will be very good influence on our men, not only in Mesopotamia, but in Aden and Bushire.
  Of course, what the Commission will find itself up against is something very much bigger than individual incompetence, or individual negligence. What it will find itself up against is a very great system. This is not the place or the time to go into that system. All I will say is this: that between any one of us here who achieves a piece of work or fails in its accomplishment, there are perhaps ten clerks. When you go to India there are at least ninety clerks, and they are all native clerks. Therefore it is obviously a much more cumbrous machine. When we
  1718
  speak of this question of India I should like to make it clear that it is not India itself we attack. We know what we owe to the loyalty of the Indian troops. We know what we owe to the loyalty and generosity of the Indian princes. But when my right hon. Friend the Secretary "of State for India, in the fine defence, if I may say so, which he made the other day, and which was characterised by that loyalty to his colleagues and his subordinates that distinguishes him, said that nothing was refused by the Government of India that was asked for, of course I accept his bona fides; but I can only say that I believe he is misinformed, and that that was not the case. If he says that it is not to the interest of India to refuse, because the Imperial Government is paying, all I can say is that if a man is a miser he does not become the less a miser because you make him a trustee, and, with or without reason, with or without object, that campaign has been starved from its very initiation. It has been fought on lines of heroism by the soldiers, and it has been conducted on lines of pauperism by the Administration.
  I will not go into the climate of Mesopotamia. I "think hon. Members know enough about it, but I will only say that in no other theatre of war have men had so much to put up with as they have had to put up with there. I do not claim any great knowledge, but I remember I once went there for a holiday, years ago, and determined I would never go there again. To me Mesopotamia is like ancient Egypt with all its plagues, only there is this difference, that they come on all the time and never cease, and are worse than the plagues of ancient Egypt. Of course, I know there is a case to be made—the case, for instance, of transport being extremely difficult, but if transport was difficult, why were not steps taken when we entered that desert to facilitate the whole question of transport? I think we went without any river boats at all, and I think it was simply luck that we were able to get four of our own boats which the Turks might have destroyed. There are many questions which I might ask, but which I will not ask to day. I only ask, was condensed milk asked for, and was it refused? Were military necessities, like the sausage balloons, asked for and refused? I will also ask, are not ice machines an essential to prevent heat stroke in the trenches and to cure heat stroke in the hospitals, and how many ice machines have

  1719
  we got at the front 2 From the most important thing to the most trivial detail, from balloons down to condensed milk, and from tents to oatmeal, or, I will say, from a railway to oatmeal—because, after all, the most essential thing in a country, like this was to have a railway—this expedition has been starved. The River Tigris has been a delusion and a disaster for us as a seafaring people, because we looked at that river as if it were a sea. But the Government of India must have known that a railway was required immediately.
  I should like an answer to this question—and when this Commission comes to fixing the question of responsibility, it does not seem to be too complicated a question—what are the possible alternatives? First of all, I suppose you may say the men in Mesopotamia did not want anything, that they were happy with the mosquitoes and did not want mosquito nets, that they did not mind drinking water with dead bodies in it, and did not want filters, and that they did not want to be pampered with high explosives. We can dismiss that hypothesis, for they are human beings, and I know they wanted these things and did not get them. What is the next alternative? I am told India is the home of the pigeon-hole, but I cannot believe any pigeon-holes can be so dismal as to prevent requisitions from that Army in the field arriving to the Commander-in-Chief. What is the next alternative? If the Commander-in-Chief received those requests, did he or did he not believe they were necessary, and did he go to the finance member, Sir William Meyer, and ask him for these things? That is one of the questions we should like to have answered.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The questions which the hon. and gallant Member is putting are the very questions which will come before the Commission, and he can hardly expect to get a reply now. The House is being asked to appoint a Commission to investigate the very matters to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking a reply. That is not the point we are now discussing. The question is whether we should consider them ourselves, or delegate the inquiry to a Commission.
  Colonel HERBERT: I will endeavour to observe your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was afraid I was obviously trespassing on the ground of the Commission, and I will
  1720
  avoid, in so far as I can, doing so again. The Committee stage will come on to-morrow, and then, perhaps, we shall be allowed to speak of some of the reasons of the deficit that has been so very apparent in the preparation of the whole of that campaign. I will end by saying that mention has been made of the fact that Admiral Byng was condemned and executed on the ground that he had not done as much as he could to damage the enemy. I think that fact created the tradition which led to actions of the kind of Admiral Cradock, and I think that judgment on Admiral Byng is an indictment I should like to see fall on responsible people in India for what happened in Mesopotamia.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: I am sure we are all sorry that we are prevented from hearing the whole speech of the hon. and gallant Member, which was certainly most interesting and important, and I congratulate him on his reappearance. What I rose for was to reinforce the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. Meux) with regard to the necessity of having a naval man on this Commission. I do so for this reason: in my opinion the whole of our misfortunes in the East, especially in Gallipoli, where the Irish regiments so bitterly suffered, are due to one or other of two men, who are not within the purview of this Bill, as I read it. It was the failure to arrest the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" in the Straits of Messina that led to the Turkish war, and to the whole of the business which followed. When those two ships were allowed to escape it was the use of those ships by the Germans which led to the war with Turkey. We are now inquiring into the failure of the generals in Gallipoli to do their duty. What happened with regard to the two admirals, whose names I shall not mention? One was courtmartialled on fifteen charges, tried and acquitted, and has now got an appointment in regard to Serbia. I was glad, so far as he was concerned, that amounted to a condonation. With regard to the other, I understand there was a private inquiry held at the Admiralty into his action, and, although it is commonly stated he was coaling at the time, he had coal enough to go half round the world, but did not come to the proper point to meet those two ships. Is it the case that, while we are inquiring into the subsequent misfortunes which arose out of the failure to grapple with the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" on that occasion, this Bill does not

  1721
  enable us to investigate in any way the responsibility for the failure to tackle the German ships in the Straits of Messina? I conclude that this Bill will not enable the Commission to deal with those two matters. When the historian comes to deal with responsibility in this War for matters in the East, he will put his finger on the failure to grapple with those two German ships, because it is to them that we owe the whole of the miserable business that followed. I therefore say, although it is never my intention, if I possibly can, to interfere in matters with which others are more competent to deal and well understand, I do not intend to take any action upon this Bill; at the same time, I do say it will be the play of "Hamlet" with Hamlet left out, if we do not disinter the records of the Admiralty with regard to what happened at the trial and inquiry into one or other of these two admirals. I therefore support the suggestion of the hon. and gallant admiral, and urge that some competent sailor who has no connection—it is very difficult in this case to trace connection—with the Messina business, should be put upon the Commission, and the Bill should be widened by including this "Goeben" and "Breslau" transaction.
  The only other matter I desire to comment upon is this: I attribute to the failure of General Hamilton and the failure of Admiral de Robeck to give due notice to the deeds of the immortal 29th Division at Gallipoli, a great deal of the Sinn Fein business which arose in Ireland. Admiral de Robeck, who, so far as I can make out, is an Irishman, singled out every other regiment and every other body of troops for a favourable notice at the time of the landing, and when he came to the actual spot where there were the most terrible scenes and the greatest gallantry was exhibited, he said—I speak from memory—"Here our gallant soldiers immortalised themselves." But they were the only soldiers who were not named, and they were the Dublin and the Munster Fusiliers. When connected with the fact that their poor priests flung themselves in, and went to death along with them, I believe nothing has had a worse effect upon the Celtic mind than the boycott of those Irish troops on that occasion, and it is to your failure upon these occasions to give proper recognition, and to take proper notice of the gallantry of those regiments, that a great deal of the bitterness is largely due. As an Irish Member—I say nothing about the
  1722
  Mesopotamian campaign, because I have not followed it, but I have followed every detail connected with Gallipoli—I say that, so far from condemning the Government for having instituted the Gallipoli campaign, I think it was a proper act of war. It may not have been properly carried out—that is another matter; but, so far as my humble judgment goes, I think the Government took a proper stand in the matter, and they are not to be judged, so far as the initiation of the campaign is concerned, as a Cabinet by the fact that in detail it did not turn out as we expected. It was a proper move to have made, and if their servants have not properly and adequately discharged their duty, that is not a matter for which I am prepared to blame the Government, and I certainly neither blame them nor those at the Admiralty at home; but I do say it would be unfortunate in a matter of this kind, when we are now setting forth upon this inquiry, if we did not put our finger upon the spot, the cause of all this trouble, namely, the failure to tackle those two German ships in the Straits of Messina.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I do not propose to anticipate the inquiry of the Commissions. I rather desire to direct the attention of the House to some other matters which are quite relevant to the Government's proposal. It seems to me that the most important matter for the House to consider is the personnel, and most of all the personnel of the chairmen of the respective Commissions. The House of Commons undoubtedly desires these inquiries to be a real investigation which will result in putting the full facts relating to both expeditions before the country. In these circumstances it is a matter of the greatest importance that the chairmen of the Commissions should be men who by their past experience and prepossessions are not inclined to take the official view. I do not desire to make any criticism on either of the chairmen or their personal qualifications, but I think it is relevant for the House to remember that the chairman of the Mesopotamia Commission is a former Secretary of State for India who is inclined to take the official view in regard to Indian administration. I think that a man who has had no association whatever in the past with the Government of India is more likely to bring a fresh and unbiassed mind to bear upon this question, in which the administration of India is so largely involved.

  1723
  A similar consideration arises in regard to Lord Cromer. There is no more distinguished pro-Consul of the British Empire in the last generation than Lord Cromer, but he has been throughout his whole career an official. I do not think that for the purposes of an inquiry of this kind, in which Governmental action is so largely involved, a man whose training is exclusively bureaucratic is the best for the purpose of a judicial investigation. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) suggest the name of Lord Loreburn. I think he has established a reputation in both Houses for fearless independence and also for high judicial capacity, and it seems to me that these are the two characteristics which are most required in the chairman of an investigation such as that of the Dardanelles. I do not propose at this stage to refer to the other members of the Commissions, although I think that the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir H. Meux) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy were right in urging that there should be naval representation upon the Dardanelles Commission. The special character of the earlier attempt to force the Straits is one which calls for at least the opinion of one who is able to deal with naval questions from personal experience.
  With regard to the terms of reference, I think it is of the utmost importance that in the Committee stage there should be inserted in the terms of reference a mandate to inquire into the initiation of both these expeditions. I think the Government probably intended that that should be done, but .they have become such slavish followers of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) that they have copied the ipsissima verba of the terms of his resolution, and that may account for this. I have no doubt the Prime Minister will be willing to amend the terms of reference which he has put forward. With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hex ham (Mr. Holt) in regard to the scope of the indemnity, I noticed that while my hon. Friend was speaking the Prime Minister indicated by his demeanour that he thought there was no substance in the point my hon. Friend was making, but it seems to me that in Subsection (3) of Clause 4 there is a complete indemnity in
  1724
  reference to courts-martial. That Subsection in the Clause as it stands provides
  "(3) If any criminal proceeding (including a proceeding by court-martial) is at any time thereafter instituted against any such witness, in respect of any matter touching which he has been so examined, the Court having cognisance of the case shall, on his application, and on proof of the certificate, stay the proceeding."
  So that if at either of these investigations any one of the officers affected gives evidence and the Court certifies that he has given true evidence, that will be a complete bar to any proceedings against him, no matter how guilty the Commission may decide he has been. I think this is far too wide an indemnity to give, and I think the House in the Committee stage should refuse such an indemnity to any of the witnesses.
  The PRIME MINISTER: Every point which has been raised is a Committee point, and this is the Second Reading of this Bill. No one has attacked the Second Reading. Therefore I suggest that the Motion for the Second Reading should be passed, with the assurance that we shall be perfectly ready in Committee to consider the various suggestions which have been made. I will deal only with one or two points which seem to me to be of importance. First of all as regards the terms of reference. The Government accepted, in order to widen the scope of the inquiry, the terms of the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, but not, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) was good enough to suggest, in a condition of servile and docile accommodation, and I do not know what the hon. Member means by that.
  Mr. PRINGLE: That was a joke.
  An HON. MEMBER: A Scottish joke!
  The PRIME MINISTER: Very well. We accepted the terms of that Resolution not in a jesting spirit, but because we thought it represented what the House desired and what the critics of the Government desired. We accepted the language of the Resolution as embodying the extent and scope of the inquiry they demand. I can tell my hon. Friend at once that as far as the Government is concerned they desire to make the scope

  1725
  of reference as wide as possible, and they have not the least objection to inserting the word "initiation," or anything you like, because we challenge inquiry over the whole field.
  Sir J. D. REES: In that case, why is no visit to Mesopotamia contemplated? The Bill only contemplates visits to British Possessions.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: I would like to ask if it would be competent to include the word "initiation," seeing that the title of the Bill simply uses the word "conduct"?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the alteration is made it might necessitate a change in the title. That is quite possible, but I do not give any decision upon that point at the present moment. I think, however, that it is clear that the House may, if it so desires, insert the word "initiation."
  Mr. RUTHERFORD: I hope we shall not be prevented from doing that in Committee.
  The PRIME MINISTER: In my view the word "initiation" is really included, and I do not think it is necessary to insert it as an Amendment at all. All I have to say, on the part of the Government, is that the statement that we desire to curtail the scope of the inquiry is entirely unfounded, and the wider and more comprehensive it is the more satisfied we shall be. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Meux) suggested that it is desirable to have a naval expert or a naval representative on the Dardanelles Commission. Of course, if you have a naval expert you must also have a military expert. [An HON. MEMRBE: "Why not?"] The hon. Member agrees. We consider that if you have a naval expert you must have a military expert. We have considered that question carefully in regard to both Mesopotamia and the Dardanelles, and we have come to the conclusion that it would be much more satisfactory to have a Commission on which there should be neither a naval nor a military representative, and that the naval and military experts should give their evidence as witnesses to a body which has neither a naval nor military element in its composition.
  Commander BALLAIRS: Will the Prime Minister consider the suggestion that the Commissions should be assisted by naval and military advisers, not members of the Commissions?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Commissions will have the advantage of the best naval and military evidence, and if they are, as I believe they are, a thoroughly competent body of men, I think they will be able to pronounce judgment without special assistance of an expert kind. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerset (Colonel Aubrey Herbert), who is no longer here, raised a number of questions of very great importance, but they are the very questions into which these Commissions are going to inquire, and I think it would be most undesirable here, on the floor of the House, in anticipation of the judgment of the Commissions, that we should pronounce an opinion one way or the other as to the nature of the allegations made. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) suggested that the scope of the inquiry should be extended so as to include the operations in the Straits of Messina which led to the escape of the "Goeben" and "Breslau." These matters have already been inquired into, as the hon. and learned Member knows, by naval tribunals.
  Mr. HEALY: One of them. There was one court-martial, but not two courts-martial.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it is desirable to complicate either of these inquiries by going into that matter, which took place before Turkey declared war with us; in fact, it was the occasion for that declaration. Here we are dealing with the Dardanelles Expedition, which was initiated afterwards, and the Mesopotamia Expedition, which was much later. I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend in attaching such very great importance to that particular incident when you ultimately come to analyse and develop the progress of this War, and I do not think it would be desirable to complicate the inquiry we now propose by going into that matter. As regards the Commissioners, I am glad that the House generally accepts the names which the Government have proposed. We do not exclude further suggestions.
  5.0 p.m.
  I was very sorry to hear the suggestion made in regard to the chairman of one of the Commissions, Lord George Hamilton, that he has some kind of bias because he is in receipt of a pension well earned after long years of public service. It is, I think, thirteen years since he was Secretary of State for India, and he has had no part or

  1727
  lot in any of the controversies which have since taken place with regard to military or other matters. He is a very great authority on the matter. I think he was forty years a Member of this House, and he has been completely detached for many years past from all parties. He was also a distinguished First Lord of the Admiralty. Therefore he is almost in a unique position with regard to the matters especially relevant to this particular inquiry, and I think the remarks of the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire that a statesman with a record like that should be regarded as disqualified from taking a position of this kind simply because he is in receipt of a well merited recognition for past services were most ungenerous and unjust. Many of us sat for many years in this House with him, and know that he is a man of a judicial and impartial mind, with a very large administrative experience in many Departments of the State. Of Lord Cromer I need say nothing. His record is before the world. I saw him to-day, and I think he is doing a very public spirited and patriotic thing in undertaking this investigation. His doctor, I am glad to say, says that it will not seriously interfere with or impair his health, and, that being the case, I do not believe we could get anybody whom the country and the Empire at large would regard as more qualified for a very delicate and difficult investigation like this. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with me.
  Then, as I have said, we shall be very glad to listen to any criticism with regard to the other members of the Commission or to any suggestion for additions to them, but I would strongly appeal to the House not to add to their number. I do not believe that this sort of inquiry can take place promptly, expeditiously, or efficiently unless you limit within very small numbers the personnel. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the size of the Cabinet?"] The Cabinet is not primarily a body of inquiry. Do not let us be diverted to what, after all, is a very controversial topic from a subject which is of very great importance. These bodies should be small, as they are. I think in each case we have got a very competent president, and I am glad to say that in the personnel we have got men who are largely Members of this House, who are not, so far as we know, or anybody knows, prejudiced or prepossessed by any
  1728
  public declarations of their own opinion, and who, I am quite sure, will bring an absolutely judicial mind to bear on the subjects to be investigated. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) made a blood-thirsty speech. He wants somebody's head on a charger. He wants another Admiral Byng.
  Mr. HOLT: I said that I thought the carrying out of that sentence rather too severe a step.
  The PRIME MINISTER: We all know what Voltaire said, "You shoot one admiral to encourage the other." I do not think the precedent of Admiral Byng is at all a good one, or one that reflects on the annals of the Navy at all with satisfaction. When my hon. Friend insists on making examples of these naval and military men, I would remind him that there are civilians also who are responsible; yes, and all classes of civilians; not merely, I venture to say, members of the Government, but the critics of the Government—the House of Commons. Everybody has a share of responsibility in these matters, and, although I am not at all in favour myself of these drastic, blood-thirsty methods—
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The House was not consulted.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not talking about this particular thing, but about the whole conduct of the War, and when you come to write the history of the War the responsibility for what was done must be shared by all sorts of people, and amongst others by the House of Commons.
  Mr. HOGGE: The Cabinet only.
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend has got his share of responsibility. When the day of account comes and the tribunal is opened and judgment is to be pronounced we shall all each in his own measure, some, I agree, with a greater measure and some with less, have to bear our share of responsibility. I am afraid I am diverting from the Bill. The Bill itself in the scope of the inquiry is confined to these two particular operations. With regard to Clause 4, I can assure my hon. Friend we do not desire that the operation of that Clause should be such as to exclude from subsequent investigation, and it may be punishment, anybody who is shown to be responsible for what has happened. It is a common

  1729
  form of Clause which is put into every Bill of this kind, and if any hon. Members think that it is too wide or they have some amendment to suggest, I shall be very pleased to consider it.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Does it simply mean that they will not be punished for having given evidence?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, and I think nothing more. If there is any ambiguity, let it be cleared up. It is put into every Bill. It is simply to exonerate him from the consequences of giving evidence which might incriminate him in some other proceedings. It has no other scope or purpose. As regards the places where the Commission is to sit, I think Clause 5 is adequate, because it provides, if any sittings are held in India, that the compulsory and punitive powers of the Act shall apply as if the Commissioners had the power of the High Court or Chief Court in British India. I do not think in regard to Mesopotamia that any such question can arise, because Mesopotamia, of course, is not subject to civil jurisdiction.
  Sir J. D. REES: Why is it excluded from the possibility of a visit?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is not excluded, but it is not necessary to give special powers. It is not excluded in the least. As my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) said, the India Office and the War Office control every body in Mesopotamia. They may go there, and, if they do, they will not meet with any constitutional, legal, or technical difficulties, as they would in India. In regard to secrecy, the only other point with which I ought to deal, I think we must give to bodies of this kind very wide discretion as to what extent and in regard to what part of their inquiry secrecy is necessary.
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The presumption should be for publicity, and the exception for secrecy.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am quite sure that every Commission of this kind, composed of responsible people like these and bound to present a public report to Parliament, will not shroud under the veil of secrecy any part of their inquiries which they think can legitimately and in the public interest be otherwise conducted. You must give very wide and large discretion to a Commission of this kind, particularly as the House knows that not only may information be given with regard to
  1730
  military and naval operations yet to take place, but also with regard to diplomatic matters of a secret and delicate kind. You must in the public interest give very large powers of shutting down the veil in regard to special parts of the inquiry. There is nothing new or unconstitutional in that, but as you are setting up by Act of Parliament a special tribunal, it is desirable and even necessary that those powers should be expressly reserved. I hope with that explanation that the House will now accept the Second Reading of this Bill. To-morrow in Committee, I quite agree, we may consider special points which my hon. Friends may desire to raise; and with regard to them I am sure they will find that the Government not only have an open mind, but are most ready to give them consideration, and are most desirous that in every respect the inquiry should be as impartial and as exhaustive as it can possibly be.
  Colonel YATE(indistinctly heard): I desire to say how very glad I was to hear from the Prime Minister what a wide scope this Bill will have. I was also glad to hear the Prime Minister's speech the other day when he first notified the House of the introduction of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then said that Mesopotamia was by no means a closed operation. It will be very gratifying, not only to those who are prisoners, to think that the bravery and endurance so magnificently displayed by them for so many months may not be in vain, but also to their comrades who tried to relieve them, to have the opportunity of wiping out the disaster and advancing on Ctesiphon and Bagdad. I must also associate myself with the hon. Member for Somerset when he said that possibly the information regarding the supplies at present available in Mesopotamia is not quite correct. I have seen letters stating that there is nothing on earth to eat but bully beef, and what bully beef with a temperature of 120 in the shade is like I cannot say. It must be most difficult for everybody. There is one other point on which I trust this Commission will be able to insist. The Under-Secretary of State for War the other day, when he was asked a question as to who was responsible in regard to the medical provision for the expedition to Mesopotamia, said:
  "The arrangements for the Mesopotamia Expedition were made by the Government of India, and that Surgeon-General Hathaway was the Director of Medical Services of the Force and Surgeon-General Sir W. Babtei was Director of Medical Services in India at the time."

  1731
  I subsequently asked a question of the Secretary of State for India on the subject, and we gathered from him that Surgeon-General Sir W. Babtie was absent from India for two periods of five or six weeks, in February and March and June and July of last year, and that no one was appointed to act for him during his absence, but that the routine duties of the office were carried on by the Deputy-Director of Medical Services, and that the Government of India reported that the latter dealt with no questions of policy. I think it ought to be brought to the notice of the Commission that the Government of India allowed the Director-General of Medical Services to leave India without the appointment of anyone to perform his duties.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I fail to see what all this has to do with the Bill. The object of the Bill is to set up a Commission to inquire into the very points on which the hon. Member is asking information. We cannot discuss those points now. The object of the Bill is to set up a Commission to inquire into them and to report to this House, and it is not open to the hon. Member to thrash matters out now.
  Colonel YATE: I apologise. I was only asking the Prime Minister if he would have all these matters included in the Bill. I am not sure that the Bill covers them at the present time, or whether full power is given to the Commission to find out who was responsible for the absence of these officers from India. I will not pursue the matter now. If it is a Committee question I will raise it again to-morrow.
  Mr. MOLTENO: There is one observation I should like to make about the personnel of the Commission. An opportunity has arisen of doing evenhanded justice to both Houses. Possibly the Chairman of one might have been found in this House and the Chairman of the other in the other House. Both chairmen, according to the proposals, will be in the other House.
  The PRIME MINISTER: No. Lord George Hamilton has been for forty years a Member of this House, and has never been in the other House at all.
  Mr. MOLTENO: He is not in the House at the present time. Then there is the question of the extension of the scope of the inquiry. I had an Amendment down to the Motion of the right hon. and learned
  1732
  Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) to extend the scope of the inquiry, because it seemed to me that in justice to all concerned it was very desirable that there should be no technical difficulty in doing justice to everybody and ascertaining the share of responsibility of everybody. The Prime Minister, in indicating that be would introduce this Bill, referred to (he previous inquiries to that in the Crimean War. The purpose of those Commissions was a very wide one, and those objects were very well summarised by Lord John Russell in speaking of the Crimean Expedition. He pointed out the importance of inquiry as a function of the House of Commons, and perhaps I may read very shortly what he said on the subject, as it has a direct bearing on the important information that was got by those Commissions for the purposes of the House of Commons. He said:
  " Inquiry is the proper duty and function of the House of Commons. When the British arms have suffered a reverse this duty has always been performed. Thus when Minorca was lost in 1757, Mr. Fox consented to an inquiry. Thus when General Burgoyne capitulated in 1777, the House of Commons inquired into the causes of the disaster. Thus when the Walcheren Expedition failed in attaining the chief objects of the enterprise, the House of Commons inquired. Inquiry is, indeed, at the root of the powers of the House of Commons. Upon the result of the inquiry must depend the due exercise of these powers. If from vicious organisation the public affairs are ill administered, the remedy is better organisation. If from delay and confusion in the execution of orders inquiry has arisen, the subordinate officers should be removed. If from negligence, incompetency, or corruption, the Ministers are themselves to blame for the failure which has been incurred, those Ministers may, according to the nature and the degree of their fault, be censured, or removed, or punished."
  I quote that just to show that the previous inquiries have always been of a very comprehensive and wide character, and I therefore welcome the statement of the Prime Minister that he is perfectly prepared to add to the scope of the inquiry, and to make it as wide as possible.
  Mr. LYNCH: Before the Bill passes I want to say one or two words which I think are of sufficient importance. One is with regard to Subsection (3) of Clause 4. I would like to make a remark in the entirely opposite sense to that in which it has been treated hitherto. That Clause contains a provision to protect a witness, but it is within the recollection of the House that two or three days ago two witnesses in an inquiry which has not yet terminated have been subjected to severe discipline on account of the public service which they rendered by giving evidence. Although this may be a Committee point, I would like to see that Clause so modified that the wit-

  1733
  nesses would not only have full protection, but that it would be a breach of contempt to take any action whatever, either at the time or later, to their detriment on account of their having given evidence. Then there is a question of a very peculiar character which should be touched on, and that is with regard to the presence of Mr. Andrew Fisher, the High Commissioner for Australia, as one of the Commissioners. That is a name which I myself welcome; but I would like to ask the Prime Minister if, before including that name, he consulted the Government of Australia. I would like to know whether Mr. Andrew Fisher appears in the Committee simply as a public citizen and representing this side of the water, or whether in any particular way he represents Australia in the inquiry? There is still another point with reference to the powers of the Commission, which might trench really upon constitutional questions, and that is as to whether this Commission would have compulsory powers over Australian citizens, because on no account whatever would I consent to any extension whatever of the interference of this Government with the affairs which are now within the hands of those people.
  Those points having been touched on, I will proceed further, and say that I am in accord with the remarks of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) with regard to the composition of the Commissions. These are days when we have to speak with the utmost candour. The susceptibilities of Noble Lords, or of any persons, no matter how high their standing, are of small importance compared to the proper conduct of this War, and before these names were announced I said to myself mentally, "Who are to be the Noble Lords nominated?" I notice that in every Commission nowadays, in every public office, the first inquiry of the governing mind of the Cabinet seems to be, "Where shall we find a Noble Lord?" There is not enough democratic spirit either in these Commissions or in this House. I hope the Labour Members will take up this matter strenuously. I think the criticisms the hon. Member for Lanarkshire directed against Lord George Hamilton were not directed against him on account of his being in receipt of a pension, but rather on the ground of his having been long in office, and that he had acquired the bureaucratic spirit. So far from a man having been long in office, especially an administrative office, being better fitted
  1734
  to deal with these matters than ordinary citizens, he will not be so well fitted. His brain has become arthritic; he cannot think outside of Blue Books, and the whole conduct of the War has shown that these are bad. I am in agreement with, the hon. Gentleman who asked that the conduct of those admirals should be inquired into who allowed the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" to escape, because although there has been one court-martial I do not think that court-martial was quite inclined to give full confidence to the country. A particular and vital part of the inquiry was not touched upon, and that was the nexus between these events and the expedition in the Dardanelles.
  There is still perhaps one other point with regard to which reference has been made to the case of Admiral Byng. Voltaire said that you shoot one admiral to encourage the others, and the moral is that it did encourage the others. There are times when the most drastic remedies · may be really the most compassionate. One is the case where a man is entrusted with the lives of others, and in that case you want a seaman and not an accountant to command a vessel; a man who has something of the Nelson spirit, and not one who counts the forces of the enemy too closely. I am not sure that I should have been quite in favour of the shooting of Admiral Byng, but I would like to see introduced into the method of dealing with all these things the spirit of Saint Just, the great French revolutionist, and I think one of the noblest spirits who ever trod this mortal sphere. He used the guillotine, but through that Saint Just saved his country in a time of danger; and if he used the guillotine, he never used it injudiciously. If the fault of an officer were not due to bad will, but to want of sufficient endowments, he simply set him down to make place for other men; but, if he came across a rascally contractor who, in order to make money, caused suffering to the soldier, he said, "Cut off his head"; and the country gained by that drastic surgery. We live in more attenuated times to day, and I do not know that the conduct of this War has gained by that change. I hope that the inquiry will be a full inquiry, so as to shed a flood of light upon all the dark places, remembering that we are still in the middle of: this War, that the issue is not in the least degree visible, and that we must bring to> the front men of the greatest energy, determination, and efficiency.
  Sir J. D. REES: I do not propose to follow the last speaker into his theory as to whether any man who is called a lord is deprived of all virtue and ability on account of that accident, or whether a man is better for having his head cut off. Those questions can be dealt with better to-morrow in Committee than to-day. I want to refer to a remark of the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) with regard to Lord George Hamilton. With what the Prime Minister said I heartily agree, and the hon. Gentleman should remember the immense amount of unremunerated public duty that has been performed by Lord George Hamilton since he left office. The Poor Law Commission involved years of labour, and that is not the only thing. Lord George Hamilton needs no defence in this House, but reference was made to the fact that he has been Secretary of State for India. That is true; and had he been Secretary of State for India when the Home Government overruled Lord Curzon in regard to the apportionment of military duties between two officers in the Viceroy's Council, I should have said that Lord George Hamilton would have been completely disqualified from having any hand in this inquiry. But he was not. Up to the time that Lord Kitchener—whom I mention with profound respect and regret—became Commander-in-Chief in India there were two officers in the Indian Council or Cabinet, one of whom corresponded to the Secretary of State for War and one to the Commander-in-Chief. Against the wishes of Lord Curzon, who was right, as he usually is, being a man of equal courage and capacity, those duties were combined, and the Commander-in-Chief had not only the duties proper to the Commander-in-Chief, the discipline, conduct, and management of the Army, but also those of the military member who previously had charge of the duties of the War Office. Lord Curzon, backed by his civilian colleagues, protested, but was overruled, and I believe that these difficulties in regard to this expedition are in no small degree due to the overruling of Lord Curzon by the Home Government, with which Lord George Hamilton had nothing whatever to do, having long left the India Office before that time. I hope this question will be very closely investigated by this Committee. This is a matter going to the root of the policy which has caused the appointement of the Committee. We want to know whether the present situa-
  1736
  tion of the Governor-General's Council is such that such operations as the Mesopotamia Expedition can be properly carried on, when all the duties of the War Office and the Commander-in-Chief are concentrated in the hands of the Commander-in-Chief, which has been the case ever since the change was made when Lord Kitchener took charge as Commander-in-Chief, and Lord Curzon was overruled by the Home Government—a very rare occurrence, and in this result one proving how undesirable it is that the Home Government should ever overrule the Government of India. I also have to remark that the Prime Minister told me that Clause 5 was not meant in any way to point to the fact that sittings outside the United Kingdom would only be contemplated in India. I am extremely glad to hear that. If that is not done, if some visit is not made to Mesopotamia by the Committee, or some member, or a delegation, it would be absolutely necessary for someone to be appointed who knows something of Mesopotamia, although I am not in favour of any enlargement of the number. I am content with it in that respect in every way.
  If I may instance a case in point, my hon. and gallant Friend beside me (Colonel Aubrey Herbert) referred to the fact that the troops were not provided with proper water. That is a point upon which some local knowledge is necessary. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend grasps the fact that the Tigris is at once the main sewer and the sole water supply of the Mesopotamia valley. The whole population drinks that water. When once the sediment, which is very thick—it is water with a great deal of body in it—is precipitated in earthenware jars, it is exceedingly sweet, healthy and palatable water. That is a case which shows how necessary it is that some local knowledge should be available to this Committee. I do not think you will get very much of it, the dwellers in Mesopotamia being very few. I believe there is only one other besides my hon. and gallant Friend and myself in this House who knows the country. It will be very difficult to get evidence of that sort. The Commission must either visit Mesopotamia or send a delegate there or take some special means of informing themselves upon this subject. Apparently there is no provision in this Bill for an interim report upon the matters more immediately exercising Parliament. You, Mr. Speaker, when my hon. and gallant Friend was speaking, pointed out to him that he had better leave

  1737
  certain points he had raised until the Committee stage. I want to suggest, if I may with respect to your ruling, that as there is no provision in the Bill for relieving the anxiety of Parliament—it is not too much to call it so, especially with reference to the fact that, as my hon. and gallant Friend said, this is a continuing expedition and is not a thing done with and gone—and there is no provision for an immediate Report on the subjects more immediately requiring attention, it is desirable that there should be a provision for some intermediate Report upon matters in which the relatives and friends of our soldiers and officers and Members of this House are concerned. Will an immediate Report upon the more pressing matters be possible?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is provided for in the Bill.
  Sir J. D. REES: But will it be carried out?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is for the Commission to carry it out. If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 6 he will see it says
  "The Commissioners may, if they think fit, make Interim Reports."
  Sir J. D. REES: Yes, they may, but Commissions do not always think fit; they generally do not. I suggest it should be made clear to the Commission that the anxiety of Parliament and the public is so great that some Interim Report should be made upon anything that has gone wrong and is continuing or anything which Parliament fears is continuing with regard to the very deplorable failures that have undoubtedly occurred, and that it should be made at the earliest possible date. On the other questions, as to how and why they went beyond Basra—which has always been a mystery to me—reports on that can wait, because they cannot affect matters of immediate importance. I hope the Prime Minister will impress upon the Commission that that is expected of them by Parliament, to make an early Interim Report.
  Mr. HAZLETON: All of us on these Benches welcome the decision of the Government to appoint a representative from Ireland on the Commission which is to deal with the question of the Dardanelles. I am glad that the Government has decided in this matter, as it has decided in connection with the Australian representative, to meet the wishes of our
  1738
  country. I do not think there is a single operation of the whole War up to the present that has aroused more interest in Ireland than the operations in the Dardanelles. In the first place, I expect they were easier to follow than the more confused, complicated, and slower operations in France and Flanders, and, in the second place, Ireland had not merely a full brigade but, in addition, a full division engaged in those operations. Ireland sent out the 10th Division to the Dardanelles, which was the first Volunteer division raised in Ireland since the outbreak of the War. I need not say that our people will follow with anxious interest the conduct of the proceedings of this Commission to see who is responsible for the disasters and for the incompetence that led to so much loss and suffering among our soldiers there. There are only one or two points to which I should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister. The first is with reference to the evidence to be taken before this Commission. We all understand, of course, that a great deal of the evidence—I do not know whether it will be the larger part, but certainly a great part of the evidence must be taken in private because of the nature of the transactions to be inquired into. I should like to know from the Prime Minister whether, in the course of these Commissions, there will be a full record kept of the evidence that is taken in private before them, and whether it will be in the discretion of the Commissioners or not, at the end of their labours, to decide whether or not after the War that evidence will be published?
  The PRIME MINISTERindicated assent.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I hope there will be no concealment at all in connection with this matter, but that the House and the country will be given the fullest possible report upon these operations, not merely in the Report of the Commissioners themselves, but in the evidence upon which those Reports will be based. There is only one other matter upon which I should like some information. I dare say the labours of these Commissions will not have proceeded very far when the Commissioners will have some indication of who are the principal men charged with incompetence in connection with the operations, both in the Dardanelles and the Mesopotamia. We have some reason to believe that, at any rate, some of the men who may be

  1739
  implicated in these charges still occupy high responsible public positions. I take it that the work of these Commissions is to be not merely an inquiry into past mistakes, which for all practical purposes, I suppose, form a closed chapter so far as any practical effect is concerned, but that if they find mistakes such as those hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) with regard to the medical supplies in Mesopotamia—if they find incompetence or mistakes going on at the time of their sittings—they will l have power to deal with them. I do not think that anyone will suggest that any men under suspicion should be unfairly treated upon mere suspicion, or that they should be unfairly treated until a charge has been tried and proved against them. But it is a serious thing if our information is true, that these men should occupy responsible positions in connection with the War who are under suspicion, and that they should be allowed to go on occupying those positions and, perhaps, committing equally serious blunders in the future as those they have committed in the past. I would suggest to the Prime Minister and the Government that if there is any foundation for that charge that the Commission ought to have power, when they begin their investigations and find that these men are there, to recommend the suspension of or directly themselves to suspend those gentlemen from their activities. We had an illustration from the Home Secretary the other day of how these matters are dealt with in another capacity. Charges were made against certain officials of the Government in Ireland in connection with the recent rebellion. Some of those officials were arrested and deported and subsequently released. Questions were asked about them in the House of Commons, and I think at the instance of the Home Secretary those officials were suspended and their cases are, of course, to be investigated. If that is the policy of the Government in one respect, I do not think they can pursue a different policy in the case of higher Government officials who are not Irishmen. I would urge the Government to give power either to the Commissioners to suspend those officials whom they may come across in this way or else advise them that they should make recommendations to the House upon the subject.
  Mr. HOGGE: I want to make two brief comments on the speech of the Prime
  1740
  Minister when he replied to the discussion that took place on the Second Reading. The Prime Minister regretted very much that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir H. Dalziel) had seen fit to make comments upon the suggested Chairmen of these Commissions. I understood from the Prime Minister that the names which were to be suggested to the House of Commons were to be left to the House of Commons and were not to be prejudiced in any way, but the Prime Minister in replying to the discussion has gone out of his way to make it quite clear that the Government have in their minds both these Noble Lords as Chairmen of these Commissions. After the testimonials the Prime Minister has given both of these Gentlemen in this House, it will be very difficult for Members of this House to express an opinion contrary to that laid down by the Prime Minister. He will have no difficulty in carrying both of those Chairmen. So far as I am concerned, I think both of these Chairmen will be tame Chairmen and that they will be no use at all in investigating the charges which these Commissions are set up to investigate and for which they are to fix responsibility. I see that the Prime Minister, having made his own speech, does not care to listen to me. The Prime Minister said that I have certain responsibilities. I shall deal with that point presently, but I have no hesitation in saying that when the Prime Minister makes these charges against Members of this House he ought to remain and hear the reply. If he cares to, it does not matter to me whether he goes out or not. That is my view. I protest against the suggestion that either of these Gentlemen should be given either of these posts. Lord Cromer has spent the larger part of his life in Egypt in administration work, in governing a native race, and has acquired in that work an attitude of mind which is not the attitude of mind we want in the Chairman of either of these two Commissions. With regard to the several suggestions that have been made as to the members of these Commissions, I should like to know whether the Prime Minister can consult certain parties in this House as to the men who are to be put on and not consult others. For instance, the Prime Minister obviously consulted the Irish party as to the representative they wished to place upon the Dardanelles Commission.
  Mr. LYNCH: How do you know?
  Mr. HOGGE: I am willing to be contradicted if I am stating something that is untrue.
  Mr. LYNCH: I do not know.
  Mr. HOGGE: You have an opportunity of consulting the Leader of your party on the subject. The Prime Minister also consulted the Labour party, who suggested as a member of that Commission a member of their party whose hands are absolutely full with Committee work. He is put upon every Committee set up by the Government, and I believe he is destined for further honours in a future Honours List. I am certain that if the Prime Minister had consulted other Members of the House the names now suggested for these Commissions would not be the names that would have been selected by those parties. With regard to the Scottish Members, I am perfectly certain the names suggested for these Commissions would never have occurred to Scottish Members as the names to be put upon these Commissions. The Prime Minister also tried to dispense with responsibility for the undertakings which are going to be inquired into by these Commissions. He said that we all shared that responsibility. I am glad that I do not. I have never supported this Coalition Government from the day that it was formed, and I have never accepted a Whip from any of its Whips. It is they who are responsible for the conduct of the War. It is the Cabinet as a whole which must accept responsibility for what happened in Mesopotamia, and in the Dardanelles, and I would remind such members of the Cabinet who are left to hear the closing stages of the discussion that there was on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, as far back as 15th October, a request, with the names of certain Members attached, for an inquiry into the inception and conduct of the Dardanelles Expedition. My name was attached to that with the names of my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) and my hon. Friends (Major Guest and Mr. Pringle), and a few of us who repudiated the responsibility which attaches to the Cabinet in carrying out this expedition.
  The Prime Minister was asked if he would give any time for the dicussion of a Motion to set up a Committee at a moment when lives could have been saved. The hon. Member (Mr. Hazleton) spoke with regard to the conduct of affairs in the Dardanelles affecting Irish soldiers,
  1742
  which was scandalous. That could have been saved if a Committee had been set up at that time. A request was put upon the Order Paper by those of us whose views and opinions are despised by the Cabinet to this extent, that no notice is taken of them. To-day we are setting up a Committee to inquire into the Dardanelles. Who is getting all the honour and glory of having forced the Prime Minister to do that? The right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson). Where was he in October of last year? He was then in the Government, and being in the Government he was not willing to help private Members of this House, who were getting private information from their friends and their constituents at the Dardanelles, who knew what was happening and who wanted to stop it, and wanted to induce this Coalition Cabinet to stop it. Because we are humble private Members of the House of Commons we are not consulted and our views are not taken, but when an ex-Member of the Cabinet, who was in the Cabinet when this request was made, asks the Prime, Minister, the Prime Minister bows down before him and says, "Now we must have an inquiry." That is what I complain about, and I think it is a perfectly fair complaint to make, and for the Prime Minister to get up and turn round to this corner and indicate myself as one of those who have responsibility for these proceedings is absurd, and I repudiate it at once, absolutely, not only for myself, but for all of us who protested at that time that the inquiry ought to be made when good could have been done, and the lives of the poor Irish and Scottish soldiers whose bones are bleaching, or were bleaching until they were buried in the Dardanelles, could have been saved. That was the time to put in operation the power that this Coalition Cabinet had. The fact that the Cabinet could not make up their minds then is monstrous, because three or four private Members could make up their mind as to what was necessary, but the Cabinet did nothing. I want to make it quite clear, and that is why I protest against the Prime Minister leaving at this time. I do not think it is fair of the Prime Minister, the man who leads the Cabinet, accusing this House of responsibility for these expeditions when he must know that we have all along been against him, and that we have all along been in favour of an inquiry

  1743
  being made into their conduct, and that is on record on the Notice Paper of the House.
  Colonel HERBERT: May I ask what has all this to do with the Committees we are discussing?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is rather distant, but the hon. Member may say he was replying to the statement of the Prime Minister that we were all of us responsible in connection with the War.
  Mr. HOGGE: I only wanted to make the point that we do not share that responsibility, because if the Prime Minister had taken the advice tendered to him by Members of the House in October, we should have had the very inquiries which other people are getting the credit for to-day.
  Mr. LYNCH: Cannot we have this point cleared up? Are we not really responsible for it, we who tolerate that Government?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter which I can decide. That is a matter for the historian of the future.
  Mr. HOGGE: My point of view with regard to that is that it is for the country to decide who is responsible for what has happened, both in the Dardanelles and in Mesopotamia, if and when we get the facts. However, having made my position quite clear, I hope the Committees will do their work expeditiously and meticulously, and will probe every one of these things to its heart, and give us a Report which the Cabinet can stand by. I hope I have made my position quite plain. I do not want it to be understood that all of us believe that because we have a Coalition Cabinet it commits the rest of the House. I do not believe in them, and never have believed in them, and do not support them.
  Sir G. REID: I deeply regret that the history of affairs in the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia has been of a character which calls for the appointment of these Royal Commissions. In the midst of this tremendous struggle Royal Commissions upon our forces and those who manage them, and those who administer our Departments, are steps which can only be justified by the highest and most urgent necessity, and I deeply regret that, so far as one can judge, there is so strong
  1744
  a primâ-facie case of the most desperate mistakes, the most glaring proof of incapacity, in connection with the Dardanelles Expedition, and with the operations in Mesopotamia, that at last this House has been compelled, I am sure much against its will, to interfere and demand a full and searching investigation. I think one of the brightest passages in the history of this War is the attitude of Australia in connection with the loss of so many thousands of her gallant sons in the Dardanelles. While she bowed her head with profound grief at the loss of so many of her sons, she, suspecting all sorts of mistakes, offered up the sacrifice of her grief and resignation to leave to those at the centre of the Empire the duty of either ordering, or refraining from ordering, an inquiry into these matters. I am in this strange position, that the only -two names which have been canvassed in connection with the proposed Commissions are those names in which I repose the highest possible confidence. Lord Cromer is something more than a peer of the realm. I do not think he was born in the purple. His title to public confidence is in no sense derived from the accident of his position as a peer of the realm. It rests upon the confidence we have in the brilliant qualities which he has displayed in managing some of the most difficult problems of this Empire during a long course of years with conspicuous success. I do not say much about Lord George Hamilton, but I must say that I have been greatly impressed by his competency, by the quickness and independence of his mind, and I know of the great, arduous, prolonged services which he has rendered to the people of this country long after he disappeared from this House. As for the suggestion that an admiral should be added to this Committee, I deprecate any such step. The Commissions will have complete power in the direction of getting all the skilled and expert advice that they need from the naval or military point of view, and the effect of putting a distinguished admiral on the Commission might be perhaps unfortunate.
  I profoundly hope that when these matters are thoroughly investigated, when all the circumstances connected with them have been first ascertained, and judicially weighed, the impressions which we feel at present with reference to these various operations will prove to be, I will

  1745
  not say, unfounded—I fear it is impossible to show that some of these dark spots do not exist—but I profoundly hope that when the officials and the generals and the admirals who may be implicated have an opportunity of having their cases and their conduct fully investigated, the facts will allow us to put a less horrible complexion upon the neglects which seem to have occurred. We must never forget that this mighty Empire rests very largely upon prestige, and that the farther our sway extends to the East the more it depends upon the reputation for capacity and efficiency of the high Imperial officials, and I hope that when the truth is known these Commissions will be able to inform this .House and the country that, while some have blundered, while some gross misfortunes and mistakes may have occurred, they occurred under conditions which will to some extent reassure the public mind.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope I may be permitted to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the dignity and fortitude with which the peoples of Australia and New Zealand have borne the heavy losses which their troops suffered in the operations to which he referred. I wish to answer a few questions which have been put since the Prime Minister spoke. The hon. and gallant Member for Leicestershire inquired whether the Bill is drawn wide enough to cover an investigation into the medical administration in India. The answer is, I think, undoubtedly. The Bill is quite wide enough to cover all the matters raised by him, and it will obviously be part of the duty of the Commission to go into the question of medical administration in India as well as the responsibilities in Mesopotamia and here at home. Another question was put by the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch), who inquired whether Mr. Fisher is the nominee or representative of the Government of Australia. The answer is in the negative. His Majesty's Government desired to secure the services on this Commission—and I think the announcement was welcomed in all quarters of the House—of an Australian, and Mr. Fisher was invited to sit as a distinguished Australian. He is not the nominee or representative of his Government, though I believe he accepted the position with their knowledge and assent. The position of Sir Thomas MacKenzie,
  1746
  High Commissioner for New Zealand, is similar; he is not the representative or nominee of his Government. His name is submitted to the House and he will sit as one of the members of the Commission at the request and invitation of His Majesty's Government.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: I entirely support the Government in their attitude regarding this particular demand for a public inquiry. I think that the Prime Minister in his first speech was most conclusive and showed the high unwisdom of such an inquiry at the present time. We are in the midst of a great War, and I think his speech showed conclusively that we have no wish to screen any officer or any administrator who has, perhaps, not carried out his work as he might have done. To have a public inquiry and the scandal of these misdemeanours and mistakes being made public to the world seems to me, and must seem to a great many people outside this House—indeed, to any person of ordinary judgment—the height of unwisdom. As the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) referred to this particular corner of the House, I wish to say that we are not all unanimous in this quarter in support of the attitude which, I think, he has unfortunately taken up on this question. The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) referred to Clause 3 of the Bill, which states:
  "The Commissioners shall, having regard to the interests of the public and to naval, military, and diplomatic considerations, allow or refuse to allow the public or any portion of the public to be present during any proceedings of the Commissioners."
  My right hon. Friend said he thought the Bill ought to be so founded as to enable the inquiry to be public. I entirely differ from him on that point. It seems to me that to have this inquiry, which, apparently, the Government are now committed to, made public, and to have the evidence public, in a time of great war, would be most unwise. My right hon. Friend surely forgets that to wash your dirty linen before the public, and before the enemy, is the height of unwisdom. It is not a question of any desire to screen any officers. Let us have an inquiry into the Dardanelles and the Mesopotamia operations, and into any mistakes made by generals or other officers there, but to have 'this publicly commented upon in the Press, and to have the errors of our

  1747
  generals or officers stated in public Court and published in the newspapers, would be very unwise, and I entirely support the Government in the insertion of this particular Clause. I hope that the inquiry, which I presume will now go forward, will be secret. If we have no confidence in the Government we should turn the Government out, but if we have a Government we must trust the Government to see that the executive officers carry out their duties. I do appeal to the House not to press for having the inquiry made public in the middle of this great War and of the very serious operations that are taking place. It may be necessary at some future time, if public opinion knows of the screening of any particular scandal or any particular general. If my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) has any officer in his mind, or any crying scandal that he believes the Government are screening, and which is against the public interest or against the proper conduct of this War, let him stand up and give us chapter and verse.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I have done that, six, nine, and twelve months ago in this House.
  Mr. MASON: The right hon. Gentleman says he has done that, but has he given chapter and verse?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Yes, everything!
  Mr. MASON: Then let him table a Motion.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I did table a Motion.
  Mr. MASON: Then all I can say is that he has not been able to convince the House that he has got a good case.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: The Government would not give me a chance to move it.
  Mr. MASON: Until the right hon. Gentleman is able to do that his case rests upon a very insecure foundation. If he has a case, and any name of any particular general whom he thinks jeopardises the success of the War or any expedition, let him say so. He has many opportunities. He can move the Adjournment of the House. He can speak on the Adjournment in connection with General Jones or General Brown, or whatever the name may be. Let him get down to facts, and get away from this innuendo and suspicious atmosphere. It is not becoming of a great Government, or of a great Empire,
  1748
  that they should be asked in the middle of a great war to have public inquiries, and everything made public before the world. I am not holding any brief for any officer or desirous of screening any officer. I simply suggest to the House and to my right hon. Friend that the Government are perfectly justified in putting in this Clause. I hope, in the interests of the successful carrying on of the War to an honourable and satisfactory conclusion, that if there is any scandal, or any case that must necessarily be gone into minutely, the inquiry will be secret during the operations in which we are engaged. If there is a public disclosure required after the War, the public disclosure can come then.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The hon. Member (Mr. Mason) represents no one but himself in this House, and he certainly does not represent his constituency in the views that he has expressed.
  Mr. MASONmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: At any rate, when Members speak in this House they are supposed to speak on behalf of their constituents. The only attitude that the hon. Member has taken up during the War has been to demand that this country should arrive at a disgraceful peace before we have beaten the enemy. That has been the attitude of the hon. Member right through: He asks, "Why should we wash our dirty linen in public?" We, who have had our relatives murdered in the Dardanelles—there are many of us who have lost friends and relatives—want to know whether in the conduct of these operations the Government are responsible for the neglect and the disasters that have taken place: the greatest disasters that have ever overtaken the British arms. I refer not only to the disasters in the Dardanelles, but in Mesopotamia. To say that we are not to have an inquiry because we shall be washing our dirty linen in public is an extraordinary argument for a private Member to advance in this House. The hon. Member who says that has been so devoid of common sense during the time he has been in this House that when he gets back to his constituents they will soon show him what common sense is. Be that as it may, he stands alone on this question, I am glad to say. When he attacks my right hon. Friend for not putting down a Motion he does not know that my right hon. Friend put down a Motion months ago, but the

  1749
  Government refused facilities for the discussion of the operations in the Dardanelles, and for that reason my right hon. Friend has been unable to have the inquiry which he and others who sit by him have pressed for during many months past. The hon. Member referred to "this great Government." That may be his view now on this particular question, but that has not always been his view.
  Turning from the hon. Member to the more serious part of the question, I do think that the Government ought to reconsider the appointment of Lord Cromer. Lord Cromer has rendered great and distinguished service to the Empire. No one denies that. We all regret, and no one regrets more than I do, the very serious illness which came over him last year. Notwithstanding the fact that he has rendered great service to the Empire and has had a very distinguished career, Lord Cromer's advanced age and his illhealth render him unfit to occupy the responsible position to which he is to be appointed. My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) to-morrow, I understand, is going to suggest that Lord Milner should be added to this Commission. Although I have been an opponent of his, and I do not know anyone who opposed him more than I did during the South African War, I think that in an inquiry of this kind Lord Milner, as an active man and still in the prime of life, is well suited for the work. It is necessary that we should have a man who has the best of health and who can devote his time to the inquiry. Was Lord Milner offered the post of chairman? There is a general rumour in the House that he was offered that post and that he refused it. If that is so the Government ought to take every possible step to get Lord Milner to accept it. In regard to Lord George Hamilton, I have repeatedly during the War suggested to the Prime Minister that it is time, when we want economy in all branches of administration, that people with political pensions should be dealt with. At the time Lord George Hamilton took his pension from the Government, according to a letter he wrote to the "Times." he required assistance from the State, and that assistance was given. Lord George Hamilton holds a number of directorates of companies. I do not want to go into his financial position, but I may say that he is dependent not upon the House of Commons, but upon the will of the Prime Minister, whether his pension is to be continued or not. Having regard to this
  1750
  circumstance, although I do not say that he is not going to do his duty because he is in receipt of a pension from the Government which depends upon the Prime Minister—
  Mr. CHAMBERLAINmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The Prime Minister has admitted that he has the power, and the Government cannot stop it.
  Mr. HEALY: That is quite wrong.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I have raised this question at least half a dozen times, and I am quite right in what I say. If the Secretary of State for India will refer to the records he will see that the Government have power to discontinue this pension at any time they think fit.
  Mr. HEALY: Without cause?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Without any cause at all. There is no liability upon the Government to pay a pension to any ex-Minister of the Crown. That pension does not attach as a right. If the hon. and learned Member will look up the record he would be surprised to find that by the Act under which these pensions are granted it rests entirely in the discretion of the Government whether the pension will be paid or not. Lord George Hamilton, I am quite certain, is not going to be deterred because of the fact that he is in receipt of a pension which depends on the good will of the Government, but the fact that he is in receipt of a pension does not bring to the mind of the ordinary community at large in this country that confidence which it is essential that people should have. On the whole, I think that the Government have done well. I think that the names which they have suggested to the House will give general confidence throughout the country, with the exception of that of Lord Cromer—and that solely on account of his advanced age and illhealth. The work of the Commissions will be very arduous, and we ought not to throw it upon an old man of very brilliant services to the Empire, but should leave it to men who would be more vigorous and who have the advantage of greater youth to do justice to the great task which is being submitted to them.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow—[Mr. Rea.]

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 4) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Mr. KING: On a point of Order. May I ask your ruling on a matter of procedure, which was raised last night in the course of the discussion on the Report stage of this Vote of Credit. Several Irish Members desired to raise the question of martial law in Ireland, and especially of the large number of the military forces now employed in that country. But the ruling was given, apparently with some hesitation, that the question could only be raised upon some Civil Vote upon which the Home Secretary as representing the Government of Ireland could reply. Now, in view of the really important issue involved and the need that there may be upon future Votes of Credit to refer to this question of martial law, may I call attention to the words of the Estimate which include "for all measures which may be taken for the security of the country." Again, admittedly the military forces employed in supporting martial law in Ireland are going to be paid out of this Vote. I may further point out that in the discussion on the Vote of Credit last Monday on the Motion, that you do leave the Chair, you yourself permitted questions involving the decisions of the Civil Government, such as advances to the Dominions, advances to our Allies, and the deportation of aliens, all to be discussed and to be replied to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Home Secretary. In view of this important matter and the interest that may be aroused on the occasion of future Votes of Credit, I desire to ask whether it is not quite in order to discuss on a Vote of Credit the question of martial law in Ireland?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the view which the Deputy-Speaker took was that the employment of military in Ireland was really only a channel carrying out the views of the Government, and that it was therefore more desirable to criticise the fountain head rather than the stream: that the Government itself should be criticised and attacked rather than the military who were simply carrying out the orders of the Government; and on that ground he ruled as he did. I have considered the question carefully, and I
  1752
  do not quite share that view. I think that as the salary of and the payments made for the troops now quarterd in Ireland must come out of this Vote of Credit which is included in the Consolidated Fund Bill, it is fair and right that the House should have an opportunty of criticising, and if the question is raised upon this Bill the House should be able to discuss it. With regard to the two matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, the deportation of aliens and the advances to our Allies and to the Dominions, those were clearly within the Vote of Credit. The deportation of aliens arose upon the question of recruiting. That was obviously connected with naval and military matters, and the advances of sums of money to our Allies and to the Dominions were specifically included in the Vote of Credit. Therefore both of those were properly discussed.
  Mr. KING: Thanking you for your decision, may I specially call attention to the words that were used by Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which seem to raise some curious sort of doubt, when he said that it must be on a Civil Vote that such questions could be raised? I presume that we are right in saying that not merely military matters but also Civil matters which come under the Vote are quite in order.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not quite follow the hon. Member on that. I think that what the Deputy-Speaker intended to say was that it was desirable that you should attack the Civil Government for the action which they were carrying out through the military, but that it was not desirable to attack the instrument but rather the persons who used that instrument.
  Mr. MORRELL: I desire to draw attention to a matter which has often engaged the attention of this House—much too often—but in my opinion a comparatively small matter. I refer to the case of those men who, finding themselves in the Army, having originally objected to take part in military service and from conscientious motives are unable to obey the orders which are given to them. I refer to the case of the conscientious objectors. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in his place on this occasion, because this is, I think, the first time since he became Secretary of State on which he has said anything with regard to this problem. Certain I am that no man understands this problem

  1753
  better than he does. He was once, I think, a conscientious objector himself—in remote days—and certainly he is the last man who would be responsible for any policy that could be called in any way a policy of persecution towards men who may be misguided but who are unquestionably sincere in the attitude which they are taking up. I would like very shortly to give the House a history of what has happened with regard to this question. In doing so I am not dealing with the conscientious objector who comes before the tribunals. I want to deal with the men about whose bona fides there can be no question; that is with the case of those men, some 1,600 in number, who have shown the genuineness of their convictions by the fact that they are willing to undergo a considerable amount of illtreatment in many cases in barracks, and willing to undergo imprisonment, and in some cases, in the case of thirty-four men, have been willing to undergo sentence of death rather than comply with orders which conscientiously they believed it would not be right for them to obey. I am dealing only with those men who find themselves inside the Army.
  It is about six months since we first raised the case of the conscientious objectors in this House, and I think that it was on 25th May, after a great deal of agitation, that the War Office issued a new Army Order, specially designed to meet the cases of these men, providing that where a man represents that his disobedience is due to a conscientious motive he should be transferred to a civil prison and dealt with by the civil authorities. A few weeks after that a scheme was elaborated by the Prime Minister to the effect that where men have been transferred to civil prisons their cases should again be brought before the Central Tribunal, and if they were found to be genuine cases they should then have alternative work given to them under a Subcommittee of this House, and those men who refused to accept that alternative service should, as I understand, be sent back into the Army. That was the Prime Minister's scheme that was announced in this House some six weeks ago. Although it was on 25th May that the scheme was first put forward, we heard to-day, in answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, from the Prime Minister, that actually yet there has not been a single case which has been brought under this scheme, and that nothing has been done.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: May I interrupt the hon. Member? The first séance of the Committee will take place to-morrow at Wormwood Scrubs Prison, and after that it will deal with the cases.
  Mr. MORRELL: I am not attributing any blame in this respect. I only want to emphasise the fact that the problem is made much more serious by the long delay which has taken place. I want to point out what this means, and this is one of the points on which I want an answer. This means that men in a great many cases have actually undergone imprisonment in civil prisons as conscientious objectors, and now their sentences are expiring and they are being sent back to their regiments again, with all the undesirable results which everybody must agree follow from that course being taken. That is to say, there will again be resistance, there will again be an effort to compel them to obey, and again a court-martial, and again the bad influence on discipline which must result from having men of this sort in the regiments, and sending these men at great expense of public money back to civil prisons. You will have the whole thing over again, simply because the scheme has not been carried out.
  I want to call attention to two cases. The first is that of a conscientious objector named Everett, which attracted a great deal of attention because a very well-known public man, Mr. Bertram Russel, was fined £100 lately because he published a leaflet dealing with this case. This man, who was a teacher, was condemned to detention. Yesterday his sentence expired. He is being sent back to the Army again. You are having the whole thing over again. Then there is the case of a man called Chappelow, to which I called due attention in this House at least four months ago. He was a Civil servant, and a man whose genuineness was admitted by the Government and everybody concerned. He was a man of whom the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that the tribunal was satisfied that Mr. Chappelow had a conscientious objection to combatant service, and the Surrey Appeal Tribunal sent him into a Non-Combatant Corps. There he refused duty, and then he was imprisoned. This man has suffered immensely in prison. He is a man who has a great many friends of influence and importance. He is a well-known, well-educated man, who has the

  1755
  particular conviction that he ought not to obey military law. He has suffered almost to the point of madness, and now, after three or four months' imprisonment, his sentence has come to an end. What is to happen? You are sending this man back, and I had a telegram to say that he has been sent back to-day. You will have the whole thing over again. He will again refuse to obey, and the court-martial will again send him to prison.
  Sir F. FLANNERY: How do you know that this man will again resist?
  Mr. MORRELL: I have a very good answer to that question; it is because I know that the spirit behind these men is stronger than the discipline of the Army. I know that there is nothing stronger in the world than their spirit. You may break their bodies, but you will not break their spirit. You have thirty-four men now in France who have been condemned, men who would face death rather than forego their convictions. I know that they have that within them which will not permit them to give way, whatever the discipline which may be enforced. How do you propose to meet that difficulty? I believe the Government mean to treat them well, but I want to know why they are delaying carrying out that intention. In the case of the men who are being sent back it is because the scheme is not ready, and it ought to have been ready. I seriously suggest to the Secretary of State for War that, instead of sending back to the Army men whose convictions are perfectly genuine, and who are willing to suffer for them, it would be much better to keep them in a civil prison until they are dealt with by the Central Tribunal, of which the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir G. Younger) is a distinguished member. That is the first point. The second point I want, to raise is this: What is to be the policy with regard to the men who have declined what is called "alternative service"? They are men with whom, personally, I do not sympathise at all, but the genuineness of their convictions is none the less recognised. They are men who say that their objection to militarism is so strong that they will not in any way, so to speak, condone a felony; they say that they will not make any bargain, and that all they ask is to be left alone; they wish to have nothing to do with warfare or militarism in any shape or form, and they will not
  1756
  undertake any particular form of service as the price of not doing what they say they ought not to be asked to do. These men in some ways are the most sincere of all conscientious objectors, but for myself I think they are fanatical. Still, they are the men most difficult to deal with.
  I ask my right hon. Friend how he is going to deal with this small, but still important, class of men, who decline to have anything to do with military service, who say that the House of Commons intended, by the Bill that was passed, to provide for the case of the conscientious objector to military service? They demand that this should be carried out, and say that they cannot undertake to help the Government in various forms as the price of not being called upon for military service. These men are immovable in their convictions, and how are you going to treat them? We have had two replies from the Government in regard to this question. We had a reply which was made in the House of Lords to the effect that these men would not be sent back to the Army when the time of their sentence is over, and we have had the reply of the Prime Minister in this House which makes rather doubtful the answer which was given in the House of Lords. I want to know which is correct. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War whether it is worth while to have the torture of these men, these fanatics if you like to call them so, by sending them back once more, after their sentence is over, when all they ask is that they should be left alone. When they are called upon to do particular work and they will not do that particular kind of work, it seems to me you are perfectly entitled to punish those men, but you are not entitled, because they refuse to be soldiers, to endeavour to make them soldiers against their will. Action of that kind is persecution. Although you may have a great majority, practically the whole of the House of Commons at your back, a policy of that sort would not redound to the credit of the country, it would not redound to the credit of the Army, and it would be a bad day in our history if it were found that we were going on persecuting these men because they declined to take the same view of war as is taken by the majority of their fellow countrymen.
  There was a time when my right hon. hon. Friend regarded another war very much in the same way in which these men regard this War. If my right hon. Friend

  1757
  had been of military age at the time of the Boer War, and if there had been Conscription at that time, I am not at all sure that he would not have been amongst the men who would have refused to accept combatant service, and who would have refused to have anything to do with the military, machine or even to engage in work of national importance. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that these men are sincere and conscientious, and is it worth while to treat these men in a way which will be regarded as persecution by sending them back to the Army? By all means, if you think it necessary, punish them by civil means, punish them outside the Army, punish them by imprisonment, but do not make them soldiers against their will. I sincerely wish with all my heart that it had not been necessary to raise this question to-day, and I should not have done so if it had not been that I know these things are going on, things which I think are matters of great injustice and bring discredit on the Army and on the country. I hope sincerely now that my right hon. Friend is Secretary for War that this question may be settled, and settled once for all. As regards the military question, it is of no importance at all. These men are worth nothing as soldiers, and cannot be made to be worth anything. As regards the social and political question, I venture to say that it is one of the highest importance to the future liberties of this country that is should be settled in a way that will be regarded by all fair-minded men as a just settlement, a settlement which recommends itself to conviction, which recommends itself to conscience between different classes of men, and therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to take a course which, I think, might be disastrous in the interests of the country.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): I was under the impression that a way had been found for meeting this very difficult question of the treatment of these conscientious objectors which commended itself to those who have been championing their cause. The only complaint, or substantially the only complaint of my hon. Friend, is that the plan has not worked speedily, has not been put into operation so rapidly as he would wish. The tribunal which has been set up is now making a start with their work. I think you may depend upon it, now that this arrangement has been made, that they will I
  1758
  proceed with their work as quickly as possible. It is clear that the matter should be closed as soon as possible. There can be no doubt at all about that; and I hope that within a few weeks the grievances which are felt in these particular cases will be removed. I know that the tribunal will get to work as speedily as possible, and will get through that work with as little delay as possible. In this matter I have always felt that the real difficulty was to separate the conscientious objectors from the men who utilise their position for other and not very good reasons. The policy of this country has always been to safeguard the conscientious objector, and an Act of Parliament, so far as I recollect, was passed safeguarding a well-known religious body, and provision Was made by name in their favour. I do not think that anybody will deny, at the present moment, that this policy, decided upon in this particular case, was a policy that was approved—the policy of protecting men who had conscientious objections to using deadly weapons. The tribunal which has been appointed commands the confidence of those who are interested in the cause of conscientious objectors, and my hon. Friend below the Gangway will recognise that it is an able and a fair tribunal. My hon. Friend wishes to know what will happen.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask one point: Is it understood that these men will be brought before separate tribunals, and will they be sifted out by the military authorities before going to the Central Tribunal?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No; they will practically hand over the whole question to the Central Tribunal. That is really an advantage for the War Office, because this question has taken up the time of men whose services are invaluable at the present moment, from the point of view of organising the Army. Practically weeks of their whole time have been taken up in dealing with conscientious objectors, and they will be very glad of anybody who will relieve them of that duty; in fact, I can assure my hon. Friend that they will be delighted to hand the work over to the Central Tribunal; they will rejoice in that arrangement. The second question is a much more difficult one—I refer to the kind of men who object to any kind of service, military or otherwise. With that kind of men I personally have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever, and I do not

  1759
  think that they ought to be encouraged. I think that that class ought to be made separate. When the nation has got to be mobilised not merely for war, but for the purpose of providing food and for relief at home, and for the purpose of seeing that there is no suffering amongst the women and children whilst the men are fighting, those men certainly deserve no encouragement from the country or from the House of Commons. For my part, I will take no step that will make it easy for a man to get out of his national obligations in this respect. There has always been a very strong party in this country, and a number of these people have belonged to it, who say that the nation ought to be organised for peace as well as for war. Most of these people want to compel others to do things, but when it comes to their turn to contribute they suddenly find that they have got consciences. I do not think they deserve the slightest consideration. With regard to those who object to shedding blood, it is the traditional policy of this country to respect that view, and we do not propose to depart from it; but in the other case I shall only consider the best means of making the path of that class a very hard one. I am not sure that sending them to the Army is the best way of doing it. There are other ways of doing it, and that is all I say now.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I think I know fairly well the arguments which are used by the extreme men to whom the right hon. Gentleman has just referred, because it has been my lot to try and get large numbers of them to take what I consider a more reasonable view. I believe we must be fair to those men, even though we disagree with them. Their attitude is this: "We do not say that we will not do any work, but we refuse to do it at the dictation of the Government or the tribunal." I believe it is best to state this, so that we may try and understand their view. Those men say that the great curse at the present time in Europe is the system of Conscription, that England is practically the last country to adopt it, and that if the whole of Europe and America are going to take up Conscription, then instead of decreasing wars you are going to increase them, and they therefore say, "We cannot allow ourselves to be organised in that way." I would say to my right hon. Friend, "Do not increase the number by persecution." In the early days the Christian religion had to win its
  1760
  way by persecution. These men, perfectly honestly, though we think mistakenly, feel that they may have to go through persecution to win what they consider larger liberty. Do not increase the number by persecution. It cannot be to the advantage of the State to increase the number in that way. There are one or two other points. There are in military prisons to-day some men who have been given exemptions conditional on doing work of national importance, and who were arrested by the military authorities before they were able to get to work in that way. I have called the attention of the War Office to two cases; those of a man called Robinson, of Middlesbro', and MacIntyre, of Darwen. The latter was brought out of gaol to have his case reheard, and the tribunal granted him exemption conditional on doing work of national importance. He was taken back at once to gaol and is there at present. I cannot believe it is to the interest of the War Office to make difficulties in getting these men into work at the earliest opportunity. I know that in many other cases they have been extremely anxious to facilitate getting the men out as quickly as they could. Cannot some device be adopted to deal quickly with cases of the kind? I could name scores of cases where they have done so, but in a few cases there seems extraordinary difficulty.
  I have to make a suggestion which I believe would save the War Office and the tribunals a large amount of trouble. I think it is immensely important to see that the exemption which is given to the men who are willing to do work of national importance is exemption that they can accept. In this respect the military representatives have a great deal of power in their hands. Hundreds of cases have come before the tribunals where the men have been adjudicated as perfectly sincere conscientious objectors, but then they have been given exemption and sent into Non-Combatant Corps instead of getting work of national importance. It cannot be wise organisation to give that kind of execption to men who feel that they are forced to refuse military commands and who are then court-martialled. I do appeal to my right hon. Friend to see that the military representatives have instructions to secure that when once exemption has been granted on conscientious grounds that the exemption which is given is one that can be accepted. Doing that would

  1761
  save the military authorities, and the Central Appeal Tribunal, a large amount of trouble. My hon. Friend who spoke before me and myself want to see this controversy closed if possible. It is with the greatest regret I speak about it once more and with a very genuine desire that the War Office shall take steps to see that these reasonable requests are granted.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I do not think it at all desirable that as a member of the Central Appeal Tribunal I should discuss the various questions with regard to decisions in cases of this kind which have been raised. I wish rather to emphasise the remarks of the Minister for War on the subject of the new departure with regard to those conscientious objectors who have been sent to prison as a result of decisions of Army courts-martial. Some two or three weeks ago a letter was written to the Central Appeal Tribunal by the President of the Local Government Board, asking if they would undertake the reconsideration of the whole of these cases, and to deal with them as they thought proper and according to their ordinary practice. The Central Appeal Tribunal, without I am afraid realising the very serious task that was being imposed upon them, agreed to do so. There has been a certain amount of time no doubt taken to fix the principles upon which we were to act, and also for the Departments of the War Office and the Home Office to settle the principles, and for the Committee of the Under-Secretary of the Home Office to decide the principles in dealing with this matter. I do not think there is any real ground for complaint as to delay. It has been a very difficult matter to settle this as between the War Office, the Home Office and the Central Appeal Tribunal. We have been very largely interested in having direct and proper instructions in the matter. We have had to look very closely into the proposals made and the very ample report prepared by the Home Office Committee. That could not be merely a matter of a day or two, and it required a great deal of consideration. The court-martial papers have only been received some four or five days, and it took some time to collect them from all over the place, and some time to collect the men we are going to see. I think if hon. Members only realised how difficult it has been to start this new principle, they would not have complained. Although we propose tomorrow to begin by seeing a large number of these men and putting to them a certain number of
  1762
  questions, and of course going into the dossier in each case, I do not think it will be possible for the tribunal to see all the cases. I believe the Central Tribunal will be very careful, where there is any reasonable doubt, to see either the man himself, or a representative of the man.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask will they deal with the cases of those men who have undergone imprisonment and whose sentences have expired?
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I believe all cases are being sent on to us in order that they may be consistently dealt with on a consistent plan. I hope that may turn out to be satisfactory, and it will certainly involve a great deal of labour.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the Central Tribunal deal with cases only sentenced by court-martial or will they deal with others?
  7.0 P.M.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I think the whole of the cases will be sent to us to be dealt with by the Central Appeal Tribunal. The last point mentioned by the hon. Member for York. (Mr. Rowntree) was a complaint about someone being sent to prison while the case was being reheard. May I say to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Rowntree) that he has entirely forgotten the fact that the case was reheard and decided? The moment a case is decided, the man must be sent to prison if he does not obey the decision. Therefore there is no fault to lay at the door of the military authorities. It was their duty, no doubt, to see that a man was immediately made to serve the sentence.
  Mr. ROWNTREE: I am afraid that, in being brief, I put the cases badly. The two cases I have mentioned are cases where the tribunals had granted the men exemption, but in one case the man was late in getting it and was arrested. The Pelham Committee communicated with the military authorities in that case, and I do not understand why there should have been delay in discharging the man and letting the Pelham Committee find him work. The other case was where a man had been in prison. He was allowed to go out for the rehearing. I made no complaint about him being imprisoned. Then, on the rehearing last week, he was granted exemption conditional on doing work of national importance. My suggestion to my right hon. Friend was that a decision having been come to, surely it was to the advantage of the military authorities to

  1763
  see that that man was liberated as quickly as possible and got to work under the Pelham Committee.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: I might perhaps answer that question if I may be allowed to do so. As a general rule, when work of national importance is prescribed as a condition of exemption by the Central Tribunal, I think we only give twenty-one days to find the work. If he does not find it in twenty-one days, or if the Committee does not find it for him, the Army then, I suppose, can act.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: I shall not detain the House a minute, but I wish to express my gratification to the Minister of War that this sifting process is now to proceed through the tribunals and not through the military authorities. I think that is a very great advance. I want to say one word to him with regard to those men who take up what some might call a fanatical attitude—I mean those who refuse to leave civil imprisonment in order to take up the work that may be assigned to them. I would ask him to remember this, that however wrongheaded you may think these men, I do believe firmly that they are the most conscientious of the conscientious objectors. They say in the first place, "You have no right to compel us to take up arms, and you have no right to compel us to take any part in warfare." They are then sent to gaol because of their resistance. Then comes in the authority and says, "We will allow you out of gaol under certain conditions." They say, "No, under no conditions can we appear to palliate what we consider to be this wrong of the State in trying to force us to kill our fellow men." That is their position. It may be wrong, but it is not the position of men, as my right hon. Friend suggested, who object to work. Many of these men have been doing work of national importance in their own sphere, and all I ask of the right hon. Gentleman is this, that however hard he makes their lot, let it be by way of civil punishments, and do not let him hand over these men to the Army for their resistance to be broken. That is not punishment under the law. Let them be punished as much as he likes under the law. There is a certain justification in that case. The law having been passed, we may take it they are lawbreakers, but do not hand them over to the Army for the Army to try and
  1764
  break their spirit of resistance by what we might call illegal methods. That is the only point I wish to make in regard to these men, who are, I believe, the most conscientious of the conscientious objectors. I want to ask that some way of enforcing the law should be found other than by handing them over to the Army for their spirit to be broken.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: We have heard the case of the conscientious objectors, and I think I may now pass on to refer to the prisoners of war from Ireland now in the charge of the Home Secretary. They consist in the main of people who had no more to do with the rebellion than the Home Secretary himself. In fact, far less, because we owe to him the presencein Ireland of Sir Matthew Nathan, who, with full knowledge that the rebellion' was imminent, allowed it to come to a head, and, in addition to that, when it broke out, took the whole of the Dublin police off the streets. At all events, a course had been taken of arresting up and down the country some 3,000 men and! women, and of these—desiring to be moderate—I venture to say that 2,000 are absolutely innocent persons, and not only that, they are the cream of the country in this sense, that they are nearly all the teetotalers of the country, they are nearly all the people who are given to learning. They were people of good conduct in their villages, people of upright, independent minds and conduct, and I think I am not wrong in saying that their bearing and demeanour has thrilled some of the Commissioners who have had to listen to their statements made in private. They are Nationalists, as I am, maintaining the interests of our country under severe difficulties, and yet they have been treated with a cruelty and, I would say, a ferocity such as even Germany has not shown in Brussels. Lord Crewe said the other night in the House of Lords that no insurrection had ever been put down with less circumstances of cruelty than this one at Dublin. I shall not, in face of the War that is now being waged—and the waging of which I am in entire sympathy with—do or say anything that would injure our prospects in the field by introducing some of the needless barbarities and cruelties that have been perpetrated in Ireland. There will be another time for that. What I am anxious about is this, that when this Committee has made its recommendations they should not be obstructed by the Home

  1765
  Secretary, who, I venture to say, has obstructed their recommendations. I will say of him that I believe if the Kaiser, Bethmann-Hollweg, and all the other members of the German Administration were engaged in devising a system to do England harm, they could not have hit upon a better plan than the plan of the Home Secretary. For what has he done? There was no Sinn Fein organisation. He has created it. He has started a Sinn Fein academy, a Sinn Fein university at Frongoch in Wales, where he has brought together some 2,000—I believe at one time they were 4,000—men, guilty and innocent, and instead of these men being left at home in their little farms and cottages, scattered and dispersed as they were from one end of Ireland to another, he has congregated them together—Ulstermen, Munstermen, Connaughtmen, Leinstermen, men who have never met—and has enabled them to exchange ideas. I regard the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as the father of the Sinn Fein movement. I want to know with regard to these men that when the Advisory Committee recommends their discharge as innocent people, what right has he for one moment to detain them? Who are the members of this Committee? There is one gentleman on it who is a gentleman, that is Colonel Lockwood, the Member for Epping; and there is another Conservative Member on it whose name I have forgotten. I think when these men and women obtain their discharges from high Conservatives such as the hon. and gallant Gentleman to whom I have referred, the least the Irish Members have a right to expect, to say nothing of the prisoners themselves, is their immediate discharge. Why are they not discharged? This shows the magnificent system of administration which the right hon. Gentleman is administering. They are not discharged in groups because, having been victimised by the Government, they will be received with applause by the Irish people. What is their excuse? It is that your gods are our devils and your devils are our gods. That is the position you have come to to-day, after two years of War, in a country which I venture to say when War broke out, there was hardly a single man, woman, or child that was not on your side, but by your system of administration, and by your system of folly, and I would say insanity, you have brought things to this pass. These men you have
  1766
  illegally arrested and detained, and cruelly treated in this country with your solitary confinement; in winter you kept them without their topcoats, and without sufficient food, and, if it had not been for the quality of heart of the local population who supplied them, they would have starved. And all this to come out of a rebellion in which you are not able to show that out of a population of 4,000,000, 1,000 men took part. A thousand men who, in the words of the late Chief Secretary, were armed with a job lot of Italian rifles! You have tolerated a system whereby any man suspected by the police was immediately put into gaol without inquiry, and detained there. Some of them were Scotsmen, some were Orangemen, some were landlords. You threw the net far and wide, with the result that the Government have brought the country to such a state that they are unable to remove martial law. Motions have been put down, Motions of Adjournment—there is to be another Motion on Monday next—but there is no Motion to fix the blame on the Ministers, and on the Government, for this rebellion. The past has been dealt with. Oh, no, we never mention it!
  Mr. SPEAKER: That topic is not open to debate on this Bill. What I ruled could be discussed was the administration of Ireland under martial law. The War Office Vote is included in this Bill. Any matters connected with the work of the military in Ireland are relevant, but the Home Secretary's share in the conduct of affairs in the camps and so forth does not come up under this Vote.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. Samuel): On a point of Order. Am I to understand that after the hon. and learned Gentleman has made without interruption a whole series of exceedingly violent charges which are totally innocent of any foundation of fact, that it is not open to me to offer any reply?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is rather a reproof to me—
  Mr. SAMUEL: Oh, no!
  Mr. SPEAKER: For not having noticed at an earlier stage how the remarks of the hon. Member were proceeding. My difficulty is that it is not very easy to trace what is and what is not included in the Bill. It is only by going through a whole

  1767
  sheaf of Votes which I hold in my hand -that I am able to ascertain whether remarks are or are not relevant. The hon. and learned Gentleman started on perfectly sound lines, and then, carried away by the exuberance of his eloquence, he proceeded to deal with other matters which are not relevant. At that stage I thought that I ought to intervene.
  Mr. HEALY: It will be very unfortunate if the Home Secretary is not given the same opportunity to deal with this matter that I have had. So far as I am concerned he may go on to his heart's content. In regard to what you say, Mr. Speaker, of course I humbly bow to your ruling, though perhaps excusing myself in this way, that as you, Sir, stated, it is exceedingly difficult to know what is and what is not in order, and I must certainly ask your pardon for having transgressed. The last thing I should like to incur is the censure of Mr. Speaker, who, we all know, is held in the highest respect. At the same time I must, of course, have regard to facts founded on my own observations, and, with restraint, offer some justification for what has been termed exuberance as regards a portion of my remarks. I would not have risen at all if I had not supposed from the earlier decision given to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset that the entire matter was open. As you state, the matter is not open, and as I am uncertain as to how far I might go I shall not proceed further on these lines.
  We have been pressing the Government in various matters. We have been pressing for an inquiry into the conduct of the military. There is to-day, on the Notice Paper, a charge involving the case of twenty dead persons, whose names are given, and as to whom these military gentlemen refuse to give the information for which we ask, or the Government allow any inquiry to be undertaken. Contrast that position of affairs with the position of affairs when the Member for Trinity College asked for an inquiry into Mesopotamia and the Dardanelles. I will not, for a moment, say that they are of equal importance, but one was a demand made by a single Member of this House, which demand has been refused previously to the Member for Edinburgh. The demand which we make for an inquiry in the case of the military in Dublin, I assume, must have behind it the full pressure and
  1768
  sympathy of at least eighty Members. The Government, at the mere request of the Member for Trinity College, and in the midst of the War, do not hesitate to create a public statutory body to inquire into these scandals. When the entire Nationalist party of Ireland is united in a demand for an inquiry into the terrible tragedies which took place in Dublin in the name of putting down the rebellion, we can get no satisfaction whatever from the Government. The prisoners which are the result of their blunders are kept here in tens, scores, dozens, hundreds, and thousands, by the act of the Government themselves. I therefore, Mr. Speaker, bow to your ruling by making a period of my remarks. Let me tell the Home Secretary this: That his conduct in relation to these prisoners I regard as malignant—
  Mr. SAMUEL: Shall I, or shall I not, be entitled to reply to this?
  Mr. SPEAKER: After the attack that has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think the Home Secretary ought to be allowed to reply.
  HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
  Mr. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman is evidently so bursting with his reply that he can begin now.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. and learned Member who has spoken often speaks with much vehemence, force, and eloquence, and frequently, if I may say so, without any accuracy whatever. He has to-day made serious charges against myself which have not the smallest foundation in fact. He began, for instance, by saying that I myself am the father of the rebellion—
  Mr. HEALY: The Sinn Fein organisation!
  Mr. SAMUEL: That I myself was responsible for the rebellion for the reason that to me was owing the appointment of Sir Matthew Nathan, to whom he attributes the cause of the outbreak. Sir Matthew Nathan is a very distinguished public servant who has rendered immense service to the State in many affairs. I am proud to have the honour of his friendship, but I cannot claim that I had any share in his appointment, as I did not, in fact, know that he was to be appointed until the appointment was made. I say it in order to avoid misapprehension in respect of the relationship between Sir Matthew Nathan and myself which the hon. and learned

  1769
  Gentleman would do his utmost to interrupt if he had any opportunity of doing so. In regard to the police being taken off the streets of Dublin at the time of the out-break, that, of course, was necessary because they were unarmed and were shot at at sight. The hon. and learned Member next spoke of the Sinn Feiners being kept in solitary confinement. There is not and there has not been any solitary confinement. These men are all in association with one another and treated in the same way, as prisoners of war. I have had no complaint of their treatment. The only complaint I have heard has been with respect to the fact that the Roman Catholic chaplain was only there for the Sundays instead .of being there constantly. As soon as I heard that complaint I approached the War Office as to the appointment of a whole-time chaplain. This was at once done. That is the only complaint I have received in respect of the treatment of these men. The members of the Advisory Committee tell me that they have repeatedly expressed themselves as satisfied with their treatment. The hon. and learned Gentleman denounced me for having obstructed the execution of the recommendations of the Committee. As soon as they reach me the recommendations of the Committee are acted upon—so far as I am concerned—instantly. I have on no occasion—although I have a perfectly constitutional right to do so—dissented from any recommendation of the Advisory Committee. I sign the orders for the release the very hour that these recommendations reach the Home Office. If there are any other cases not acted upon immediately it is because arrangements have to be made at the camps for transport and other practical details of that character. So far as I am concerned, not an hour elapses before I sign the orders of release after receiving the recommendations of the Committee. When the hon. and learned Gentleman talks about treating these men with a ferocity and a cruelty worse than anything done in Brussels, the House can estimate such a statement at its true value.
  Mr. J. D. NUGENT: We were earlier engaged in discussing conscientious objectors. They were brought into the class of honest and dishonest objectors. I desire to say a few words more as to different classes of conscientious objectors, about which I will leave the House to decide the honesty or dishonesty. We have listened to the speech of the hon. Member of North-
  1770
  East Cork as applied to the Home Secretary. I wish I could say that the Home Secretary's statement was accurate. What are the facts? The facts are that he, as a member of the Cabinet, sent Sir John Maxwell to Ireland, and is therefore undoubtedly responsible for the creation of Sinn Feinism in Ireland. I represent a Constituency which has been tested on more than one occasion—on four occasions—within the last three years upon this very question. What has been the result? On every occasion there has been an emphatic vote given against the Sinn Fein policy. From the very district where these cruel and brutal murders took place more men have joined the Army than from any other district in Ireland. The result is that once the military come into possession of a particular street they do not satisfy themselves with trying to get into the houses. I was able to send to the Prime Minister a letter indicating that at one of the most respectable business houses in the street the military knocked at the door, and before there was time to open the door they fired through it and shot a young girl of eighteen who was in the hospital till about two weeks ago. This was at the corner of North King Street and Smithfield. There was no shooting at that particular point. This young girl, Cullen, is ruined for life. When complaint is made to the military authorities we are told that the case is under consideration. For over a month I have been trying to discover from the Prime Minister how the matter stands, and to receive some satisfactory reply as to what is to happen to these people. The general reply that I have got for over a month is that there is no positive proof as to who it was by whom these people were shot.
  Everyone knows who was in possession of the street that week. Everyone knows the regiment and the company which was in possession of the street for a month. Everybody also knows that the statement is not accurate. I hold no brief for the Sinn Feiners. I have been an opponent of theirs for the last seven years, and have not hesitated in public meetings or anywhere to face them upon these issues. It is not the case that policemen were shot at sight, or that military officers were shot at sight. The Home Secretary, too, should know that the Metropolitan Police that were taken prisoners in the Four Courts were properly treated by the Sinn Feiners. They were actually guarded lest any attack might be made upon them by anyone until

  1771
  they were released and handed over to the War Office. It is also known that in the case of the military officers taken prisoners as they were driving home from the races that Commandant Daly, who was in charge of that particular district, actually took these men and brought them to the North Dublin Union to see that they were properly protected and provided for. They were kept there for three or four days. Then at the risk of the life of some of his men he passed them over by the boundary lines through the Richmond Asylum grounds lest anything should happen to them. The military in the houses in the district to which I have referred ordered the women to leave, drove the men upstairs and into cellars, and when they were lying upon their backs in the cellars shot these men dead, and in some cases battened them with the butts of their rifles. I have been in the houses in the street, and I have tried for the last six weeks to secure that something should be done for these poor people.
  No one wants more blood in connection with this affair in Dublin, or to single out members of the Army and say this man or that man should be shot. We have been met sometimes with the statement that these military officers and men suffered great provocation and undertook great risks. No one denies that. So also did those poor people who were ordered to stop in their houses and not be seen in the streets, and the reward for carrying out the military orders was that the soldiers went into the houses on the plea that they were looking for Sinn Feiners. In one case—and if there is a single bit of humanity in anyone he must be moved by this—there was a little boy, fourteen years of age, with his hands uplifted in appeal, on his father, who was battered dead. It was not, as some have suggested, that these people went out in the streets, and it was not known by whom they were shot. The Prime Minister went into that street and investigated for himself. He knows by whom they were shot. The Cabinet are the .objectors. It is for you to say, whether honest or dishonest objectors refuse, that an inquiry shall be held in order that we may be able to produce the evidence as to the actual men who shot these unfortunate people. I submitted the case of a man named Brennan, regarding whom an inquiry took place at the Castle. Upon three different occasions they brought other witnesses to examine him.
  1772
  A particular officer was brought up as the only officer in the district, but the witness said, "He is not the man, because the same man who fired the shot came into my house for shelter, and I sheltered him."
  I do not want to name individuals. Their affidavits are there. The people are able to prove it. When the other man was brought up he was identified immediately as the man who shot him. These people are poor. It is one of the worst tenement streets in the whole city. The members of the corporation are making every effort to clear away these slums. You resisted their borrowing powers. After condemning the neglect, and refusing borrowing powers, now, because these people are supposed to be helpless—I say "supposed," and I will come to that in a moment—you now refuse to compensate a single one of these people, who have lost their breadwinner through your neglect and the neglect of this House. Then you say the widows and orphans may starve, forsooth, because you cannot trace the responsible people. If it is an honest case that you cannot trace them, then the military authority in Ireland is not being honest by the Government, and I do think the Government are running a danger, not alone for the administration in Ireland, but there is an end to human endurance and human patience, and I warn the Minister responsible that their representatives in Ireland are in danger there, and will be in danger, unless they are prepared to terminate the grievances under which these people suffer. The next portion of the story is that the very man who permitted this insurrection, the man who led the way to the breaking of the law was the right hon. and learned Member for Trinity College. He led the way; he was the man.
  Mr. SPEAKER: This does not seem to me relevant to anything appertaining to this Bill.
  Mr. NUGENT: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but is not the Attorney-General for Ireland paid out of that fund 1
  Mr. SPEAKER: Not on this Vote.
  Mr. NUGENT: Very well, we shall have another opportunity of dealing with him. I come to another portion of the story. We have also in connection with this rising in Dublin a number of Civil servants who were picked out by those in their departments jealous of their promotion. If any inquiry is held into that, I

  1773
  hope a member of the Government will ·say whether there will be a Court of Appeal after the decision of the heads of the departments, to whom these men can submit evidence of their innocence. I am glad the Chairman of the Commission is here, because I have in my pocket at this moment the name of one clerk dismissed from his employment on the ground of suspicion because he was arrested. This man's name is Thomas Crook. There is no difficulty about the name, because four or five days ago I wrote to the Secretary of the Commission asking him to verify the statement I submitted to him. No reply has been received. I suppose they are in communication. This man was dismissed from his employment because he was in the neighbourhood of the 'Post Office, but he is prepared to testify on oath that he was never a member of the Sinn Fein body, though it was not a crime any more than to be a member of the Irish Volunteers. If it was a legal crime, those men should have been warned, and men are being tried in Ireland, not for their participation in the insurrection, but because the local police in many cases have a grievance against them of long standing. It is because of that that the opportunity comes now to them to wreak their vengeance upon these men. This man was arrested when he was actually going to the Post Office to try to induce one of his colleagues to leave, as many of us made every effort to induce people who were misled and terrorised. Many men in Dublin took awful risks. I myself was in the very centre of the fighting. The windows of my house were riddled by the shrapnel of the military. I went through the streets trying to find out any young man who was misled. This young man was in a similar position. He was arrested on suspicion. He was sent over here and discharged, and while he was here a man with a pension was brought in to fill this young man's place, because, I suppose, he belonged to a particular class in Ireland. We on these benches have made every effort to try to get those grievances adjusted. "We have remained silent very often in the hope that we would get some satisfactory results. I myself have been twitted because I have not raised this question earlier, and did not ask questions upon it. I do not believe in looking for vengeance, and have striven hard to get grievances amicably settled. I conducted correspondence up to the last
  1774
  moment, when the door was banged, and there will be an echo of that unless some attempt is made to remedy the grievance.
  Mr. LUNDON: I want to make an appeal to the Home Secretary. It is about the case of a poor man in the employment of a Department, and I am glad the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Major W. Guinness) is present, because anything I have got to say regarding the attitude he has taken up in this House I would like to say to his face.
  Mr. SPEAKER: To which Department does the hon. Gentleman refer?
  Mr. LUNDON: The Insurance Commis-
  Mr. SPEAKER: The National Insurance (Ireland)?
  Mr. LUNDON: Yes, Sir. Last week the Member for Bury St. Edmunds raised a question in this House about Mr. Patrick Sheehan, and the reply of the Home Secretary to him was that the case of Mr. Sheehan had been submitted to the heads of his Department, that he was found not guilty of the charge alleged against him, and he was accordingly reinstated. But the hon., and, I understand, according to the Rules of the House, I ought to call him, the gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds, immediately came to the rescue and put a question about Patrick Sheehan, with the result that the Home Office, who two days before had vindicated his character, yielded to the appeal and suspended him, and he is now living with his family in the county of Limerick. The Member for Bury St. Edmunds, I believe, is supposed to be a Member in the Army, and I said a moment ago I am supposed to call him a gallant Member. He would be much more gallant if he went back to France and told the Irish soldiers that his last work before going over was to drive their kith and kin out of their employment, and I am sure they would give him a warm reception, which he deserves. He has made use of his position in Ireland against his own country which had the misfortune to own him. Is the word of the Member for Bury St. Edmunds to be taken against the word of the staff and the heads of the Insurance Commissioners in Ireland, and over the heads of any Department in Ireland? Is in to be the policy of the Government, when an hon. Member from this side of the House holds a pistol to their beads, to

  1775
  yield to him, even although their yielding may inflict a punishment upon an unfortunate man in Ireland? Many sympathise with the Sinn Fein movement in Ireland because they have passed many a weary hour in trying to get to positions they occupied before the rebellion. They saw, day after day, Protestants and Freemasons being appointed over their heads to the positions which Catholics should enjoy. They saw no opportunity for promotion, and the result was that anything was good enough for the Government. With regard to Mr. Sheehan, we are told that a Committee has been appointed to investigate this case, but on behalf of Mr. Sheehan I tell you that he will not appear before the Committee because he has already been vindicated by the head of his Department, to which he has been a loyal and a faithful servant. The Member for Bury St; Edmunds (Major Guinness) asked was Sheehan seen in Sinn Fein uniform, but I assert that for the last eighteen months he has had no connection whatever with that movement. He has been one of the kindest officials on the staff to which he belongs, and it is criminal on the part of any man in this House, whether he belongs to the Navy or the Army, or to a high family in Ireland, to deprive a man of his position. The hon. Member may succeed in driving Sheehan from office, but he will not come before your Committee, and if you do drive him from office the hon. and gallant Member can go back to France and tell the Irish soldiers of whom he may be in charge that his last words previous to leaving the House of Commons were an attempt to drive one of their own kith and kin from a position which he had won by hard work in Ireland, and I am sure the Irish soldiers will give him a warm, generous, and a hearty reception.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension with regard to Mr. Sheehan. He indicated that the Land Commission held an inquiry and satisfied themselves that Sheehan had taken no part in this movement. But that is not so. Sheehan was arrested by the military authorities during the rebellion and afterwards released, and the Land Commissioners assumed that his release was to be taken as a sign that the military thought that he had not taken part in the rebellion. It was thought, however, by the Irish Office that this case, with others, should
  1776
  be investigated by the tribunal which has been appointed. Sheehan has not been, dismissed, but only suspended.
  Mr. LUNDON: You never thought of suspending him until the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds put his question.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The inquiry is going to be held, and meanwhile Sheehan has been; suspended.
  Major GUINNESS: I do not propose to. follow the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Lundon) in his attack upon me. I think after over twenty months of continuous service when I had no opportunity of attending to the Parliamentary work for which I was elected, I am entitled before taking up a new appointment in another theatre of the War, having come back from Egypt, to a short leave, and I do not think under those circumstances it is a crime when on leave to appear in plain clothes. [An HON. MEMBER: "How long will your leave last?"] I am not going into these personal attacks. With respect to these three employés of the Land Commission the hon. Member for Limerick appears to argue that I have made an unfounded attack on a Government employé who is in no way connected with the Sinn Fein movement. I had three names sent to me of clerks who had been reinstated in the Land Commission Office. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who sent them?"] I had them from different sources.
  Mr. NUGENT: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that many military officers were approached in Dublin by clerks asking them to come and arrest particular people?
  Major GUINNESS: It is not a question of their arrest, but whether their cases have been considered by the Special Commissioners who have been appointed by the Government to consider all these cases on their merits. I have no personal grudge against any of these men, but I put those cases forward in reference to the pledge given by the Government that it is intended that members of the Sinn Fein Society shall not be employed in any Government Department, and I asked my question in order to elucidate whether that pledge is being carried out or not. When I was told that these members of the Land Commission staff were not mixed up with Sinn Feiners, I asked a supplementary question whether it was not a fact that this particular man had been seen in the uniform of the Irish Volunteers. If any injustice has been done to this particular

  1777
  man Sheehan, he has his redress by going before the Commission, and it seems to me in every way that he should take advantage of that opportunity. There is no question of these men losing their employment, for they are only suspended, and if they can show that they were not implicated in the rebellion naturally they will be taken back.
  Mr. DILLON: With reference to this case of Sheehan with which I happen to be personally acquainted, I think the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down hardly stated the facts fully or accurately. What happened was this: Mr. Sheehan was not in the rebellion. That has been admitted by the military, and he had nothing to do with the rebellion. He was a high official in the Land Commission. He was arrested in his own house by the military, and after a few days was released. It is a notorious fact that the military in connection with the late insurrection in Ireland arrested many hundreds of people, I should say over a thousand men, who were admitted to be absolutely innocent, and were released because they were innocent and because the military found out that they had made a mistake. The only charge made against Sheehan as far as I know was that he was a member some time ago of the Irish Volunteers, and what has been described as the Sinn Fein Society, although I do not think he was a member of that society. The Irish Volunteers were just as legal a body as the Ulster Volunteers; in fact, if the two were compared it was more legal up to the date when they commenced preparing for the insurrection, and there is not an atom of evidence to show that Mr. Sheehan had any connection with the Volunteers immediately prior to the insurrectionary movement. The fact of having been a member of the Irish Volunteers a year ago is no reproach to any man, and not one atom more reproach than being a member of the Ulster Volunteers.
  What happened? Sheehan went back to his office when he was released by the military, and let the House remember that he was never interned. After his return to his office, and after some inquiry, he was reinstated. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds is prepared to indict the Land Commissioners themselves as being Sinn Feiners or Irish Volunteers. We must assume that being responsible men
  1778
  they made a certain amount of inquiry, and up to that time no provision had been made by the Government for any official inquiry, and it was only yesterday that such provision was made. Therefore, the Land Commissioners, exercising their own discretion, reinstated Sheehan, and he was put back to his work, and they must have been satisfied that he had no connection with this movement. Now the Government never interfered in this matter until some spy in Dublin sends to the hon. and gallant Member a charge against this man who has been reinstated by his own official head along with two other men. Sheehan holds rather an important position in the Land Commission Office. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is his crime!"] Yes, that is his crime. He was a Nationalist, and by some extraordinary luck he managed to get rather high up in his office. His own official heads in Dublin did not think he had any other crime, or they would certainly not have reinstated him; and no question would have arisen respecting Sheehan but for the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds raising the question in this House. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for East Limerick (Mr. Lundon) in this matter, for I do not think it is a very noble thing for an hon. and gallant Member of this House to indulge in hunting down clerks in Dublin on the information of some anonymous spy in that part of the country, infested as it is with spies at this moment. To my own knowledge, hundreds of men were arrested on false information who were perfectly innocent, and one or two men were murdered in pursuance of private quarrels during those awful times.
  8.0 P.M.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Limerick that it was not—to put it mildly—a very high and lofty task for an hon. and gallant Member of this House to poke his fingers into these unhappy transactions in Dublin to exasperate feeling and stir up trouble in this case for the purpose of ousting a clerk from his employment when his official head had satisfied himself that he was innocent, and this man would never have been disturbed but for the interference of the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds. God knows we have trouble enough in Ireland without having it supplemented in this way in this House, and you might leave it to your spies in Dublin and the gang you have let loose there without an hon. and gallant Member of this House stirring up the

  1779
  Hell's broth which you have created. The hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin (Mr. Nugent) brought up the case of the North King Street murders. No less that twenty-four men and women were murdered in that street by the military. I brought up that case two or three months ago, and I asked the Prime Minister to have a full public investigation into it. It is perfectly true, as the Prime Minister stated here in reply to questions, that he never promised a full public investigation; in fact, he refused it. But what he did say was that this question of the North King Street shootings would be thoroughly investigated, and that the Government, and above all the Army, had no interest in concealing anything, but desired that everything should come out. Let me describe first what occurred in North King Street. The troops in North King Street undoubtedly and admittedly were subjected to very great provocation, and that was one of the reasons we let the thing rest for a considerable time. The troops in North King Street, which is a very poor street, had two days' hard fighting to get through, and I fully admit the frightful provocation to troops being sniped at from roofs and windows of houses, especially in these days of smokeless guns, when you cannot see from where the shooting is coming. I make every allowance for that; but I myself have gone through these houses and questioned the people, and I have seen evidence of the most shocking cold-blooded murders, which cannot be justified by any amount of excitement. I would ask hon. Members who are slow to believe this to call to mind the statement of Sir John Maxwell himself. Feeling that the state of opinion in Dublin and in Ireland was so much inflamed in this matter, he had recourse to a proceeding which is very rarely adopted by any military officer, particularly in high command. He sent for the "Daily Mail" correspondent then in Dublin, and he gave to him an interview of these North "King Street murders, or shootings.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. The hon. Member has at least three times accused our troops of committing murder. Is he justified in using that language with regard to His Majesty's troops?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for me to say whether it is justified or not. I cannot
  1780
  stop hon. Members making these charges against the military if they choose to do so.
  Mr. DILLON: I did not. I withdrew. I corrected myself by saying "shootings." I said it because of the coroner's jury who investigated these cases. I admit that it is not fair to make these charges when nothing has been proved. I want a public investigation. I went round these places myself, and I saw in one narrow small backyard the place where three men were buried for two days. Their bodies were afterwards dug up and removed, but they were buried there with the manifest intention of concealing them. I saw another room where a poor boy, as described by the hon. Member for the College Green Division, was shot. I saw the spot where he was shot, and I saw the blood on the floor. I saw his mother, who came in and found him, as she thought, asleep, but when she went to him she discovered that he had two bullets through his chest. He was shot in a small back room. He was put against the wall by the side of the window; no bullet coming through the window could have hit him. This case was investigated by the Prime Minister. He is a most extraordinary man. I saw him the other day, and I found that he still had in mind all these horrible details. He had been in Eustace Street, where a boy was shot, and he had all the details in his mind. He promised me that there would be a full investigation. In reply to several questions lately, he said, "Yes, there has been a full investigation." I asked, "What was the nature of the investigation?" "It was a military investigation." I ask you, and I ask you confidently, Can you expect the people of Dublin to be satisfied with a mere military investigation?
  Here, whether justly or unjustly, are these terrible charges made against the military, and the people of Dublin believe them. Sir John Maxwell, in that interview to which I have alluded, described the dreadful character of the fighting in North King Street and the provocation which the troops received, and explained that civilians who were not interfering in the insurrection were shot owing to the character of the street fighting. All that is quite true. Then he wound up by saying something to this effect: "Under these circumstances, the soldiers saw red." We all know what is meant when a general says that his soldiers saw red. It has only one meaning, and a very terrible

  1781
  meaning. I have no doubt that is what happened. I frankly admit that nothing has been proved, but I have no doubt, from the evidence given before the coroner's jury, from the evidence I myself took when I visited the place with two or three friends, and from what I saw on the spot and gathered by an examination of the witnesses present, that these were very shocking transactions. Two or three months have elapsed and there has been no investigation—none whatever—that can satisfy the public. There has been a private military investigation. I have asked the Prime Minister whether he would publish the evidence and the account of these proceedings. He has said that he would consider the matter, but it has not yet been published. It would be something gained if the proceedings were published, but I am bound to say, and I have told him so privately and publicly, that the public opinion of Dublin will not rest satisfied, and in my opinion it cannot rest satisfied, with a private and secret military investigation into these charges. It is not reasonable that they should be satisfied. There ought to be into the Eustace Street case and several other cases which are well known in Dublin and which have excited the greatest possible passion and indignation a straightforward, impartial and public inquiry. It it be true, as the Prime Minister said, and I accept it, that the military have nothing to conceal, then in my opinion it is all in the interests of the British Army that they should face such an inquiry. I dare say that the result of such an inquiry from my point of view would be that the soldiers under tremendous provocation committed some very horrible deeds in North King Street and in some other cases, and the Government then might see their way to reasonably compensate the relations of those people proved to have been absolutely innocent of any participation in or sympathy with the insurrection but who were killed in cold blood.
  Of course, the inquiry would have to decide whether the people were killed, as hundreds were in Dublin, by stray bullets and by accident; but I am speaking of cases where I am satisfied that they were deliberately taken into rooms—they were not disarmed, because they were not armed and were not in any way concerned with the insurrection—and after being locked up four or five hours were put up against the wall by the soldiers on their return and shot in the rooms. I myself
  1782
  saw a mass of blood where these people had been shot in places where they could not have been hit from the windows. These facts ought to be inquired into. I do not care how strong the tribunal is, I should welcome it. I do most earnestly press this upon the Government and upon the Members of this House. I am rather afraid that we have a very terrible future before us now. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] I am afraid that we have a good deal of trouble before us now, and I think it is the duty of the Government and of this House to do everything they reasonably can to allay ill-feeling, to win public confidence, and to endeavour once more to teach the Irish people that they can look for fair play and honest dealing from this House and from the British Government. I say, and I say it as a citizen of Dublin, who has been through the whole of this misery and knows all the passions that it has aroused, that until you have investigated the North King Street shootings, the Eustace Street case, and the other cases most vehemently in dispute, you will not convince the people of Dublin that they can look for any justice or fair play from the Government of this country or from this House.
  Mr. BYRNE: I will cite a couple of cases in support of those already given by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I will give one case of a man of the name of John McCarthy, who was manager to the Lord Mayor of Dublin. His wife gives an account of what occurred in her house in North King Street. The military entered the house and found four men there. They searched them, but there was nothing found on them, and they told them to go upstairs under escort into another room. The women were ordered out, and told to cross the road and go to another house. They were told by the military, "We may have to keep your husbands, but you can rest assured that they will be all right." The women went, and four hours afterwards one of them wanted to go back, and attempted to do so. She asked permission from the officer in charge, and he gave her permission, but at the door of her own house she met the sergeant who was in charge, and who had ordered her out that morning, and he said, "You cannot come in here." She went back again, and the commanding officer insisted on the woman being allowed to go inside. She went in, and upstairs, in the same room in which she had left them she found the four men, and they were

  1783
  dead. She went out again, and remained with the other women in the other house all night, but she came back to her own home the next morning with her neighbours. This is where the mystery comes in. When she went upstairs into the room the four bodies had gone. The soldiers denied knowing anything about them, but a shopkeeper next door said that he was awakened the previous night by an extraordinary noise in the back-yard, which continued for a couple of hours. They again approached the sergeant in charge, and asked him if they could go into the backyard. He said they could not. The women then went to the commanding officer, and he gave, them permission and brought them back. The neighbours got shovels, and they dug up the bodies of the four men who were shot the previous night. They were put there for the special purpose of hiding them. When they were searched it was found that the watches and chains and any small cash that they had had been taken from them. I ask you as Englishmen, does that case require investigation? For the sake of the rest of the Army, will you not give a public and small inquiry into the case of McCarthy? Every Englishman outside the Cabinet, every British soldier, should welcome a public inquiry into that case. It is up to the Prime Minister to allow such an inquiry into this case. Every word I tell you will be given to you on oath, not by one witness, nor by two, but by a dozen witnesses—by a dozen people who dug up the bodies, and found the pockets empty, and the watches and chains gone. I say that for the sake of the Army, and for the sake of the soldiers, an inquiry should be held. This may only happen in the case of one, two, or three soldiers, but three soldiers may disgrace a regiment if you do not find out the guilty ones, and it is up to the Government to find them in this case.
  I will now refer to a couple of cases in Marlborough Street, which is just at the back of O'Connell Street, and has had the misfortune to be burned down. In Marlborough Street there were seventeen shootings in the street inside of an hour's time; three of them were women, and two were children. Surely women and children were not such a great danger that they had to be fired upon. Who fired on them is another thing. We on these benches hold that no Irishman fired on them, and it is up to you to allow an inquiry to prove who
  1784
  did. I believe sufficient evidence will be given to prove who did fire on them. In the case to which I referred, the case of McCarthy and the other three men, Mrs. McCarthy had a baby a fortnight old in her arms on the day her husband, an unarmed man, was shot, a man in the employment of a well-known supporter of the Government, the Lord Mayor of Dublin, who is a prominent man in Dublin, and is anxious to support the Government in the present War. Are that man's wife and child to be left to the mercy of her friends in the City of Dublin? Do not that man's wife and child deserve some recognition from the Government, a little compensation, a little provision? This woman can swear that nobody ever entered the house in which her husband was found dead except the soldiers. There are so many cases to go on with that I find I should take all the evening to give those of which I know myself personally. I know of two other cases. I chanced, as I was passing through one street, before martial law was declared, and before the people got a warning to keep off the streets, to cross from one side of the road to another, and there was a woman two yards in front of me, and that woman was shot. I took her to hospital. She was fired on and shot from a railway arch in an adjoining .street. Whether the bullet was intended for me or not nobody knows. I do not say that anyone was firing on the woman. It might be for the good of the country or the House of Commons if the bullet had been meant for me. I cannot say. That is one case I have seen myself. The second was one of Newcommen Bridge, in which a breadvan driver was fired at at his own door after he had done his day's work under military escort. He came home, and was fired on from the railway bridge, which was in charge of the military. No civilians were allowed to go near it. I say that for the sake of the Army, for the sake of the well known British justice, you should have a small inquiry into these cases.
  I go on to the treatment of prisoners. Take the treatment of the lady prisoners. You, as the protectors of the small nationalities, the alleged protectors of small nationalities, in what way have you treated Ireland as a nationality? You have treated the treaty you entered into a few weeks go with our leader as a scrap of paper. You have torn it up. After we come back from the country after submitting the proposals to the country,

  1785
  and getting them carried, the Government alter the proposals. Is that fair? You, as the protectors of small nationalities, have detained in prison two ladies, one engaged in Red Cross work, while the other, I have heard, chanced to be the secretary of the Irish Transport Workers' Union in Belfast. Is it fair because she was employed by a union whose leader turned out to have taken a prominent part in the rebellion, to keep that lady in prison? Two of them have been released. You have kept three in gaol. Three are still in Lewes Two said to me, "Mr. Byrne, cannot you get the Government to allow us to go before an English judge and jury, politically opposed to everything we have ever stood for. We are willing to take our trial." The Government say, "They have taken their trial. They have gone before the Advisory Committee." They have been deprived of legal assistance. The commonest criminal in the land would be allowed such assistance, but these two Irish ladies, who are prepared to take their trial, are to stay in Lewes Gaol until the War is over. I ask, Is that British justice? Do you expect to make the people in Ireland more loyal by keeping their friends in gaol? You take Arthur Griffiths, the well-known writer in Ireland, you take P. T. Daly, a well-known labour leader, one of the principal labour leaders in Ireland, you take William O'Brien, president of the Dublin Trades Council; you take all these men because they have been known to take some part on behalf of the down trodden workers of the country, and the Government say, "They are safer in gaol," and they put them there. They will not allow them to be tried, and they will not allow Members of this House to visit them. Why? What is the great secret1? Why this great secrecy? Are the Government afraid to face the issue, and to give justice to our Irish people? I say you should give them justice by treating them fairly, honestly, and above board, and not haphazard because some constable, some police officer, who has evidently had a grudge against them in the past, gives evidence against them now, and says, "They are dangerous, keep them in gaol." The Government does that. Do you expect to win them over by that means? Would anyone of you wish to have a continuance of hostilities in Ireland at the present time? Take the prisoners. You arrested 3,000 three months ago. I am not quite sure of
  1786
  the numbers, and the Home Secretary will excuse my saying 3,000. I think it was something between 2,800 and 3,000, and after three months there are 750 of them released,
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. There were 1,200 released by the military in a few days. There were only 1,800 detained.
  Mr. BYRNE: I refer to the Advisory Committee. They have recommended the release of 750.
  Mr. SAMUEL: More than that.
  Mr. BYRNE: Are these men to remain in gaol; because these people claim that they are innocent men?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The number of recommendations is very much larger than that now.
  Mr. BYRNE: What I was referring to was the answer given in the House yesterday that there were 750 released, and two women. Those are the figures I quote, the Home Office figures, and I cannot do more than that. Each one that remains in, and let us say there are 1,000 prisoners, has two friends. Each family has two or three sympathisers, people who sympathise with them because there is some son or brother being detained in gaol. That means that you have 6,000 or 8,000 people against the Government. Mind you, the people of Ireland have not been pro-German. The Sinn Feiners are not pro-German. They are anti-Government men. The way the Government have treated their country for the past six years is what has brought the Sinn Feiners against it. They do not want any German master over them any more than they want an English master. They believe in Ireland for the Irish, nothing more and nothing less; and I say that the sooner you release the prisoners the better, if you want any settlement of the Irish question, because that would be a stepping-stone to a settlement. I might also refer to dismissals in Government Departments. I know of five cases in which men have been arrested, the charge made against them being hostile association. That is just because they chanced to know men who took part in or wrote something about the rebellion in Ireland. The Advisory Committee in one case found the man not guilty and discharged him, but when he went back to Ireland he

  1787
  found that the Government Department in which he had been employed had received orders not to allow him to return. The case is that of Mr. Patrick Sheehan, of the Irish Land Commission. He was allowed to go back. His case was investigated. He was allowed to return to his work, but on the Tuesday morning, the very day when a question was asked by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Major W. Guinness), this man, who had been reinstated after a second inquiry, was dismissed from his employment.
  Mr. SAMUEL: No.
  Mr. BYRNE: To please one Member hostile to everything that is Irish.
  Mr. SAMUEL: That is not so.
  Mr. BYRNE: The fact remains. It may be a coincidence.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I say he was not dismissed.
  Mr. BYRNE: Well, he was suspended.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Hear, hear!
  Mr. BYRNE: He was allowed to return to work, and on the day the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked the question he was told to get outside the door. Is that honest; is it fair play to the Irish that because a Member on the Opposition Benches asks a question the Government is to pander to him and dismiss from employment an Irishman who had been found not guilty by two public Boards—by a Board set up over in Ireland and the Advisory Committee?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Sheehan was never before the Advisory Committee.
  Mr. BYRNE: He was discharged from Wandsworth. I may have made a mistake in the name. At any rate that happened to one of these men. There were three of them. This man was dismissed or suspended the very day a Member of the Opposition asked a question of the Government. That is not the right attitude for the Government to take up. Because a Member hostile to the Irish cause puts down a question directed against some Irishman in a decent position, is it fair that the Government should dismiss or suspend him after his case has been inquired into? You must make up your minds to remove all these grievances and to give Irishmen a fair,
  1788
  honest trial. They want no concessions. We only want fair play; nothing more and nothing less. If you treat them fairly, honestly, and above board, then you will find that the Irishmen will be as loyal as any Englishmen in this House but until then you cannot expect it. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to take note of the cases of dismissals and of the requests I have made for the payment of compensation to the victims of the shooting, and last, but not least, for the sake of the Army, to hold a public and sworn inquiry into the shootings.
  Mr. FIELD: I will not go over the cases alluded to by other hon. Members. I have been in communication with the Home Secretary and have forwarded to him papers and statements from solicitors respecting certain inquiries about some of these cases. The right hon. Gentleman will, I think, admit that I wrote to him in a most temperate fashion. So far as I can understand, there seems to be no disposition whatever on the part of the Government to allow an inquiry in those cases where the solicitors are prepared to bring affidavits and absolute proof of the circumstances connected with the shootings. Notwithstanding the chaos and the peculiar atmosphere that surrounds Dublin after the insurrection, if the Government took a different view of things it would really be for their benefit as well as ours, because there is an immense amount of dissatisfaction being engendered in the minds not only of the men who have been arrested, but also of their relatives and dependants. I know what I am talking about, because immediately after the arrest of these men I visited Richmond Barracks on five different occasions and interviewed the majority of these prisoners. I am bound to say that the soldiers and officers were exceedingly courteous. They showed me through the barracks, and gave me every facility. That, however, did not make much difference to the prisoners, who have been in confinement ever since. If we want a measure of the mistakes made by the Government, it is to be found in the fact that an enormous number of people have been arrested, against whom no kind of proof can be adduced that they had anything to do with this insurrection. I agree with what has been said by a previous speaker, that certain people, particularly the constabulary, if they have a grudge against any man in

  1789
  the country, utilise the position of things in order to gratify what they conceive to be an opportunity to get these men into trouble.
  I will not mention anything to the House which I do not know personally. I know a case in the County of Dublin where there was a dispute about town tenants. A certain number of men were involved in that dispute. It seems an extraordinary coincidence that the fourteen men involved in that town tenants' dispute in the County of Dublin were arrested for being concerned in the insurrection—men who had no more to do with the insurrection than I or any hon. Member on the opposite side of the House had. But the opportunity was seized by the constabulary to arrest this man. I will put it to the Home Secretary: Does he want Ireland to remain quiet or to remain loyal? Does he wish the Irish Members to go and represent the British Parliament in Ireland as consisting of a number of men who are willing to do justice to our country? There can be no question at all about it, and I will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, as an impartial, sensible man, whether he is going this way about ingratiating public opinion with regard to the insurrection? After all, we are supposed to be the defenders of liberty. We are supposed to represent democratic ideas. We are supposed to take up the cause of liberty practically in every country in the world except Ireland. What is the history of things to-day in Ireland? The mistakes made by the Government in the treatment of this insurrection have not alone made our task as Irish Members more difficult, but it has also put them in a difficult position. We are told this is a Coalition Government. Nominally it is; but practically it is a Tory coercion Government, and apparently the members of the Front Bench have not sufficient courage to evince their Liberalism in connection with the government of Ireland. In connection with these cases, particulars of which have been gone into by my colleague from Dublin, and some of which I have sent on to the Home Secretary, there is one case I should like to mention particularly, and that is the case of Malachi Brennan. I knew that man personally to be one of the quietest and most harmless men in Ireland. I had business with him. That man was shot. So far as I can learn, there were no Sinn
  1790
  Feiners about at all where he was shot. That is a case which wants some sort of inquiry.
  There is one other matter I wish to allude to, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give it some attention. I think it is a despicably mean idea that men who have been falsely arrested in connection with this insurrection, and who have been in Government positions, are to be sacrificed by being suspended or losing their positions. Surely when a man has been tried before a tribunal which dismisses his case, that man ought to be reinstated if the Government desires to have the loyal co-operation of their staff in the various positions in Ireland, and all these men who have been arrested in connection with this insurrection and who have been found innocent ought to be restored to their positions. They ought not to be suspended. They ought not to be made to suffer for a crime of which they were not guilty. These men were all arrested on suspicion, and not on proof. The system of lettres de cachet has practically been brought into operation. And this is the great British Government, the Mother of Parliaments, the big voice of the democratic communities of the world, which, in connection with an insurrection of this kind, has abandoned all its principles and becomes an aristocratic oligarchy which condemns everyone who desires to have the liberty of differing from, them with regard to their system of government. I want it to be understood that I am not preaching any pro-German-ideas, because I am as much opposed to Germans as any man in this House. But if you want to get assistance and recruits from the Irish nation, and you want the loyal co-operation of the Irish people, you must give us justice and fair play. We do not want any more, and we will not be satisfied with anything less.
  Mr. HAZLETON: I am very glad that, the ruling of Mr. Speaker to-day has enabled us to discuss this question of the proceedings of the military in Ireland. There are one or two matters which it will not be possible to bring forward in the discussion on Monday, and I should therefore like to refer to some of them now. I want to ask the Home Secretary who is responsible for the date of the publication of Sir John Maxwell's dispatches, because I want to find out, and I want the House to know, whether the date of the publication of these important documents was a

  1791
  mere coincidence or was evidence of malice on the part of some officials in the War Office or of some members of the Government. Let the House bear in mind the dates. The rebellion in Ireland took place on 24th April. Sir John Maxwell's dispatches are dated 25th May, exactly a month later. But not only in connection with the first, but also the second month until last week, since the rebellion, all parties were engaged not in considering the details of this rebellion but a proposed settlement in Ireland. It was last week that the settlement reached its most critical stage, when the Government had evidently made up its mind that it could not carry out the agreement arrived at by all Irish parties with the present Minister for War. I was at that very moment, when the Government had decided that it could not or would not carry out the agreement, that they produced this document of Sir John Maxwell to the British public. I want to ask the Home Secretary who was responsible for that, because we have very grave grounds indeed to complain of more than one reference of Sir John Maxwell in this dispatch. The House of Commons on several previous occasions during the past three months, and again to-day, has had to consider and discuss cases, such as have been brought up by some of my hon. Friends, of unfortunate shootings by the military, and other hon. Members have made references to shootings by the rebels. I think everyone will recognise—and I am sure I speak for all my colleagues—when I say that on both sides whatever was wrong in these events we sincerely and deeply deplore. I recognise that it is impossible to go through a rebellion without unfortunate incidents happening, and it is idle to deny that just as there were the cases of Mr. Sheehy Skeffington, Mr. Dixon, and Mr. McIntyre, in connection with which a court-martial in Dublin found a British officer guilty of murder, and just as there were these other cases which have been mentioned by hon. Members for Dublin and by the hon. Member for East Mayo, so also it is not denied that on the other side there may have been a few cases which are equally to be deplored. We have not sought to make out from these benches—and I do not think that anyone in Ireland has sought to make out—a case and to found upon that case a charge against the great body of military who were engaged in suppressing the rebellion in Dublin. No such charge has ever been
  1792
  made by us, and I do say that in return, when the facts are what we know them to be, the least we can expect from the Government, and from the military authorities who have been through this business, is that they should not make false and unfounded charges of a similar nature upon the other side. Let me refer to the dispatch of Sir John Maxwell. In the course of this document he says:
  "Once this rebellion started, the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, an unarmed uniformed force, had to be withdrawn, or they would have been mercilessly shot down, as, indeed, were all those who had the bad luck to meet the rebels."
  I say that that charge in Sir John Maxwell's Report will not stand the test of examination for one moment. The facts—let the Government put the worst construction they can upon them—clearly show that, except for one policeman at the Castle Yard and one policeman in Stephen's Green, there was not one single member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police force injured from the start to the finish of the rebellion, although that force consists of about 1,500 men, in the City of Dublin who were on duty on Easter Monday and fell into the hands of the rebels—not in tens, but in scores. Is it just, fair, or reasonable under these circumstances for the man who is at the head of the Government in Ireland as well as at the head of the military authorities, and who is the dictator of Ireland at the present moment, to publish a document of this kind, besmirching these men, when there is not the smallest shadow of foundation for the charge. I come back again to the point at which I started, and I want the Home Secretary to tell us who is responsible for the extraordinary moment at which this document was produced, in order to influence the minds of the English people and public opinion in Great Britain, when the Government had just decided that they were not going to carry out the Irish settlement? It makes us gravely suspicious, and I maintain that this matter cannot be allowed to rest where it is at this moment. We will have to bring Sir John Maxwell, who is the writer of this despatch, and the military authorities to account for these false charges, which can be proved to be false, and which ought never to have been made by anybody in a responsible position. There is one other charge in the despatch of Sir John Maxwell to which I should like to refer. He says:
  "Numerous cases of unarmed persons"
  He leaves the police now, and I can assure the House, as a matter of fact, that only

  1793
  the policemen I have referred to were injured during the rebellion, certainly they were the only two killed—
  "killed by rebels during the outbreak have been reported to me. As instances I may select the following for your information."
  Four instances follow, two being the cases of the policemen already mentioned, although this is half a column further down in the despatch, and the other cases are a medical captain and a friend, who were shot in a motor car on their way into the city. These, he says, were unarmed. Surely, in a grave matter of this kind, if a widespread charge is to be made by a man in Sir John Maxwell's position, we are entitled to further information than the mere phrase in his despatch "numerous instances," followed by four instances, two of which he has already given in a previous stage of his despatch. We have grave reason in Ireland to complain of Sir John Maxwell's administration of martial law. Can the Irish people, enduring what they believe to be a deliberate attempt upon his part to inflame English opinion by false statements with regard to what happened during the rebellion in Dublin, be expected to regard very favourably the continuance of his administration in that country? Can they look with respect upon the man who makes these assertions without any real foundation, and tries to lead the people of this country to the belief that these charges represent the general condition of things during that unhappy week in the capital of Ireland? Sir John Maxwell aroused horror amongst the people of Ireland by his executions, and he has aroused contempt and indignation by his report.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: I want to say a few words on this subject because I have sat for several hours listening to speeches full of most serious statements, made on the responsibility of Members of this House in regard to facts which occurred during the rebellion in Ireland.
  Mr. FIELD: Give us a chance and we will prove them.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: All the recent speeches have differed very materially from the first one that was delivered. Anyone who heard the attack upon the Home Secretary by the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) must have felt impressed with the view that it was more an attempt to besmirch the character of the Home Secretary than to prove a
  1794
  case. The recent speeches, however, have consisted of statements of facts within the knowledge of the men who have made them, and they are very serious statements. They are of so very vital a character, affecting the character of English administration in Ireland, affecting the character of the military, and affecting our position as a great nation governing a small nation, that I sincerely hope the Home Secretary in his reply will be able to promise us that some kind of judicial investigation will take place in every case where the assertion is made on the responsibility of a Member of this House. It seems to me that if one-half or one-quarter of the statements are true—I mean the cases of shooting at sight—even though they may have been due to the excitement of the moment, and to the unbalanced minds of the soldiers engaged in the suppression of the rebellion; whatever the cause may be, the refusal of a judicial investigation, publicly held, where the evidence can be brought forward and where the assertions can be either disproved or proved, will justify in the minds of the people of Ireland the suspicion, which they already possess, that we are not earnest in our desire to bring justice to these people. Many of us on this side of the House have been for years past working for the establishment in Ireland of a system of government which would be just to the people of Ireland, and which would place the responsibility for its administration upon their own shoulders. It had been brought to the verge of success. This rebellion came, and what has followed from it seems almost to have destroyed the chance of bringing about that result. If we allow these suspicions to remain in the minds of the people of Ireland, if we do not yield to the claim that has been put forward that these cases shall be investigated, and shall be made public, if we refuse to justify our action before the people of the world, then I shall not be surprised if rebellion rises again, and I am not quite sure that I should be inclined to condemn greatly those who are guilty of it. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to assure us that these specific cases will receive the most public investigation, so that the mind of the public can be informed as to the actual facts, and if the statements made are false they can be disproved, while if they are true the persons guilty of these acts which have been described should at least be brought to justice.
  9.0 P.M.
  Mr. REDDY: I wish to draw the attention of the House to an agrarian dispute near my district, and to an answer which was given by the Home Secretary in reply to a question which I put to him about the arrest of a man called John Nathan. It took ten days to get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, and it was totally contrary to the fact. On the 18th of this month he said that he had had inquiries made, and he learned that this man was arrested on 13th July and taken to Kilmainham Gaol, because he obstructed the military authority in the execution of their duty, and he said that the competent military authority, after a consideration of the whole circumstances, decided that the case need not be proceeded with, and the man was accordingly released. I deny totally this version. He was not arrested in connection with cattle-driving. He comes from the landlord class; he is not a plan of campaigner; he has never attended a meeting. His whole fault was this, that he was in his father-in-law's house, and during the reign of terror in that district, which was occupied by 500 police and 1,000 soldiers, Nathan left the yard of his father-in-law with his horse and cart, without asking the leave of a Pasha called Colonel Oates. Oates asked, "Why did you not ask leave?" He said, "Why should I not go home?" He was placed under arrest and refused to go. Oates told the soldiers to put the steel in his back, but he would not move. I ask the right hon. Gentleman—would that be attempted in any part of England? Take, for instance, the dockers' strike, with the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. O'Grady) in charge of it. If a man was watching a blackleg and was told to move on by a soldier or an officer, would the officer tell them to put the steel in his back? Why should that be done in Ireland? Then I may ask, why do the military authorities authorise the billeting of soldiers in all the public houses in this neighbourhood? The district where the dispute is taking place is two miles away, in the county Roscommon, near Ballinasloe. They have nothing to do with that dispute; and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could tell me why Assistant Inspector General Tyacke took up his headquarters in the house of a landlord named Potts, of Garrycastle? Potts is under police protection; what brought that man to that house? Why did they allow the police to spread
  1796
  broadcast in the county that this was a Sinn Fein rising when it was only a small agrarian struggle? I would ask some of the Labour Members to recall the dispute of the Welsh quarrymen with Lord Penrhyn. Would any inspector of police, or any officer, or even General Maxwell, take up his quarters in Lord Penrhyn's place? Such a thing would not be allowed in this country. Why should it be allowed in Ireland? During the Sinn Fein rising the men in all the little police stations were concentrated in the villages, so as to form one body and be able to offer some opposition to the supposed invasion of Sinn Feiners. In my own neighbourhood police were brought six miles from Ballinasloe and the vicinity of Ballinasloe, just half a mile from the barracks. Why should the action of Tyacke and all the restrictions imposed by him be invoked to suppress the public feeling of the men of this district? They will never be able to do it.
  Mr. FIELD: Is not Potts of military age? Why is he not at the front?
  Mr. REDDY: He is of military age; he is one of the largest landowners in Con-naught; he is ex-High Sheriff and proclaimed King George as King of Great Britain and Ireland in the province of Connaught. He has never attended a recruiting meeting; he employs twenty emergency men and never sent one of them to the front, but that did not make any odds, because I am told that you could make a feather bed from all the white feathers which have been sent to him as a slacker. This man is a landlord and did not sell any land to his tenants, while all the others were doing so. I suppose that this House is becoming again a Hotel Cecil to be used as a garrison for the Cecils against the people. You talk about upholding small nationalities and giving liberty to the whole world. Where is the liberty that we have? You talk of the rebellion of 2,000 men in Dublin—madmen—and half the city of Dublin was levelled in putting them down, and then hundreds were shot in backyards! Why, if this happened in Portugal or Spain, or any European country, you would talk about it; but here is the home of liberty and freedom, and it is allowed! I am disappointed that not one of the Labour Members has ever stood up in the House to protest against these things. They are democrats and supposed to be freeborn

  1797
  men, but they say nothing, and we are to be driven here and driven there. All I say is this, that if no satisfaction is given in these cases you will have a hard and difficult time and a long road to go.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: I wish to bring to the notice of the right hon Gentleman certain extravagant expenditure of money in one of the Departments of the War Office. Some months ago the War Office re-established at the Curragh Camp a system which had previously been in existence with regard to the acquisition of remounts for the Army. At the instance of the War Office, Colonel Wood, who I believe is head of the Remount Department in Ireland, visited the Curragh Camp and intimated to those who had horses suitable for Army remount purposes, either in Kildare or in the neighbourhood within twenty-five miles of the Curragh, that he and his assistant would attend on certain days at the Curragh to inspect those horses, and see whether they were fit for Army remounts—most of them, I should say, being officers' remounts. I have been asked by my Unionist friends in Kildare who showed horses on that occasion to bring this matter forward. I do not think there was one who might be called a political supporter of mine. They desired me to bring up in this House the futility of the system that has been going on in Ireland. A gentleman who lives in my immediate neighbourhood was one of those who on that occasion showed two horses for the inspection of Colonel Wood, and both, among many others, were rejected. He asked Colonel Wood would he be good enough to tell him why his horses were rejected—were they not fit for Army remounts? There was, he said, no question whatever about the price, for those who showed horses were willing to take whatever prices Colonel Wood said the horses might be worth. Colonel Wood said that gave him no satisfaction, that his business was on the part of the War Office, and that he was not there to listen to their proposals. Colonel Wood may be an excellent judge of horses—I do not know whether he is or not—but I know that some of my Unionist friends in the county of Kildare, the premier hunting county of Ireland, who live near my home in Queen's County, showed horses, and I am perfectly satisfied that neither Colonel Wood nor any other man can produce on this side of the water as good judges of half-bred horses as are my friends.
  1798
  In reply to questions put by me in this House, the first answer I received was that this matter had been referred to the Remount Department in Ireland. Subsequently I got a further reply from the War Office, enclosing Colonel Wood's report, why the horses were rejected. The report said that they were rejected on account of want of action, and that they were horses of no stamina. That was the official report of Colonel Wood. What has happened? A certain gentleman who is in the horse trade in Ireland, I suppose the best known man in the trade in Ireland, and who is well known in racing circles in Ireland as well as in this country—I do not care to mention his name because other people in the same trade might say I wanted to boom him in this House, though I think everybody knows him pretty well; at least, those connected with the War Office know very well to whom I am alluding—a certain gentleman came to a neighbour of mine to buy some horses and he happened to see those two horses that Colonel Wood had rejected. He said, "I can only give you a certain price for them, because I can only get a certain price from the War Office for officers' remounts. I cannot give you more than £60 each for these two horses." Their prewar price was something between £150 and £200. The two horses were sold for £60 each to this well-known horse dealer, this man well known in racing circles, both in Ireland and England. He said to the sellers that he could not give them more than £60, as he had to get a bit for himself from the War Office for his trouble, and the price paid by the War Office for officers' remounts was £70 each. How can you conduct the War Office on anything like economical principles if you allow things like this to go on in one small Department of it? How will this encourage those farmers in the county of Kildare who are willing to let the War Office have these horses at any price fixed by Colonel Wood, who rejected everyone of them. We all know why that was done. There was not one of these large farmers or landlords who had not in his stable at that time three or four horses fit for the particular job for which they were intended. I know that if I had got only four horses to sell to anybody it would not be worth my while to put my hand deep down into my pocket for the purpose of selling. What happened? Three days after these horses were rejected Colonel Wood went to a

  1799
  place seventeen miles from the Curragh and visited some stables where there were thirty horses of the same class ready for Colonel Wood's inspection. He took the whole thirty. I say there is nobody in Ireland who does not know the reason—
  Mr. FLAVIN: Airgead sios.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: Honey dough—my hon. Friend anticipates me, and perhaps you do not know that it means "money down." My Unionist friends in county Kildare had nearly every one of them shown horses on the occasion to which I referred. Some of them were well-known Unionist landlords, and two or three of them, who were military men, in their day had done their part wherever the British Empire required a soldier of courage and ability. I told them of the purchase Colonel Wood had made of thirty horses. They were terribly incensed. They said, "We brought our horses here, not for the purpose of extracting big prices for them, or anything of that kind; we came here because we thought it our duty to bring the class of animal which it is absolutely essential that the War Office should have at this particular time of crisis. We came here and we told him we were prepared to take whatever price he fixed without a murmur, because we believed that at this time everybody has to make sacrifices." At one place thirty-five horses were shown and only one horse was bought at something like £35, and that was the only weed amongst the whole lot. I have mentioned this question at the special request of my Unionist friends, who want to see you win the War just as much as I want to see you win it, and I want to see you win it just as much as they do. They were so disgusted that they said, "Is it any wonder that the War should cost £5,000,000 per day when this kind of thing goes on, and when they pay from 30 per cent, to 60 per cent, more than would be paid if a really businesslike system were adopted?" My hon. Friend above the Gangway knows a good deal about it, and I am sure he has heard what has occurred, because everybody in Ireland has heard it, and the thing is notorious. What I say is an absolute fact. I think I have said sufficient to show that these matters ought to be looked into. I wish to make it clear that anything I say is not meant as an attack on the Home Secretary, who is responsible for Irish
  1800
  affairs at present, and I dissociate myself entirely from any personal attack made on the right hon. Gentleman. I know he is not the official in whose Department this matter rests, but, in the interests of efficiency and economy, I would ask him to secure that people in Ireland, of all classes and all political parties, will not be so disgusted by what is going on, and that he will bring the whole matter to the serious notice of the War Office.
  Mr. BOLAND: I wish to call attention to another Department of Irish Government. I brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a short time ago the latest action of the Intermediate Education Board—one of those irresponsible Boards—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that does not arise here. This Vote is concerned with military and not with education affairs.
  Mr. P. MEEHAN: I wish to endorse everything that my hon. Friend (Mr. Kilbride) has said wth regard to the buying of horses. I know that at the beginning of the War horses were bought in various parts of Ireland at prices far beyond their value. I think, considering the great burden England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales have to bear, that steps should be taken to secure that in future money will not be extravagantly expended in this matter. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in county Waterford horses were bought by Government buyers at from £50 to £60 each, and subsequently, when rejected by the veterinary authorities of the Army as unsound, were sold in the City of Waterford by public auction and bought back by the men who received the £50 or £60 for £3 or £4 Why was this? It was because there was a number of people in Ireland who had nothing to do—ne'er-do-wells, scions of the ascendancy class—and when the War occurred the opportunity arose to put them in positions, and they were sent to buy horses. I am only taking the county Waterford, because I know the figures with reference to that county, and that is what has happened. Then there is the question of the buying of hay for Army purposes. Last year in Ireland the supply of hay was commandeered, and limitations were put upon the price which impeded the merchants in the course of business and were absolutely uncalled for. The percentage of hay which the Government bought last year in Ireland was 10 per cent, of the

  1801
  whole crop. This year they have commandeered the whole crop. They have refused to allow small farmers to sell their hay in the usual manner in the public markets. Last week in my own town—Maryborough—loads of hay which were being brought in for the purpose of trade were sent back, and the small farmers who were bringing it in were not allowed to sell it. At this time of the year there is no other productive crop for which they can get money, and they had to go back and put the hay in their haggards. The Government will not buy hay in Ireland except in rick, and you cannot expect the small holder—and there are many in my Constituency, and in very Irish constituency, with holdings of three or four acres, of which probably only an acre grows hay—to put his one or two cocks in a rick. Having regard to the fact that this year there is no indication that the Government will require a higher percentage than the 10 per cent, of last year, why are those restrictions put on the open selling of hay in the public market?
  Mr. HAZLETON: Where is the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture?
  Mr. KILBRIDE: He is defending the Catholics of Ulster.
  Mr. MEEHAN: Cow hay is not required for military purposes. Men who probably depend on the elements whether they can save their crop or not, when they bring it into the market are told to take it back home. By whom? By a non-commissioned officer who does not know hay from straw. This is really an important matter, because it means that the ordinary market for hay in Ireland is locked up owing to these unnecessary restrictions. It is monstrous that the agricultural resources of a country should be dealt with in this way, especially when we have to pay for this War. We are paying without grumbling, and we will not grumble, but we expect to have fair play. Every man in Ireland is willing to give the Government any hay it wants at a fair price, but we object strongly to these restrictions, which simply prevent the ordinary market from obtaining the supplies that are wanted. Last year hay was commandeered by the Government. It was left in the fields and some of it is there yet. The people waited until the end of October expecting their money. That is
  1802
  bad business, and any Government that does its business in that manner is not worthy of the confidence of the country.
  I strongly appeal to the Home Secretary to use his influence in the matter. At present, owing to events in Ireland, unfortunately we have no responsible Minister in the House. My right hon. Friend has various duties to perform in connection with the Home Office, and we all admit that so far as he is concerned he has been most courteous and obliging. At the same time we have a Minister in Ireland responsible for agricultural matters, but since the recent rising he has not been here. We should be very glad to see him for the purpose of dealing with matters like this, with which I admit the Home Secretary is really not in a position to deal. Moreover, there are various other little points that we would like to put before him. In Queen's County last year the man who bought hay came from county Clare. Everybody with any knowledge of Irish agriculture knows that the hay in county Clare varies in quality from that in Queen's County. This man was sent there and gave universal dissatisfaction, as is usual in such cases. He was a very nice chap to meet; I discussed the question with him on several occasions, but he was simply tied up by his orders. In conclusion, I would ask the Home Secretary to do what he can in regard to these hay restrictions, because that is really a general grievance, and I hope that as a result of our protest those restrictions will be removed.
  Mr. SAMUEL: As I have almost my day's work at the Home Office still to do to-night, perhaps hon. Members will allow me to reply now. I can only do so by permission of the House, as I have already spoken incidentally in the Debate. The last three Members who have addressed the House have spoken with a knowledge of places and persons in Ireland, and, I may add, of horses and hay, with which I cannot for a moment compete
  Mr. LUNDON: You know about it as T. W. Russell.
  Mr. SAMUEL: At the present time I am called upon to administer two offices of State, not at my own desire, either of which is a sufficient task for one individual, but I am thankful to think that among the great variety of topics with which day by day I am called upon to

  1803
  deal the purchase of horses and the purchase of hay in Ireland are not included. Therefore I can only promise to draw the attention of the War Office to the matters with which hon. Members have dealt. The statements they have made have been so full and explicit that I have no doubt the War Office will be able to take them into full and immediate consideration. Other hon. Members have dealt with certain incidents connected with the insurrection in Dublin. Naturally and inevitably those incidents must have aroused deep feeling. Things happened which all of us must profoundly deplore, and I think it should be the desire of everyone now, so far as we can, each within his own sphere, to allay the inevitable bitterness created at that time. The hon. Member for North Galway frankly said that these incidents were not on one side only. When we remember the hardships, the suffering, the loss, and the agony of mind from which great numbers of people have suffered owing to that rebellion, let us not forget that there were hundreds of gallant young soldiers killed and wounded. Let us not forget also the wives and children of the officers and men who fell in this conflict.
  Let us think of the misery of the fathers and mothers of those young men whom they sent expecting to run risks in a great fight, in a great cause for high national ideals, but whom they subsequently learnt had fallen in an internecine conflict here at home which no one had anticipated and everyone deplores. For days those who raised the standard of rebellion occupied the centre of Dublin. There was much promiscuous shooting on the one side and on the other. The streets were full of flying bullets. Artillery had to be used at the end of the streets in large areas. What I have always regarded as parts of the most beautiful city are devastated and in ruins. Elsewhere outside Dublin there were minor disturbances, some of which, however, resulted in considerable loss of life. After all, let the House remember this is not to be regarded as a pardonable eccentricity on the part of well-meaning enthusiasts. If we view the matter with impartial minds we must regard the action of these rebels as a great crime against society, and an outrage upon the people of the city of Dublin itself.
  These were the circumstances with which the Government was confronted. These were the conditions with which General
  1804
  Maxwell, a very distinguished soldier of long, most honourable, and efficient service, was called upon to deal. I know well that the task that he had to undertake at the call of duty was to him a distasteful one. For anyone to be the agent of repression must necessarily be in the highest degree distasteful. I think the thanks of the Government and of this House are due to General Maxwell for undertaking this most difficult duty. It is true, no doubt, that in the circumstances of this insurrection a certain number of innocent people lost their lives or suffered from injuries. Perhaps the most lamentable of all the incidents that took place was the shooting of Mr. Sheehy Skeffington and his two companions. The incident is one which must fill with horror anyone who is acquainted with its details. The House is well aware that the officer on whom the responsibility for that matter is laid was found by the Court to be insane and is now confined in Broadmoor.
  An HON. MEMBER: Rather late!
  Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think that anyone can allege with any shadow of justification that there was, on the part of the officers and soldiers of His Majesty's Forces, any bloodthirsty desire to kill innocent persons for the sake of killing. Unhappily, women and children got hurt in the conflict. I am sure, however, that every Member of the House will, in justice to our soldiery, say that these incidents must have been sheer accidents.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Did not General Maxwell charge it on the other side?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I think the House, in imagination, will consider what the circumstances were in Dublin during those days when the bullets were hurtling clown many of the streets, and fierce fighting was proceeding—day after day in several quarters of the city. It would be inevitable that a certain number of the innocent population must suffer.
  Mr. CULLINAN: May I ask why it was that the commanding officer of this gentleman who has been described as a lunatic did not report the matter to his superiors and have him placed under arrest?
  Mr. SAMUEL: As the hon. Member knows, there is going to be a further inquiry into the question of responsibility.
  Mr. MEEHAN: May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman—
  HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!
  Mr. SAMUEL: With respect to the inquiry to be held, in which the whole incident will be reviewed, the Prime Minister has already pointed out to the House on more than one occasion that our machinery of inquiry makes no provision for evidence to be taken on oath unless someone is put upon his trial. There is no procedure other than procedure established by special Act of Parliament which would enable an inquiry to be held that would thoroughly sift the evidence, and by means of witnesses summoned before the Court, have their evidence taken upon oath, with the penalties for perjury for false witness. Furthermore, incidents such as I have recalled to the House show that the difficulty of obtaining reliable evidence is almost insuperable. The inquiries that have already been held by the military authorities show the very great difficulty of sifting the information that has been secured. The evidence in many of these incidents is worth nothing at all. In fact, there are a very considerable number of cases in which one knows before hand for that reason that the inquiry is almost certain to be abortive. Therefore the Prime Minister has explained to the House that as at present advised he does not recommend the holding of an inquiry such as has been suggested, and for the two reasons I have named.
  Mr. MORRELL: Apart from the Skeffington case, of course.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Oh, yes.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Does that apply to North King Street?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir. The Prime Minister has stated on many occasions the measures taken with regard to those taken in arms or suspected of rebellion. At the height of the struggle the military swept into their custody a considerable number of persons whom they afterwards found had not really taken part in the rebellion. Hon. Members will imagine that when some portion of the city, after hard fighting, was occupied by the troops with the persons within that area, it was known that many within it had been actively engaged in firing, and that it was difficult to distinguish amongst large numbers of the population which took part in the shooting and which did not. Many of these wore no uniform, and nothing is simpler than to throw away a rifle and emerge from a house apparently as an innocent member of the public. Necessarily the
  1806
  military had to arrest a considerable number of persons on suspicion pending investigation to see whether or not they really had to be kept for court-martial. Altogether 3,000 persons were arrested. After examination by the military, who had legal assistance, 1,200 were released. There were arrested eighty-two women. Naturally the military authorities and the civil authorities would be very unwilling to detain in custody any considerable number of women unless the evidence was very strong. Undoubtedly there were some women actively engaged in military operations. Of the eighty-two it was found within a very brief period possible to release no fewer than seventy seven; only five of the eighty-two were interned. One or two of the others were required to leave Ireland and reside, though at liberty, in England. I think there were two in that category—and I speak from memory—out of the 1,800 we still retain in custody. These we have the choice either of putting upon their trial by court-martial or of dealing with them under the Defence of the Realm Regulations 14 B. It was felt, as I have said and for reasons I quite frankly gave to the House, that it was not expedient or desirable to continue longer than necessary the régime of courts-martial. We did not want to keep courts-martial sitting perhaps weeks certainly, and probably for months, to try this very large body of prisoners. On the other hand, it was felt that to discharge to their homes all these 1,800 people, very many of whom had been really taken in arms or had surrendered at the Post Office, or St. Stephen's Green, or at Jacob's factory, or the other places which had been the centres of rebellion, would really be an indefensible procedure, and would be condemned by public opinion at large, and not only in England.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that not 20 per cent, were taken in arms or with uniform?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am not prepared to say that it was only 20 per cent. It is generally agreed that between 2,000 and 3,000 were in arms in Dublin. It is true they were not all arrested.
  Mr. HAZLETON: How many rifles were there?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say how many rifles.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Only 1,200.
  Mr. SAMUEL: The military authorities recommended the internment, pending investigation by the Advisory Committee, of those 1,800 persons, and the great majority of them were accordingly interned at Frongoch. Let me point out here, incidentally, that the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy), in addition to the very large number of other misstatements of fact, said in this House, on his responsibility as a Member of Parliament, that the camp at Frongoch, when it was occupied by German prisoners, had been condemned by the American Embassy, and was not found good enough for German prisoners, and the Irish were sent there. This is a gross misstatement of fact. The truth is precisely the opposite, as I have stated in answer to questions. The American Embassy's representative reported more favourably on that camp than upon any other, and said that, on the whole, there was no camp better in the whole of the United Kingdom, and the conditions there were most favourable. This is only a specimen of the gross misstatements of which the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork is continually guilty in this House.
  The Advisory Committee, the composition of which I have frequently mentioned, has undertaken its task with the greatest assiduity and energy, and, I think I may respectfully say, with discretion. The task will be almost concluded, I believe, this week. To examine 1,800 cases, to see personally all the interned persons who desire to be seen, has involved a very heavy burden on that Committee, for which they are entitled to the thanks of this House. They have worked every day continuously from early in the morning until late at night. They have given a most sympathetic and careful hearing to all the cases brought before them. They came unanimously to the conclusion that, as a matter of fact, a very large proportion of these men in Dublin were dupes of the leaders, and when they went out on that fatal Easter Monday morning many thought that they were only going to be engaged upon a route march, such as they had often undertaken before as members of the Irish Volunteers. In consideration of that fact, and of the fact that they had been three months in confinement, the Committee found themselves able to recommend very large numbers of releases. But those recommendations did not imply
  1808
  that those men, or a very large proportion of them, had been wrongly interned. There may have been mistakes here and there. I cannot say in such a considerable number there might not have been individuals whom it might have been better not to have interned at all. But the fact that very large numbers have been released does not, in the opinion of the Committee, imply that they were wrongly arrested or detained. The great majority of the 1,800 were, in fact, released. The precise numbers that will have to be retained as active leaders of the movement, and serious participants in the armed operations, will be only a fraction of the whole. The precise number I cannot yet give, because the inquiry is not concluded, and a certain number of cases are being held over until evidence has been taken in Dublin, as I believe it is the intention of the Committee to take evidence in Dublin.
  That is all that is necessary for me to say on this occasion in this matter. The hon. Member for North Galway (Mr. Hazleton) asked me a specific question as to the publication of Sir John Maxwell's dispatch. I am very sorry I am not in a position to tell why it was so long postponed. I certainly thought myself it was going to be published at a considerably earlier date. I am afraid these dispatches very frequently have been delayed. General Hamilton's dispatch about the Dardanelles, and many others, have been delayed some considerable time after they were written and transmitted, but I am afraid I am not in a position to tell the hon. Member the precise reason, because I do not know why that particular date was chosen. I think it was simply in the course of ordinary procedure. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is not necessary for me to detain the House longer by entering into the larger issues of Irish policy or government, because those matters will be the subject of special debate on Monday next, when the House will have the fullest opportunity of considering the conditions under which the Government of Ireland now finds itself, and the probabilities of its future.
  Mr. MEEHAN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, after the Advisory Committee have advised the release of these Irish prisoners, there has been such delay on the part of the Home Office in relasing these men—I am told as much as three weeks?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am sure there has been no such delay as three weeks in any case. I am sure that is quite impossible. So far as I am concerned, orders of release are signed by me the moment the recommendation comes from the Committee. They are transmitted to the camp. Arrangements have to be made for trains and boats, and those arrangements occasionally involve delay—possibly of a day, or possibly two days. I have not ascertained precisely how much delay, but I cannot believe it is more than a day or two.
  Mr. FLAVIN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. I should like to ask, in the interests of economy and war saving, what method of procedure is adopted by the War Office, Admiralty, and Munitions Department in the giving of contracts for carrying on this War? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that large house furnishers and drapers in the City, people who have never built a concrete foundation all their lives, are not only on the Admiralty and War Office lists in connection with contracts, but get priority over experienced builders with thirty or forty years' experience? I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day whether there was any audit or any supervision by the Exchequer in connection with the money paid by the Exchequer to the different Departments?
  Sir S. COLLINS: Is this in the City of London 2
  Mr. FLAVIN: Yes, I am referring to London. At least, there is one hon. Member on the bench opposite who knows of the case in which I have taken an interest. It is that of a man who has been twenty years a builder, with wide experience in erecting buildings, and making concrete foundations in every part of Great Britain, Ireland, and even Canada—a trained builder, a man whose father for thirty years before him was a builder, a large contractor, and a man who has been on the War Office list, Munitions list, and Admiralty list, for the last five months, and during the whole of that period this man has only been invited once to tender for a contract. I want to ask in connection with these contracts what means there are of selecting the contractors? Is it ability, knowledge of the work, or influence? I can say of my own personal knowledge I have no
  1810
  interest in this man, but I want to put the question in the interests of economy, and of one of my own countrymen, a man who is of Irish descent, but born in this country, a competent builder and contractor, who holds testimonials from some of the ablest men in the Empire, a man brought up to the profession, and who, up to a month or two ago, has had between sixty and seventy experienced men, not suitable for the War, in the suburbs of London ready and willing to carry out work for the Government.
  10.0 P.M.
  I want to know from somebody in authority who is responsible? Is it the Minister of Munitions, the Secretary for War, or the First Lord of the Admiralty? I would like to know if they personally examine the tenders or the names, and what means is there of selecting the men who do tender? It seems to me to be as hard for a man to get on the Munitions contract list as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. I have gone to every one of the Departments concerned, and I cannot get any information as to what test is applied in the case of a man tendering. It should be a question of competency, ability, and experience; and the second consideration ought to be the price at which the work can be done within a specified time. It is an extraordinary thing that men who have spent twenty or thirty years in practical building should not be allowed to tender for the expenditure of £10,000 or £20,000, while a large firm in the drapery and furnishing line in London will not only be put on the contractors' list but his tender will be accepted. We are entitled to know the names of the firms who have tendered and the amount of money which those tenders represent. It is in the interests of the country that these things should be made public, and I have very grave doubts whether the heads of these great Departments ever see any of the tenders. It seems to me that two or three of the junior clerks in each Department deal with these matters. Speaking with an absolutely open mind and knowing how some of these contracts have been given to people with no experience, and many of them sublet, if I cannot get a satisfactory answer when the opportunity arises again I shall raise this subject in Debate.
  The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): The point raised by the hon. Member does not concern the Department which I represent.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Certainly not.
  Mr. HARCOURT: In my own Department all enders over a certain amount are personally considered by me. If the hon. Gentleman had given notice that he was going to raise this point, one of my right hon. Friends would have been here to deal with this matter. As he has omitted to give that notice, all I can state is that the facts he has brought forward shall be brought to their notice.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: With regard to the purchases of hay in Ireland, I know a case where hay was purchased at the end of August and was not taken away till February, and the owner understood that he would have £4 a ton for the hay, and at the extra rate arranged of 10s. per month when the hay was delivered, and he expected to get £6 per ton, but he only got £4 a ton. It was stated in this House that 10s. per month extra from the date of purchase would, be paid, and I think that agreement should be carried out to the letter. I know the Government have been purchasing horses in Ireland, and on one occasion a gentleman sold a horse to an agent of the Government for £35. The horse was taken charge of by the agent of the Government and was tried for his wind and was then put on one side for some time. Of course, the owner considered that the Government official had taken charge of it. Later on the horse was stolen from a place where there was a large number of other horses tied to a rail, and the unfortunate man never got anything for his horse. Afterwards the Government proposed to give him a gratuity of £15 because of his misfortune. This man went to law, and his case was dismissed because there was too much evidence that he had not delivered the horse himself. I hear that the horse was afterwards sold back to the Government in another town. I think the Government should still consider the fact that that man has lost the price of his horse.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

  SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee. [Progress, 25th July.]
  [Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

  SMALL HOLDING COLONIES BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 2.—(Power of Board to Promote Co-operation in Connection with Small Holdings Colonies.)
    With the consent of, and subject to regulations made by the Treasury, the Board may promote the formation or extension of societies on a co-operative basis, having for their object, or one of their objects, the profitable working of holdings provided under this Act, whether in relation to the purchase of requisites, the sale of produce, credit banking, or insurance, or otherwise, and may assist any such society by making grants or advances to the society, or guaranteeing advances made to the society, upon terms and conditions as to rate of interest and repayment or otherwise, and on such security, as the Board think fit.
    Mr. RAFFAN: I beg, after the words last inserted, to move to add the words "Provided that the Board shall not make such transference except on full repayment of all expenses incurred by the Board in relation to the acquisition and equipment of the property so transferred."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to limit the loss in any case in which any portion of a colony is disposed of to a co-operative or a co-partnership society. The Committee last night decided—we think unwisely—that arrangements of this kind may be made, but if they are made no loss should accrue to the Exchequer. The persons purchasing should be compelled to pay all the costs incurred up to the date of purchase. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to meet us to some extent.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I agree with the principle of this Amendment. It is quite right for the Committee to have the feeling that there ought to be no risk of land being handed over to any society, co-operative or otherwise, at below its value, but I would like to substitute that the full value of the land should be paid in the case of any transfer for the wording now on the Paper. We may have, and I hope we shall have, one of these colonies, and perhaps

    1813
    more, given to us by persons who are anxious to encourage this sort of thing. On the other hand, we may have to pay a rather stiff price for other land which it may be very desirable to get. We are now pledged to acquire areas in Wales where hitherto it has been rather difficult to find suitable land. We hope that difficulty will pass away. That shows that we may get some colonies cheap and others dear. Therefore, the principle of asking anybody to whom the land is transferred to repay the exact expenses incurred by the Board in relation to the acquisition would not be so equitable or satisfactory a basis as the system that in every case they should pay the full value of the land to be fixed by the Board with the consent of the Treasury. The Treasury would have to be satisfied that the full value of the land had been paid. I would therefore propose for my hon. Friend's consideration that the Amendment should be worded in this way:
    "Provided that the Board shall not make any such transference of land except upon such terms as provide for the payment of its whole value as determined by the Board of Agriculture with the consent of the Treasury."
    I think that really meets the point.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: Does that include improvements?
    Sir F. BANBURY: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that it means the full value of the land at the time they sell it.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am advised that it will cover the value of that which is transferred.
    Mr. SHERWELL: The effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment would be to teach caution to the Board in its preliminary purchases. You really do make it possible for the Board of Agriculture, in connection with a scheme which to my own mind—I speak quite frankly—is very largely a matter of window dressing, to plunge hastily into costly and extravagant experiments and to repent at leisure, and we ought to have some precautionary safeguard which would deter the Board from plunging hurriedly into experiments of this sort. I therefore hope that it may be possible to take some safeguard against extravagant purchases in the first instance.
    Mr. WATT: The Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Agriculture does not meet the difficulty of expenses. The expenses may be very large, and the experiment may be unsuccessful. The Board may have incurred expenses in various and many ways, and when the nonsuccess of the experiment is discovered and the land comes to be valued, then, under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, it will simply be the value of the land at that time. His Amendment, therefore, should take a different form. It should not only deal with the value of the land, but should take into consideration and should name the expenses incurred by the Department, which should be reimbursed by the purchaser.
    Mr. MORTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment cover the expenses?
    Mr. ACLAND: I am advised it covers the full value of that which is transferred—the land with the buildings upon it. If there is any doubt, I shall be glad to consider it between now and the Report stage.
    Mr. RAFFAN: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: After the words last inserted add the words "Provided that the Board shall not make any such transference except upon such terms as provide for the payment of the full value of the land transferred as determined by the Board of Agriculture with the consent of the Treasury."—[Mr. Acland.]
    Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Powers in Relation to Acquisition of Land.)
    The power of acquiring land conferred on the Board by this Act or the Development or Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, shall include power by agreement to take land on lease or acquire an option of purchasing land or taking land on lease.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Major WEDGWOOD: I have an Amendment of mine to this Clause. It is to move the omission of the power to take

    1815
    land on lease, or to acquire any option. It seems to me that particularly in the question of giving the Board the power to take an option on land the Board is taking to itself powers which we have never had in any previous Act, and which are entirely alien to the whole history of small holdings legislation. We have had several Bills on small holdings before this House, and never before have either the county councils, the parish councils, or the Board been given powers on acquire an option on land. At the present time—
    Mr. ASHLEY: I have not the slightest idea exactly what words the hon. and gallant Gentleman moves to leave out.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: So far as I have been able to gather, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument is directed to the Clause as a whole, and not to any particular Amendment. I think that if he looks at the Clause, he will see, if I may say so, that this is what he means—that the Clause shall not stand part.
    Major WEDGWOOD: Very well.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I will put the Question: "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
    Major WEDGWOOD: I move the omission of this Clause, because it introduces an entirely new principle into small holdings legislation. Hitherto we have given powers to local authorities, and to the Board, to acquire land by purchase, or lease. But we have never given before powers to acquire an option over land. It is a new principle entirely in British legislation, and it seems to me an extremely undesirable principle to introduce, particularly at the present time. It is well known to all of us that there is very little check on the Executive in this country at the present moment. Under ordinary conditions there are hundreds of Members with lynx eyes fixed on the Board to see that no injudicious action is taken by them, watching the Board, or the local county councils, when they are dealing with questions such as these. It is when public criticism is silent, as it is at the present time, that the Board of Agriculture attempts to grasp these powers which it may wield absolutely safe from public criticism.
    Sir F. BANBURY: No.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: There are only three cases.
    Major WEDGWOOD: This Act, I presume, will be the parent of a whole system of public extravagance directed towards benefiting the landlords at the expense of the community. I speak as the representative of public economy, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is only dealing with three colonies, or three cases, he has very much mistaken the powers, or the motives, of the people behind this Act. We know perfectly well what is aimed at in this Act. Under cover of the advantage to the British soldier, they are seeking to establish a colony or school for the training of agricultural labourers at 18s. a week. This is held up as being to the advantage of the British soldier in France. I, for one, am absolutely opposed to the idea of giving to the Board of Agriculture the power to acquire options over land. What do options mean? I have seen plenty of option work out in South Africa. There the prospector goes round and acquires an option over land, and pays a certain yearly rent for the privilege of being able to buy it at a certain price up to a certain number of years. That is pure speculation, and very bad speculation. If the land rises in value, he realises his option, but if it depreciates in value he ceases to pay his rent. Is that the sort of business into which we want the Board of Agriculture to go, in a time of War, when every penny is of value, and speculation is rightly regarded as being a wrong thing for the British Government to go into. I have no patience with any part of this Bill, but Clause 3 seems to be the worst thing in it. I cannot understand how my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works can bring himself to sanction a thing like this, knowing, as I do, that he is one of the strongest watchdogs of the Treasury. This Clause is contrary to all the traditions of this House and to all the traditions of the Board of Agriculture. If I can get any support I shall certainly go into the Lobby against it.
    Mr. ACLAND: My hon. and gallant Friend has made it quite clear that he speaks as an enemy of the whole of the Bill; therefore it is quite natural from that point of view that he should try to destroy it peacemeal. But from the point of view of one who wants the State to have a little more power to conduct experiments and

    1817
    undertake reforms with regard to land questions, there can be no doubt whatever that this Clause is a useful one, particularly in the interests of economy, for which my hon. and gallant Friend pretended to speak.
    Major WEDGWOOD: I did not pretend.
    Mr. ACLAND: For which he claimed to speak. I withdraw anything to which he objects. There can be no doubt whatever that it is particularly difficult to raise capital sums at the present time. There- fore any procedure which enables us to take land on a perpetual lease or which will avoid our having to raise a large capital sum at a high rate of interest, or enables us to take land on lease for so many years and pay for it when money can be obtained cheaper later on after the War—anything of that kind facilitates—
    Sir F. BANBURYindicated dissent.
    Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Baronet shakes his head. He is an opponent of the Bill, and does not want us to do more than can be possibly helped under the Bill. His point of view is perfectly natural.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I am not against the Clause.
    Mr. ACLAND: Then I hope the right hon. Baronet will agree with the Committee that the Clause is a good one, in that it facilitates operations of this kind at a time when it is extremely advisable to avoid raising any national capital that can possibly be prevented. With regard to options, what not infrequently happens is that someone says, "I am willing to sell; I want to sell land which is, perhaps, extremely suitable for afforestation or reclamation, or, it may be, for the purposes of these colonies." We lose all chance of getting that land because we cannot—it may be at some quite small expense—acquire an option to purchase it at a later date. To secure options of purchase at a later date for the purposes which come under the purview of the Development Commissioners is surely a useful thing, which business men who wish to be able to conduct their operations in the best possible way, would naturally use. Except from the point of view of an opponent of any operations of this kind by the State, or a person who does not want the State to go in for afforestation or reclamation, or land development after the War, I really do not see why the power should be opposed. I hope the
    1818
    majority of the Committee will be in favour of our keeping a power which will materially help this sort of development without a large capital expenditure at the present time. Therefore I hope the Committee will approve of the Clause standing part of the Bill.
    Major WEDGWOOD: I think the right hon. Gentleman does not quite understand what an option is. An option, as usually spoken of, is the privilege of paying an annual sum in order to purchase land at some future date. He assumed that when we speak of an option we mean an option with user, but that by no means is the ordinary acceptation of the term. If you are going to pay the landlord an annual rent of, say, £50 a year in order to have the privilege at some future time of buying the land at £100 an acre, that is an option. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that when he was buying the land he was going to have the privilege of user of that land. If that is what he intends, it should be clearly stated in the Bill. As it stands, what he is asking by this Clause is to give power to the Board of Agriculture to pay an annual rent in order that at some future date they may buy the land whether in the meantime they use it or not. That, it seems to me, is a power which we ought not to give to the Board of Agriculture. It is a speculative proposition. It is an opportunity of making payments of money over which this House has no check. How are you going to allow officials to buy options? Such powers have never been given to any Government office before, and it is quite unnecessary that we should do it now. After all, you have power to purchase or to lease. Why do you want powers to open up options on the land of this country?
    Mr. ACLAND: We are asking for farms to lease. We have not got enough.
    Major WEDGWOOD: What I object to is the power of acquiring an option. There is also great objection to the leasing principle, because if you lease land and spend a great deal of money on improving it, putting up buildings and making roads, you are raising the value of the land, and if you lease it the value all goes back to the landlord at the conclusion of the term. If there is a twenty-one years' lease and you are spending £200 an acre in putting up farm buildings it is very bad business for the State. When the last Small Holdings Bill was on we opposed the idea that the landlord should recover the land and

    1819
    buildings at the end of the period very strenuously indeed, and it was only got through after considerable opposition. We have the proposal brought forward now simply because the House is empty—half the Members are away and there is no possibility of checking the executive authority of the Government at present. It does not alter my position in the least that you have got here powers which the Board may exercise admirably or, on the other hand, may exercise extremely badly.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right and that the Clause does not do what the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to do. What I gather he wishes to do is to rent land for five years at £100 a year with an option of buying it at any time during that five years for, say, £1,000. I see no objection to that, but I certainly see an objection to this, because as I read it now the power given to the Board of Agriculture is either to take land on lease or to acquire an option to purchase or take the land on lease. That means, if the words mean anything, that he shall pay down a certain sum for the right to acquire during a certain period either the lease or the purchase of that land. That is to say, you pay down now £500 in order to acquire an option in five years' time of taking a given piece of land on lease or of acquiring it. That is certainly indulging in speculation in land which would not be of any use for small holders, and which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can have intended. It is quite a common custom to lease property with the option of purchasing that property when you want it. That is a reasonable proposal, and that is what I thought the right hon. Gentleman meant to do. The Clause could be easily amended in that way on Report, by leaving out the words after "take laud on lease." I think that is quite sufficient. I suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman agrees we should defer this discussion until the Report stage, in order that he may draw up an Amendment.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: I am very glad to see my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Wedgwood) here taking up his old role in opposition to rotten legislation. I found some little difficulty in supporting his proposal to object to the Clause, but I have less doubts in my mind after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir F. Banbury). If this option which we are asked
    1820
    to sanction carries with it an extension of the principle of land purchase, and if it means an increase of the powers of the Board to indulge in land speculation, I would most certainly oppose it. I am sorry that such a proposal as this is mixed up with the proposal to give the Board the right to lease land. It is very much better and more advantageous to give the Government the right to lease land than to give them the right to purchase land, because I look forward to the time, not very far ahead, when, owing to the enormous increase of taxation which will fall upon this country, a great deal of taxation will fall upon land. Therefore I should like to see the State on behalf of the small holders in actual possession of as little land as possible. If you are leasing land the person upon whom the taxation will fall will be the landlord and not the small colonist or peasant. For that reason I regret that the Government have mixed up the two proposals, one for the leasing of land and the other for the extension of the Board's power to purchase land, especially in a speculative manner. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will fall in with the suggestion made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), and take out the power to purchase by way of option.
    Mr. DILLON: I think there is a great deal of force in what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member (Major Wedgwood). I, in common with other hon. Members, rejoice to welcome him home after his many gallant adventures by sea and land, and I am glad to see that, as in old times, he is faithful to some of his Liberal or Radical principles and prepared to take the field again in his old fighting form. According to the interpretation of the words, "to take land on lease or acquire an option," it is open to the Board to pay down money in the way that has been pointed out. The operation of acquiring an option is differentiated from the taking of land on lease. That must mean paying money to a landlord for the option of taking land on lease or for purchase. That is a most extraordinary proposal. The proposal is that the Board of Agriculture should be empowered to pay down a lump sum for the right at some future time to acquire a lease of land or to purchase land. That is a proposal to which I am absolutely opposed. Though I would not for one moment think of taking much part in reference to a Bill like this, which

    1821
    applies altogether to England and Scotland, I am rather glad that this experiment is on a small scale, because I have great doubts as to whether you will get soldiers who return from the War, particularly wounded soldiers, to settle down as small holders. The experience of soldiers does not induce them to settle down to the life of a small holder, which is extremely laborious and rather monotonous. My own opinion is that soldiers coming home from the War—and I hope that there will be a great many of them—will seek a life with more adventure and more prospect. It is quite right to make the experiment in a small, modest way, but I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that this is a novel proposal and should be struck out.
    Mr. ACLAND: I do not want to do anything against the wishes of the Committee, but I think that this would be a useful power to have. I would be glad if the Committee would accept this Clause, so that we might get on to-night to the next Clause as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jesse Collings) has been here two nights in order to move his Amendments to the next Clause, and I would suggest that we should leave out the last line—"or acquire an option of purchasing land or taking land on lease"—unless I am unable to show the House on Report that the power is more essential than is thought.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested can be put down on Report, but not at this stage.
    Major WEDGWOOD: We should have some explanation as to what Amendments the Government are prepared to accept on Report. Very serious objections have been made to speculation in land, and we are justified, before we vote to accept the Clause, in asking to be told what alterations the Government propose to make. It is a usual thing in Committee, after hearing the arguments that have been advanced, to say what alterations they are prepared to make on Report, and I think that, as a matter of courtesy, this should be done now.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Personally, I am entirely opposed to giving the Board of Agriculture power to pay down sums of money in order that they may purchase land at some future date, and I think that we should have some explanation as to exactly what
    1822
    the Government do want. I understand that what they want is power to be able to put down a certain sum of money in order to have the option of purchasing land.
    Mr. ACLAND: I might move on Report to leave out the last line of the Clause, "or acquire an option of purchasing land or taking land on lease."
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: I would suggest that the right hon. Gentlman should omit the Clause now, and bring up a new Clause embodying what is wanted.
    Mr. ACLAND: I am sorry I cannot do that. We want the power
    Mr. LAMBERT: I quite agree, but if the right hon. Gentleman omitted the Clause now, he could bring up a new Clause which would embody the principle which is now being advocated. I merely make the suggestion in view of the progress of the Bill.
    Mr. HARCOURT: I think it would be unreasonable to ask my right hon. Friend to omit the Clause. He has assured the House that he is prepared, if it can be done, to strike out the last line, and it would really be ungenerous to ask him to omit the whole Clause. My right hon. Friend has given a very frank pledge that he will endeavour to meet the point on Report, and I hope the House will add the Clause to the Bill.
    Mr. ACLAND: I would point out to hon. Members that the Board of Agriculture and the Treasury would not be quite so foolish as to take land on a short lease if it were to revert to somebody else after a short period of years, especially if there were any question of improving the value of the property in the meantime. We have only to consider the question of a perpetual lease. No Government would dream of acquiring a lease and improving the land if it were going to revert to someone else.
    Major WEDGWOOD: It is done for small holdings.
    Mr. ACLAND: We may acquire land for small holdings on short lease on terms which are of value to the tenants of the land, but obviously the Government cannot acquire land which, after it has been improved, is to revert to the landowner or some other person, after a very short period.
    Major WEDGWOOD: In the Small Holdings Act there are provisions intended to secure that the value of the improvements on the reversion of the lease should revert to the county council or the parish council, as the case may be; while in this Bill there are no provisions of any sort whatsoever to that effect. Here you take, for the first time, powers to lease land without specifying the period of the lease or that the interest of the reversion goes to the State. The Bill has been drafted in a hurry, as we know, but they might have modelled the provisions on those of the Small Holdings Act, which went into this matter very closely. I suppose the Board of Agriculture has forgotten about that Act, which is now more than ten years old, and the excellent provisions which it contains, enabling the central authority to recover the value of the improvements. It seems to me that this Clause ought to be withdrawn and that the Government
    should introduce a Clause properly thought out, with correct provisions for dealing with a reversionary value. You have got much too wide powers in this Clause as it stands at present, whether it be the power I of taking an option, or a seven years' lease without getting any reversion value except what can be arranged with the landlord. Whichever side you look you see in this Clause a jejune attempt recklessly and frivolously made, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw it and lot us get on to Clause 4. He can reintroduce it later in proper form, carefully safeguarded against extravagance. We are paying Income Tax of 5s. in the £, and we do not want to have to pay anything more.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 27.

    Division No. 43]

    AYES.

    [10.50 p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Galbraith, Samuel

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Adamson, William

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Radford, Sir George Heynes

    Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

    Goldstone, Frank

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Greenwood, Sir G. G. (Peterborough)

    Rees, G. C. (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Gretton, John

    Rendall, Athelstan

    Anderson, W. C.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M. (Tyneside)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Hill, James

    Robinson, Sidney

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Hinds, John

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Bliss, Joseph

    Hodge, John

    Rowlands, James

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Brace, William

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    John, Edward Thomas

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Carew, C. R. S.

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Sutton, John E.

    Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Sykes, Col. Alan John (Ches., Knutsf'd)

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Tickler, T. G.

    Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

    Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Collings, Rt. Hon. J (Birmingham)

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Coote, William

    McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Whiteley, Herbert James

    Craig, Ernest (Creshire, Crewe)

    Manfield, Harry

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

    Craig, Col. James (Down, E.)

    Middlebrook, Sir William

    Williams, Col. Sir Robert (Dorset, W.)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Millar, James Duncan

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

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Pennefather, De Fonblanque

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Fell, Arthur

    Peto, Basil Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot

    Finney, Samuel

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    NOES.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Banbury. Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.

    Lardner, James C. R.

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lundon, Thomas

    Reddy, Michael

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

    MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Dillon, John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Ffrench, Peter

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Field, William

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

    Whitty, Patrick Joseph

    Hazleton, Richard

    Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Morrell, Philip

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Major Wedgwood and Mr. McGhee.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Powers of Management of Land Acquired.)
    The Board shall, in relation to any land acquired by them under this Act or under Part I of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, whether acquired before or after the passing of this Act, have power—

    (a) to let or manage the land or improve the same by the erection of buildings or otherwise;

    (b) to enfranchise the land, and to purchase or redeem any land tax, quit rent, chief rent, tithe rent-charge, or other rent-charge or any perpetual sum issuing out of the land;

    (c) subject to compliance with any conditions prescribed by the Treasury, or with the consent of the Treasury, to sell or exchange the land.

    Mr. ACLAND Mr. ACLAND: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words, "and so that the purchase money on the sale of a small holding to a person willing himself to cultivate the holding may be made payable in periodical instalments or otherwise as the Treasury may direct.
    (2) Where a small holding is sold by the Board under this Act the provisions of section twelve of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, relating to a small holding sold by a county council under that Act shall apply as if herein re-enacted with the necessary adaptations."
    This Amendment is designed to meet, so far as possible, the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings).
    Major WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order, Mr. Maclean. I handed in an Amendment this afternoon to leave out paragraph (b). It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with an Amendment to paragraph (c). I put it to you that my Amendment should be taken first?
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot find the Amendment.
    Major WEDGWOOD: You will realise that I have not had a chance of seeing this Bill before to-day. I handed in the Amendment to the Clerks at the Table before seven p.m. I suppose it will have been sent to the printers to be printed for to-morrow. But it is wanted to-day. I am not responsible for the arrangements at the Table.
    The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I call upon the hon. and gallant Member.
    Major WEDGWOOD Major WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (b).
    This is an expenditure of capital money. We all know that the enfranchisement of copyhold land costs a good deal of money—
    It being Eleven o'clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  TRADING WITH THE ENEMY (COPYRIGHT) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  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."

  LEYLAND COMPANY.
  Mr. FIELD: In accordance with the notice I gave to-day at Question Time, I wish to put before the House this question of freights. I regret that the President of the Board of Trade is not here, but I hope he will soon be back. Everybody knows that transport is at the bottom of the efficiency of the commerce of the nation, and I quite agree there are certain difficulties, in the way. My complaint is that no real attempt has been made to meet this question. I acknowledge it is a difficult question by reason of the fact of the loss of a number of vessels through submarines, the fact that a number of vessels have been commandeered by the Admiralty, and the competition of neutrals; but, notwithstanding a series of questions on various points by different Members in different parts of the House, there has been really no attempt on the part of the Government so far to meet this question. How this question was brought under my notice was this:

  1827
  happen to have been a member of the Port and Dock Board in Dublin for many years. In one case there was £39,700 freight on a cargo of corn. The amount of the freight paid was absolutely more than the value of the vessel, and the result of this enormous charge was that the cost of bread in Dublin was raised, not, of course, on account of that one particular cargo, but the freights of all these cargoes were the same. Another thing which presses very hardly on the citizens of Dublin is the cost of coal, which, at the present time, roughly speaking, is almost three times what it used to be. I have seen the communications pointing out the fact that the railway companies in this country are placed in extraordinary difficulties with regard to transport. This question has occupied enormous attention in the City of Dublin. Resolutions have been passed by the Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce, the Dublin Industrial Development Association, the Dublin Mercantile Association, and certain United Irish League branches. This question not only affects Dublin, but .practically the whole commercial community of the world.
  At the Imperial Conference recently held the Italian representative pointed out that coal was £6 a ton and that the high freights were due to the fact that enormous profits were accruing to the shipowners everywhere. He also pointed out that a better organisation of shipping and some attempt to deal with neutrals would provide a means of reducing the enormous gain which the shipowners are making at the present time. The High Commissioner of Australia pointed out recently that industrial and economic developments had been seriously interfered with since the commencement of the War. But really there is no part of the United Kingdom more hardly hit than Ireland. In the Argentine the ordinary charges before the War from Buenos Ayres to the United Kingdom were from 15s. to 30s. per ton, and now it is between £10 and £11 a ton, and in one instance it was £15 a ton. It is said that the shipowners have been earning enormous profits. I want to know why the shipowners are to be privileged in this respect whilst everybody else is being so hardly hit by the War? Anyone who reads the papers in connection with commercial matters must be aware that every day statements are made with reference to certain companies. I read of one company which had made a profit of 187 per
  1828
  cent., another 150 per cent., and another 200 per cent. In fact, some of these companies have in one year made greater sums in profits than their entire subscribed capital, and the result is that shipping shares have gone up enormously in price.
  The other night an hon. Member mentioned excess profits, and said they ought to be reduced. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take all the shipowners' excess profits, as has been urged by the Labour Members. I think that some arrangement ought to be tried at least to get into touch with the tramp steamers and also neutrals, and that every neutral steamer should be charged on the cargoes they bring. I would not have brought up this question to-night but for the unsatisfactory replies which I have received. This is a very important question, because it means that the whole community is being taxed for the benefit of the shipowners. I am aware that the shipowners are to give up 60 per cent, of their excess profits, but that is not enough. As long as they are permitted to go on making these enormous profits they will go on trying to make more. Unless an attempt is made to come to some arrangement to reduce the enormous cost of freights everything that is brought here from outside sources and everything that is exported is bound more or less to decrease in quantity. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will give this matter his attention. I think a Committee of the House ought to be consulted as to what is the best manner of meeting these complaints, which come from all classes of the community.
  Mr. LUNDON: The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to acknowledge a letter which has been sent to the Secretary of State for War in relation to the colliery in Queen's County, and I wish to put to him this point. If this short railway, which would be the means of connecting the colliery up with the Port of Dublin, were constructed, it would mean that the number of ships required to bring coal to Dublin would be very much decreased, and thus leave more ships for other purposes. This coal is the best in the Kingdom. It has been tested by experts from all parts of Scotland, England and Wales, and only two months ago the Minister of Munitions, who is now Secretary of State for War, sent an expert to Queen's County and the result of his testing was to show

  1829
  that the coal contained the necessary percentages to make it valuable for use for Government purposes. What do we find happening in the City of Dublin? Two of the largest consumers of coal in the city—one of whom is Mr. William Murphy, the proprietor and editor of the "Irish Independent," is at present the champion of of Irish interests in Ireland—refuse to allow this coal to be used in their works. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will take this matter into his hands. This coal was found by experts, and two or three individuals in Dublin should not be allowed to refuse to permit it, when it is found suitable, to be used in different spheres of work all over Ireland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter his favourable consideration. It would only cost £50,000 to build this railway.
  Mr. P. MEEHAN: This colliery is situated in my Constituency, and I would like to endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The colliery, the output of which is 1,500 tons per day, was started some years ago by private enterprise. A man who probably could not afford to put his money into such a concern did so for the purpose of developing the mines, while the Government, knowing the advantages of the coal to be found in that district, from the various reports and surveys made year after year, have done nothing. He put probably everything he had in this mine, and it would only be a small thing to ask the Government to finance a small line of railway running a distance of eight and a half miles. A light railway, especially at this period when there is such a want of coal in Ireland, is a thing so much needed that the Government should finance it. At the present time, owing to the freights, and owing also, unfortunately, to an industrial dispute in Ireland—a strike in Dublin—it is impossible for anybody in the midlands of Ireland to get coals from England or Wales. The cost is prohibitive, and owing to the railway facilities—[An HON. MEMBER: "There are no facilities!"]—if there were proper railway facilities the coal (and there is plenty of it in the Queen's County collieries) could with advantage be sent round to different parts of Ireland. Unfortunately, the nearest railway is Athy. The result is that you have to do cartage for 8½ miles, and that is, as we can all understand, a distinct disadvantage in sending this coal round to different parts
  1830
  of Ireland, where it could be used with advantage. There is one point I wish to press. The last seam of coal discovered in that particular colliery has been found by consumers who live in the district to be equal to the best English or Welsh coal for household purposes, and taking it at that standard I think—as my hon. Friend the Member for East Limerick (Mr. Lundon) said, the Government ought to step in in a crisis like this, where it is for the advantage of the Empire, and for the advantage of public life in England, Ireland, and Scotland, where we want to get cheap coal, cheap food, and cheap production, and should put their minds to this question and see if they could establish this railway, or give some Grant, anyhow, to relieve a man who has invested a lot of his capital in this concern.
  Mr. KILBRIDE: I beg to point out to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Harcourt) that a large quantity of this coal is at present used in the Arklow munitions works. Kynoch's, where you have the largest munition works in Ireland, are largely using" this coal. It means a considerable amount to the Government, the extra cost of overland carriage from the colliery at Madubeagh Bay to Athy, a distance of 8 ½ miles, and I would like to ask the Government to look at this from a purely business point of view. A comparatively small sum would construct a light railway over the 8 ½ miles to Athy, and the Government would save by the lesser price at which they could get the munitions they want in this War from Kynoch's and Company in Arklow. We all know that if the material that is required in the way of coal is cheapened by the construction of a light railway, the Government will really save money by the lesser prices at which Kynoch and Company will be able to supply them with munitions. I hope that he will look at it from the point of view of a saving to the Government and apply his attention to that point.
  Mr. HARCOURT: I received no notice that the subject which has been dealt with by the last three hon. Members who have spoken would be raised to-night. I can only say that I will give it very careful attention to its merits. I feel bound more especially to direct the few minutes at my disposal to the observations of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin (Mr. Field), who had given me notice that he wished to raise the ques-

  1831
  tion of freights. I am grateful to him that he has been lenient in anticipation for the shortcomings of a locum tenens and an understudy. I will do my best in the circumstances. We must all be sympathetic with the very great rise that .there has been in the cost of living throughout the country, and we have a fellow feeling for all our fellow sufferers in all the extravagances and inconveniences which are entailed upon us by this War. But we must realise at the same time that we are at war and that we have got to face all the unpleasant consequences which that fact entails. I should like to say this—it may be some comfort or it may be very little—but at all events we are suffering least of all the belligerents. That is particularly due to our insular position and our command of the sea. But our very dependence upon sea carriage and upon shipping, of course, accentuates some of our difficulties. There is no empiric remedy for our present discontent. We depend—it is a very remarkable fact—for at least one-third of our imports upon foreign ships.
  Mr. FIELD: One-third?
  Mr. HARCOURT: At least one-third. That is a very important element in the present situation. It is very easy to talk of fixing freights, but we must beware, as I am sure the hon. Member himself feels, of driving neutral ships away or of diverting British ships possibly to neutral service. We must have sufficient shipping during the War, at any cost. If I may quote a sentence which I used in my reply to a deputation I received the other day:
  "It is better to have plenty dear, than scarcity still dearer, a situation in which only the rich will be able to secure the supplies in competition with their poorer fellows."
  What causes this situation? There has been a great decrease in the world tonnage available for general use. A number of German ships are either laid up or interned either in Germany or some other part of the world. Some of ours are interned in Germany. A large number of ships are held up in the Baltic and the Black Sea—they are blockaded there—and enormous numbers—far beyond the knowledge or belief of this House—of our mercantile ships have been commandeered and taken up by the Admiralty for war purposes. Along with and just at the same
  1832
  time as all this shortage of shipping we find a greater need than ever of imports—imports of food, raw material, manufacture, and munitions. At the same time we find ourselves under the necessity of supplying France, Italy, and Russia with a very large proportion of their needs during the War. This means a considerably smaller reservoir of ships for our needs for all purposes. The hon. Member asks why freights are so high. It is partly because of world competition. It is partly due to the fact that the cost of running ships is very great. The prices of coal and of other materials have gone up very largely. There is another reason for it. The importers themselves bid against one another for freight space. It is not so much the ' greed of the shipowners as the competition and the almost extravagance of the shipper. It is a case of Adam and Eve over again—the temptation of the apple has not been resisted. Even the Allies are found bidding against one another in the freight market of the whole world, and the very magnitude of these rates is the measure of their needs. We must not exaggerate too much the effect of freights on the price of commodities. Assume that freights have risen by £5 per ton, which is a very large rise. Assume that rise on a cargo of meat. That rise of £5 in freight is only equal to an increase of ½d. per lb. in the price of meat.. We all know—none I am sure better than the hon. Member—that that is a very small fraction of the increase in the price of meat. Look at milk. That is a commodity which is not subject to shipping freights at all, but of which the price has gone up very largely. Of course, it must be admitted that there are many elements in food and milk, such as labour and feeding-stuffs, which contribute to this dearness. There is sitting now a very able Committee on the increase of food prices under the chairmanship of a distinguished Member of this House. I am sure that we shall obtain wise advice from them, and I am sure that they will be gratified if the hon. Member is able to put his views and the facts which are in his possession before them for their illumination. The hon. Member asks me what we are doing to deal with the shipping and freight question. We are doing a great deal. No British ship can move from these shores without a licence issued from the Shipping Licence Committee. By that very fact we are able to direct

  1833
  the ships into particular routes or particular trades. British ships are subject to Admiralty requisition. At this moment it is no exaggeration to say that at least 50 per cent, of British shipping is under requisition. The building of new merchant ships in this country, subject, of course, to the difficulties of labour, is being accelerated by every means in our power. We are to-day converting and have converted some dredging hoppers on the Thames in order to turn them into coal carriers for our coasting trade; and, above all, we are endeavouring now, as we have done in the past, by a more economic use of transports and storeships which are in use by the Admiralty—and they are a very great number—to give a sensible relief to the shipping problem as we find it at present. But I know the hon. Member will admit with
  1834
  me that the requirements of our troop must be our first care. There are, I am glad to say, other ships which are not at present in use which are now in view, and are likely to come into our use. And lastly, there is the restriction which we have already imposed on nonessential imports in order to save as much space in our shipping as possible for the essential imports, and I can assure the hon. Member and the House that I am prepared to go further in that direction if and when I think further prohibitions are necessary. The Government and the Board of Trade are taking every measure which they believe to be economically sound and practically effective to ameliorate and relieve the shortage.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.