Commons Sitting of 7 March 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill. Colonial Bank Bill.
Ordered, That the Bills be committed.
Tynemouth Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 15th March.

COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 877 (Trinidad and Tobago, Report for 1914–15) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
Copy presented of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University for the year 1914–15 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 36.]
BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.
Copy presented of Seventy-seventh Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Birth, Deaths, and Marriages in England and Wales, 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CEYLON WAR CONTRIBUTION.
Copy presented of Treasury Minute, dated 25th February, 1916, showing the manner in which instalments of the Ceylon War Contribution will be applied [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TREATY SERIES (No. 2, 1916).
Copy presented of Agreement between the United Kingdom and France concerning the exchange of Post Office Money Orders between the Seychelles and Madagascar. Signed at Paris, 31st January, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MISCELLANEOUS (No. 7, 1916).
Copy presented of further Correspondence with the German Government respecting the Incidents alleged to have attended the sinking of a German submarine and its crew by His Majesty's Auxiliary Cruiser "Baralong," on 19th August, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY ESTIMATES (1916–17).
Estimate presented of the sum required for the year ending 31st March, 1917, for the Effective and Non-Effective Services of the Army [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 37.]
TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 1st March; Mr. Runciman]; to lie upon the Table; and to be printed. [No. 38.]
CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Sixty-fifth Report from the Church Estates Commissioners for the year preceding 1st March, 1916 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
STREET ACCIDENTS CAUSED BY VEHICLES.
Return presented, relative thereto [Address 1st March; Mr. Brace]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 39.]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION FOR IRELAND.
Copy presented of Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical

1327
Instruction for Ireland on the Trade in Imports and Exports at Irish Ports during the year 1914 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) RETURNS.
Copy presented of Returns of Local Taxation in Ireland for the year 1914–15 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Closing Order made by the Urban District Council of Donaghadee under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Munitions Tribunals (Appeal) Rules, 1916, dated 2nd March, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ITALIAN CO-OPERATION.
    Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to attacks in certain organs of the Press on our Italian Ally, notably her alleged abandonment of Serbia and Montenegro in distress; and whether he intends to take any action against the authors of these articles or the papers in which they have appeared?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): My attention has been drawn to these articles, the inaccuracy and injustice of which I deplore.
    I am glad to have this opportunity of asserting once again the entire confidence of His Majesty's Government in the loyal
    1328
    co-operation of Italy in the joint efforts of the Allies to bring succour in circumstances of extreme difficulty to Serbia and Montenegro.
    A warning has been issued to those responsible for the publication of the articles in question.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the special terms subject to which the Italian Government gave its adhesion to the agreement among the Allied Governments not to make separate peace?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. GINNELL: Negative of what? Are there special terms and will the Noble Lord tell the House what they are?
    Lord R. CECIL: I am afraid I cannot say more than that I must reply to the hon. Member's question in the negative.
    Mr. WATT: It is no answer at all.

    DANUBE NAVIGATION (EUROPEAN COMMISSION).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the European Commission of the Danube still meets to regulate the navigation of the Danube; and, in view of the fact that the Commission consists of representatives of seven belligerent Powers and one neutral, whether reports indicate that business is harmoniously conducted?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part of the question, it appears that the business of the Commission is conducted as harmoniously as can be expected in the circumstances?

    PERSIA (BRITISH PRISONERS).
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information to the effect that the British Consul, bank manager, and other members of the British community at Shiraz, in Persia, now held prisoners at Ahram, near Bushire, by German emissaries, are being badly treated by their captors; and whether he can give any

    1329
    information as regards the safety of Mr. and Mrs. Christmas, of the Indo-European Telegraph Department, who are reported to have left Shiraz for Ispahan about the middle of November last?
    Lord R. CECIL: The latest information I have received though not from an official source, is that the British subjects detained at Ahram are not being so well treated as they were at first. As regards the last part of the question Mrs. Christmas has reached this country, but I regret that I have no information as to the present whereabouts of Mr. Christmas.

    TREATMENT OF PRISONERS (DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS).
    MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the French, German, and Russian Governments have each recently attached to their Legations at Berne a diplomatic representative to deal exclusively with questions regarding the treatment of prisoners; and whether he will consider the advisability of attaching to the British Legation a secretary of equivalent rank for the same specific purpose?
    Lord R. CECIL: The only information in my possession with regard to the first part of the question is that already communicated to me by my hon. Friend; I think that correspondence with the German Government respecting the treatment of prisoners of war must for many reasons, which I shall be happy to explain to my hon. Friend, continue to be conducted through the United States Ambassador at Berlin.

    ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE (GROENINGEN CAMP).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that within the last fortnight sixteen Royal Naval Reserve prisoners of war, interned at Groeningen Camp, were sentenced to fourteen days' solitary confinement in cells and to other punishments for a trivial offence committed and confessed by one of them; and, if so, what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to secure the cancellation or reduction of these sentences?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have received information to this effect from my hon. Friend.
    1330
    I have addressed an inquiry on the subject to His Majesty's Minister at The Hague, but have not yet learnt the result.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this sentence was passed a fortnight ago and that information reached the Foreign Office some ten days ago?
    Lord R. CECIL: I will make inquiries.

    TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the black-listing of the names of certain merchant shippers and consigners in the United States of America, Argentina, and Uruguay, whereby British ships are prohibited from carrying their goods, is in no way inflicting injury or even inconvenience upon those firms, who since the outbreak of war have been provided with an ample and regular supply of neutral steamers by an American shipping firm; and whether this prohibition will seriously injure British shipping and trade, thereby reducing our national resources for the prosecution of the War?
    Lord R. CECIL: No statutory lists have yet been settled or published for the United States, Argentine, or Uruguay. The rest of the question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Does the Noble Lord say that no black list has been issued with reference to the countries mentioned?
    Lord R. CECIL: Not with respect to those countries.

    PEACE PALACE, HAGUE.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the British Government has contributed £2,500 to the completed Palace of Peace at The Hague; and whether he can state for what purpose the Palace of Peace is being used?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the First Commissioner of Works, on 22nd December, to which I have nothing to add.

    MILITARY SERVICE.

      MEDICALLY UNFIT.
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether it is now the view of his Department that, where men are ordered through the public Press as in Cardiff or otherwise to present themselves again, although they had presented themselves and had been declared medically unfit since 14th August, they may ignore this order and have the matter tried in the Civil Courts?
      The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): I think we may start with the assumption that it is the desire of all eligible persons to assist the administration of the Military Service Act and not to hamper it. The facts are now, I think, clear to everyone—i.e., that a man who has a certificate of rejection in proper form signed by the proper authority is excepted from the provisions of the Act. Men who have not so offered themselves and been rejected since 14th August, 1915, will be held to serve under the terms of the Act.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer which he has just given is not in accordance with the terms of the Act?
      Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I am not.

      LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
      Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a circular issued to local recruiting authorities on 20th February urging that every endeavour should be made to secure that military representatives, Advisory Committees, and local tribunals are taking all possible steps to obtain men for the Army; whether he will say by whose authority this circular was issued; and whether, in spite of the fact that local tribunals were created by Parliament to exercise judicial functions, the Government propose that they ought to be classed with military representatives and Advisory Committees as an agency for obtaining men for the Army?
      Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend will agree that it is the proper function of military representatives and Advisory Committees to obtain men for the Army. The position of the local tribunals is, of course, different, and the Army Council
      1332
      have not, and have not ever had any intention of endeavouring to turn local tribunals into agencies for obtaining men for the Army. Any such attempt would have been properly resented by the tribunals. My hon. Friend has presumably seen only an incomplete and partial presentation in the Press of the letter of the 20th February to which he refers. This letter was addressed to General Officers Commanding and explained the duties of certain officers appointed to work in co-operation with the staff of inspectors of recruiting. I think it is certainly the duty of the local military and recruiting authorities to place the facts completely before the tribunals just as much as applicants for exemption are entitled to state their case fully. The business of the tribunal is, as my hon. Friend observes, to exercise judicial functions, but it is essential that the military case shall be fully and properly presented and, if necessary, driven home.
      Sir W. BYLES: May I ask whether the military representative is not practically dictating to the tribunals all over the country?
      Mr. TENNANT: I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. In cases in which the military representative on the Advisory Committee thinks no action should be taken in opposing a man's claim no action is taken.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what business the Advisory Committees have in this matter at all?
      Mr. TENNANT: I answered my hon. Friend in the Debate the other day, and gave illustrations of what the Advisory Committees have been doing, but unfortunately my hon. Friend was unable to wait until I had spoken. It would be a great disadvantage if I had to repeat everything I said. The Advisory Committees have been of the greatest assistance, and no words can be too high in their praise.
      Mr. RADFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Islington local tribunal has refused exemption to a man who is now the only son of his widowed mother, his only brother having been killed in the War, and his mother being entirely dependent on him for her support; and whether he will issue directions to local tribunals that exemption should be granted in such cases?
      Mr. TENNANT: My attention has not been drawn to the case referred to, and my hon. Friend's suggestion is one for the Local Government Board to consider. I believe that the local tribunals are administering the Act and Regulations both carefully and conscientiously. Any decision to which they may come is subject to the right of appeal.
      Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister stated that the tribunals would exempt the last remaining members of families?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am quite aware that the Prime Minister stated that. I am not aware that the tribunals have done differently.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the tribunals have announced that they will grant no total exemptions?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of that.
      Mr. WATT: Read the "Daily Mail."
      Mr. RADFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a man who had attested under Lord Derby's scheme and had been rejected was subsequently placed in Group 35, was subsequently informed that he must be examined again, that he was so examined at Chipping Norton and that his certificate of rejection was taken from him and retained, and that he was afterwards placed in Group 36; and whether he will take steps to prevent this man from being called up?
      Mr. TENNANT: I cannot identify the man simply as a man without particulars of his name. If my hon. Friend will give me adequate particulars inquiry can be made, and action, if found necessary, can be taken.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if applicants for exemption before the local tribunals may arrange for notes of the proceedings to be taken by friends, in view of the possibility of an appeal being lodged; and, in view of the action of the Manchester tribunal in ordering out of the room persons who were taking notes on behalf of applicants, if he will instruct the tribunals that this must be allowed?
      The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am in communication with the local tribunal for Manchester on the subject.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question, as to whether the local tribunals may arrange for notes of the proceedings to be taken by friends, in view of the possibility of an appeal being lodged?
      Mr. LONG: I do not think that I should be called' upon to express an opinion: This is not a matter dealt with either in the Act or in the Regulations, and it may very well be left to the tribunals to decide.
      Mr. MORRELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular on the subject?
      Mr. LONG: No, Sir, certainly not?
      Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Deptford tribunal, while considering their decisions, are, unlike the tribunals in Greenwich, Lewis-ham, and Woolwich, excluding the representatives of the Press, and, on being readmitted, the chairman merely informs the applicant as to the decision without giving any reasons; and whether he can approach the tribunal in question with a view to securing uniformity in procedure?
      Mr. LONG: The Regulations provide that the local tribunal may exclude the parties and the public for the purpose of conferring upon any question affecting the decision of an application, and I do not think that it would be right to interfere with their discretion in this matter.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the result of his inquiry into the constitution of the local tribunal set up by the Pickering (Yorks) Rural District Council, which is composed wholly of farmers; and what action he has taken to secure a representative composition of the tribunal?
      Mr. LONG: This matter is still under consideration. I am in communication with the local council on the subject.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the ease at the Lewisham tribunal of a man who, on claiming exemption from compulsory service on the ground that he was the sole support of three invalids, two sisters and a widowed mother, quoted the assurances of the Prime Minister; that he was told in reply that these assurances were not in the Act and that his appeal was refused; whether his attention has

      1335
      been called to the case of a grocer's assistant at Worthing, the only son and sole support of a widowed mother, whose appeal was refused, one member of the tribunal remarking that the exemption of this man would form a bad precedent when the cases of the married men came to be considered; and whether any further steps will be taken to ensure that tribunals carry out the expressed policy of the Government respecting sons who are the sole support of widowed mothers?
      Mr. LONG: My attention has not been called to these cases. The local tribunals have a very difficult and ungrateful task to perform. Their duty is to administer the Act and the Regulations to the best of their ability, and I believe that they are generally fulfilling that duty faithfully and honestly. If they come to a decision which is thought to be improper the aggrieved party has the right to appeal.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will give instructions that forms for lodging an appeal against a decision of a local tribunal shall be on hand in the Court, seeing that instances have already arisen where considerable delay has occurred in applicants being able to obtain such forms from the clerks to the tribunal?
      Mr. LONG: It is intended that each local tribunal should have a supply of forms on which appeals from their decisions may be made, and if any case is brought to my notice in which there has been difficulty in obtaining a form, I will take such steps as may be necessary.

      EXEMPTED MAN (ARREST).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War what action he proposes to take in the case of a ticket-collector at Mutley Station, Plymouth, named R. Rice, who attested under Lord Derby's scheme, but who, having a widowed mother and an invalid sister dependent upon him, applied to the local tribunal for exemption, who granted him a month's extension, but a week later an armed escort went to his home and, not finding him, proceeded to where he was employed and arrested him as a deserter and, in spite of his protests and explanation, he was marched through the streets under a military escort to the recruiting station, where he was detained for some time and eventually let go?
      Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a Great Western Railway ticket collector at Plymouth, named R. Rice, who attested under the Derby scheme, appealed to the local tribunal on the 21st February for postponement on the grounds of having a widowed mother and invalid sister dependent upon him, and was granted one month's extension; that on the 28th February an armed escort called at his residence, and, finding Rice absent, proceeded to the railway where he was employed and there placed him under arrest as a deserter, and, notwithstanding his protest and request to be taken home, where he could produce evidence of exemption, he was marched through the town under arrest to the Plymouth Corn Exchange, where he repeated his protest, and after inquiries it was found a mistake had been made and he was thereupon released; and, having regard to this conduct towards a citizen who had shown his loyalty and patriotism by voluntarily attesting, whether he will take steps at once to have those responsible for this blunder punished?
      Mr. TENNANT:No, Sir; I am not aware of the circumstances mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I have given instructions for an immediate inquiry to be made with a view to proper steps being taken if the facts are as stated.
      Mr. SNOWDEN: Will the result of that inquiry be communicated to me?
      Mr. TENNANT: I shall be glad to communicate the result to my hon. Friend.

      CERTIFICATES OF REJECTION.
      Mr. RADFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at the Town Hall, Brixton, S.W., a man was medically rejected after attesting under Lord Derby's scheme and was refused a certificate of rejection on the ground alleged that none were now being issued; and will he give directions that the man, E. N. Tom, shall be supplied with a certificate of rejection?
      Mr. TENNANT: If the facts are as stated, and if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the address of Mr. Tom and of the date on which he was rejected, I will see that proper steps are taken.

      CLERKS IN HOLY ORDERS.
      Mr. RADFORDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether clerks

      1337
      in holy orders who have attested under Lord Derby's scheme are liable to be called up for military service; and, if not, whether he will issue an authoritative statement to that effect?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, a clerk in holy orders who has voluntarily come forward and has been attested under the Group system for general service is liable to be called up in the same way as any other man, but my hon. Friend will be aware that clergymen were not canvassed under Lord Derby's scheme, and that they are not subject to the provisions of the Military Service Act.

      RECRUITS UNFIT FOE ACTIVE SERVICE.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked for what reason considerable numbers of people medicaly unfit for active service are being enlisted in the Army; what is the nature of the clerical duties they will be asked to undertake; and if steps are being taken to ascertain whether they would be rendering more responsible and important national service by remaining at their civilian duties?
      Mr. TENNANT: No man is accepted for the Army unless he is considered medically fit to serve in some capacity. Men who are not fit for active service in the field may be fit for some other form of service equally essential to the Army, and on being called up they are classified according to their condition of fitness. At the present time men who are classified as fit only for garrison service at home or for sedentary or clerical duties are not required to join immediately, and are being sent back to their homes.
      Mr. HOGGE: If they break down do they get pensions?
      Mr. TENNANT: Not unless they have done military service.
      Mr. ANDERSONasked whether men enlisted in the Army but medically unfit for active service will be subjected to drilling and training; and whether, in the case of the unfit as in the case of the fit, the cost to the nation will work out at from £250 to £300 per head per annum, irrespective of the loss involved by their withdrawal from productive industry?
      Mr. TENNANT: Men unfit for general service are at present being taken only if fit for certain forms of service, and such men are trained in the duties for which they are required. The figure £250 to £300
      1338
      which has been mentioned in another connection as the cost of the Army per head has no relevance to this question.

      CHOICE OF REGIMENT.
      Mr. THOMASasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that obstacles are being put in the way of men desirous of joining a particular regiment, even though they hold papers of acceptance from the unit desired, and that they are being compelled to join the local regiment; and, in view of the promise given in connection with Lord Derby's scheme that the men's choice would be respected as far as possible, whether he will see that this is carried out both in spirit and letter?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, I will see that the promise given, which was that choice of a particular unit would be respected as far as possible, is given effect to, and I will ask my hon. Friend to be good enough to furnish me with any definite instances of departure from this undertaking which may have come to his notice.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recruiting officers say they are not bound by what he says in this House?
      Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend will give instances I will have them investigated.
      Sir G. YOUNGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to bring to his notice one or two very serious cases in Scotland, where men have been forced into regiments other than those for which they had expressed a preference?
      Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend will bring them to my notice I will certainly have them investigated.

      MEDICAL STANDARD.
      Mr. WATTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his Department is issuing instructions to the medical examiners under the Military Service Act, 1916, to retain the same standard in passing men into the Army, in view of the fact that these agents of the War Office are now passing men who formerly would have been considered quite unfit for soldiers?
      Mr. TENNANT: Exactly the same standard is observed in respect of all classes of men coming before Army medical authorities for examination, whether they report themselves for service

      1339
      under the Military Service Act or come forward voluntarily. Recruits are now, however, and have been for some time past, graded in different categories according to their suitability for various forms of military service.
      Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that the medical standard to-day is quite the same as it was, say, three months ago?
      Mr. TENNANT: Yes, the standard is the same, except that there is a gradation, as I have stated in my answer. Indeed, the standard is more carefully looked after to-day than it was before.
      Mr. WATT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Westminster they are taking epileptics?
      Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware of that.
      Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say for what military service the man with a cork leg, who was passed the other day, would be fit?

      SEAMEN (ATTESTATION).
      Mr. C. DUNCANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that seamen, ship stewards, and other members of crews are not being allowed to sign on for vessels unless and until they have attested; whether he is aware that these men have been officially informed that the efficient maintenance of the mercantile marine is of vital national interest, and that the men will be doing as good service for their country by continuing to man British ships as by joining the Army; and whether this policy to compel attestation has the sanction of the War Office?
      Mr. TENNANT: It is, of course, undesirable that men not hitherto engaged in these occupations should take them up with a view to evading the Army service for which they would otherwise be liable. With this end in view the Board of Trade have agreed that no first voyage shall be entered on without previous attestation, except in the case of boys, apprentices, or engineers. The matter is not quite complete, but negotiations are proceeding on these lines.

      UNMARRIED GIPSIES.
      Colonel GIBBSasked whether steps are being taken to bring in all unmarried gipsies of military age under the Military Service Act, 1916?
      Mr. TENNANT: The unmarried gipsies have not been forgotten. In cases where they are British subjects they are liable to the provisions of the Military Service Act in the same way as other persons of less nomadic habits. Steps are being taken to secure the services of men to whom the Military Service Act applies, whether they are confirmed or only casual nomads.

      IMMEDIATE ENLISTMENT.
      Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a married man who attested under the Derby Group scheme and afterwards, desiring to enlist immediately, applied at the Fulford Barracks, York, for enlistment in the Royal Garrison Artillery, was told that he could not be accepted because he was an attested man, although the officer admitted that if an unattested man came in immediately after he could accept him for this branch of the Service; and, if not, whether he will make inquiries and have this practice discontinued?
      Mr. TENNANT: If the facts are as stated, a mistake appears to have been made, as a voluntarily attested man can at any time come forward before he is called up for immediate enlistment in any unit in which there are, at the time, vacancies.

      TERRITORIAL FORCE (HOME SERVICE).
      Mr. HOGGEasked whether papers have now been issued to any Territorials embodied for Home service asking them to sign for Imperial service; if so, how long they are given to decide; what happens to those who refuse to sign; and whether, if they are discharged and so resume civil status, they are still entitled to appeal when called up under the Military Service Act, 1916?
      Mr. TENNANT: Single officers and men of the Territorial Force under forty-one years of age not coming within the exceptions provided for in the First Schedule of the Military Service Act were at liberty to put in a claim for exemption. If they are not exempted and if they have made no claim for exemption they are discharged from the Territorial Force and simultaneously become Reservists under the Military Service Act. There is no interval between the ending of the Territorial status and the beginning of the Reservist status.
      As regards the period of time that Territorials may have had for coming to a decision, I can only say that there has been

      1341
      no time during their engagement when it has not been open to them to make a decision, but if they have not made a decision by the 2nd March the question then, subject to the settlement of claims for exemption by the tribunals, becomes decided for them.
      Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether married men in the Territorials who are not subject to the Military Service Act are at the same time being asked to sign?
      Mr. TENNANT: The married men are not subject to the Military Service Act. My hon. Friend is quite right.

      MEN OF FORTY-ONE.
      Mr. SNOWDENasked if an attested man who has not been called up who has reached the age of forty-one before the Military Service Act, 1916, was passed, will be released from his attestation and be exempt from military service, in view of the promise of the Government that attested men would not be placed in a worse position than unattested men who come under the Military Service Act, 1916?
      Mr. TENNANT: A man who reaches the age of forty-one before he is actually called up for service, whether he is a voluntarily attested man or a man deemed to be attested under the Military Service Act, is not called up, but is passed to the Reserve, and would not be subject to be called up for military service unless the age of military service is, in future, extended. Instructions on this point were issued some time ago.

      ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CABINET MINISTER.
      Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether he intends to inquire as to the identity of the Cabinet Minister who is alleged to have requested the hon. Member for the Tottenham Division of Middlesex to organise opposition to the Government policy in relation to the Military Service Act, 1916?
      Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the public importance of the matter, he will grant facilities for a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the allegation made by the hon. Member for Tottenham that he had
      1342
      been requested by a Member of the Cabinet to organise an opposition to Conscription?
      The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No, Sir, I am not prepared to adopt the suggestions contained in either of these questions. I understand that the statement alleged in the latter part of Question 47 is denied.
      Mr. McNEILL: In consequence of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the matter on the Motion for the adjournment of the House.
      The PRIME MINISTER: I will tell the hon. Member that I cannot take part in any such discussion.

      CLERICAL SERVICE.
      Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that men are being accepted for clerical service under the Military Service Act, 1916, who are admittedly unfit for military service; and, if so, will he say why this is done, having regard to his pledge that there would be no industrial compulsion under that Act?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I answered an identical question on the 2nd March, put by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanark. I have nothing to add to the answer I then gave.
      Mr. WATT: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the last part of the question was not answered on 2nd March?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot answer that.

      CIVIL SERVANTS.
      Mr. NEVILLEasked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House and the country that there are now no unmarried men of military age and fitness in any of the Government offices whose places can be taken by men over military age or by women; and, if there are, whether he will give orders to have the stars removed forthwith from their names in the National Register?
      The PRIME MINISTER: As I informed the hon. Member for Brentford on the 23rd February, instructions have been issued to Government Departments to dispense with the services of as many of their employés of military age as possible. A large number of men have accordingly been released. The remainder are for the most part attested under the Derby scheme, and

      1343
      each case is carefully reconsidered as the groups are called up. Clerks in Government offices are not starred.
      Mr. BARNESasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can give the number of officers of the Civil Service on full or part pay who are doing duty as guards or other subordinate positions in the Territorial Forces for Home Defence; and if he can relieve these men for their ordinary duties so as in turn to relieve young men of military age who are now doing their Civil Service duties, and so add to the strength of the Army in the field and save the money of the taxpayer?
      The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I cannot give the numbers asked for without elaborate inquiries, which I cannot impose upon Departments already overstrained. But, as bearing on the numbers, I may say that the Civil Service Commission, in taking on substitutes for the men who went to the Army, refused from the beginning of the War all men of military age and fitness unless they were married men with families, and, from April, 1915, refused all men fit for military service without exception.

      STEWARDS IN PASSENGER VESSELS.
      Mr. CHARLES DUNCANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state why, in view of the declaration made in November last that captains, officers, engineers and crews will be doing as good service for their country by continuing to man British ships as by joining the Army, stewards on passenger vessels have not been included in the list of persons entitled to exemption under the Military Service Act, 1916; whether he is aware that the trade union concerned has an agreement with the Admiralty for the supply of men and that it has had difficulty in finding sufficient; and whether steps will be taken to include stewards on passenger vessels in the lists of those entitled to exemption?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The Board of Trade do not look upon stewards on passenger vessels as being in the same category, as regards being indispensable to the merchant service, as captains, officers, engineers, and other seamen. The question of the stewards required for the needs of the Admiralty Transport Service is being considered.

      CENTRAL APPEAL TRIBUNAL.
      Mr. MORRELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in issuing his instructions to the Central Appeal Tribunal on 23rd February as to the position of the only son of a widow under the Military Service Act, 1916, he took into account the statement made by the Prime Minister on 5th January that it would be a monstrous thing if the State were to call for military service from a man in that position, and that such a man is as much entitled to exemption as any man in the Empire; whether he is aware that numerous cases are occurring of the calling up of widows' sons which appear to be a direct breach of the assurances given by the Prime Minister and by himself on this subject; and whether, having regard to the doubt and uncertainty that still exist on the subject, he will issue further and simpler instructions to local tribunals to the effect that unless it is clear that no serious hardship will be caused by the calling up of the only son or the only remaining son of a widow such a man ought at once to be exempted?
      Mr. LONG: I do not think that the sentence in the Prime Minister's speech, to which the hon. Member refers, when read with the context, bears the interpretation which he appears to give to it; I suggest that he should read the whole passage. I think that the letter which I sent to the Central Appeal Tribunal, on the 23rd ultimo, carries out the assurances given in the House, and it does not appear to me necessary at the moment to issue further directions.
      Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Has a letter on this question also been sent to the local tribunals dealing with this problem?
      Mr. LONG: Yes, we have been in communication with the local tribunals.

      UNATTESTED MEN (CROYDON).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he will say what action he proposes to take upon the conduct of the Mayor of Croydon who has utilised the local National Register to send out circular letters to unattested men of military age stating that in their own interests the men should attest before 2nd March, and that if they were desirous of claiming exemption under the Military Service Act, 1916, they should attest at once?
      Mr. LONG: I do not consider it necessary to take any steps in this matter.

      SONS OF RUSSIAN JEWS.
      Mr. O'GRADYasked the Home Secretary whether a son born in Great Britain of Russian Jewish parents, such parents not being naturalised British subjects, is eligible for military service; and whether in any case he comes within the scope of the Military Service Act, 1916?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): A man in the circumstances stated is a British subject and is entitled to the privileges and subject to the obligations of a British subject, including those imposed by the Military Service Act, 1916. The question whether any individual is personally eligible for service is one for the military authorities.

    BRAMSHOTT CAMP (SOLDIERS AND CARPENTERS).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at Bramshott Camp parties of soldiers are being employed side by side with carpenters and joiners on work proper to the trade; that the soldiers come to the workmen to borrow the necessary tools, which are frequently never returned; that there is little work for carpenters and joiners in the neighbourhood and, if soldiers are kept on what work there is, many men in the trade of over military age or otherwise unfit for service will be unemployed and have to leave the district; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter and put a stop to this policy of taking away the means of livelihood of civilian workmen?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; Canadian troops are being employed in addition to civilian workmen for the purpose of completing huts at Bramshott. Owing to the increase in the numbers of the Canadian contingent the work has to be done quickly, and it is for this reason that these soldiers are being so employed. No complaints from the civilian workmen in connection with the borrowing of tools have been brought to notice.
    Mr WILSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable number of carpenters over military age are out of employment at the present time?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir. There is no desire to use military rather than civilian labour. This is a very urgent matter and it was almost impossible to get adequate labour.

    MILITARY CAMPS (ALLEGEDASTE).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the evidence of Private Wankin given at a district court-martial at Windsor on Saturday last, the 26th February; will he say how it happened that half a leg of good mutton was found in the refuse-bin; what Army Regulation is infringed by a man taking good meat from a dust-bin; who was the officer responsible for this waste; and what, if any, steps have been taken towards an inquiry into the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: The proceedings of this court-martial have not yet been received, and I am therefore at present unable to make a report to the House as to what happened in regard to the leg of mutton, or to deal with the other points mentioned, but I will inform the hon. Gentleman when the report has been received.

    SOLDIERS' PAY (HOSPITAL EDUCTIONS).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in the case of men sent to hospital in this country suffering from sickness other than wounds, 7d. a day is deducted from their pay; that this amount has to be refunded on their return to duty; that the net result of this reduction in the case of a married man who, possibly before enlistment receiving good wages, is compelled by regulation to allow his wife 3s. 6d. a week towards her separation allowance is that, during the time he remains in hospital, he receives only 6d. a day, and is therefore 1d. in debt; and will he consider the advisability of doing away with this deduction so that these men while in hospital may have a little money to buy stamps, cigarettes, and other small comforts?
    Mr. FORSTER: A hospital stoppage of 7d. per day, or such less sum as the soldier's commanding officer may determine, is deducted when men are in hospital

    1347
    under circumstances which in the discretion of the commanding officer are held to justify the deduction. This discretion should prevent any case of real hardship in the circumstances mentioned.

    AIR RAIDS (DEFENCES OF LONDON).
    Mr. KINGasked in what respect the officers and men selected by the War Office to man gun and searchlight stations in and around London are better qualified than the Anti-Aircraft Corps who, in addition to nearly eighteen months' training, have had actual experience of Zeppelin raids; and whether officers of the Anti-Aircraft Corps have recently been instructing the military officers in range-finding and other work connected with anti-aircraft gunnery?
    Mr. TENNANT: I do not accept my hon. Friend's opinion on the technical point raised in the first part of his question. I have never stated that the first category mentioned are better qualified than the second category mentioned. That is my hon. Friend's opinion. As regards the last part of the question, I can assure him that the officers of the two Services are working in the closest co-operation.
    Mr. KINGasked whether naval ratings are to be retained at searchlight stations in and around London until the soldiers selected to man these stations be come proficient in the use and care of searchlights; and whether searchlights have been damaged owing to the inexperience of the men in charge during the period which has elapsed since the present military personnel were introduced to replace the Anti-Aircraft Corps?
    Mr. TENNANT: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that military interest would be better served if points such as this were not made the subject of questions. As a matter of fact nothing is known of any such incident as that mentioned. Every endeavour is being made to make the personnel efficient, both by recruiting from suitable sources and by training after enlistment.
    Mr. FERENSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that at midnight on Sunday a Zeppelin visited an important city on the East Coast, dropped over twenty bombs, killed seventeen people and
    1348
    wounded fifty; and will he say what steps he. proposes to take for the protection of the people against such raids?
    Mr. TENNANT: My right hon. Friend only put his question into my hands as I came into the House, and therefore I have not been able to consult my Department as to any future steps which may be taken in this direction, and I am not at all certain that it would be desirable to convey such steps to the public, even if I had been able to consult my Department. I can only say on behalf of the Government that we sympathise very deeply and warmly with the relatives of those who have been killed and injured. I hope that the figures given by my right hon. Friend to the House are in excess of the fact.
    Mr. FERENS: No.
    Mr. TENNANT: The information which reaches me is not the same as that my right hon. Friend has conveyed, but I would only express on behalf of the Government our sympathy.
    Mr. HODGE: Would not the best defence be to lay one or two German towns in ruins?
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is a position to inform the House whether the arrangements for transferring this matter to the War Office have yet been entirely completed?

    17TH ROYAL WELSH FUSILIERS (PRIVATES UNDER AGE).
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked under what authority Privates R. G. Williams and R. G. Thomas, of the 17th Royal Welsh Fusiliers, are still in the trenches, notwithstanding the fact that their commanding officer has had proof supplied him that they are only seventeen years of age and been requested to release them or give them work at the base?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think if my hon. Friend refers to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn, on 2nd November, he will find the answer to his question.

    BRITISH SOLDIERS (LEAVE).
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will emphasise the granting of leave to men who have

    1349
    been at the front twelve months and more, notably sappers and miners, 7th Yorks, Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, and others?
    Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to refer him to the answers I gave to the hon. Members for Derby and for the Eastbourne Division on the 2nd March. I must emphasise the fact that this is not the moment for discussing the grant of leave to British soldiers. The support of our Allies by all means, direct and indirect, must be, as it is, the guiding consideration.

    SOLDIERS UNDER NINETEEN.
    Mr. WINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Members of the House of Commons are receiving many letters from parents of soldiers under nineteen years of age protesting against their sons being sent abroad before reaching that age; and will he take steps that such soldiers are kept for Home duties until such age where parents express such desire?
    Mr. TENNANT: I made a full and, of course, authoritative statement on all aspects of this matter in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 2nd November. I would take the liberty of referring my hon. Friend to that answer.
    Mr. WING: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have brought to his notice several cases of youths under nineteen years of age, and in no case has he released any?
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the official age of the soldier is always taken as the final age by the military authorities, no matter what evidence may be brought forward showing his real age?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; I have always stated in this House the age of a man is always taken according to what his physical fitness is. If he says he is nineteen when he is only sixteen, then, if he is serving in this country, he would be released. If he is seventeen he would be allowed to serve, and to go abroad if necessary when his physical abilities were those of a man of eighteen and a half; but until that time he is not liable.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Then he may be abroad at the age of seventeen?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, he may.

    WAR OFFICE AND HOME COMMANDS (STAFFS).
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the number of officers of junior rank at present employed in the War Office and on the staff of the various Home commands who have hitherto been denied the opportunity of serving in the trenches or on other fronts; and whether it is intended to release these young officers for active service and replace them by officers who are incapacitated by wounds from further active service?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not aware what the number of such officers may be, but I do not think it is large. The principle suggested in the last part of the question has been acted upon from the beginning of the War wherever possible. It is not, however, inevitable that amongst the wounded officers the particular qualifications which are necessary for the headquarters or other staffs of the Army can be found. Members of this House are never tired of insisting, and with good reason, that the most competent officers shall be employed in the direction of the War without reference to other considerations. This is and must be the paramount criterion.

    DISCHARGES (ARMY).
    Mr. LEWIS HASLAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of complaints made by commanding officers and Army medical officers to the effect that large numbers of men useless for service are retained in the combatant forces for weeks and sometimes for months after such complaints have been reported to the War Office; and whether, in view of the expense to the State in keeping these men in the service and of the shortage of labour, he will take means to accelerate the discharge of such men from the service?
    Mr. TENNANT: I gave an answer on this point to the hon. and gallant Member for South Manchester on the 10th January. Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to refer to that answer.

    CEREBRO-SPINAL MENINGITIS.
    Mr. NEVILLEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can say how many cases of cerebro-spinal meningitis there have been among soldiers

    1351
    quartered in the district of the Portsmouth Command, and what proportion of the same have proved fatal; and whether any and what steps have been taken to guard against any spread of the disease?
    Mr. TENNANT: The figure for the Portsmouth District Medical Administrative Area, which includes the Portsmouth Garrison, Isle of Wight, Winchester Area, Dorsetshire Area, and Portland Defences, including Weymouth, is thirty-one. The number of deaths has been eight. Special measures are carried out, under an organisation set up fifteen months ago, to guard against spread of the disease. These consist of isolation of the patient, disinfection of the patient's clothing, etc., segregation and special medical treatment of contacts and carriers.

    ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT (PROMOTIONS).
    Mr. SAMUEL SAMUELasked whether, although numbers of promotions have been given in other branches of the Service to correspond with the increase in the Army, no additional substantive promotions to chief paymaster or staff paymaster have been made in the Army Pay Department since the outbreak of the War; and whether, in spite of the increase of work and responsibility thrown upon the officers of the Army Pay Department, absorptions are still being made of one vacancy in every three for steps to chief paymaster and staff paymaster, resulting in a complete deadlock of promotion, only one promotion to chief and two to staff paymasters having been made between 5th August, 1914, and 31st December, 1915?
    Mr. FORSTER: The facts are generally as stated, but two recent promotions with antedates have made the numbers of promotion to chief and staff paymaster two and three respectively. The temporary increase of work has been met by temporary promotions carrying pay and substantive promotion must continue to be governed by the permanent establishment, of which the actual numbers in higher ranks are already in excess.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY SERVICES (PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether
    1352
    he is aware that Patrick Mahone, of the Northamptonshire Regiment, is an inmate of the workhouse at Great Yarmouth; that he is now seriously ill, suffering from the after effects of gas; that his discharge from the Army was marked unfit for service; and that he has not been awarded a pension; will he say whether it is the intention of the Government to allow this man to remain in the workhouse; and, if not, will he take immediate steps to see that he is provided with an adequate pension so that he may spend the remainder of his days in such ease and comfort as his condition will allow?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am having inquiry made into this case, and will let my hon. Friend know the result.
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Charles Dow, 6th Cameron Highlanders, was discharged from the Army on 28th January as unfit for service with a pension of 6s. 3d. per week; whether he is incapable of doing light work; if so, whether he will explain how 6s. 3d. per week can be taken as sufficient pension for a man incapable of such work; and, if he is capable of light work, whether the War Office could retain him for such work instead of withdrawing medically unfit men from civil employments in which they are specially skilled and so disorganising the industries of the country?
    Mr. TENNANT: This man was judged by the medical authorities to be capable of light work, and his pension was fixed accordingly. It has not been represented to the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital that he is incapable of such work; but if application to that effect is made to the Commissioners he will be further medically examined and his case reviewed
    Mr. PRINGLE: Would it not be better to keep him in the Army rather than take men from civil employments for this purpose?
    Mr. TENNANT: He will be put to work which he is capable of doing.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will inquire into the circumstances under which Rifleman J. T. Taylor, No. 12,611, of the 21st King's Royal Rifle Corps, was induced to sign a declaration on Army Form O 1,838 indicating that he made no claim on behalf of his parents for separation allowance when, in point of fact, he

    1353
    was to the best of his knowledge and belief applying for separation allowance and should have had his attention drawn to an alternative form of declaration which is obscurely placed on the inside pages of the same Army Form; whether he is aware that the secretary of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Dependants Relief Committee at Bradford reports that there are a number of cases where mothers are only receiving payment of allotment and no Government separation allowance on account of their sons not having completed Army Form O 1,838 in the proper manner to give effect to their intention, owing to the fact that they have either been misinformed or have not had the matter fully explained to them; and if he will give Rifleman Taylor an opportunity of amending his declaration to make it correspond with the facts, as he intended it to do?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will make inquiry, and give the man an opportunity of amending his declaration; but he signed a perfectly clear and definite statement that he made no claim to separation allowance, and there is no evidence whatever that he was induced to do this.
    Captain CASSELasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office (1) whether a soldier's wife who enters an infirmary or sanatorium maintained out of the rates forfeits her separation allowance, while a soldier's wife who enters a hospital does not do so; if so, what is the reason for this distinction; (2) whether he is aware that in many districts soldiers' wives requiring treatment are compelled to go to an infirmary or a sanatorium by reason of hospital accommodation not being available, and thereby lose their separation allowances and are treated as paupers; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter; and (3) whether he will consider the advisability of allowing soldiers' wives entering an infirmary or sanatorium to retain their separation allowances, a reasonable amount out of such allowances being paid to the guardians or other authority?
    Mr. FORSTER: When a soldier's wife leaves her home under the conditions named, the allowances payable to the children are raised to the motherless rate, but if the institution is supported out of the rates, no payment in relief of rates is made unless the soldier was himself making one. In that case it is continued,
    1354
    within the amount available. If the institution is not supported out of the rates, there is no bar to payment. The soldier's allotment is paid to the wife while in a rate-supported institution, for her personal use. These arrangements appear to me to meet the situation adequately.
    Mr. CASSEL: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the situation is adequately met by depriving of separation allowance a soldier's wife who, through no fault of her own, is obliged to go into the infirmary, compelling her to go in as a pauper instead of as a paying patient?
    Mr. FORSTER: With great deference, I do not think she is treated as a pauper. She has the husband's allotment paid to her for her own personal use.
    Mr. CASSEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, no payment being made to the guardians, she goes in as a pauper? If she does go in as a pauper, will he reconsider the situation?
    Mr. FORSTER: I will look into the case again.

    BOXING CONTESTS (SOLDIERS).
    Mr. NIELDasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a boxing contest promoted this week by Sergeant Dick Burge had as its principal purses one of £800 and one of £300; that the money for these purses was provided by the public, who paid from 5s. to £5 5s. for seats, and that two days before the contest all £l 1s., 10s. 6d., and 5s. seats had been sold; whether, in view of the Government's appeals for economy, these private contests for private gain on the part of serving soldiers are countenanced by the authorities; and whether any and what portion of the proceeds of this contest is to be devoted to any military institution or fund?
    Mr. TENNANT: I regret that my investigation of this case is not yet as complete as I desire it should be. I will inform the hon. Member when I am able to answer the question, so that he may place it again on the Paper.
    Mr. NIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware it is nearly three weeks ago that I first gave notice of a contest that took place within five miles from this House, and that since then a much more expensive one, in which the prizes amounted to £1,200, has been held in the Edgware Road?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am quite aware the hon. Member was good enough to give me notice three weeks ago. I have made inquiries and investigations, which have resulted in a good deal of correspondence, but I am sorry to say, after all, it has not elicited the information which I desire.

    DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.
    Sir HENRY NORMANasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a small Committee of financial experts to report to him as soon as possible whether in their opinion the proposals of the Daylight Saving Bill, if put into operation during the coming summer, would result in substantial national economy?
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a small Committee of the House to inquire and report at once whether any considerable economy would be effected by the adoption during the War of the proposals contained in the Daylight Saving Bill?
    Captain PIRIE: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the practically unanimous support recently given to the proposal in Scotland; and whether he is aware that, as reported in the "Times," daylight saving has been in operation in Germany since last summer? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!" and "That does it!"]
    The PRIME MINISTER: The joint effect of the darkening of the streets and the early closing of places where intoxicants are sold has probably contributed more, towards shortening the interval between sunset and bedtime than would the adoption of Central European time as the standard time during the summer. I do not think there is sufficient reason to appoint a Committee of Inquiry on this subject, which was examined by Committees of this House in 1908 and 1909.
    Captain PIRIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1908 the Committee reported in favour of the proposal, and that in 1909 the Committee was only against it by a majority of 1?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The two Committees did not agree.

    HOME CIVIL SERVICE (CANDIDATES).
    Mr. PROTHEROasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been
    1356
    called to the Indian Civil Service (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1915; and whether opportunities similar to those given under that Act will be extended to those intending candidates for the Home Civil Service who are rendering naval or military services in the present War?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I am not sure that the method of recruitment contemplated by the Act referred to will be the best way of dealing with the problem in the Home Civil Service, but I am in full sympathy with the object in view, and appropriate steps will be taken to attain it.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to appoint a new Committee to co-ordinate the various bodies now dealing with questions affecting prisoners of war; and whether he can give the names of those composing the new Committee and indicate the duties and powers that will be assigned to them?
    Lord R. CECIL: An Interdepartmental Committee consisting of a representative from each of the following offices—the Home Office, the War Office, the Admiralty and the Foreign Office—is to meet under the chairmanship of my Noble Friend Lord Newton, which will deal with all questions relating to prisoners that require joint action of two or more Departments.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in December last a conference was held at Stockholm between representatives of the Russian Red Cross Society and the Red Cross delegates of the Central Powers to discuss questions affecting the treatment of prisoners; and whether His Majesty's Government will consent to a similar meeting for a similar purpose between Red Cross representatives of Great Britain and Germany in a neutral country?
    Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; His Majesty's Government regret that they are not able to adopt the suggestion made in the second part of the question.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that during the present winter three Russian Red Cross ladies, accompanied by three Danish gentlemen, have visited over seventy prisoner camps in Germany, and that

    1357
    three German Red Cross ladies, accompanied by three Danish gentlemen, have visited a very large number of camps in Russia; and whether His Majesty's Government would consent to a similar interchange of visits between Red Cross representatives of Germany and England accompanied by neutrals?
    Lord R. CECIL: My hon. Friend has already communicated to me semiofficially and in general terms the information contained in the first part of the question. I am afraid that the suggestion made in the second part of the question cannot be adopted. The United States Ambassador at Berlin and his large staff have been good enough to devote a considerable portion of their time to the care of our prisoners. They have made upward of 170 visits to camps and hospitals in Germany where British prisoners of war are interned, and I am glad to say that their efforts, which His Majesty's Government highly appreciate, have met with a considerable measure of success.

    TREATMENT OF WOUNDED PRISONERS IN SWITZERLAND.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that at the present time about 1,600 French prisoners of war and. about 850 Germans suffering from specified diseases are now interned in sanatoria in Switzerland; whether any invitation has been sent from the Swiss Government offering to receive British prisoners similarly afflicted; and what answer has been sent in reply by His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. His Majesty's Government have received no official invitation from the Swiss Government to send wounded prisoners to Switzerland in the event of an agreement being arrived at with the German Government. It is, however, understood that such a course would be agreeable to the Swiss Government. The Government are favourable to this proposal, and action is being taken in the matter.

    OFFICIAL SALARIES.
    Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether, in the facilities which
    1358
    have been promised before 15th April for the discussion of the payment to Members, he will take care that the Motion or Resolution on which this subject is to be debated is so framed as to admit of a discussion of the reduction or abolition of every other salary which is a public charge?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present give any undertaking as to the form which the Motion will take.
    Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us, as he has already assured the representatives of one group in the House, that the discussion will not be confined on the subject they wished to discuss, but that we shall be allowed to discuss every salary which is a public charge?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That will be a question, of course, for Mr. Speaker or for the Chairman who presides.

    DENTAL OFFICERS.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that medical officers on Home service receive an allowance for rations, but the same privilege is refused to dental officers, and can he see his way to place dental officers on the same footing as medical officers in this respect; and, if not, will he explain why any discrimination is made?
    Mr. FORSTER: Dental officers at home are not entitled under the terms of their agreement for service to ration allowance, but I will further consider the discrepancy to which my hon. Friend draws attention.

    BILLETING ALLOWANCES.
    Sir W. BULLasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can see his way to increase the allowance of 2s. 3d. per man at present given to occupiers of licensed premises in respect of billeting, having regard to the increase in the cost of all necessaries of life since the present scale of payment was fixed?
    Mr. FORSTER: The rates for billeting have been the subject of repeated and careful consideration, and I cannot see my way to propose any increase.

    RETRENCHMENT COMMITTEE (REPORT).
    Mr. FELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to carry into effect the recommendations contained in the Report of the Retrenchment Committee without delay, and what steps is he taking in the matter?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): Early effect will be given to the recommendations as far as it is found possible to adopt them. The terms of the necessary communications to the Public Departments on the various questions raised are now under consideration by the Treasury.

    EXCHEQUER BONDS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in consideration of the facilities granted to Post Office Savings Bank depositors to take up Exchequer Bonds and to have pass books issued to them as holders of such bonds, he will arrange for depositors in the trustee savings banks, who are said to number some 2,000,000, to be granted the same in ducements and advantages?
    Mr. McKENNA: Arrangements are being made for the sale of Exchequer Bonds and the issue of Exchequer Bond deposit books through trustee savings banks.

    CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the Associated Chambers of Commerce resolution regarding the non-assessment of co-operative societies to Income Tax; whether any attempt has ever been made to ascertain even approximately how much of the reputed profit or surplus of £14,000,000 a year arising on the operations of such bodies results from genuine co-operative trading and how much from ordinary competitive trading; and, if not, whether he will consider the pracicability of instituting such an inquiry or of otherwise arriving at a fair basis of assessment?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. For the rest, I fear I can add nothing to the many replies on this subject which I have already given.

    EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether it is intended to publish the Report of the Government's Committee in Scotland on the Substitutionary Employment of Women?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have received no detailed report from the Committee in question. They made a recommendation in favour of the constitution of local committees, which has been receiving my consideration in consultation with other Departments interested.
    Mr. CURRIEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government asked the Bank of Scotland to employ women; and, if so, what reply was re turned to the request?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I made to him on 29th February in this matter.

    LAND SETTLEMENT SCHEMES (AUSTRALIA).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Commonwealth Government in Australia and the Dominion Government in Canada are considering schemes of land settlement for the benefit of ex-soldiers and sailors at the conclusion of the War; and will he consider the advisability of approaching the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada with a view of arriving at some comprehensive scheme to include land settlement in this country as well as in Canada and Australia?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the question of my hon. Friend, who I know has always taken a great interest in the subject of emigration, is in the affirmative.

    NORTH SEA (INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION).
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the figure of £5,579 paid for salaries of officials in this country of the International Investigation of the North Sea for the year 1915–16 is to

    1361
    be repeated in the year 1916–17; if not, what is to be the sum paid to these officials; what is the work which they are now doing for this sum; and is the result of their operations to be communicated to Germany in the usual way?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: As the figure mentioned represents the total of subhead "G" of the Fishery Board for Scotland's Vote, presumably my hon. Friend refers to that sub-head. If so, I should explain that while the total is £5,579, there is included in that figure £2,706 for the maintenance of the steamer "Gold-seeker," which has, since the beginning of the War, been detached on Admiralty work. Of the balance, £2,373 represents technical and clerical assistance, and this figure will be reduced by about a quarter in the Vote for 1916–17. The work to be done is the carrying out of the Scottish portion of the International Investigation. The answer to the concluding portion of the question is in the negative.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (CARGOSHIPS).
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Government has been called to the facilities for reducing the cost of labour and material and expediting the construction of additional cargo ships for the mercantile marine that would arise from standardising the construction in every detail of hull and machinery of, say, 100 vessels of usual average sizes; whether he is aware that recent experience of shipowners has led to the recent construction, as suitable for all carrying trades, of vessels of about 8,000 tons deadweight capacity; and whether the Government will cause inquiry, either by Parliamentary Committee or otherwise, into the advantages that might arise in reducing at an early date the cost of freight, by the Government in the present emergency ordering a number of standardised ships of the above-named tonnage, with a view to placing them at the disposal of shipowners and merchants in an accelerated time and at reduced cost as compared with the present system of constructing ships to suit individual preferences?
    Mr. RUNC1MAN: My attention had already been called to the question of standardising the construction of merchant ships and the subject is under examination.

    CERTIFIED TRADES.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the lists of certified necessary trades, an employer in one of those trades who is actively engaged in his business is held, equally with his employés, to be engaged on work necessary in the national interests, or whether his employés are to be exempted from military service and he may not?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: In view of the great diversity of circumstances no general reservation of employers can be made, but the Reserved Occupations Committee recommended that the local tribunals should consider each case on its merits. That recommendation was approved by the Army Council and has been communicated to the military representatives and to the local tribunals. I may also remind my hon. Friend that appeals can be made from the decisions of the local tribunals to the district tribunals, and from them to the Central Tribunal.

    IMPORTATION OF FRUIT (RESTRICTIONS).
    Mr. MORRELLasked whether any Order has yet been made, or is about to be made, to prohibit or restrict the importation of fruit; whether it is proposed to include West Indian bananas in such an Order; and whether, having regard to the fact that bananas have become in recent years an important article of food to large classes of people, he will make further inquiries into the matter before sanctioning any Order that would restrict their supply?
    Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a representation from a large number of traders in the city of Sheffield who are interested in West Indian bananas, and who are already suffering from restrictions incidental to the War, and who in the year 1914 supplied no less than 20,000,000 West Indian bananas to the city; and whether, considering that bananas are a wholesome and important article of food, especially to the working classes, he will exempt West Indian bananas from his proposed restrictions?
    Mr. LEWIS HASLAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in determining the question of the importation of fruit, he will consider the desira-

    1363
    bility of the continuance of the importation especially of West Indian bananas on account of their value as food for children and for the working classes generally; and whether he will also bear in mind the detrimental effect the prohibition of the import of bananas would have upon West Indian industry?
    Sir J. D. REESasked whether the prohibition or restriction of the imports of fruit are to apply to bananas from the West Indies?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A Proclamation will be issued in a few days prohibiting the importation of foreign canned, bottled, dried, and preserved fruit except currants. Some restriction will, I fear, have also to be imposed shortly on the importation of fresh fruit with a view to securing more tonnage space. The exact nature of such restriction is still under consideration, but it will not in any case affect the Jamaica bananas or any other fruit really produced within the Empire.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will this restriction of the importation of fruit take place before brewing materials are restricted?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Upon the latter point I shall be in a position to make a statement in the House to-morrow.

    COAL PRICES.
    Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that some owners in Scotland are rendering useless the provisions of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, 1915, by making it a condition precedent to coal merchants obtaining supplies of coal that they must contract to pay the existing high prices of coal during the next six months (and in some cases the next ten months) with the alternative that in the event of their refusal to contract no supplies of coal will be given; if he has received letters from coal merchants in Glasgow stating that coal has been offered for sale on the conditions mentioned; and, if so, if he has considered these letters, and does he regard the offers so made as a contravention of the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, 1915; and, if so, what steps does he propose to take in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received representations on this subject. Where there were no contracts two years ago with
    1364
    which comparison can be made, the determination of the proper price for new contracts presents some difficulties. The whole question is bound up with that of securing supplies, and I think the best course will be for representatives of the merchants to discuss it with the District Coal and Coke Supplies Committee for Scotland in the first instance.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they decline to do that, and does he know that the Lanarkshire coalowners are stipulating that contracts should be made now instead of at the end of June; and is he aware that a letter has been sent to his Department asking for advice on this matter and no reply has yet been received?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware that they have consulted the District Coal and Coke Supplies Committee for Scotland. My information is that they have not yet done so. If they had done so in the first instance we should most probably have arrived more rapidly at a solution of the difficulty.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this country is in the hands of the Lanarkshire coalowners?

    ALIEN ENEMY COMPANIES.
    Sir JOHN HARMOOD-BANNERasked whether the Government are at present making contracts with any firms or companies partly or wholly owned by alien enemies; and, if so, what precautions or conditions are made to ensure due compliance with the terms of the contract?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the various contracting Departments for information as to the conditions inserted in contracts made by them.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. YEOasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the case of a discharged soldier who had been seeking employment for six months and had applied at post offices in Bournemouth, Reading, Oxford, Banbury, and Manchester, who, on being sent by a Labour Exchange to a post office, on presenting his papers and applying for employment, was refused and informed by

    1365
    the officials that the Department preferred women; and whether he will instruct local officials to honour his pledge given in this House that discharged soldiers and sailors would have first claim to temporary employment?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Joseph Pease): Preference for temporary employment in the Post Office during the War is already given to soldiers and sailors who have been discharged from the forces through wounds or other disablement incurred on active service, provided that they are physically capable of performing the work. At the request of the War Office employment is not being offered to "time-expired" soldiers who are eligible for re-enlistment. A certain number of ex-soldiers and ex-sailors are also being appointed to permanent positions in the Post Office, but, largely owing to the necessity of keeping open permanent posts for Post Office servants when they return from the Colours, it is not possible to do much at present in this direction. The hon. Member may rest assured that every endeavour is being made, and will continue to be made, to find employment for such applicants, and it is extremely desirable that such men should seek employment through the Labour Exchanges, with whom we are in close touch. We have not been able to trace the case of the discharged soldier referred to in the question, or that any statement has been made that women were preferred, but if more definite particulars can be furnished I will have further inquiry made.

    NEW LIGHTING REGULATIONS.
    Sir F. FLANNERYasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the number of medical men who declare their inability to visit patients in the country districts after dark in consequence of the new lighting regulations; and whether some relaxation in those regulations can be allowed to medical men upon professional journeys either by special permits to be issued by the local magistrates upon application or otherwise?
    Mr. SAMUEL: A few representations to this effect, which arose for the most part from misunderstanding of the Order, were received when the Order first came into force. I believe medical men generally
    1366
    have now found they are able to obtain a sufficient light for driving, and no special relaxation, therefore, appears to be necessary.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some districts medical men are refusing to attend people at night on the ground that they cannot safely motor along the roads?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir, I have had no such representations made to me.

    EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN (BRADFORD).
    Mr. KINGasked the Home Secretary whether His Majesty's superintendent inspector of factories and His Majesty's inspector of factories for Bradford attended on behalf of the Home Office before the Bradford Education Committee on 26th January and requested them to release children of thirteen for full-time employment; whether there are already over 5,000 children between twelve and fourteen years of age released for half-time employment in Bradford; and by what authority the Home Office has put pressure on an education authority to suspend its educational by-laws?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The suggestion that on the occasion in question the two inspectors urged the committee to release children of thirteen for full-time employment is unfounded. The facts, which have already been made public, are as follows: Representations have been made to the Home Office by the Bradford Chamber of Commerce that great difficulties are being experienced in the woollen and worsted industries at Bradford owing to the shortage of labour caused by the War and that this position might be considerably alleviated if the age for full-time employment were lowered. The superintending inspector was instructed to report to the Home Office on this application, and, for the purpose of this report, he and the district inspector interviewed the director of education, and later, at the director's suggestion, they conferred with the committee in order to ascertain the committee's views in the matter and communicate them to me. I understand that there are, as stated, about 5,000 half-timers in Bradford.

    NON-POISONOUS DOPE.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Home Secretary whether he can now state what was the result of the conference between the War Office and the Admiralty with regard to the possibility of using a non- poisonous dope?
    Mr. BRACE: The main difficulty in the way of the adoption of the non-poisonous dope is that one of the essential ingredients is not produced commercially in this country at present, and sufficient quantities of it are not available. The conference considered by what methods the supply of the ingredient could be increased, and efforts are being made to arrange for this. The Admiralty experiments to which I referred in my previous answer are proceeding.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Is it not a fact that the French Government have already prohibited the use of this very dangerous poison?
    Mr. BRACE: I should be obliged if my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

    PRESS CENSORSHIP ("FIELD" NEWSPAPER).
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the "Field" newspaper on 29th January last contained a supplement on the crimes of the German army containing much valuable information compiled from Lord Bryce's Report and from Belgian, French, Russian, and other official documents; whether he is aware that many copies of this supplement were posted in this country by private individuals for transmission to the United States but were stopped by the Censor in this country, and were not allowed to leave the country; and whether he can state the reason for this action on the part of the Censor?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that no copies of the supplement of the "Field" newspaper of the 29th January have been stopped by the Censor in the outward mails to the United States of America. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will be good enough to furnish me with the information on which he based his question.

    CIVILIAN AVIATION SCHOOLS.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether a number of officers of the Royal Naval Air Service who have distinguished themselves on active service have been trained at civilian aviation schools; if so, whether the activities of these schools will be encouraged; (2) whether his attention has been called to the fact that the civilian aviation schools at Hendon have done excellent work in supplying competent aviators to the Flying Services, and also that the activities of these schools do not clash with those of the military and naval schools; whether facilities will be given to these schools to continue their work; and (3) whether, under the Military Service Act, 1916, the civilian aviation schools will be compelled to close down, owing to pupils and employés alike being taken for military service; whether he is aware that the experience gained by instructors and mechanics at these schools is more valuably employed in their present occupation than as Infantry of the Line or even as pilots and mechanics in one of the Flying Services; and, if so, whether appropriate steps will be taken to secure that these schools shall continue their activities?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I think it is very likely that pupils who have been trained at civilian aviation schools have distinguished themselves on active service, though I have no precise information upon the point. Generally, I may point out that the training given at these schools is only a small part of the training required to make an Air Service pilot, and with the increasing facilities for training at Service schools, where the training is shortened through the pilots receiving instruction in several subjects concurrently, it is hoped in the near future almost entirely to dispense with the necessity for using private schools for training R.N.A.S. pupils. I cannot, of course, say the extent to which these schools are affected by the provisions of the Military Service Act; that is a question which should be addressed to the War Office. As regards the staff of instructors and mechanics at these schools, it has always been open to them to apply for entry into the Royal Naval Air Service if they so desired.

    ORGANISED LABOUR.

      DEPUTATION TO PRIME MINISTER.
      Sir STEPHEN COLLINSasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make as a result of the deputation which he received on Tuesday last from the representatives of organised labour?
      The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to have the opportunity of correcting the un-authorised and misleading report of the proceedings of a private meeting which has been made public.
      The deputation, which was representative of the great body of organised labour, expressed the view that, as the result of the communication made by the Government to the Committee on Production, hardship was likely to be caused in the case of low-paid workers and in cases which should be properly included in the class of local adjustment.
      I have consulted with Sir George Askwith on the points raised, and am able to state that, having regard to the Government's communication referred to and the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Attercliffe on 20th January in this House, the Committee on Production consider that in the matter of the low-paid wage earners their discretion is not fettered by the communication of the Government. This applies also to the case of local adjustments, a term which appears to cover as accurately as possible the class of cases which the Government had in view.

      Scottish Universities.
      Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the University College, Dundee, through the University of St. Andrew's, receives an annual Grant from the Exchequer towards payment of professors' salaries; whether one of these professors receives a second salary for his services on the Fishery Board of Scotland; what do the two salaries amount to; and is it proposed to continue these in war time in view of the fact that fishing and investigation in the the North Sea are impossible owing to Admiralty restrictions?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the salary of the professor referred to is almost entirely
      1370
      paid from a special endowment. His allowance from the Fishery Board is £400, and his university emoluments amount to £600. Although North Sea fishing is restricted, there are large accumulations of material which continues to be dealt with, besides special statistics which are kept up as part of the British share in the international work. I may explain that the professor's allowance is paid to him not as scientific member of the Board, but as supervising the conduct of the Scottish portion of the international investigations. This duty has involved a great amount of laborious and detailed work which did not fall upon his predecessors in office on the Fishery Board and which he could not be expected to do without special remuneration.

      Margarine.
      Mr. BOLANDasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the representations made by the Glasgow Grocers' and Provision Merchants' Association and by the Crossmyloof and Shawlands Merchants' Association against the practice of passing off margarine as Irish butter; and whether, in view of this action on the part of reputable merchants and of the inadequacy of the small fines imposed to put an end to this system of defrauding the poor, he will state what further action he proposes to take?
      Mr. McKINNON WOOD: My attention has been called to the representations made by the associations, and I have caused inquiries to be made. My information is that the Sanitary Department of Glasgow is in full sympathy with the associations, and is pursuing an active policy of prosecution in every case. As I have already informed my hon. Friend, the fines imposed are in the discretion of the judge and in accordance with Statute. The infliction of higher penalties would involve legislation, and I am not satisfied that the situation calls for this step at present.

      Tuberculosis Order, 1914.
      Mr. HOGGEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Board of Agriculture are not bringing the Tuberculosis Order of 1914 into operation during the continuance of the War; whether he has received resolutions from any Scottish boroughs there-anent; what steps he proposes to take to protect the public; and whether, if the Order is not enforced, he proposes to enforce any modified form of Order?
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): Yes, Sir, the Board have decided to maintain the suspension of the Order until after the War. The only representation which they have received against this decision is one from the Edinburgh City Council, which suggests that for the protection of public health a modified form of the Order might be brought in. But the Order does not lend itself to modification within the lines of the policy laid down in the manner suggested by the city council.
      Mr. HOGGE: Why has the right hon. Gentleman replied to this question, and why does the Secretary for Scotland not attend to questions concerning the Scottish Board of Agriculture?
      Mr. ACLAND: Because the question of the Tuberculosis Order falls within the province of the Department which I represent.

      Home-Grown Timber.
      Mr. WATTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Committee on the purchase of home-grown timber proposes to make purchases in Scotland; and, if so, will he say what arrangements the Committee is making for the replanting of the timber thus dealt with?
      Mr. ACLAND: The Committee are making purchases in Scotland. The question of the replanting of areas denuded in consequence of the existing heavy demand for home-grown timber is outside the scope of the Committee, but it is being actively considered by the Departments concerned.
      Mr. WATT: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is in favour of this replanting scheme?
      Mr. ACLAND: Personally I am very keen on this replanting scheme where we can carry it out, but it does not come within the terms of the reference to the Timber Purchasing Committee. It is a much larger question, and it is rather difficult to consider it during the War.

      Scottish Mails (Sunday Deliveries).
      Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the postmaster-General if he is aware of the fact that in many districts in Scotland the mails have to be conveyed on the Sabbath very long distances, sometimes over 30 miles, by road, without commensurate public advantage, and that owing to
      1372
      this the various sub-postmasters and mistresses are deprived of their weekly day of rest; and if, in considering the abolition of Sunday deliveries, he will take the above statement into consideration?
      Mr. PEASE: The hon. Member may rest assured that the considerations to which he refers will not be overlooked.

      Leeds General Post Office (Staff).
      Mr. SNOWDENasked what was the staff of the chief superintendent's office at the Leeds General Post Office six months ago and what is the staff to-day and, if an increase has taken place, on what grounds is the increase justified?
      Mr. PEASE: The number, excluding the chief superintendent, was nine in September, and there are now twelve, but one of the staff is employed only half his time. The three additional officers employed temporarily are on duties due to the War, and have been withdrawn from other duties and do not represent a net increase of staff.

      Cable Connection (Aran Isles).
      Mr. GINNELLasked the Post master-General whether the telegraphic cable connecting the Aran Isles with the mainland of Galway, and essential to the proper carrying on of the fishing industry there, is under the control of the Post Office; and, if so, why he allows it to be kept inoperative this season as a means of forcing the young fishermen thus impeded in their work to enlist?
      Mr. PEASE: I think the hon. Member must have asked me this question again by inadvertence. I would refer him to the reply which was given him last Thursday.
      Mr. GINNELL: In view of the fact that these islands are being depleted of their young men, while the fishing industry is protected in this country, when will this cable be repaired?
      Mr. PEASE: I have already said at the earliest possible moment when we can obtain the staff.

      Cambridge Guardians.
      Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that there was a vacancy recently on the Town Council and Poor Law guardians at Cambridge, for which there were several candidates nominated, including an independent candidate; and

      1373
      can he state on what grounds no election was held, although the independent candidate had not withdrawn, and why the vacancy was filled by co-option?
      Mr. LONG: I am not aware of the circumstances referred to, but I may remind the hon. Member that under the Elections and Registration Act, 1915, any casual vacancy on a borough council or board of guardians is required to be filled by co-option.

NEW WRIT.
For the County of Leicester (Southern or Harborough Division), in the room of John William Logan, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Gulland.]

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Joseph Bliss, esquire, for County of Cumberland (Cockermouth Division).
William Coote, esquire, for County of Tyrone (South Tyrone Division).

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
  CHAIRMEN's PANEL.
  Sir Daniel Goddard reported from the Committee of Selection that they had selected the following seven Members to be the Chairmen's Panel: Sir Edwin Cornwall, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Mr. Arthur Stanley, Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Eugene Wason, and Mr. John William Wilson.
  APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS UNDER PARLIAMENT ACT, 1911.
  Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee that, in pursuance of Section 1, Sub-section (3), of the Parliament Act, 1911, they had appointed Mr. John William Wilson and Mr. Stuart-Wortley from the Chairmen's Panel, with whom Mr. Speaker shall consult, if practicable, before giving his certificate to a Money Bill.

  UNOPPOSED BILL COMMITTEES (PANEL).
  Sir Daniel Goddard further reported from the Committee that they had selected the following Members to be the Panel to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees under Standing Order No. 109: Mr. Baldwin, Sir William Beale, Sir Frederick
  1374
  Cawley, Sir Francis Edwards, Mr. Mooney, Colonel Alan Sykes, Mr. Thomas-Stanford, Mr. Turton, and Sir Frederick Lay-land-Barratt.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.—VOTES A. AND 1.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    MR. BALFOUR'S STATEMENT.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Balfour): Only once before in the history of this House have we met together to discuss the Naval Estimates under anything like present conditions, and that solitary precedent I need hardly say was the precedent set last year by my right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Churchill), then in the position of First Lord of the Admiralty. The peculiarity of the situation is that, whereas, in normal years of peace, we meet with preoccupations of finance in our minds, with questions as to the particular class of ships which ought to be built, and with discussions as to the precise number of men that are required, and the Committee of the House, when the House goes into Committee on the Naval Estimates, is largely occupied with dealing with the details of the Estimate on those questions, at a time of war that is impossible, and its impossibility could not be more clearly demonstrated than by the shape in which the Estimates have been laid before the House. I have copied the precise form adopted by my predecessor. The House will find no details of expenditure under the various heads; we work solely with token Votes, and the discussion to-day will, I am sure, by common consent, refrain from touching all details which are not only permissible in time of peace, but are of the first necessity. Now we have to deal with more general considerations, and the House will neither ask me to go into details, nor will it tolerate my doing so. It would, I am confident, feel that I was, in endeavouring to explain the course the Government have taken, far exceeding the duties which fall to the First Lord of the Admiralty in the time of a great war.
    The task, as I conceive it, which I have to pursue to-day is of quite a different character. My business is rather to give the House, as far as it is consistent with
    1402
    the public interest so to do, a general impression of the course which the Admiralty have pursued, and are pursuing, to enable us to carry effectively the vast responsibilities which at the present moment rest upon the British Fleet; responsibilities which extend far beyond the needs of defending our shores, or even of protecting our commerce, needs which are in no sense of less extent than the whole of that great Alliance which is now carrying on war against the Central Powers of Europe. Our Fleet is now an International Fleet, and not merely a British Fleet. It is carrying on international duties, and many nations depend upon it. In this survey, which will in no sense be a detailed survey, I shall not think of going farther back than the beginning of the War. I am aware that, in some of our Debates, hon. Gentlemen are rather fond of asking why was not this or that done before the War in order to prepare the country for the eventualities which actually occurred. I think that while the War is going on all such criticisms arc wholly thrown away, and I may say so, perhaps, all the better, as in no sense, as far as I can see, could they possibly be directed against myself. But whoever they are directed against, I think they are out of place.
    4.0 P.M.
    The earliest stage we have to consider or deal with on the present occasion is the outbreak of War. Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen may think that that date is too early, and that I should not refer to anything that took place before I myself became responsible for the office I now hold. But that would be to assume that the present Board of Admiralty are carrying on a policy which is in some respects a discontinuance of or different from that of their predecessors. Let me disabuse hon. Gentlemen of that view. The policy of the Admiralty, so far as I understand it—I do not say it never suffers any change from changing circumstances—it ought to suffer change from changing circumstances—but as far as I understand the policy of the Admiralty under the present Board is directly continuous of the policy of its predecessors. I have, indeed, heard suggestions that when the present Board came into office there was a sudden stoppage of naval activities under the head of shipbuilding, that the new Board were content to rest on the labours of their predecessors, that it was supposed that all that ought to be done had been done,

    1403
    and nothing more was required, and that we should reap where they had sown. There never was a more singular misstatement of fact, never was there a more curious invention even in these days when every morning brings its own particular lie with it. Who it is that set themselves to work to disseminate such fictions, to feed them, to water them, to cultivate them, to spread them, I do not know, but whoever it may be, let me here say quite distinctly there is absolutely no truth in that suggestion, and that so far as activities in the direction of adding to our Naval Force are concerned, we have pursued to the utmost of our ability the broad general lines—I am not now speaking of details—marked out for us by the distinguished Board which went before us.
    I have indicated that the circumstances of the War are not necessarily unchanging. We all know, in fact, that they have changed greatly during the nineteen months in which hostilities have continued. When my right hon. and gallant Friend first had to deal with the situation, what were the great problems that met him? The first of those problems is one which is common to every Admiralty. It is the problem of maintaining what we now know as the Grand Fleet in adequate superiority over every force that can be brought against it, in other words, the problem of maintaining the command of the sea. That problem is common to all Boards of Admiralty, and, in my opinion, my right hon. and gallant Friend was amply justified in saying, when he reviewed the circumstances which accompanied the outbreak of hostilities in August, 1914, that the Fleet which had been prepared by the Board of which he was the head and his predecessors was adequate for this great task of maintaining the command of the sea. But, in addition to that, the common task of all Admiralties, the greatest responsibility thrown on my right hon. Friend, I conceive, was probably that of dealing with the German cruisers who were preying upon our commerce in various parts of the world. That was a very difficult, a very anxious, a very laborious task, and it was carried out with complete success. "The final act in the drama, which went on from the very day on which hostilities began, was the destruction of the "Koenigsberg," which had taken refuge
    1404
    in an East African river. That fell after the time when my right hon. Friend had ceased to be First Lord of the Admiralty, but all the really important work, without exception, connected with this destruction of the German cruisers was done in what I suppose we must now call the early months of the War. It was done with complete success, and at this moment there is no German cruiser—I do not speak of a German raider like the "Moewe"—belonging to the German Fleet which is in a position to menace British commerce on any of the oceans of the world.
    That may be described as the first phase of the War. About a year ago, early in 1915, which is about the time when the last Navy Estimates were presented to the House, a wholly new set of problems began to rise into paramount importance. In the early days of the War the sea had to be kept open for the transport of the Expeditionary Force to France—the 150,000 or 160,000 men who constituted the first instalment of the great forces that we have subsequently sent there. The task of carrying 160,000 men and supplying them with stores and ammunition, although it would have seemed a very difficult and laborious task to our forefathers, is absolutely insignificant compared with the task which we have taken upon ourselves in an ever-increasing magnitude since the operations in the Mediterranean began. In addition to the enormously augmented supplies of men we have sent to France, we have had to maintain and transport the Army in Gallipoli, the large force connected with Egypt, and the large force connected with Salonika. We had not merely to transport them, but to supply them and to feed them. In addition to that, the blockade of Germany and the blockade of Turkey were tasks which were thrown upon the British Fleet; the increasing importance of the northern ports of Russia was day by day being forced upon our notice; and last, but not least, the appearance of the submarine in the Mediterranean as well as in Home waters added greatly to the responsibilities and the anxieties of those who had undertaken this colossal task of transporting and provisioning great armies in different theatres of operations. All that began not in the first months of the War, but, roughly speaking, you may say it began in the early part of last year. If you take the distance between Archangel in the North and Alexandria in the

    1405
    Eastern base of the Mediterranean, you will find that distance to be about 5,000 miles, and that 5,000 miles had in a large part to be guarded solely by the British fleets, and in another part had to be guarded by British fleets combined with those of our Allies, but in a manner which necessarily threw an immense strain upon the British Fleet.
    I find that about 4,000,000 combatants have been transported under the guardianship of the British Fleet, 1,000,000 horses and other animals for transport, 2,500,000 tons of stores, and, in addition, 22,000,000 gallons of oil for us and for our Allies. That that colossal operation threw an immense strain upon the British Mercantile Marine is obvious, and is known to all. That, however, is not the aspect of the question to which I wish to refer now. The aspect of the question to which I wish to refer now is that this, in the presence, not of German cruisers, but of German submarines, threw an enormous task upon the British Navy which could hardly be foreseen, still less provided against, in the first days of the War. Those responsibilities were borne partly by the late Board and partly by the present Board of Admiralty, and those responsibilities we have been, I think, not unsuccessful in carrying out. If you laid before some professor of the theory of warfare or some student of military and naval history, I do not believe he would for a moment have admitted the possibility—in the face of the special difficulties with which we have to deal, of maintaining these enormous armies in Egypt, the Dardanelles, Salonika, to say nothing of Mesopotamia or of the Colonial operations in East Africa or in the Cameroons—of carrying out such an operation as that without suffering immense losses even if the operations could be carried out at all in any circumstances, with the resources at the disposal even of the greatest naval Power in the world. I think we may look back with satisfaction upon the manner in which this vast task has been carried through. It is novel in character, unexampled in magnitude. The dangers to be met with were relatively new dangers; they had never been experienced in practice; and on the whole, I think, everybody who has been connected with these transactions in the Admiralty and in the Navy has reason to be pleased—I do not say to be satisfied—with the result.
    1406
    That, very broadly, represents one of the great changes that have taken place in the tasks thrown upon the Admiralty, the task of maintaining command of the seas being common to every month that has passed since the War began. These operations to which I have now called attention relate to the later rather than to the earlier period of the War. The question arises—it is strictly relevant to this Vote—what has the country done to deal with the situation that thus arises? My right hon. and gallant Friend, when he was making his statement on the Navy Estimates last year, used these words:
    "On the declaration of war we were able to count upon a Meet of sufficient superiority for all our needs, with a good margin for safety in vital matters, fully mobilised, placed at its war stations, supplied and equipped with every requirement down to the smallest detail that could be foreseen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th February, 1915, col. 920, Vol. LXIX.]
    In my opinion that was a very great boast to make. I think it was a boast that was amply justified. I do not think justice has yet been done either to the pre parations made by the Committee of Imperial Defence or to the preparations made by the Admiralty for such a sudden and unforeseen emergency as had to be dealt with in the first week in August. When the time comes for an impartial survey of the history of this War, when people cease to occupy their time in detecting errors here and deficiences there, it will be admitted that the Navy and the Committee of Imperial Defence, and the Army, so far as the Expeditionary Force is concerned, did all, and more than all, that any prophet could have expected. What they professed to themselves and the world that they were able to do, that they did, and they did it in a manner that reflects the greatest credit upon those who were responsible for seeing the kind of emergency that might occur, and in devising the methods by which that emergency could be met. Then it may be said, if when the War broke out we were, in the words of my right hon. Friend (Colonel Churchill), able to count upon a Fleet of sufficient superiority for all our needs, and with a good margin of safety in vital matters, was it necessary thereafter to make any great or sustained effort to increase the strength of the Fleet thus adequate, and more than adequate, for immediate necessities at the outbreak of hostilities? That is a view that might be plausibly argued, but, fortunately for the country, it has never been the view of the Board of Admiralty. They have never

    1407
    been content with the weapon with which they found themselves possessed. The three Boards of Admiralty which have been in existence since the War broke out have never relaxed their desire to increase the strength of that weapon. They have never been content to rest upon the work which they or their predecessors have done, but they have made every effort to increase the value of that mighty maritime weapon, on which the liberties of the world have in the past depended and now more than ever depend.
    We rightly boast, I think, of the prodigious effort which the nation has made to create out of an Expeditionary Force a vast national Army, and certainly it is a most notable performance; but let us not, through interest in the Army, forget that the Navy also has enormously expanded since the outbreak of hostilities. The Navy as described by my right hon. Friend, deserved all the eulogies he passed upon it, but that Navy has been entirely surpassed by the Navy which this country and its Allies now find at their disposal. I do not propose to go into details about the size of the Fleet, but, after all, it is a very fair measure of the growth of the Navy to say that the personnel required by the Navy has, broadly speaking, doubled since the War began. If I remember rightly, in the Navy Estimates of 1914 I think, there were about 140,000 on Vote A, without Reserves. I suppose now, excluding the Naval Division, we shall have about 300,000. We have taken power to raise the total number to 350,000, including the Naval Division, but if I say, broadly speaking, at this moment there arc 300,000 men engaged in strictly naval work, I shall be about the mark. That is an enormous growth and it may be taken as a kind of rough measure of the growth of the Navy. Including auxiliary cruisers and all ships under the white ensign—all ships which arc actually used as ships of war—I find that the Navy has increased by well over a million tons since the War broke out. These are enormous increases, and when I said no Board of Admiralty was content with the Fleet, however superior, which it found at the outbreak, and until the enemy were finally defeated would always insist on augmenting its naval power, I think that broad proposition is one which the figures I have just given amply prove.
    Let me say a little more upon some details of these preparations—not details
    1408
    in the sense we are accustomed to on Navy Estimates, but rather more detailed than any of the generalities which I have just given. Let me begin with the Air Service. The Air Service in the Navy entirely owes its origin to my right hon. Friend (Colonel Churchill). Do not let us look back upon the past with all the fruits of our present experience and say this is what clearly ought to have been done or ought not to have been done. It is enough for me to point out that long before the usefulness of aircraft had been proved by experience my right hon Friend foresaw the important part it was going to play, and set himself to work to lay deep the foundations of a Naval Air Service. Anyone who has had the opportunity, which I have had, of examining the work which has been done in this connection in the Admiralty is aware how much that Service owes to the unremitting labour and unceasing personal attention which my right hon-Friend gave to this particular branch of his duties. He was not content to leave it to others to do, and indeed I suspect that if in an old-established and traditional office like the Admiralty this question had been left entirely to what I may call the traditional routine of the office, the Air Service would have made nothing like the progress it did under the fostering care of my right hon. Friend But the growth which I have just indicated as regards the ships of the Navy has been at least as noticeable in regard to aircraft. Since August, 1914, I think I am not wrong in saying that the strength of the air forces of the Navy have grown tenfold, and, of course, that necessarily involved some alteration of organisation. That which was suited to the infancy of this branch of the work becomes quite unsuitable when it reaches a certain expansion. Although nothing essential has been changed, I think I may say without fear of contradiction that some modifications suited to the enormous growth of the Service have been introduced with considerable advantage. Among other things, we found that the means of educating airmen were necessarily inadequate when you had to deal with a growth of such immense rapidity, and a growth which was taking place not merely in the Navy but in the Army. At one time the Navy and the Army more or less pooled their efforts in the matter of education. I need not trace the various modifications which have taken place

    1409
    on the original system. It is enough to say that, with the sanction of the Treasury, the Admiralty purchased some months ago a large tract of land very suitably situated—I will not say where it is—for purposes of training in flying, and that we have secured the services of Commodore Paine, who has done such admirable work in this connection for the Army. I do not doubt for a moment that under his supervision, and with all the facilities which to the best of our ability we are placing at his disposal, an immense growth in education in air matters will be the result of our efforts.
    It has been said by many people why, after all, should the Navy have an Air Service at all? I do not mean to touch even remotely upon the vexed question of whether there should or should not be a separate Minister for Air. I content myself with saying what I think is indisputable, that whether there be a separate Minister for Air or not, the Navy will always require a special service for its own purposes, however it be provided and whoever may superintend it. Its work is largely different from that of the Army. I do not deny that the Navy often does things which could be done by the Army, had the Army been at the moment provided with the necessary materials, but undoubtedly the Navy must have its share in air work when the operations are partly or wholly naval. The training of a naval airman is the same indeed as that of an Army airman in its early stages, but differentiates as time goes on. He has not to learn all the same things. He has to learn things which are perfectly useless to an Army airman during the ordinary course of his duties. No Army airman, for example, is required ever to use a seaplane. No Army airman need learn how to distinguish the various types of shipping, enemy and friendly, which have to be discriminated if he is to be a good scout over the sea. There are these and many other functions in which the training must be different for the two branches of the Service, and whether you put them ultimately under one Minister or not, that difference in my opinion never will be obliterated. If I have been fortunate enough to convince any sceptic that there must, therefore, be a separate Air Service under any circumstances, the next question is, have these Services been so organised as entirely to prevent what is called overlapping? Is there any overlapping in the work of
    1410
    the Army and the Navy? It would be a very strong order to say that there never has been any overlapping, but of one thing I am absolutely convinced, and it is that whatever may be true of the future, in the past it has been an immense gain that there has been two separate Departments dealing with all the nascent and early problems of this growing branch of warefare. It is all in its infancy. No one could tell you on the 5th March, 1916, what the developments will be on the 5th March, 1917. Nobody could have told you when war broke out in August, 1914, how in a year the type of the machine, the work of the machine, and the capabilities of the machine would have altered, and the very views we took on the whole Air Service would have suffered profound modification. Speaking for myself, I am quite certain that had the whole of this been left, for example, to the Army, immense developments in engine power and matters connected with the size and lifting power of the machines would have been undeveloped, and that not because the gentlemen connected with the Army Air Service were less competent than those connected with the Navy, but because the problem of dealing with heavy aeroplanes came before the Navy in a shape earlier and more insistent than it could come before the Army, in the very fact that you have to use a seaplane, which is always heavier than the lighter type of aeroplane. The question of developing engine power, the question of developing economy of petrol, and the problems connected with the rapid improvement of the internal combustion engine for flying purposes have gained beyond doubt from the fact that the Navy threw themselves into this task from their own point of view and with their own objects, to the immense advantage, in the end, both of the Navy and the Army. That is the conclusion to which I have arrived from such studies as I have been able to give to the matter. I need hardly say that this does not in any sense suggest that we ought not to establish such a Committee as the Prime Minister has in fact appointed, by which the question of supply as between the two Services can be properly arranged. I am dealing with far deeper questions than that, and in a sense with far more interesting questions. There may be rapid development, in the face of an active enemy, of various types of flying machines which the Navy and the Army alike require.

    1411
    There is one branch of the Air Service which the Army have deliberately handed over to the exclusive patronage of the Navy. I mean the lighter-than-air craft. Here also there has been a great development since the War began. As the House knows, it was decided, rightly or wrongly, in years gone by—I think myself wrongly, though I certainly do not blame the people who came to that decision—that it was not worth our while to pursue the question of Zeppelins, and to deal with the complicated and costly question of Zeppelins. I do not believe that any prophet now living could say with confidence what the future relations between the Zeppelin and the heavier-than-air machine is going to be. Both are improving, and perhaps the improvement in the heavier-than-air machine is more rapid and more certain than the improvement of the Zeppelin. It may conceivably be that ten years hence people will refer to the Zeppelin as an antiquated instrument, and say, "You ought to entirely rely upon increasing the magnitude and the power of your heavier-than-air machines." On that I make no prophecy, and I venture no forecast. All I say is that at this moment it is extremely desirable that we should have lighter-than-air machines, from the naval point of view—I only speak from the naval point of view—in order to supplement the efforts of our Fleet by machines for scouting, which, in many respects, and in favourable weather, are far more effective than the swiftest destroyer or the most powerful cruiser. Therefore we have done and we are doing our best to develop the lighter-than-air machine. The difficulty, to me rather an unexpected one—I am not talking of Zeppelins now, but of non-rigid types—is not so much in constructing the instrument as in housing it. In the present condition of labour throughout the country the length of time taken to build an adequate shed and shelter for these instruments is what is really checking their use. We find it easier to provide these lighter-than-air craft than to lodge them suitably. One further matter I must bring before the notice of the House, and that is the kite balloon. That also, I think, has been handed over by the Army to the Admiralty. It has undergone great and growing development. I do not know what the ultimate limits of its utility may be, but I am persuaded that we shall find more and more use for it at
    1412
    sea, and that the extraordinary change which has gone on in the last twelve months in the use of the kite balloon is symptomatic of the value which it will have, not merely in land operations, but in sea operations also.
    I leave the Air Service and come to what is more familiarly germane to this Vote, namely, the question of ships. I do not mean to say anything about details of types. I mean simply to lay down certain general propositions. At no time in our history has so great an amount of the shipbuilding capacity of the country been used for the production of ships of war as during the nineteen months that have elapsed since hostilities broke out. Not only is the amount unprecedented, but the proportion is unprecedented. Practically we may almost say that during most of these nineteen months very little was built in our shipbuilding yards for the merchant service—relatively hardly anything—and the building resources of the naval yards, and the shipbuilding yards, both of those devoted habitually to ships of war and those devoted habitually to merchant ships, have been used to the utmost of their capacity for producing what are in one sense or another ships that are absolutely necessary for naval purposes. In the second place, I would like to say that there never has been a time when so many ships have been turned out, or when the speed of turning them out has been equalled. We may say this ship might have been turned out sooner, or that ship might have been turned out sooner, but if you look at the various classes of ships and take them in turn you will find that there never has been a period when ships were so quickly completed, from the moment when the materials were collected and when their keel was laid, to the moment they were put into commission. The whole process of making ships of war has been speeded up, and never has it run at such a speed as it is running at the present moment. Never has there been a greater desire on the part of the Admiralty to vary the types of ships, not merely according to tradition, habit, or usage, but what appear to be the new and pressing necessities of the moment. The problems, as I have already indicated, that faced the Admiralty since the War broke out are to a large extent the problems which, in their proportion at all events, were not foreseen. The new necessities have to be provided for as

    1413
    rapidly as possible, and they have been provided for and are being provided for as rapidly as possible.
    Quite early in the War the necessity of building smaller craft and increasing the number of our destroyers and of our light cruisers, and so forth, was foreseen by the Admiralty. They set to work at once on that, as on many other points connected with shipbuilding, and that policy, begun many months ago, has continued without rest or intermission ever since. The shipbuilding resources of the country are not only being used to an absolutely unexampled extent in making ships of war, but they are also being used to an absolutely unexampled extent in carrying out the necessary repairs for the Fleet. That does not depend solely and merely upon the fact that a very much bigger Fleet requires very many more repairs. That is a fairly obvious proposition, but it is not the only proposition. Repairs depend very much, especially in the case of more delicate and fast-running vessels, upon the use and speed to which you put your ships. In peacetime you may run vessels of war at what is called economic speeds, but in wartime you do not run at economic speed; you run at very uneconomic speed. Not only do you run very uneconomic speeds, but the amount of steaming done is much greater in wartime, and the result is that your growing Fleet nót only requires more repairs—because it is a growing Fleet—but it requires more repairs because the Fleet undergoes a strain in wartime which it neither can nor ought to undergo in times of peace. The result of all this effort is that, with one exception, the Fleet is far stronger than it was when War broke out. That exception is armoured cruisers. We have lost some armoured cruisers and we have not replaced them. But in armoured cruisers our superiority is enormous and is uncontested. In every other branch of ships of war, in "Dreadnought" battleships, in "Dreadnought" cruisers, in light cruisers, in flotilla leaders, in destroyers, in submarines, in sloops, and the vast and growing class of patrol boats, there has been a most notable augmentation since the beginning of the War, and that augmentation has suffered, and is suffering, no check.
    I believe that what I have said about ships I can say about guns. The number of naval guns has greatly grown, and the ammunition for those guns has greatly
    1414
    grown, both absolutely and relatively to the guns which they have to serve. In all warlike stores, necessary for success in naval operations, we are much better off now than we were at the beginning of the War, and as our ships have increased and are increasing, so our stores, our ammunition, and our guns have increased, are increasing, and will increase. I trust that that communication will not be unsatisfactory to the House. But they may ask whether, if this vast growth has gone on, we have got enough. They may say: "Are you satisfied, are your professional advisers satisfied, with the ships of war at their disposal?" The answer to that is in the negative. The very fact that we are pressing on building, the very fact that we are finishing vessels that are on the stocks and laying down new vessels, shows that we are not satisfied, and that, infinitely stronger as we are than at the date when my right hon. and gallant Friend made the statement, which I have read to the House, with reference to the first week of the War, there are still deficiencies in certain kinds of ships, which the Board of Admiralty are most anxious to fill up, and are filling up, as rapidly as they possibly can.
    But there are limits not to our will, but to our power. The limit is the limit of labour. It is not the limit of empty ships, not the limit of machinery, not even the limit of material, though material infinite in quantity is not available. No; the real limit is put upon us by labour. I do not believe that until, either by bringing men from the front or by what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions calls dilution—a very expressive phrase—or by inducing such of the men who are prepared at present to earn less and work less, than to work to the full limit of their capacity, whatever pecuniary advantage to themselves may result, to work more, until in one of those three ways—that is to say, by getting new skilled labour, by somewhat diluting existing skilled labour, or by inducing those who are now working to work more, except in one of those three ways it is not possible to hope that the efficiency of labour will be increased. That we have to accept. But up to the limits which labour offers us we are doing all that can be done in the way of shipbuilding for national necessities.
    Occasional remarks reach my ears to the effect that contractors say—they say it privately, as it were unofficially—"It is all very well for the Government to say

    1415
    that they are using the yards up to the utmost of their power. My firm would like to take on another ship." I have examined such cases, where such rumour has reached me, and I find that it always resolves itself into one of two things. Either they mean that if the Government will procure them more labour they can build more ships—that is one form which it takes—or that the actual ships ordered are not the ships which—I am not sure that I can explain it very easily to the House, but that the actual ships which the Government order are not ordered with a view of getting the greatest final results out of the shipbuilding yards of the country. It is quite true that in peace time the Admiralty necessarily and rightly think a great deal of so arranging their orders as to suit the convenience of the great contractors, not merely for the sake of the contractors, but because it is a matter of vital national necessity that the armament trade and the great shipbuilding contract yards should be prosperous and effective. And successive controllers and First Sea Lords always desire to arrange their orders so that the maximum efficiency can be obtained. In time of war we cannot think of that in the main. Very often we cannot think of it at all.
    It might suit a particular shipbuilder, quite probably, to lay down a "Dreadnought" say in his yard. But the Government do mot at the moment want a "Dreadnought" in his yard. They want something else. They want flotilla leaders, or destroyers, or submarines, or any of the countless kinds of craft that are finding their use in this War. Therefore it is impossible to reconcile absolutely the full and best output of the yard, considered over a stretch of years, and in peace conditions, with the present necessities of the War when the one thing that is needed is not to have the maximum of ships that would be at some time or other useful, but the maximum of ships that will be useful before the War comes to an end. Those are two quite different propositions. At any rate, I have found in discussing this matter with those who are responsible that when they say that more could be done in the yards they mean one of the two things which I have said: "Give us more labour and we will give you more ships," or "Alter the character of your orders and the shipyards will be more productive." I believe that both those propositions are true, but they do not
    1416
    militate against my statement, which is that we are getting in a given time in warships out of the yards all that the yards can give us. I come here to the very fringe or the frontier of another question of the deepest moment, which is not relevant to this Debate—the provision of merchant tonnage. I do not wish to touch on that, but this I may say, that the very fact that the Admiralty since 1914 have been going to all kinds of yards, those which build merchant ships as well as those which build warships, and saying to them "produce ships for us," has cut at the root of the normal working resources for the turning out of merchant tonnage. The problem is one of great difficulty. It is occupying the most earnest and serious attention of the Government, but it is not relevant to Vote A of the Navy and I do not propose at this moment to say another word upon it.
    If I pass now from these generalities—and I do not pretend that they are more than generalities, but they are very important generalities—about shipbuilding to the question of men, which is the last of the topics that I have to bring before the House, I have not much of novelty perhaps to lay before the House. As regards the Naval Division, I ought perhaps to say something. The Naval Division was the creation of my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Churchill), and it has covered itself with glory in the fighting which took place in Gallipoli and elsewhere. It was raised at a time when the problem for the country was how most rapidly and most effectively to increase our land forces, and, of course, it is a land force in all essentials. It is under naval discipline and is paid at naval rates of pay, and there are naval rates of separation allowance, and it is under the Board of Admiralty. The wastage, of course, has been great because the wastage of war is always great, and because the very splendour and gallantry of the operations which the Naval Division has performed have very sadly thinned its numbers. The present basis on which the Admiralty propose to deal with this force is this. I think, if I remember rightly, that there are about 27,000 men altogether in it at the present moment. We propose to keep a full strength of six battalions. It will be seen, therefore, that for the present no recruiting is required. We are in excess of the numbers necessary to keep up the force to six battalions. Gradually there will be a balance reached between

    1417
    the battalions that have to be kept up and the reserves upon which they are kept up. And when that time is reached then, unless some change of policy occurs, recruiting will have to be resumed. At present we are keeping these battalions up to their full strength, and no recruiting is necessary.
    5.0 P.M.
    I turn now to the more strictly naval question of the Grand Fleet. I have already told the House what the numbers are. I need not repeat the information which has been given. As regards the Grand Fleet, the reports which I have received leave absolutely no doubt that the condition of health of the men and their discipline need absolutely nothing to be desired. I believe that, in spite of eighteen or nineteen months of war, of hardship, and of long hours of duty, the health of the Fleet was never so good as it is at the present time, and there is not a single independent observer who does not confirm the view presented to me by responsible naval officers, that the discipline is in every respect admirable. The Grand Fleet have not as yet had great opportunity, opportunity in conformity with the great organisation of which they form a part, of showing in the face of the enemy how good they are. There have been actions, and so far as those actions give us means of judging we can say with perfect confidence that in knowledge of their profession, in enterprise, courage, and skill, they are as eminent as they are in discipline. They have, in all the relatively small actions which have taken place, always given promise of what I doubt not for one instant they will be when greater trial comes upon them. We have had more opportunity of judging what I might call the independent work of officers and men—the submarines in the Sea of Marmora and the Baltic, the mine-sweepers, the armed trawlers, the vast numbers of men who, alone and unsupported in circumstances of great difficulty, often of great peril, have done work of incalculable value for the country. I am afraid I cannot do justice to all that I feel about the work of these men. Necessarily it it little known to the public. They do not work in the presence of great bodies of men, who can admire and applaud them for their gallantry. Small crews, in stormy seas, suddenly face to face with unexpected peril, they never seem to me to fail. No danger, no difficulty, is too great for them to overcome. To them the debt of
    1418
    this country is almost incalculabe. There is, outside the limits of this Vote, another class of seamen whom I cannot leave unmentioned on the present occasion—I mean the members of the mercantile marine I do not refer only to those who are working within the scope of and practically under the White Ensign, in the cordon of blockade vessels or elsewhere, and who are doing day and night service to their country. I refer, also, to another class who are serving their country, but who are not under the White Ensign—the captains and crews of transports, the captains and crews of ordinary merchant and cargo vessels, who, too, through the action of a ruthless and unscrupulous enemy, have their dangers to undergo. I am not aware that any of them trouble their heads about peril until they meet it, and when they meet it they know how to deal with it. To them, also, I would, on behalf of the Admiralty, and, if I may venture to do so, on behalf of the House, tender my hearty thanks. The country is not ignorant of their services, it is not ungrateful to them. On them we depend, not less than on our armed Forces, for maintaining the necessary economic basis upon which all war must ultimately be waged.
    Before leaving the subject of personnel, may I say something about the higher command? Let me tell the House what they do not require to be told, namely, that the higher command are showing themselves worthy of the immense responsibility which has been thrown upon them, and that in the Commander-in-Chief, and in the other admirals having commands attached to them, the country finds itself possessed of servants admirably qualified to carry out their work, and to whom we may with easy hearts and consciences, entrust the great responsibility of controlling the vast fleets which they have under their command. It is to me a great consolation to think that the relations of the Admiralty with those high officers is now, and has ever been since I have had any knowledge of the subject, of the most intimate and cordial description. There is the freest exchange of ideas, and, so far as the strategy or tactics of the forces at their command are concerned, I do not believe there ever has been the smallest difference of opinion between the Board of Admiralty and the Admirals in command in the different parts of the world. Smooth working of the machine is invaluable in times of stress and difficulty, and I do not think I am going beyond my

    1419
    province when I say that just as the Admiralty feel supreme confidence in the capacty, devotion, and public spirit of these various commanders, so my naval colleagues at the Board possess the confidence of the Fleet. I believe that if this House had the opportunity, which they cannot have, from the nature of the case, of really gauging professional opinion upon the point, they would say not merely that my naval colleagues deserve the confidence of the Fleet, but that they possess it in the fullest measure.
    I have surveyed, as far as it is perhaps possible under the conditions in which I am speaking, the topics dealt with in Vote A and Vote 1. I think I have sketched the general naval position. What conclusion ought to be drawn? How ought one to feel in this House and in the country in regard to our naval position in this great struggle? There is a kind of Teutonic swagger which I would not go within a thousand miles of imitating, and I hope nothing I have said or propose to say will approach anything in the nature of over-confidence. I do not quite understand the German point of view. I see by the ordinary sources of information that Berlin has been beflagged for two or three days to celebrate the return of the "Moewe." The "Moewe," a tramp steamer disguised and armed, and which eluded our patrol going out, sank a certain number of unarmed merchant ships, and succeeded in getting back. I have no doubt both the captain and the crew of the "Moewe" showed seamanlike qualities and enterprise, but I am not sure whether we ought not to congratulate ourselves if the return of the "Moewe," after these triumphs, is a subject on which the capital of a great Empire is to beflag itself for some days; I am not sure that we may not draw the conclusion that their standard of achievements at the present moment is not a very high one. But I do not wish to place upon faint indications of this kind any too confident notion as to our superiority; still, I do not think that there is the smallest justification for a certain kind of sub-acid pessimism which now and then reaches my ears from various unexpected quarters. I acknowledge, of course, that new methods of warfare make certain naval operations more or less incalculable. I grant, fully grant, that the utmost foresight, the utmost care, the most anxious prevision will not preclude the occurrence of accidents
    1420
    and disasters now and then. I further grant that the discovery, or let me say the fuller recognition by our Allies of the absolutely essential part which the British Fleet is playing in the present military operation, is a recognition that must increase our own anxiety as to the efficiency of that Fleet. No longer, as the world now understands, does the British Fleet exist merely to protect British shores or even British commerce. The world has begun to recognise that it is on the basis of the British Fleet that the whole of the Alliance depends and all military successes are founded, and the very fact that this prodigious responsibility rests upon the Navy, and in the main upon the British Navy, cannot but increase the natural anxiety which anybody connected with that Service would be inclined to feel. But when I reflect that in 1914, in August, we rightly felt, in the words of my right hon. Friend (Colonel Churchill), that we could "count upon a Fleet of sufficient superiority for all our needs, with a good margin of safety in vital matters," when I reflect that that was true in 1914, as it certainly was; when I reflect that in every department of naval strength the growth, since then, under my right hon. Friend (Colonel Churchill), and under the Board which succeeded him, has been absolutely prodigious; when I reflect that its organisation has been so great in the essentials of material strength, and also that every evidence we can get from such actions as have already taken place shows that the men of the Fleet, from the highest to the lowest, are competent to carry out their duties—when I reflect upon all these things it seems to me that this sub-acid pessimism has but little justification. I can understand a man at all events being anxious about the Fleet, so much depending upon it, and war at its best being so uncertain a game; but that any man could be confident in August, September, October, and November of 1914, and anxious at the beginning of 1916 is what I cannot understand. Surely he must be of poor spirit, somewhat poor spirit, who, after he has surveyed the opposing forces, after he has measured the greatness of the Fleet which Great Britain has at its disposal, and the character of its enemies, cannot face the future in a spirit of cheerful serenity.
    Colonel CHURCHILL: The House is indebted to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty for the calm broad survey he has taken of the vast activities of his Department in all quarters of the

    1421
    Sea, and for the felicitous language in which he has referred to the various branches of the naval and semi-naval personnel. I am myself much indebted to him for the courtesy and consideration of his references to the work of the previous Board, but I am the more sorry from that cause that here and there in my remarks this afternoon, which shall be as brief as they can possibly be made, I shall have to strike a jarring note, a note not of reproach, nor of censure nor of panic, but a note in some respects of warning. There is one part of my right hon. Friend's speech which above all other parts, certainly first among all other parts, carried with it the enthusiastic support of the House. In Sir John Jellicoe we have a naval leader of the first qualities. The command of a battle fleet is far more intimate and personal than any function discharged by generals on land. The Commander-in-Chief leads or guides his squadrons into action and disposes of their array almost by his personal gesture. For this not only the highest qualities, exceptional qualities and special aptitudes of mind and body are required and also immense practice, and of all the naval chiefs in the world there is none whose practice and habit of handling and manœuvring large fleets of armoured ships at sea can for one moment be compared with the opportunities which Sir John Jellicoe has so fully and so long enjoyed. As long as his flag is flying and his brilliant lieutenants, Sir Doveton Sturdee and Sir David Beatty, both of whom have naval actions of memorable character associated with their name, we may be absolutely sure that all our ships at sea will be manœuvred and handled in the presence of the enemy or in the difficult and dangerous waters through which they have to pass with the utmost professional skill and with unflinching resolution. It is, however, the forces at their disposal at any given period and the relation of those forces to the forces of the enemy that must of course to a very large extent govern the course of affairs at sea.
    Every First Lord and every Board of Admiralty are the heirs of their predecessors. I have, I think, reminded the House that, although I had been for three years at the Admiralty, when War broke out not a single one of the battleships I had obtained from Parliament had yet taken its place in the line of battle. Just as I was the heir of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his admirable provision, so
    1422
    my right hon. Friend is my heir, but it is an inheritance not entirely of blessing. A great programme of new construction in time of peace imposes upon the heir the need to fight Parliament for his money during many years, and in time of war casts a burden and strain upon all connected with the Department, and particularly upon the head, which can scarcely be measured by those who are not acquainted with him. I think my right hon. Friend has recognised that he has succeeded to a large estate, both in respect of labours and of property. Whether you look at battleships or cruisers or light cruisers or submarines or destroyers, or all the types which are now coming into view, he certainly succeeded to an immense provision bound to tax to the utmost the energies of his Department. If those programmes have been executed fully, punctually, there is no reason whatever for even the remotest forms of anxiety. On the contrary, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that our position, which was sufficient to be assured at the outbreak of war, has improved and will improve actually and relatively. I am, of course, thoroughly acquainted with the details of this programme, for which, with Prince Louis and Lord Fisher, I was responsible, but the point about them of substance that we must keep in our mind to-day is, How are they being executed? Are they being executed at full blast—are they being executed punctually? I rather wish that the First Lord had found it possible to give an assurance to the House that the dates to which Lord Fisher and I were working would be substantially and with inconsiderable exceptions maintained throughout the great new field of new construction. I am certain that under those circumstances we could have felt that the situation was thoroughly sound.
    I sympathise, of course, very much with the right hon. Gentleman when he finds the ridiculous statement made to the effect that new construction had been stopped and that there was a great reversal of the previous policy, and which appeared to indicate that the Board of Admiralty were not carrying out an immense gigantic programme of new construction. But that does not quite dispose of the point that I am going to make with some iteration during my remarks. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that he and his advisers were not wholly satisfied with the progress that was being made.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I said I should like to have more ships.
    Colonel CHURCHILL: I am bound to say that since I returned to this country I have received from sources, on which I must to some extent rely, impressions of a less completely satisfactory and reassuring kind than would naturally be derived from the annual statement of the Minister responsible. These matters touch the life of the State, they must be spoken of with the utmost restraint, and I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that detail must necessarily be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the period at the beginning of the War, our position then, our anxieties then, and, as he considered, the much less anxious period in which we are at present. That is not a line of argument which I think should be pursued too far. We have now reached a period in the War when new naval developments are possible. First of all we can be sure that every capital ship which had been begun before the declaration of War, by us or by Germany, can, if it has been so desired, be ready for battle. Any ship that is not ready can only be delayed through accident or through some decision of policy. I admit that this is a wide field, because there are many good reasons which might lead to the delay or postponement of vessels. For instance, when war begins the first thing to do would probably be to concentrate on the ships you would have the use of soonest; or, again, improvements or new developments may be suggested by the progress of the War which imposed delay; but it was within the power of both Admiralties to complete all their vessels if in their good judgment they had thought it necessary to do so.
    We do not know what Germany has done, an impenetrable veil, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has fallen for eighteen months over the German dockyards, naval and commercial. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not know what progress is being made there. That is a serious statement—not one in connection with which I make any reproach, but it is a grave fact which we must bear in mind that we do not know what is going on there. But let us be sure of this: something is in progress there. The great German Navy has been built up under the special care of the Emperor through many years of vast expense, effort, toil, and scheming. Can we conceive that the German Government, as we know it to our
    1424
    cost, would be content to allow that Navy to lie impotent and derided in the Kiel Canal without any hope of action? If there were any possibility within the range of their extraordinary military intelligences by which it could be rendered a really effective factor in the course of the struggle, is it likely that they would have acquiesced in the total loss of utility and of all the efforts, organisation, and resources which have made them the second naval Power? We should be most imprudent if we were to act on such an assumption. We are bound to assume that Germany has completed every vessel begun before the War. It may not be so—I dare say it is not so—but we must assume it. We ought to assume it. If, therefore, the German ships have been completed and ours have not been so completed, then I say that serious and solid reasons must be required in the case of each vessel to justify and explain its postponement or delay. I do not say that those reasons are not forthcoming, but certainly the utmost energies must be employed to complete the ships at the earliest moment.
    I must ask the House to remember that these latest vessels are the ones upon which we relied to meet and overmatch any new developments in German heavy guns. I am only discussing ships whose dimensions figure in the Naval Annuals and Almanacks which are now published; I am not touching on any matter which is not known or published to the world; I am very careful to avoid doing that. These are the ships armed with 15-inch guns. We secured that gun for the "Queen Elizabeth" class by running a risk and taking a responsibility in time of peace rarely taken by a Board of Admiralty. We actually constructed the whole of a class and ordered the whole of the guns for a class of five great ships without ever making a trial gun. We thus saved a whole year, and armed a whole batch of ships with that very powerful weapon, which has turned out to be as good a gun as the 13.5—which was the best we had ever had—and, of course, far more powerful. Such an event is like winning a victory, and its fruits must be fully reaped. Naval opinion was very divided at the time on the question of this advance to a higher calibre, but there is no division in opinion now. We obtained the sanction of Parliament for fourteen ships armed with 15-inch guns, of which, if I remember rightly, eleven or twelve had been actually begun before the

    1425
    outbreak of war. If those ships are completed as arranged, the margin will be sufficient for all contingencies which are foreseeable. But there is another fact to be borne in mind, which should lead us to approach all these matters with caution. We have not only reached a period in the War when all the capital ships begun before the War can certainly be completed, but we are just entering upon a period when new capital ships begun since the War may be ready on either side. Here, again, I know of course what we have done, and that secret is jealously guarded; but we cannot tell what Germany has done. We have left the region of the known, of the declared or defined; we have left the region of naval annuals and almanacks; and we have entered the sphere of the uncertain. We have entered a sphere which is within certain limits not merely uncertain but incalculable. For this reason we cannot afford to allow any delay to creep into the execution of our programme, because we must from now on provide, not only against the known and against the declared ships, but against what will be a continually increasing element of the unknown. I must also just point out another argument which shows that, great as were the anxieties with which we were faced in the first four months of the War, they have not by any means been removed, or, indeed, sensibly diminished by the course of events. The House will remember the old argument I used to feed them with, that of the average moment and the selected moment.
    Mr. G. FABER: What about "digging them out"?
    Colonel CHURCHILL: I agree with the hon. Member. It was a very foolish phrase, and I regret that it slipped out.
    Mr. FABER: I am sorry I said it.
    Colonel CHURCHILL: On the outbreak of War we were fortunate in being able to place every single ship ready in its proper war station, so it was not our average moment at all. For a certain time that position held. Then came the need for refits, making a steady reduction from every squadron and every flotilla. But by that time new ships purchased, and others, had come in, and so the general progress was maintained. The principle of the average moment as against the selected moment still operates, because when the German fleet comes to sea, if
    1426
    comes it ever does, it will come with its maximum strength, and it will be faced by a cruising Fleet always at sea, which will always have a portion deducted from it. The War is full of surprises to all of us; but so far the Admiralty has kept ahead. But that has not been done—I am very anxious to couch my argument in language which will not be offensive or vexing to my right hon. Friend, whose courtesy I have always experienced, but I must say that it has not been done by easy methods. It was done by rough and harsh and even violent methods, and by a tireless daily struggle. Remember, everything else is in movement too. We see our own great expansion, but remember, everything else around us is expanding and developing at the same time. You cannot afford to indulge even for the shortest period of time in resting on your oars. You must continually drive the vast machine forward at its utmost speed. To lose momentum is not merely to stop, but to fall. We have survived, and we are recovering from a shortage of munitions for the Army. At a hideous cost in life and treasure we have regained control, and ascendency lies before us at no great distance. A shortage in naval material, if it were to occur from any cause, would give no chance of future recovery. Blood and money, however lavishly poured out, would never repair the consequences of what might be even an unconscious relaxation of effort.
    I have come down here this afternoon to say these things with the deepest sense of responsibility. I say them because I am sure there is time to avoid all these dangers, because I am sure that it is not too late. If it were too late, silence would be vital. It is not; there is time; and I am anxious that the words of warning and exhortation which I am going to use, and am using, which may possibly excite resentment, but which must, nevertheless, be said, should be spoken while it is quite certain they may produce a useful effect. But I say advisedly that, though there is time, the Admiralty must not think the battle over. They must forthwith hurl themselves with renewed energy into their task, and press it forward without the loss of a day. What I have said of the great vessels applies with undiminished force to the flotillas of every description, but most especially to destroyers. Before the War we had slightly reduced the number of destroyers in the 1913–14 programme, in order to build bigger and more powerful destroyers for the same money, and also

    1427
    in order to develop our light cruiser programme of the "Arethusa" class. The War showed immediately that light cruisers, although necessary and admirable, were no substitute for destroyers, and a large number of destroyers, in dealing with submarines. Hence in the days of Prince Louis we set to work on a new programme. Then came Lord Fisher with his new impulse, and during the autumn of 1914, when we worked together, things were not only planned, but done on a scale beyond anything ever thought possible. If the programmes of small craft of all kinds on which we then embarked have been and are being carried through with punctuality, they will suffice for all immediate eventualities.
    Mr. BALFOUR: They are largely increased.
    Colonel CHURCHILL: No doubt others are coming on behind them, but other dangers are coming on as well. I am dealing only with this limited aspect. If, how ever, they have been allowed to fall into arrears, if their delivery has been allowed to slide back from month to month, then I say the Navy and the Grand Fleet might find themselves deprived of securities and advantages which we had prepared for them, and which we deemed it indispensible they should receive. I am very sorry I have to trouble the House after they have listened to a most comprehensive statement from the responsible Minister, but the matter is of supreme importance. It is no use saying, "We are doing our best." You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the limit of labour. There is no limit of labour where the British Navy is concerned. The vital units of the Fleet and of the flotillas which are being constructed must be a first charge on all our naval resources. There are no competing needs with paramount needs. I do not think the House thought it was satisfactory that the right hon. Gentleman should at this late stage tell us that he has not, in regard to Admiralty labour, approached or dealt with the question of dilution—
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): He did not say so.
    Colonel CHURCHILL:I understood him to say so. At any rate, he has not yet adopted it.?
    An HON. MEMBER: Too late again?
    Colonel CHURCHILL: If he did not say so, I misunderstood him. The right hon. Gentleman spoke both of the dilution of labour and of bringing men back from the front as if that would be a remedy, and I understood a remedy which has not yet been adopted. I do not think that that leaves the subject in an absolutely satisfactory condition. I know my right hon. Friend's difficulties, and the toils and burdens upon him, but he must overcome them. The resources of British shipyards are incomparable, and fully equal, if used at the highest possible speed and power—
    Mr. BALFOURmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Colonel CHURCHILL: How do you suppose that, for instance, the "Monitor" Fleet, with all its details, which have been so improvidently scattered to the world—this great fleet of vessels, some of them I carrying the largest guns in the world—was brought into existence in the course of six months? No one can form any conception of the achievements which can be produced from the British yards if they are really driven to their fullest capacity.
    I pass from the programmes of material for which the Board were responsible, to the possibility of novel dangers, requiring novel expedients. In a naval war particularly, you must always be asking about the enemy—what now, what next? You must always be seeking to penetrate, and your measures must always be governed and framed on the basis that he would do what you would least like him to do. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) showed that the late Board had surmounted some of the very serious and difficult dangers at the beginning of the War, but one he did not mention, the menace of the submarine attack on merchantmen was overcome by measures taken this time last year of an extraordinary scale and complexity. But although the German submarine campaign has up to date been a great failure, and although it will probably continue to be a failure—here again you cannot afford to assume that it will not present itself in new and more difficult forms, and that new exertions and new inventions will not be demanded, and you must be ready with your new devices before the enemy is ready with his, and your resourcefulness and developments must continually proceed upon a scale

    1429
    which exceeds the maximum you expect from him. I find it necessary to utter this word of warning, which for obvious reasons I should not proceed to elaborate.
    There is another matter which I cannot avoid mentioning, though I shall do so in language of the utmost precaution. A strategic policy for the Navy, purely negative in character, by no means necessarily implies that the path of greatest prudence is being followed. I wish to place on record that the late Board would certainly not have been content with an attitude of pure passivity during the whole of the year 1916. That is all I say upon a matter of that kind. But there is one smaller matter which illustrates what I mean. We hear a great deal about air raids. A great remedy against Zeppelin raids is to destroy the Zeppelins in their sheds. I cannot understand myself why all these many months, with resources far greater than those which Lord Fisher and I ever possessed, it has not been found possible to carry on the policy of raiding which, in the early days even, carried a handful of naval pilots to Cologne, Dusseldorf, and Friedrichshafen, and even to Cuxhaven itself. But I have not spoken to-day without intending to lead up to a conclusion. I have not used words of warning without being sure first that they are spoken in time to be fruitful, and secondly, without having a definite and practical proposal to make. When in November, 1914, Prince Louis of Battenberg told me he felt it his duty to retire and lay down the charge he had executed so faithfully, I was certain that there was only one man who could succeed him. I knew personally all the high officers of the Navy, and I was sure that there was no one who possessed the power, the insight, and energy of Lord Fisher. I therefore made it plain that I would work with no other Sea Lord. In this way the oppositions, naval and otherwise, which have always, perhaps not unnaturally, obstructed Lord Fisher's faithful footsteps, were overcome. He returned to his old place, and the six months of war administration which followed will, I believe, rank as one of the remarkable periods in the history of the Royal Navy.
    I did not believe it possible that our very cordial and intimate association would be ruptured, but the stress and shocks of this War are tremendous, and the situations into which men are plunged expose them to strain beyond any that
    1430
    this generation have had experience of. We parted on a great enterprise upon which the Government had decided and to which they were committed and in which the fortunes of a struggling and ill-supported Army were already involved; it stood between us as a barrier. I therefore should have resisted, on public grounds, the return of Lord Fisher to the Admiralty—and I have on several occasions expressed this opinion in the strongest terms to the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty. We have now reached an entirely different situation, and I have no doubt whatever what it is my duty to say now. There was a time when I did not think that I could have brought myself to say it, but I have been away for some months, and my mind is now clear. The times are crucial. The issues are momentous. The great War deepens and widens and expands around us. The existence of our country and of our cause depend upon the Fleet. We cannot afford to deprive ourselves or the Navy of the strongest and most vigorous forces that are available. No personal consideration must stand between the country and those who can serve her best. I feel that there is in the present Admiralty administration, for all their competence, loyalty, and zeal, a lack of driving force and mental energy which cannot be allowed to continue, which must be rectified while time remains and before evil results, and can only be rectified in one way. I am sure the nation and the Navy expect that the necessary step will be taken. I agree with my right hon. Friend here (Mr. G. Lambert) in the proposals which he made to the Navy when he last spoke, and I urge the First Lord of the Admiralty without delay to fortify himself, to vitalise and animate his Board of Admiralty by recalling Lord Fisher to his post as First Sea Lord.
    Commander BELLAIRS: I have listened to very high praise indeed of the Navy, and no one doubts that that praise is fully deserved. The Navy will welcome what has been said both by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the expert of the Admiralty, but what the Navy will feel, I am sure, is this, that its task is not yet complete, and it will look to receive the thanks of this House when that task has been completed by the defeat of the German Navy. The First Lord of the Admiralty showed you that the whole of the Grand Alliance of the different Powers depends upon the British Fleet under Sir John

    1431
    Jellicoe, and as he said that there occurred to my mind a paraphrase of what was once said by Douglas Jerrold, namely, that "the best thing between ourselves and Germany was the sea." The only regret we can feel is that there is not enough of it. There is a difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) and the Member for Dundee, but there is no difference of opinion as to what depends upon the Navy, and we have travelled far from the days when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee said that the Navy exists for the defence of this island. We now realise that it exists for the defence of Europe and the whole world. For my part, in the controversy between the First Lord of the Admiralty and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee I, on the whole, agree with the First Lord in his criticism of sub-acid pessimists. So long as the First Lord of the Admiralty is prepared to assure the House, as he has done, that everything possible is being done in the way of shipbuilding, I do not think the House could go beyond that assurance, and so far as the evidence is concerned such evidence as we do possess is that we are building at a much greater rate than Germany.
    6.0 P.M.
    I will, for the purpose of this argument, give to the House certain figures dealing with the rate of shipbuilding. I am not going to deal with the number of ships, but I will take two ships of which we have the known facts. The Admiralty at the beginning of this War told us the "Caroline" cruiser had been laid down on 28th January, 1914. That ship was completed, with everything satisfactory, including the gun trials and everything else, and was in full commission by 14th December, 1914, or less than a year from the time she was begun. On the other hand, we know that it is a different type of vessel to that upon which the Member for Dundee laid the greatest stress. The battle-cruiser "Hindenberg" we know was laid down on 9th June, 1913, and she was not launched till July, 1915. It would take another year probably to complete her for sea. That, I think, is a fair indication that the rate of building in Germany instead of being accelerated has, owing to the conditions of our blockade and the conditions of labour, been rather lessened. I do not wish to say anything which would cause us to make one effort less than is being made, but I do strongly object to a man who was a responsible
    1432
    Cabinet Minister coming forward and trying to alarm the old women of both sexes in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee was himself the inventor of that phrase "the blue funk school." He applied it on one occasion to myself in the House of Commons when I was endeavouring to get the House to increase the annual provision for the Navy beyond that laid down. If anyone reads the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Churchill) to-morrow, I think that they will class him as more belonging to "the blue funk school" than those who endeavoured to get the Navy prepared in the old days of peace. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, in opening his speech, said that he was going to strike a slightly jarring note—a note of warning. I think that he succeeded. When he spoke in the House in February last year, he spoke of the Navy as being the child of the House of Commons The House of Commons, he said, in language rivalling Macaulay's, had always granted the provisions which were required for the Navy. On this occasion he spoke of fighting Parliament for the money. The speeches are certainly contradictory. My experience of the past—and the First Lord of the Admiralty may forgive me for referring to the past for one moment—was that Parliament was willing, but that the Government did not make the necessary provision for the Navy, and that we had continually to goad them into doing more by means of agitation throughout the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee said that his Board would not have been content with an attitude of passivity during 1915-16. What does he mean by an attitude of passivity? If the Admiralty is successfully blockading; if only one wretched cruiser succeeds in breaking through, is that to be called an attitude of passivity? Does he mean by an attitude of activity the thing we have been accustomed to in the past, with ship after ship knocking at the Dardanelles, warning the Turks we were coming, when we had embarked on that project without any central scheme of action—is that the sort of activity he means? Does he mean we are to go and bombard Heligoland, and thereby knock out more of those capital ships he considers so necessary? Is not the Navy accomplishing at the present moment every single purpose for which it was devised? I have no doubt about the matter.

    1433
    The right hon. Gentleman immediately after that took a line which I must say I deplored. After all many of us who were in this House, or outside of it, when Lord Fisher was appointed, did not think it was the best appointment that could have been made. We never said a word, and nobody in his senses who respects himself would dream of criticising the appointments which the responsible Government choose to make, but now a right hon. Gentleman, who has occupied the position of a Cabinet Minister for many years past, who has himself been First Lord of the Admiralty, on the floor of the House and outside the House urges the Prime Minister, over the head of the First Lord of the Admiralty, to discard his present naval advisers, to whom he gave such high praise, and bring Lord Fisher back. I think it is an intolerable situation—[Mr. BALFOUR: "Hear, hear!"]—that anybody in a responsible position should try to interfere with the Government of the day in that way, and one is bound to point out one thing in connection with this matter, that the ostensible reason for which Lord Fisher, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House, resigned his position at the Board of Admiralty, and absented himself from the Admiralty, was the question of the Dardanelles. I have before me the actual dates in connection with that great event. The first proposal to go to the Dardanelles was in December, 1914. There were, I believe, various desultory bombardments calculated to alarm the Turks. In January various telegrams passed to naval officers outside the Board, and finally the matter came before the War Council, I believe about the middle of January. Now the last people whose advice was sought were the gunnery officers of the Navy; but at no stage of these proceedings were the real experts consulted—the Royal Engineer officers and the Royal Artillery officers of the Army who know the effect of naval guns on shore works. There was nothing in the nature of proper War Staff thinking in connection with that, and both the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Fisher were then in charge of the Admiralty.
    My main point is this: that the War Council, having approved in January, we next proceed to various small bombardments up to 18th March. Lord Fisher was still at the Admiralty. The landing took place on the 25th April, considerably more than a month later. Lord Fisher was still
    1434
    at the Admiralty, and he resigned on the 2nd of May. The only comment I have to make is that there was a period of three and a half months from the time the decision was taken, and I will only read what the greatest general, perhaps, the world has seen, Napoleon, said in connection with such a matter:—
    "Every general who undertakes to carry out a plan he thinks bad is a criminal. He should represent his objections, insist upon the plan being changed, and in the end resign rather than be the instrument of the ruin of his army."
    Napoleon himself in 1796 acted upon that, and he never in any case imposed his will on a distant general, because the distant general could not see what was passing in his mind. The obvious criticism to make is that whoever occupies the position of First Sea Lord is not one who waits until results are obtained if he disapproves of a plan, but who acts on the spot, and I believe the present First Lord of the Admiralty is advised by naval officers who, as he said, had the implicit trust of men afloat, and if they disapproved of an intended plan which was in any way likely to compromise the safety of this country, or the capital ships on which it depends, they would resign instantly.
    The right hon. Gentleman made an appeal to us that we should not travel backwards beyond the outbreak of war. He must, I think, recognise that if one surveys the whole situation he has to travel back to the period of the crisis before the War, because that was when the Navy was mobilised and prepared, and one also has to take into consideration, in view of the praise lavished by the right hon. Gentleman himself, on the degree of preparation we made, the warnings we received beforehand. The Prime Minister has told the country in a great speech that the German Government approached our Government in 1912 and tried to obtain a pledge of unconditional neutrality. We know from the speech of the Belgian Minister of War, which was made in 1912 in a secret session, and was only revealed in 1914, that the allied Governments knew that Germany meditated war, and that she intended to invade through Belgium, and they knew the plan more or less. We also know the same facts from the French Yellow Book. Therefore, there was every reason why the Government of that day should obtain from Parliament all the ships that could possibly be required. There were various economic warnings. I shall not recapitulate them all, but when the German Government was obtaining coal in a variety of ways,

    1435
    and out of the normal, and was sending German ships, which had never carried coal cargoes before, to Cardiff, it was obvious some step of the character we all expected was meditated. Most of all in importance to remember, they had a period of a fortnight of crisis, in which the Navy might have been fully prepared.
    Now, what I complain of is that the Navy was not mobilised—mobilised as apart from maintaining together the First and Second Fleets—until the day before War. The mobilisation was then completed. The second point is this: The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs saw the Austrian Minister on 27th July, after he had received the complaints of the French and Russian Governments that, unless England unmistakably ranged herself on the side of the Allies, there would be war and rivers of blood would flow. He then assured the Austrian Minister that the First Fleet was at Portland, and was not at its war base in the North. He also assured him we did not contemplate calling out our Reserves. That is in the White Paper. To Germany, as a nation governed by military diplomacy, that was a plain indication that we did not contemplate going to war. I myself, however, complain that the Navy was unfairly handicapped, first by not being mobilised soon enough in view of the crisis. The Grand Fleet was not got to the war station until after the European War had broken out—I do not say we had declared war. It was still further handicapped. The Commander-in-Chief, who has done so splendidly, was not appointed with the Chief of the Staff until after the War had broken out. If it had only been anticipated, as it should have been, that war would break out some time about the period of the opening of the Kiel Canal and the completion of Germany's strategical railways and other factors, which all fructified together, I think that they should have followed the precedent adopted in the case of Lord Beresford, and in previous cases, of terminating the Commander-in-Chief's term of office at the end of two years. In that case Sir John Jellicoe would have arrived at his post in December, 1913, and would have had seven or eight months in which to have worked with his officers and men, which would have been of great advantage to him and to the British Fleet. As matters have turned out, no harm has been done.
    1436
    There is a further criticism I make. There was no attempt to hunt through the North Sea to prevent the laying of mines, and I complain also that we laid no mines. I believe, owing to the economy campaign which had been in progress some years previously, our mines were totally unsuited for laying in high seas. The Germans adopted a mine costing £250. We had chosen our mine simply from the ruling point of view of cost, and laid down the principle that it must not cost more than £60. The result was that our early minefields, laid several months after war broke out, were washed up at once on the Belgian and Dutch coasts. The next point I would make is, it does seem to me that, if there had been a proper War Staff, it would have been anticipated that arrangements should have been made for our submarines to have been in the Baltic, and yet not one single submarine had been sent to the Baltic until after the War had been on several months. Had a proper plan of campaign been framed, the submarines would have gone to the Baltic before the War broke out. If we had hunted through the North Sea before the War broke out to prevent the Germans laying mines, and we had ourselves had mines to lay in the Heligoland Bight, which would have been justified if we found any acts of hostility commenced by Germany, I think our position in the North Sea in regard to working there, and in regard to intercepting Zeppelins that come over, would have been a very much more favourable one.
    Now let us turn to the foreign stations. These stations had been very much reduced, and a boast had been made of it. The whole of the West Coast of North and South America at that time had not a British cruiser within several hundred miles. The East Coast of South America had one British cruiser. Then came the ships that had been mobilised and largely manned by crews which I have noticed, in connection with the operations in the Dardanelles, were described by Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett as crews of "grandfathers" who ought to have been by their firesides with their children playing around their knees. The "Good Hope" was one instance. It was manned from the Royal Fleet Reserve. A number of those vessels had been largely neglected and had not been kept up to date, as they were reckoned to belong to that column of the veterans which was on its way to the shipbreakers' yards. The "Good Hope" was an instance of this, and, although she dates from 1902, her guns have never been retubed, and every

    1437
    naval officer knows that if guns are not retubed they fall off very considerably in efficiency. The upshot was that this vessel went out to a station which she was not familiar with and was pitted against two of the crack gunnery ships of the German Navy, with results that were inevitable and lamentable.
    The next point with which I wish to deal is the unpreparedness of many of the other ships. The moment war broke out the foreign stations had a totally inadequate time to prepare for war owing to the telegrams from the Admiralty being sent out too late. Owing to the centralised system the Admiralty instructions ordered the various squadrons to assemble at certain centres with Hong-Kong and Malta. They had to coal at once, and they had to coal again when they got there. The "Hampshire," on the China station, within nine days of war breaking out had to be sent back because her bottom was in a foul condition; and there were a number of instances of that kind. Another point is that there was not a single German ship on foreign stations that was shadowed. In all our crises with Russia in the past every single Russian ship on the high seas was shadowed and dogged for thousands of miles in order to bring them to action if war broke out. That was an important means of causing war not to break out, but in this case not one single German ship was shadowed although some of them coaled at British ports or from British ships under charter, and the "Dresden" coaled only the day before war broke out at Jamaica. One or two German raiders also came out of New York harbour, which was an obvious place to watch. I think these facts show that the situation is not quite so favourable as the present First Lord of the Admiralty, in his desire to do justice to his predecessor, made out in his speech. There were also other instances of the bad use which was made of ships. There was the "Australia," a battle-cruiser of "Invincible" class, which should have been searching for enemy vessels. We find this ship in the first month of the War convoying an expedition of 1,300 men to Samoa. With our sea power Samoa could be had any time for the asking. The obvious use of the "Australia" was to search for the ships which were doing so much harm to our commerce.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee referred to Sir Doveton Sturdee's great action in the Falklands.
    1438
    Those ships which accounted for the German cruisers were the ships which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee boasted in the House of Commons in 1912 that he had withdrawn from the Pacific, and we had a distinct pledge in 1909, which was reaffirmed in 1911, that at least one ship of the "Invincible" type and the "New Zealand" would be stationed in the Pacific. The right hon. Gentleman boasted that in this way he would be able to save two vessels from his programme by getting these two vessels for the home station. He tried to get the "Australia" also for the home station. I think it is worth while pointing out to the House that those very ships, under Sir Doveton Sturdee, were the ships which in December cleared up the German cruisers, and my point is that had they been on the Pacific station when War broke out they would have cleared them up in August. There is another criticism which I should like to make with regard to the commissioning of all these ships on the outbreak of war. I think all our standards should certainly be more than the German standards, not only in regard to building but in the training of the crews. It was obvious that some of our crews could not be so well trained, and this was the case with the "Good Hope." The criticism I would make is that we should have had many more ships on foreign stations, and we should have had as many as we used to have in former days. It is necessary to make these criticisms now because the lesson to be drawn from what has happened will not be learned unless they are rubbed in during the War. The next point I wish to deal with is a statement which was made by the ex-First Lord of the Admiralty in the Debate last year on the occasion when the Motion was made for moving that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dnndee said:
    "We have more than adequate stores of all kinds."
    If the right hon. Gentleman had been present I would have asked him if he still adheres to that statement. I wish to make another criticism about what was said as to the large number of ships that were being used for colliers. The right hon. Gentleman said perfectly truly that
    "It is necessary that there should be sufficient colliers to enable all the Fleet units at a particular base to coal simultaneously with a maximum rapidity twice over within a short interval … after two such coalings there must still be sufficient coal available for unforeseen contingencies, including delays in bringing further supplies through storm or foggy weather."

    1439
    I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is true that we had adequate coal stores of every kind, how can he justify the fact that in the week before War broke out the Mediterranean squadron, small as it was, when it arrived at Malta harbour exhausted the whole coal supply at Malta and the destroyers had to coal from the cruisers? It will be remembered that Lord Beresford spoke with considerable alarm years ago on this subject, and he said that we ought to have more adequate supplies of coal and warned the House that this was necessary. The next point with which I wish to deal is that we have not had from the Admiralty sufficient information on many other points. I think the First Lord of the Admiralty will agree with me when I say that we have never had published the Dardanelles dispatches on the action of 18th March, and we have only had a statement from the Admiralty. We all remember the fuss that was made about Sir Ian Hamilton's dispatches, and therefore I think it is a fair criticism to make that we do not get all the information we should have. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have always made a strong point of giving to the House the guidance of our courts-martial. I think the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out courts-martial in the case of all ships lost. The Navy has a high standard in many matters. If the Board of Admiralty, when there is reason to believe that a naval officer has not done all he possibly could does not bring him to a court-martial and employs him in some other sphere, they must expect that there will be a tendency, which otherwise I would never indulge in, to criticise officers on the floor of this House. I will take a special case. We all know that in Sir David Beatty's action, owing to the crippling of his flag-ship, he had to transfer his flag. We have had various versions about that action. In the first place, the Admiralty issued a version that the action was abandoned because of danger from German submarines and mines which prevented us from pursuing. Admiral Beatty in a preliminary report said:
    "The presence of the enemy's submarines subsequently necessitated the action being broken off."
    In his last report he merely says:
    "He boarded the destroyer "Attack" and met the squadron at noon retiring N.N.W."
    My point is, that it appears that the German account in this respect was accurate, because the action was broken off seventy miles from Heligoland where there were
    1440
    no mines and there were a large number of destroyers with the Fleet, so that the danger from submarines was not to be apprehended. There is doubt in the public mind as to whether our second in command did all he possibly could to annihilate the enemy squadron. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wish to avoid criticism in this House they must in common fairness, if they have doubts in their own mind, give this House the guidance of the verdicts of courts-martial, as was always done in the past. The right hon. Gentleman may have reasons against giving more information, and I only put it forward as a suggestion that we might have more dispatches, and whenever there is reason to believe that a naval officer has not done all he could, or it is said of him that he had not done all he could, he ought to have an opportunity of exculpating himself by the time-honoured tribunal of a court-martial, and I hope that will be done in the future as it was done in the past. In the old days we always had public courts-martial. I can quite see that for confidential reasons we cannot have public courts-martial now, but whenever the Admiralty carries out the policy of a court-martial in the case of a lost ship it ought, unless it is quite certain that the public interest will be endangered, to tell us the verdict. Both the Navy and the country have implicit reliance on the verdict of a court-martial, and I do not think there is any more trustworthy tribunal in this world. We did have a court-martial in one case, when Admiral Troubridge insisted upon one. We do not know why the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" escaped. I do not know, and I do not believe anybody knows, but this war has turned more upon that episode than upon any other. Turkey and Bulgaria are in the war because the "Goeben" and "Breslau" escaped. The Admiralty issued a memorandum entirely approving of the arrangements made by the Commander-in-Chief, Sir A. Berkeley Milne. That reflected on Admiral Troubridge, the Second-in-Command, and he, I think, very wisely insisted on a court-martial. The advantage of courts-martial is that evidence is taken on oath, the members of the Court also being on oath. They are very independent, and have even upon occasions brought responsibility home to the Admiralty itself. In the case of the "Cobra" the court-martial brought in a verdict, saying that the Admiralty ought not to have bought the ship into the Service. That is one instance showing

    1441
    the independence of courts-martial. Another is provided in the case of the "Captain," where a verdict was brought in that the vessel ought never to have been built in the form it was built, thereby virtually censuring the Admiralty. We should have these courts-martial wherever there is any doubt or wherever an officer thinks that his honour is involved, or whenever there is reason to believe that an officer has not done all he could to bring the enemy to action. That is not merely my desire. I am voicing the view of the Navy, which has a high standard of honour and skill, which desires to maintain that high standard of honour and skill, and which therefore desires on every proper occasion that a naval officer should be judged by a court-martial.
    Admiral Sir HEDWORTH MEUX: I had not intended to interpose in this Debate until I had the pain of hearing the speech of the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Churchill). I think it is well the House should know that if the present First Lord is foolish enough to adopt his suggestion and bring Lord Fisher back to the Admiralty there will be general consternation throughout the Navy. Some week or ten days ago I had two or three officers in the Grand Fleet say to me, "For God's sake stop this intrigue which is going on," and I intend to do what I can. What is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—I was very sorry not to see him in uniform; he has often seen me in uniform, but I have never seen him—really asking the First Lord of the Admiralty to do? He is asking him to commit harikiri, and not only him, but the Government also. That is the meaning of this intrigue—to turn out the Government, nothing else. Let us put ourselves in the place of the Grand Fleet—Sir John Jellicoe, captains, and officers—when they read this Debate and see what the late First Lord has said. They will say, "Here is a nice state of things. What has our present First Sea Lord of the Admiralty done? What is the matter with Sir Henry Jackson? What is his fault?" Shall I tell you what is his fault in the eyes of the people who want to turn him out? It is that he does not advertise.
    Mr. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
    Admiral Sir HEDWORTH MEUX: He does not have correspondents and newspaper people in his place all day. That is really the reason this agitation has been
    1442
    got up. It is because the present Board of Admiralty are doing their work to the satisfaction of the Navy and not boasting about it. In the first few months of the War, whenever we had a success, or whenever the enemy had a slight failure, the whole of the Navy were pained by the vulgar boasting that went on. When we read boasting and foolish condemnation of our enemies—who, in spite of some of their brutalities, are a gallant enemy—a quiver goes through the whole of the Navy. Anybody in the Navy knows what an unlucky thing it is to boast. When the present First Lord's speech is read we shall say, "Thank heaven, at last we have got a ruler who does not grate upon our nerves!" The hon. and gallant Member is a very old friend of mine, and I have received many kindnesses from him, but there are limits to endurance. When the late First Lord (Colonel Churchill) and Lord Fisher were at the Admiralty they were at daggers drawn, and everybody at the Admiralty knew it. Are we to have all that over again? What did the late First Lord say about Lord Fisher when he made his exculpating speech in this House? Did he not say that he could not get proper guidance from Lord Fisher, and is that the man you want to bring back? Who has called for Lord Fisher? Has the House called for him? The Navy has not called for him. I am sorry to say this, because, although we have had a good many differences, Lord Fisher and I have been friends more or less for a great many years. But it cannot be helped.
    I should like to make one or two remarks on some of the subjects referred to by the First Lord. I will say a few words about the Air Service. I say them with a good deal of diffidence. We are making a great deal too much fuss about these Zeppelin raids. I can say so with a good deal of confidence, because we are all in the same danger from Zeppelins. There is nobody safe, and they will do a certain amount of harm. I do not believe we are quite safe even in this House. I do not believe there is any truth in the rumour that any German airman who destroyed this House with all the Members in it would get penal servitude for life. The First Lord of the Admiralty does not blame our rulers for not having Zeppelins. Well, I do, but as that was before the War, it is no good pursuing the subject. They ought to have known their potential danger. I was told some time ago that we are practically

    1443
    turning out a ship of some description or another a day. Is that the case? We do not want to go into details, but I have no reason to suppose that there is any lack of activity at the Admiralty. I thank the House for having listened to my remarks, which I hope will not be described as "breezy remarks"—a most objectionable phrase. Whenever a naval officer talks we always say it is a "breezy" expression. I am sorry the late First Lord is not in his place, because, with all due humility, I would like to say to him, "Boiling stones gather no moss." I do not know how many posts he has had in his short and brilliant career. He has succeeded in them all. He might always have done better had he stuck to them, but he never has, and I believe what I say now will be approved by a very large number of Members in this House. We all wish him a great deal of success in France, and we hope that he will stay there.
    Mr. G. LAMBERT: I certainly will not congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Sir Hedworth Meux) upon his breezy speech, but I will say, though I disagree with him, I thoroughly appreciate the manner in which he spoke his mind. I had proposed to reiterate my suggestion to the Government, made a fortnight ago, that Lord Fisher should be recalled to the councils of the nation with regard to the conduct of the War. My hon. and gallant Friend said something about an intrigue. I assure him that nothing is further from my mind than anything in the nature of an intrigue. I say what I absolutely and thoroughly believe. I have no personal interest to serve at all, but I do believe that the nation is the poorer and that the Navy is the poorer from not having the strategic experience of Lord Fisher at their disposal. I had proposed to develop this topic with much more fullness, but I feel that it would be rather painting the lily after the speech of the late First Lord. I do want, however, to correct a misapprehension which I think must have crept into the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs). According to him, one would believe that Lord Fisher was an active supporter and a vigorous exponent of the Dardanelles Campaign.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Lord Fisher was responsible for the organisation and distribution of the Fleet, and therefore to that extent, he was responsible for the bombardment of the Dardanelles.
    Mr. LAMBERT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to wish to suggest that Lord Fisher was responsible for the Dardanelles campaign. [An HON. MEMBER: "So he was!"] I want to draw attention to a speech made by the late First Lord of the Admiralty on the 15th November last year. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman told the House of Commons on that occasion that the Dardanelles campaign was considered in November, 1914, and brought before the War Council on the 13th January, 1915. The right hon. Gentleman also said, and this seems to have escaped notice, that on the 25th January, twelve days afterwards, Lord Fisher gave him a memorandum on naval policy. This memorandum did not question the feasibility of the particular operation which was being considered, but it deprecated reducing our margin in Home waters by using fighting ships for bombarding purposes except in conjunction with military operation. It was a memorandum directed not only against the Dardanelles operation, but against others which were being very strongly pressed forward at the time. Does not that show that Lord Fisher, twelve days after this matter was brought before the War Council, prepared a memorandum which he sent to the First Lord protesting against the operation? Then how can my hon. Friend say that Lord Fisher was responsible for the Dardanelles campaign?
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: Why did he not resign?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Really, I must ask hon. Members, in such matters as this, to remember that I cannot interpret Lord Fisher's mind. It is certain he was in this matter overruled; but he stayed on until the danger point came, and then he resigned. We should have had Lord Fisher as First Sea Lord to-day had he not objected to the Dardanelles campaign. Of course, the whole reason for Lord Fisher's resignation was that he disapproved of using ships for this operation, which we now know to have been the most costly and colossal blunder recorded in our naval or military history. We should have saved untold millions of treasure; we should have saved the lives of thousands of our finest countrymen, and we should have saved something more—which is very important at this moment—an enormous consumption of our shipping. That is one of the most important

    1445
    questions we have to face at this time, and our shipping scarcity is largely due, in my judgment, to the dissipation of our energy in all parts of the world. My hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last said he was more or less a friend of Lord Fisher. I am afraid he is less rather than more. But surely he will not contest this fact, that Lord Fisher concentrated our Fleet in Home waters. He made the future battlefield of the Fleet their drill-ground, and if we had him in the Councils of the nation at the present time—if we had had him there for the last nine months—I am perfectly certain we would never have had this dissipation of energy in all parts of the world. It is this dissipation of energy which is, I will not say jeopardising victory, but making the task of our country infinitely more hard than it would otherwise have been.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone has alluded to the Falkland Islands victory. To whom was that due more than to any other man? Of course, it was Lord Fisher. Let me give the House two or three dates which I extracted the other day. Lord Fisher returned to the Admiralty on the 31st October, 1914. On the 1st November he had the information that Sir Christopher Craddock's squadron had been sunk. What happened? This man, who we are told was an intriguer, and whose return it is suggested would not be welcome, received this information on the 1st November. By the 11th November he had a squadron despatched from Devonport with the utmost secrecy, and it arrived at Falkland Islands on the 7th December at 10.30 a.m. At eight o'clock the next morning Von Spee arrived there, and by six o'clock that afternoon Von Spee's squadron was sent to its doom. For the concentration of that force at that critical spot, at that critical moment, Lord Fisher was absolutely responsible. If he had been two days later the Falkland Islands victory would never have been won. Von Spee would probably have gone to the Cape or the Plate. I say nothing could justify the contention that Lord Fisher is the master strategist of the day more than the fact that within ten days of his arrival at the Admiralty he sent a squadron which was successful in winning the only complete naval victory of this War. I do not want to go further into these questions. I should not have intervened had it not been for the last two speeches. I am firmly convinced, look at
    1446
    it as you please and how you may, take the naval officers who have been and are in command of the Navy—and very able men they are—there is not one of them can touch Lord Fisher for genius, for resolution and for determination. I would add that, at this moment, which is a crisis in this nation's history, we have no right to deprive ourselves of the services of a man who is the greatest sailor strategist of the day.

    DISCHARGED SAILORS: STATE PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. HODGE: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words "in the opinion of this House, the State should accept responsibility for the payment of pensions and allowances to all sailors discharged from the Navy on account of diseases contracted or developed during service with the Colours and, in the case of death, pensions and allowances to the dependants, if any."
    In moving this Amendment I would like to be permitted to say I think the bulk of us, not only in this House but outside, do not appreciate what the Navy has been to this country. I am afraid, too, that in the Allied countries there is likewise that lack of appreciation of what the Navy is to those countries in general. I have endeavoured, when I have been across the Channel to bring home to the French people in particular, when questions are asked as to the part we are playing, the great part which the Navy is playing, and which is always forgotten, and my desire in moving my Amendment is to do something to mark the nation's appreciation of the services which not only the officers but the rank and file have rendered to their country. In his speech the First Lord disposed of many of the criticisms which have been levelled at workers generally as to shirking and drunkenness. He made the statement that more work had been done so far as naval shipbuilding is concerned in these times than has ever been the case previously in our country's history. That of itself is a demonstration of the energy which those engaged in shipbuilding have put into their work in doing their level best to keep up the number of ships in the Navy and to execute repairs promptly and efficiently. I believe some of the criticisms which have been levelled at the Department are well founded, because it is within my knowledge that men have been taken

    1447
    away from war work and put upon merchant work. If it is necessary that the Navy should be kept supreme, then I think naval work should be the first consideration.
    In seeking to present my Amendment to the House with respect to provision for those disabled either by wounds or by disease, and particularly through disease, I find there is not that consideration shown to disabled men which one would naturally expect. We have a great deal of what I would describe as maudlin sentimentality with respect to reprisals upon the Germans for the Zeppelin raids. I wish we could have the same sentimentality towards men who have come back from the Navy suffering from disease undoubtedly contracted as a result of the hardships they have had to undergo. If there should be the slightest doubt as to how the man's disease was contracted, then, in my opinion—and in this I believe I re-echo the sentiments, not only of Members of this House, but of others outside—the man should have the benefit of the doubt. When we realise that all over the country are to be seen men who have come back suffering from disease and wounds, men who, either get no pension or only a paltry pension, and who have in consequence to resort to parochial relief, can it be wondered at that there are thousands of men in the country who are reluctant to serve their country when they see the reward received by those who have come back suffering from wounds or from disease? As compared with the Army the treatment these men receive is very much better, and the number of cases in proportion to the number who come back is very much fewer in the Navy than in the Army. I desire to give that credit to the Admiralty. But, still, there are many hard cases arising under the present practice of granting pensions. That practice is governed by an Order in Council of 25th July, 1915.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): 12th August.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HODGE: At any rate, these are the essential words:
    "A pension to any seaman or marine discharged from further service on account of injury received or disease contracted directly on account of service during the War."
    These words are very much better than those to be found in the corresponding Order which relates to the Army, but,
    1448
    notwithstanding this fact, in a good many cases of men who have come back the warrant is not as I think read fairly, neither, when there is a doubt as to when the disease was contracted, is the decision given in favour of the individual man. The first case with which I would trouble the House is that of a man who was discharged for defective vision. If a proper medical examination is made at the time a man enlists and if, within the space of five or six months, his vision becomes defective, it must be as a result of his service. In this case a man stood for the examination for a mate's certificate. He failed, and it was only then that it was discovered that his vision was defective. He was immediately discharged, and on the very day of his discharge an intimation was sent to his wife that there would be no further separation allowance. He has not received a single farthing since the date of his discharge in any shape or form. I do not know the date on which the man enlisted, but he was blown up by a mine on the 6th August, 1915, while serving on one of His Majesty's trawlers, and he was not discharged until the 19th February of the present year. If that man's vision was perfect when he entered the Service, is it not reasonable to suppose that some damage was done to his vision as a result of his being blown up by a mine? At any rate, here you have the case of a man having rendered this service, having run these risks and endured this hardship of having been blown up, yet there is not a single farthing of pension for him.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Can I have that case?
    Mr. HODGE: Certainly, I will give you all the cases. The next case is one of a Royal Naval Reservist who was called up on the 3rd August, 1914, and discharged on the 16th January, 1916, as being medically unfit for further service. Unfortunately, these cases have become a burden upon the National Insurance Act. On being discharged without a pension these men receive 10s. a week for twenty-six weeks. The medical certificate of discharge in this case states that the man is suffering from neurasthenia. Considering that this man put in more than a year's service, it is reasonable to suppose that his nervous disorder arose as a result of his naval service. At any rate, there is another case of a man being discharged

    1449
    Without a pension. The Admiralty ought not to throw upon a section of the community a financial duty that belongs to the State as a whole. Why should approved societies be burdened with cases of this and a similar character? When the actuaries supplied the data with regard to the Insurance Act it was never anticipated that a burden of this character would be placed upon these societies. Quite outside that, it is most unfair that a section of the community should bear a burden which ought to be a national burden. The next case is that of a man mobilised on the 3rd August, 1914, and discharged in August, 1915, as being medically unfit for further service. He was granted a pension from the 26th August, 1915, to the 25th May, 1917, of £9 12s. per annum—that is, 3s. 6d per week. Here, again, the man was unfit for work and came on the funds of an approved society. Since then the man has gradually improved. A week or two ago he felt himself quite capable of undertaking his former employment, but then the firm, with great disloyalty I think—it is a controlled establishment—said they could not displace the man who had been doing the work he formerly did. I do not know the age of the man who is in his job. Probably he is a man of military age who is screening himself, and the firm are screening themselves behind a war badge. It appears to me that in a case like this Government pressure ought to be brought to bear upon the firm if the man is capable of being replaced in his former employment.
    The next case is that of a man who was mobilised on the 3rd August, 1914, as an able seaman, and who has been discharged as a result of his service, suffering from malarial fever contracted during the combined naval and military operations in the Persian Gulf in November, 1914. He was invalided out, according to the man's own statement, from a hospital without even enough money to purchase a suit of clothes. As a matter of fact, he was given no money at all, but was informed by the paymaster at Shrewsbury that he was in debt. That is a nice condition of things after men have done their best for the Flag! I hope that the case I have given, which are only samples, may lead to some reform so far as the Admiralty is concerned. The last case with which I will trouble the House—many more cases could be given, but these are simply typical of what is occurring—is that of a Royal Naval Reserve stoker who was called up and employed in paint-
    1450
    ing one of His Majesty's ships with caustic paint. While doing this, a splash of caustic paint got into his eye, practically destroying the sight, and consequently he was discharged. He received a pension of 5s. a week from the 21st July, 1915, until 5th January, 1916. It was then reduced to 3s. 6d. per week, and was payable from the 6th January to the 5th July next. This man has been absolutely unable to return to his previous employment in a steel works.
    These instances demonstrate that there is great room for improvement so far as concerns those men coming back suffering from disease or accident, as the case may be. The plea put up in many instances is that these men had disease in some latent form previously to their enlistment. Medical men whom I have consulted upon the subject say that if these men had remained at their ordinary employment the disease might never have developed, or, at any rate, would never have developed to such an extent as to prevent the men from following their ordinary employment, but the hardships of training, the hardships of exposure of camp life, and the hardships and exposure of being at sea have developed the disease. That being so, it is safe to say that the disease is a direct result of the man's service, and he, having broken down in endeavouring to do his duty by his country, his country ought to do its duty by the man. There are other cases. A case came before my notice of the Department of Labour Exchanges, which issued an ultimatum to all those serving them who were of military age that they must enlist, otherwise they would be discharged. To demonstrate the shallowness, inefficiency, carelessness, or negligence of the doctors, I may say there was one lad, whom I have known from birth, who presented himself but who was never examined. If he had been stripped, as is usually the case, if he had been examined by the doctor, even in a cursory fashion, or if he had been questioned, it would have been discovered that the lad was suffering from a double rupture. Notwithstanding that he was passed on to the Crystal Palace. He could not undergo the physical drill. The doctors from time to time treated him in an off-hand way. If he was taken out for a route march he had to fall out under two miles, because he could not go on any longer, and it was only when I appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the

    1451
    Admiralty himself and placed the circumstances before him that a proper examination took place, and the lad was discharged. That is one of the things that wants looking into. Was the doctor who passed him paid a fee? Was the recruiting sergeant who enlisted him paid a fee? This lad was incapable of military service, yet he was kept for a matter of seven or eight weeks at the national expense. He was no good so far as military or naval service was concerned. There have been many such cases, which show some carelessness or negligence somewhere in the Department, and it is to be hoped that an exposure of these things in this House will lead to reform.
    Mr. BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment. Many hard cases have been cited in previous Debates on this subject, and of course they are all included in the 12,000 applicants who have applied for pensions and been refused
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Not by the Admiralty.
    Mr. BARNES: I will not say by the Admiralty, but I understand that 12,000 is the figure of the Admiralty and the War Office together, or perhaps 12,000 for the War Office alone. I do not know. At all events a reply was given a few weeks ago that 35,000 men had had pensions granted to them, and 12,000 had been refused. If there is the same proportion with regard to the Navy there is the same need for the Amendment. I do not want to cite particular cases, but I will mention one because I have seen the man, I have seen the doctor, and I know all about it. The man, whose name is James Gardiner, joined in the early days of the War, was sent away, and owing to hardship, cold and privation generally was taken ill with rheumatics. The doctor said he was shamming. Ultimately the brutality or stupidity of the doctor had to give way before the facts and the man is still in hospital. After being in hospital for a few months he was discharged as medically unfit, and refused attention on the ground that the rheumatics had been latent before he joined the Service.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Was he a sailor?
    Mr. BARNES: I forget whether he was a soldier or a sailor. I have so many cases in my mind. If he was a sailor I will submit the facts to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not making any com-
    1452
    plaint against him. On the contrary, I have had many cases through my hands—probably more than any man in this House—through my connection in the early stages with the pension agitation. I will say this for the right hon. Gentleman, that he gave every one of them sympathetic consideration and so far as he could deal with them in a manner to suit the interests and desires of the applicant that has been done. In seconding this Amendment I want to deal with the matter from the point of view of public policy and of the powers of Parliament. From either one or the other the right policy has not been pursued. From the point of view of public policy it only needs to he pointed out that whatever be the original cause of any man's complaint on coming back from the Army or the Navy, if he is disabled he has got to be maintained by someone. From the point of view of public policy that might be thrown upon the broad shoulders of the Government at once, instead of being borne by the man's relatives, who in many cases have a hard enough struggle to put up with and a heavy enough burden to bear already.
    I approach the matter from the point of view of the powers of Parliament, and here I say without the slightest equivocation that, to use a vulgarism, Parliament has been diddled by the Departmental authorities. I do not know who they are, but the simple fact is that we have been deceived, that the Departments were instructed to do something and have not done it, but have constantly hidden themselves behind some Royal Warrant or something or other which they constantly throw into our face, as if these Royal Warrants were something sacrosanct, instead of which they are the mere formula of their own words got up to suit themselves. That is a strong statement to make, but I am going to substantiate it. This time last year I was on a Select Committee of the House of Commons—a very Select Committee. There were only six of us, and four of the six are now Cabinet Ministers, the only two outsiders being myself and the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). We sat for some months and took a great deal of evidence. We considered the matter from all points of view—from the point of view of the soldier and the sailor as well, I believe, as from the point of view of the nation. The Committee was urged by myself and others to make recommendations of a more generous character than

    1453
    were ultimately made, but it refused to do so, having regard to the interests of the nation and the immense cost which would thereby have been involved. The composition of the Committee was very unusual. It included the present Minister of Munitions and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The character and position of those two right hon. Gentlemen were such that at the time it might have been reasonably thought that anything recommended by that Committee would be to all intents and purposes thereby agreed to. One would almost say that that was strengthened later by the admission of the other two of the six into the Cabinet, but the document issued to the Admiralty, to which reference has already been made by my hon. Friend (Mr. Hodge), and the date of which was also mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench—12th August—by no means gave effect to the mandate of the Select Committee, although by that date four of the six who formed the Committee were actually members of the Cabinet.
    Dr. MACNAMARAmade an observation which was not heard in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. BARNES: Your warrant has a little more common sense and humanity in it than the other one; but they are both wrong, and neither gives effect to their mandate, or what ought to have been regarded by both Departments as their mandate. The Committee was set up—
    "To consider a scheme of pensions and grants for officers and men of the Naval and Military Service, disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War."
    That may be said to have been the mandate of the Department. Certain recommendations were made based upon that reference.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Hear hear.
    Mr. BARNES: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman assents, because we find that his document of 12th August is a different thing altogether. It is on a very elaborate form, and is made to look very formidable. It is said to have got the Royal Assent by some Privy Council, or something of the sort, held on 12th August, and, instead of giving effect to their mandate, instead of paying or agreeing to pay for "injuries or wounds or disease arising out of the War"—those are the governing words of the mandate—they say they are going to pay "on account of injury received or
    1454
    disease contracted directly on account of service during the War." What we had in our minds, and what I know every one of these four Cabinet Ministers had in their minds, was that we should at least be as generous to the soldier and the sailor as we had compelled the employer to be. If a workman in the employ of a mill owner or factory owner or shipyard owner, or anything of the sort, meets with an accident arising out of or in the course of his employment, he is entitled to compensation or to a solatium. I will not call it compensation. I do not like the word at all. At all events, the employer is liable to pay the man something if he meets with an accident either within the precincts of the work or anywhere else—he may be a hundred miles away. That is; the law in regard to compensation. Why should it be different for the Admiralty or the War Office? Are they less able to pay than a private employer? It seems to me they are a great deal better able to pay, but instead of giving due effect to that clear mandate that they had from the Committee to pay for anything arising out of or in the course of a man's employment, which it seems to me means to pay for any accident arising to a man whatever in France, Flanders or in the Peninsular or anywhere else, when a man meets with an accident they at once put inquiry on foot to ascertain what he was doing when he met with the accident. I should say if he met with an accident anywhere in France, by night or day, he ought to be entitled to a pension. That is the common-sense interpretation of it. Instead of that, if a man tumbles out of a train while moving from one place of service to another, he is not entitled. A man may fall down in a ricketty billet and he is not entitled. There are many such cases. It is a scandal that men, after having volunteered for service in a time of great national emergency, should be served like that.
    Let us take the other point. I want to get back to the mandate, and I want to rub it in to the right hon. Gentleman and to his Department, if I can, that they were charged to give men pensions on account of injuries arising out of this War. They were not told to go into the man's medical history, or that of his family, and ascertain whether when he got rheumatics or consumption they were contracted at the War. They were told to give a pension for any injury or wound arising out of the War. They said they would give a pension to a man who got injuries or

    1455
    disease "contracted directly on account of service during the War." Those words are much narrower. Take the case of a man, for instance, who becomes consumptive or who has had rheumatics at some time or other in his life. If he had had an easy life and had been employed in an office or a workshop with fairly even temperature all the year round, he might have lived to the allotted span of three score years and ten. But when he gets stuck in a trench up to his middle in water and spends a few months in that trench, though he may have had no idea of having latent consumption or rheumatics, or anything of that kind, he becomes a physical wreck. He comes home, and then, if you please, these medical men are put on to inquire into his medical history and that of his family, and they ascertan perhaps that his father or mother died of consumption, or that he had had rheumatics at some time in his life, and if that be so he is not entitled to a pension. I say again to my right hon. Friend that that is a simple evasion. I use a stronger word, and I say it is a scandalous evasion of the mandate given to the Department by the Committee last year, and which has been evaded by the charter, or whatever you may call it, of the 12th August last. I hope I have not hurt the feelings of my right hon. Friend. I do not blame him. I blame whoever is responsible for having drawn up that document which got the Royal Assent on the 12th August. I want to know who did it?
    Mr. W. THORNE: The Crown lawyers.
    Mr. BARNES: I want to know what right they have to go behind the back of Parliament and concoct a document in which so many men have been denied of that which they were led to expect? There is a great deal more in connection with this matter which might be dealt with, and which I hope will be dealt with on another occasion. There is the question of appeal against these Departmental decisions. Why should these Departments, behind the back of Parliament, concoct these documents which are so obviously against what was expected and demanded of them? Why should they stick themselves up and assume themselves to be the State and have no appeal against their decisions? The very fact of their having concocted these documents, so obviously against the mandate, seems to me to be proof of the need for appeal
    1456
    against their authority. I believe the Committee had that in mind also. However, that may be raised on another occasion. At present I content myself with seconding the Motion, and expressing the urgent hope that we shall have a far different and far better reply from the Admiralty than we had a few weeks ago from the Army. If not, I can only say this, not by way of threat or anything of that sort, but as a simple statement of fact, that if something is not done I will advise all my friends to use the votes of this House, and to use anything else, to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I rise to support the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Gorton and so ably seconded by the right hon. Member for Blackfriars. This is not the first time I have had the privilege of supporting a Motion of this character. Three years ago, I think it was, I moved an Amendment to the Naval Estimates very much on the same lines as that now moved by the hon. Member for Gorton, and I remember that the right hon. Member for Blackfriars was most anxious on that occasion to second my Motion. To-night he has had the opportunity of seconding a Motion which perhaps may have a more practical issue. At any rate, on this occasion I feel certain that the Motion will have the support of all the hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side, although on the occasion to which I refer I was not so fortunate in obtaining that support. Let us for a moment go back to the appointment of the Select Committee to which the right hon. Member for Blackfriars has referred. That Select Committee was appointed, I think, on the suggestion of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the reference to the Committee was as follows:
    "To consider a scheme of pensions and grants for officers and men in the Naval and Military Services, disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War, and for the widows, orphans and dependants of officers and men who have lost their lives, and whether the existing scheme of separation allowances to wives, children and dependants should be amended."
    When the House were considering the question of the reference to the Committee the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher) suggested that the reference, which at that time in its original form made no mention of disease, should include the word "disease" and also that words should be added to this effect, that

    1457
    the disease should be any disease contracted during the present War. This suggestion did not meet with the views of the Prime Minister, who suggested an alteration, so as to make the words read: "Arising out of the present War." These words were ultimately inserted in the reference, which, as the right hon. Member for Blackfriars has pointed out, clearly stipulates that it is "disease arising out of the present War." What we want to know is, Whether or not men who are suffering from disease arising out of the present War are or are not entitled to pensions? Apparently some men are entitled to pensions while other men are not entitled to pensions. When the Report of this Select Committee was before the House of Commons, if I remember rightly, it was received with acclamation. Every hon. Member agreed with the proposals which were made and it was unanimously thought that these proposals would be carried out. There was no Act of Parliament confirming this Report. The Report itself passed from the House of Commons into the hands of the authorities of the Admiralty and the War Office. Royal Warrants were made out which interpreted the views of this Report, but the interpretation of the words "disease arising out of the present War" was that these men were qualified for naval or military pensions if the disability, sickness, disease, or injury was due to the men's service. That may be a very correct view taken by the gentlemen who drew out the Royal Warrant, but I submit that that was not the view of this House. At any rate, it was not my view; it was not the view of the Proposer of this Amendment, and it was not the view of the Seconder, and I doubt very much whether it was the view of any hon. Member now sitting in the House.
    What happens under this Royal Warrant? The man is invalided out of the Service and is examined by a medical board. The medical board certifies whether the disease is due to the Service or not. It is a purely arbitrary decision on the part of the board, the composition of which, no one exactly knows. If the board decides that the man's injury or disease is due to the Service then he gets a pension; but if the board decides that the injury or disease is not due to the Service, then he gets no pension. In fact, the whole decision rests with the board, with the composition of which we are unacquainted. I admit that there is an appeal, but what happens on appeal? We were
    1458
    told by the Financial Secretary to the War Office the other night that these appeals were always very sympathetically considered. I know we shall be told the same thing by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. No one doubts the sympathy of the Financial Secretary to the War Office or the Secretary to the Admiralty, but what we want to see is something more definite than a Court of Appeal of which no one in this House knows anything. We are told that because the Royal Warrant may preclude a certain number of sailors who ought to receive pensions, that therefore a Statutory Committee has been set up. Is that so? Let us look at the Bill which set up the Statutory Committee. What does it say? It is an Act
    "to make better provision as to pensions, grants and allowances made in respect of the present War to officers and men in the Naval and Military services of His Majesty and their dependants, and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War, and for purposes connected therewith."
    It says nothing whatever about the Royal Warrant or of pensions that do not come within the purview of the Royal Warrant. This Statutory Committee was set up for an entirely different purpose. It was fully debated in the House, and I cannot remember one single reference to any Royal Warrant or to any pensions that did not come within the four corners of the Royal Warrant. Therefore, when we are told by the Financial Secretary to the War Office that the cases which do not come under the Royal Warrant come within the purview of this Act, I venture to say that the Financial Secretary to the War Office is incorrect, and I trust that when the Secretary to the Admiralty replies he will not make the same mistake. I would like to suggest that when these men are discharged without pension that at any rate for the time being, while the question of pension is being considered, they should receive the pay and allowance to which they have been entitled while they have been in the Service, and that this should be continued until the question of pension has been definitely decided. That is only a suggestion, and it does not affect the question of the pension itself, but it does help the man to get over a time which is very difficult for himself and his family. A Noble Lord in another place stated the other day that some of these men did not try to get employment. I have brought this matter before the attention of the House over and over again, and I say that it is not possible for a man who is suffering from some disease or from some wound to get employment,

    1459
    because the employer cannot be sure of the man, and, therefore, he will not give him employment. That is a matter that will have to be considered after the War, and I think it ought to be considered now. The Employers' Liability Act must be amended in order that the employer may give work to these men. The kind of men who are invalided out of the Service for disease are men who are suffering from rheumatism and consumption, or who have the seeds of consumption in them, or from some disease of that character. As the right hon. Member for Blackfriars has stated, and as I myself stated the other night when we were debating this point, a man who has the seeds of consumption in him may go for a very long time without developing consumption if he sits at home, if he goes to a warm bed at night, and if he is well cared for and well looked after by his family. But if he is put into the North Sea and has to stand the hardship of two winters there, and at the end of the second year is invalided out of the service for consumption, I submit that it is a very strong thing to say that that man should not have a pension because he happens to have the seeds of consumption.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Hear, hear!
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman cheer, because I feel certain that when he gets up to answer he will at once say that every man who has served his country in any capacity on any of His Majesty's ships, whether a battleship, a trawler, or a mine - sweeper, shall not be allowed to suffer in his pension, and that in the event of his death his wife shall have a pension and a proper allowance for the children. That is what we want to hear. We do not want any longer to have these men turned practically upon the streets. There was a case referred to to-day which is a military matter, but it might equally well happen in the case of the Navy. The Financial Secretary shakes his head. I dare say it would not happen in the Navy, but that is the case of an unfortunate man invalided out of the Army who is dying in the workhouse at this moment, and this man has got no pension. In spite of what the Financial Secretary says, that might happen also in the Navy. I have known cases, not since the War, but before the War. I have brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice cases of men who have been invalided out of the Service in similar
    1460
    circumstances who have been placed very near the workhouse owing to the fact that they have got no pension at all, the reason being that this Very strange medical board has insisted upon saying that the disease from which they suffered was not contracted while in the Service. I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty to let us know to-day that it is the view of His Majesty's Government that these scandals should no longer exist, and that men who have served their country on the sea or in the trenches shall be awarded the pensions which are their due, and that their wives and children shall have those pensions and allowances which are freely given in the case of other sailors and other soldiers.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Under the Rules of the House, I must confine myself to replying to the Motion which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), but, of course, the First Lord and myself have taken note of the matters which have been raised since his speech in introducing his Motion to the House, and opportunity will no doubt offer to-morrow, on the further progress of Votes A and 1, to make reply to such of those matters as seem to call for reply. Meantime we cannot be better employed than in considering our treatment of the gallant men to whom the First Lord earlier in the day paid so well merited a tribute. I turn, therefore, to the question of ineligibility for disablement pensions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Black-friars (Mr. Barnes) pointed out, by Resolution of the House on 18th November, 1914, a Select Committee was appointed on Naval and Military Services, Pensions and Grants, but, as he pointed out, the point under discussion, the terms of the reference adopted by the House, were as follows:
    "To consider a scheme of pensions and grants for officers and men in the Naval and Military Services disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War."
    There are other matters in the terms of reference, but they are not relevant to this particular point, and therefore I do not quote them. Now, the Select Committee issued a Special Report, which was printed by Order of the House on the 14th April, 1915, and that Special Report of the Select Committee, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackfriars was a member, made a number of recommendations as to the amount of disability pensions and allowances, both for total and partial disablement, but they did not, on

    1461
    the question of eligibility, do more than rehearse in the preamble to the Special Report the terms of reference of the House of Commons to the Select Committee, which I have read. No doubt the Select Committee intended that these proposals for disablement pensions and allowances should apply according to the circumstances of the case to "men," in the wording of the reference, and the introduction to their own Report.
    "disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War."
    There is no doubt about that, but there is nothing about eligibility. The matter, I think, was discussed with heads of Departments by the Select Committee, though I think there is nothing in the Report. But following that we get the Army Warrant.
    Mr. BARNES: I do not care to interrupt, but I do not want to be put in the position of being in any way responsible for the warrant of the Admiralty or for the warrant of the Army.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Very well. No doubt the Select Committee, in the terms of the reference of the House of Commons, desired, according to the circumstances of the case, that assistance should be rendered to men disabled in the Army or Navy by wounds or disease arising out of the present War. My recollection is that there was some discussion with the heads of Departments as to the Departmental administration, but there is nothing in the Report and I do not make a point of it. At any rate the Army Warrant which authorised the administrative procedure is dated the 21st May, 1915, and I am sorry that it has got about that it is a document of a very antiquated type.
    Mr. BARNES: It is only recopied.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: These are the relevant words:
    "A European soldier discharged in consequence of the present War as unfit for further service on account of wounds or injuries or sunstroke received in action or in the performance of military duty, or on account of blindness caused by military service or of disease due directly or wholly to war service,"
    and so on. That is the Army Warrant. Now I come to the Admiralty Order in Council, which is dated the 12th August, 1915. This is our memorial:
    "We beg leave humbly to recommend that your Majesty may be graciously pleased by your Order in Council to sanction the award of pension to any seaman or marine discharged from further service on account of injury received, or disease Contracted, directly on account of service during the War."
    Mr. BARNES: These are different words.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. The Army Warrant is a matter for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. The words which we use in our Order in Council, namely,
    "injury received, or disease contracted, directly on account of service during the War,"
    are perhaps a little more restricted, at any rate a little more precise in letter, than the phrase of the Select Committee's reference,
    "disabled by wounds or disease arising out of the present War."
    But whether that be so or not I am entitled to say, and I do say, that in administration we have lived fully up to the intention and purpose of the Select Committee, and I challenge contradiction on that point. I have already described our procedure, but I think it worth while repeating. A man is examined by a medical board, who give a decision as to whether that man's condition is or is not attributable to service. Their report is reviewed by the Medical Department of the Admiralty. We are a small family. As the House heard earlier in the day, we are asking in our Estimate that we shall be entitled to have 350,000 officers and men. That number has not been reached yet. Therefore we are a small family, and all these things can be settled under one roof in the offices of the Admiralty. Therefore we are in a position to review the verdict of the medical board. If to the Medical Department there appears to be any doubt as to the decision, the man's medical history is very carefully gone into, and often the man is re-examined at the instance of the central authority under the one roof to which I have referred, and the final verdict is not infrequently a reversal in favour of the man of the previous decision which has been given. The papers after review at the centre by the Medical Director-General and his staff go to the Accountant-General of the Navy. They are again examined, and if it is felt in that Department that any material facts may not have been considered by the Medical Department, or if any fresh evidence has been brought forward, then again in that case it is referred back to the Medical Department; and further, if, after all that, if after the man has been informed of the decision and it is unfavourable, and he feels aggrieved and appeals, the case is re-examined again in the light

    1463
    of any circumstances which may be indicated by him, or on his behalf, and no case is finally settled if any fresh evidence can be obtained.
    8.0 P.M.
    I do say so far as these men are concerned that the man whose case is under consideration by us does get every chance, and his case receives most careful consideration, and where there is any doubt—I use the phrase of my hon. Friend who moved the Motion—he gets the benefit of that doubt. I cannot speak too highly of the great pains taken, and the great sympathy always shown by the medical Director-General and his staff at the centre, and by the Accountant-General of the Navy, Sir Alfred Eyles, and his most able staff of asistants in dealing with the matter now under discussion and all matters affecting sailors and their dependants—Mr. Sarel, Mr. Sanger, Mr. Bruce, Mr. Porter, and Mr. Cunison. I cannot speak too highly of the way in which they examine cases. I heard the word "scandal" mentioned once or twice to-night. If there is one thing about which I am thin-skinned?—I hope that I may be allowed to be thin-skinned about one thing, if not more—it is that idea that we are not treating these men with consideration I shall never be thick-skinned about that. I can stand with complete equanimity all sorts of criticism as to administrative failure, but I confess that I never hear in discussion that we are treating these men with want of consideration without being upset, because, though it may be true that in certain cases, on account of lack of knowledge or lack of information, a proper verdict has not been given and full justice and sympathetic treatment accorded, it is not true in respect of our intention. Generally I would repeat what I am afraid I have said too often now, that as regards the separation allowances to wives and children, the allowances to other relatives, the pensions to widows and orphans, the pensions to soldiers and sailors partially or totally disabled, and as regards pensions and grants to disabled officers and officers' widows, orphans and dependants, the provision made by the State to-day is out of all relation to anything which this country has done in wars in the past, and certainly I should say—and I speak with an intimate knowledge of this problem, which is one which is with me every day, and I am glad of the opportunity that it should be so—that for comprehensiveness and liberality it
    1464
    would be rather difficult to find anything approaching it in the world. Nevertheless, it must be confessed, and I admit it, that after an examination of some cases, the men are refused assistance, when they are invalided out of the Service. That is why this discussion is raised, and most properly raised, and I repeat that we could not be better employed than in seeing that there is an examination of every case in which defenders of the country are concerned. What sort of cases are refused? In the first place, there are cases, not many, happily, of breakdown which is entirely due to a man's own misconduct. These are not in issue, and we need not further refer to them. In the second place, we are discussing cases of men in the Army and Navy who break down after a short period of service because they were liable to disease, the disease being so latent as to be only discernible with the greatest difficulty, or which might have been passed as the result of the enormous number who had to be examined in a very short space of time, particularly so far as the Army is concerned, and where the medical examination was perhaps not so thorough as might have been desirable. This point of medical examination has a very considerable bearing upon the problem relating to the obligation of the State. First of all, it does not matter how thorough the medical examination may be, there are some cases in which an early breakdown occurs owing to undue pressure. For instance, a medical examiner may have to deal with cases where there is aneurism of the aorta in its early stages, or cases of tuberculosis, of kidney disease, of functional heart cases, of organic heart diseases, of certain nervous diseases, all in the early stages. These kind of cases may have got through when undoubtedly a more thorough medical examination—I hope in the circumstances everything was done that time and opportunity permitted in the cases to which I refer—would have prevented a great many of the cases which have aroused public sympathy from arising at all.
    As to the qualifications of the medical examiner and his relationship to the person examined, the provisional medical examination for the Navy is carried out by our surgeons and agents, and other civil practitioners. Our final medical examinations are carried out by officers

    1465
    who are all naval officers, and certain surgeons and agents are specially appointed. In regard to the fee, the idea seems to have grown up in some quarters that it is to the financial interest of the examiner to approve a recruit as fit. That is not the case, and even if it were I must not be supposed to suggest that for the sake of an increased fee the medical profession would lend itself to the passing into the armed Forces of the Crown unfit men. The fee for the provisional examination is half-a-crown, and for the final examination made by an altogether different person in another place it is also half-a-crown. The suggestion which has been made could not, therefore, arise. In some cases, in regard to the difficulty of detecting latent susceptibilties to disease, very often results in a man being invalided from the Service directly the strain of training or of life in the Fleet or in the trenches begins to tell upon him. In all such cases as that we hold the balance fairly and squarely between the individual on the one hand and the public purse on the other. Let me say how broadly we draw the line, and I think ought to draw it. Supposing a man anxious to serve his country has dodged the eyesight test, and that is not at all an uncommon thing, or supposing he is found when sent to a depot to be "kitted" up, to be defective in sight or in colour vision, or that he is subject to epileptic fits, or has varicose veins, or is flat-footed, such a man is unfit for service and never ought to have entered it, and is discharged into private life. Are you to say that because of his error in entering the Service therefore he is to have a life pension? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am anxious to carry the House with me as far as I can, and I am glad to find that is not suggested. On the other hand, suppose we got a man rather delicate in constitution. He may be susceptible to chest complaint; he may have the germs of pulmonary affection in his system before he enters either the Army or the Navy. Are you to necessarily say that because the disease was not literally contracted in the Service therefore he is to get no assistance?
    In my judgment that would be most unfair, because as has been so well put, if the man had been employed in civil life he might have been in fairly good health and continued a wage earner and gone on working for ten or fifteen years longer; but, having been submitted to the greater rigours of training under the present rapid
    1466
    conditions which obtain—and certainly if he had been sent to sea or to the trenches—the latent disease becomes so developed and aggravated by the unaccustomed strain that he breaks down and becomes a burden to himself and his family. Certainly that whatever may be the precise terms of the Army Warrant or of the Navy Order in Council, I have no doubt that in equity and justice something is due from us to that man. The Navy Order in Council is confined to cases of disease contracted directly on account of his service, and undoubtedly we have given a very liberal interpretation of the word "contracted" in our administration. However, I may say that in reference to this there have been communications between the Statutory Body under the Naval and Military Pensions Act, and as the result of those communications we have agreed to furnish on request full reports on the facts of any case, including the findings of our medical advisers, and to consider sympathetically representations made by the Committee upon cases in which either a pension from public funds has been refused, where in the opinion of the Committee one might reasonably have been accorded, or a pension has been awarded at a rate less than the maximum under a Navy Order in Council, and less than that which to the Committee may appear appropriate. We are prepared to accept knowledge or information about cases from whatever source we can get it, and to consider sympathetically any representations made by the Committee as to whether or not a pension could be reasonably awarded in any particular case under our administration of the Navy Order in Council. While we cannot divest ourselves of the ultimate responsibility in this matter, either for the award of a pension or the Settlement of its amount when paid out of the Navy Votes, I think it will be agreed that the procedure I have indicated is such as to secure that every case of hardship will be thoroughly investigated. But I admit that for future guidance it might be desirable to add a few words to those words which confine the assistance under both the Army Warrant and the Navy Order in Council to disease "contracted in the Service," and it is suggested that there should be added to those words the further words, "or aggravated by the Service." We are in full consultation with the Treasury as to the desirableness of inserting those words both in the Army

    1467
    Warrant and the Navy Order in Council. If you included those additional words, you really ought to consider whether it would mean giving the full amount of disablement allowance in those cases.
    Mr. WARDLE: Do you mean as regards time?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I mean as regards the full twenty-five shillings of amount which is fixed by the Select Committee. If you extend the Army Warrant and the Navy Order in Council definitely to include cases of disease not contracted in but aggravated by service, you have to consider whether in those cases equity and fair play demand the full disablement allowance fixed by the Select Committee. Under the recommendations of the Select Committee, if the man is totally disabled he has got to get 25s. per week and 2s. 6d. for each child of pensionable age. That is for the lowest rank. If he is partially disabled he has got to get such a proportion of 25s. per week as will "with the wages he may be deemed to be capable of earning" amount to 25s. per week, plus a sum not exceeding 2s. 6d. for each child. Those scales must, of course, stand for disablement for wounds or disease contracted directly on account of war service. But if you add "aggravated by" war service you want, I think, to consider whether, since State service is not in such a case wholly responsible for the breakdown, some lower scale for total and partial disablement in such case would not be fair and equitable. I therefore give the House this assurance that I shall at once go into the matter, and I think I can say the same with respect to the Army Warrant, with a view to fair, just, and sympathetic treatment.
    Mr. MORTON: What about those who have been discharged?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend wants me to make this retrospective, but I cannot give any undertaking with regard to that.
    Mr. MORTON: You have discharged some men, and then you make use of that fact to refuse to give them any allowance because they have been discharged. I quite agree with the other matter suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but cannot he not cover this also, which is very serious?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend did not hear the whole of the discussion. I am asked what about those discharged. Obviously I can give no assurance with regard to that. I will consider it, but I cannot go beyond that. I think, after the assurance I have given, I may now appeal to the House to permit the Motion "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," and then we can go into Committee and, if necessary, continue the general discussion. The general Debate can be continued tomorrow on the Report stage. I would ask my hon. Friend if he can see his way to withdraw his Motion, so that we may proceed to discuss the Estimates in Committee.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the case of accidents, when a man does not happen to be on duty, and can he make any concession on that matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I hope I shall not be pressed on particular cases. I am very loath by a single word to raise hopes which cannot be realised. If my hon. Friend will communicate with me personally I will see what can be done, though I give no assurance of any kind.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my suggestion that some allowance should be made to the men pending decisions regarding their pensions?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I understand with regard to the War Office the practice is to get the matter settled definitely out of hand, that is to get the question settled as to whether the man is entitled to a pension or not, so that there is nothing due to him after he has left. I understand my hon. Friend's point is that a man is kept some time before he gets his pension, and that in the interval he gets nothing at all. That is obviously a branch of Army administration, and as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary hears the point no doubt he will take note of it.
    Mr. WARDLE: We do not desire to prolong the discussion to any extent. We all recognise that the Admiralty do approach these questions in an extremely sympathetic way. I myself have had a good deal of experience with regard to another part of this great problem, and I have always found the Navy in these matters extremely sympathetic and inclined to go the whole length of the powers they possess, if not beyond them.

    1469
    Therefore we have not pressed the point so strongly to-day on the Navy Vote as if this had been an Army Vote. May I just point out that the fact that the Army Warrant is not a pre-historic document, and that the Admiralty Order in Council is not either, since both appeared after the recommendation to the Committee, and that fact is rather against the Army and the Navy, because the position which the Army and Navy have taken up is to define much more closely and much more rigidly than the Select Committee which inquired into this question, the terms upon which pensions should be given. It is perfectly true there is a difference between the two. The Navy is still, as the right hon. Gentleman admits, somewhat restricted as the Order stands at the present moment, but the Army is very much more restricted. Therefore we feel that we have done quite right in raising the whole question of these warrants, as they define more rigidly than the Select Committee did the conditions under which pensions should be given. With regard to the proposal for reform which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, it certainly goes part of, or I may say a good deal of the way. But I should like to point out that if the disease is "aggravated by" the Army or the Navy, that may mean that the seeds of disease are much more quickly brought out, and that a man may be broken down in a few months where otherwise it might have taken five or ten years. The man has got to be kept somehow, and the same applies to his wife and children. If provision is not made through the State, that is by the Army or the Navy, very probably you will throw the man and those dependent on him on to the parochial authorities.
    Mr. HODGE: Or the approved societies.
    Mr. WARDLE: Or, as my hon. Friend says, on to the approved societies or on to some other charitable institution. As the question has to be met, it seems to us that it is far better to meet it in the first instance as adequately as possible rather than to shift the burden elsewhere. As to the question of amount, I am afraid my Friends and I cannot give any very definite reply to-night to the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has thrown out. We should like to consider the matter a little more before we accept the suggestion. I am glad to say that in consequence of the more sympathetic
    1470
    treatment we have received on this occasion, we are prepared willingly to withdraw the Motion, and glad to have the assurance that this whole problem will be once again considered with a view to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Mr. CLYNES: If the suggestion that the Amendment should be withdrawn had been acted upon immediately I think it would have been interpreted as consenting on our part to the course which it is now suggested should be taken in future by the Departments in these cases. I want if I can to strengthen the statement just made that we cannot accept the proposal in its present form as in any way closing our appeal in regard to these cases. I would like particularly to press the necessity—as I assume some modification will take place—for again considering the cases of men who have had their allowances or pensions refused. There is certainly strong grounds for demanding that there should be retrospective treatment in regard to these men. I think we ought to be told more clearly who is responsible for the framing of the terms of these warrants.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As far as the Navy Order in Council is concerned, I am certainly responsible.
    Mr. CLYNES: Then we may take it that those who are the more active representatives of the Departments in this House are themselves responsible for the terms of these warrants. That is a very useful declaration, as it enables us to press with all the more persistence for a change in the wording of these documents. I agree with my hon. Friend that in the cases dealt with the heads of the Departments have acted up to the terms of the warrants. We are not complaining of their treatment of the cases within the terms of the warrants. They have in some cases even stretched a point in favour of certain men who might have been rather badly dealt with had the cold terms of the warrants been strictly adhered to. The necessity of altering the terms of the warrants has been strengthened by the declarations which have been made. I think it will be found that all my Friends on these benches, and probably the whole of the House, will be disinclined to consent to any lower scale of pay for men whose ailments or diseases are aggravated by any form of naval or military service. I see no reason whatever why there should

    1471
    be any differential treatment. There could be no great saving to the country, and there would certainly be a very keen sense of hardship in the case of those who were paid on a lower scale because their diseases or ailments were aggravated by a form of service which is practically forced on a large number of men under existing conditions. If we are asked to say on what conditions we might consent to a man not receiving a pension, we go back to the general position in industrial and civil life. Soldiers and sailors to-day are as much in the employ of the State as engineers, labourers, or any other employés in any trade or business are in the service of their employers, and the law of the country has imposed on all employers the obligation to pay compensation, and generally speaking it may be admitted ample compensation, as compared with the condition of things that existed some twenty or thirty years ago. The only occasion upon which an employer can escape the payment of compensation is when he can prove that the disability suffered by the workman was due to the workman's own serious and wilful misconduct. I think that is a condition that might fairly be accepted by the State itself in respect of the services of its soldiers and sailors. There is no item in the great bill of this War that the country should be more ready to pay than that of pensions to its disabled soldiers and sailors. We have made some headway by the discussion to-night, and the Amendment may well be withdrawn on the understanding that we shall have some later opportunity of finally settling upon what the House may think to be the fair treatment of these men.
    Mr. HODGE: I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: I wish to refer to the question of the pay of midshipmen in the Navy. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman would prefer that you, Sir, should now leave the Chair, I will give way.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If the House agrees to the Motion, and we go into Committee, I think you, Sir, will agree that on Votes A and 1 the Rules of the House permit a continuance of the general discussion.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): On Vote A it is certainly the case that the discussion can travel over equally wide ground.
    Mr. HOHLER: I wish to speak on questions affecting the Navy, and I submit that it is not in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to close the discussion at this point.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: I will resume my remarks when we get into Committee.
    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY: NAVY ESTIMATES, 1916–17.—VOTE A (MEN).
    Considered in Committee.
    [MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That 350,000 officers, seamen, and boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea and Coast Guard Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
    Sir T. ESMONDE: We discussed the other night the question of the pay of midshipmen in His Majesty's Navy, and the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara), in replying to my arguments, produced some wonderful figures which, so to speak, knocked the bottom out of my argument. The right hon. Gentleman is, I hope, now in a generous mood. In any case, I want to try to bring him into a generous mood, and with that object I am prepared to treat him generously, and accept all his figures for what they are worth. I am prepared to accept the figures the right hon. Gentleman put before the House with regard to the pay of midshipmen; I am prepared to give him his figures, and at the same time to prove that they are totally wrong. My right hon. Friend the other night told us that the statutory deductions, or the messing deductions, from the pay of midshipmen in the Navy amounted to seven shillings a week.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Compulsory.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: Yes. On that most important and fundamental point my right hon. Friend was quite wrong. That was the case before the War, but since the War, owing to the increased cost of living and one thing and another, that automatic deduction has been raised to one-and-sixpence a day.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Compulsory?
    Sir T. ESMONDE: Yes. One shilling and sixpence instead of one shilling a day. That is an enormously important matter. The whole question turns really upon that sixpence. The House, of course, does not know very much about these midshipmen. It knows that they are very gallant officers, and makes nice speeches about them, but it does not really know very much about them. Perhaps I should explain the way in which the finances of the midshipmen in the Navy are arranged. It is really a very curious arrangement. The Government pays a midshipman one shilling and ninepence a day. His parents pay the Government for the midshipman fifty pounds a year; so that the State pays the midshipman one shilling and ninepence of its money and get about another two shillings and ninepence from the parents, and then proceeds to pay the midshipman so much a day out of that. Practically it pays the midshipman about three shillings and sixpence. In any case, the right hon. Gentleman the other evening gave us his own figures, and, to be perfectly fair to him, I should like to adopt his figures, and to see how far they go. As I said, the State pays the midshipman 1s. 9d. a day, which amounts to 12s. 3d. a week. I quote from the figures of the right hon. Gentleman. The parents pay £50 a year, paid out weekly by the Government, amounting to 19s. 2d. a week, or a total payment to the midshipman from the Government of 31s. 5d. a week, of which 19s. 2d. is paid by his parents. The right hon. Gentleman told us last week that the compulsory stoppage from a midshipman's pay was 7s. a week. It is not 7s. a week, as I have told the right hon. Gentleman; it is 10s. 6d. a week. Let us see how the thing works out. The midshipman pays 10s. 6d. as his messing allowance a week. His food alone on board ship, one way and another, costs him about 3s. a day. Between compulsory deduction for a midshipman's messing and his feeding, the total amount of his income is reached, 31s. 6d. a week. As I said, his compulsory messing deduction is 10s. 6d., and it costs him 3s. a day to live, which is 21s. a week. So that the total amount of a midshipman's expenditure equals 31s. 6d. per week, or 1d. more than the combined amount of his parents' contribution and the Government's pay to him. That is the position as the midshipman really feels it. Those are the figures of
    1474
    the midshipman's ordinary average expenditure. In that 31s. 6d. no allowance is made for a number of extras, which, although they are extra, are really part and parcel of the midshipman's expenditure, and for which he has to find the money in some way. In the 31s. 6d. a week I have quoted I have made no allowance for a very necessary thing, tobacco. A number of midshipmen smoke, and there is no reason why they should not do so if they wish, and that adds a certain amount to the weekly budget. Suppose it adds 2s. a week, then they have to pay something for drink, because they cannot drink distilled water, which is the only beverage which their grateful country offers to them on board ship. As I explained last week, it is a wonderful compound of oil, tar, probably, and other ingredients, and that is the only thing allowed on board ship. Suppose that you allow 2s. 6d. a week for drinks; then he has to pay a contribution for his games. It is not very much, but it is very admirable, because, of course, we have come to relise that games are of the first importance—of very much greater importance than people used to think three years ago. We will put that at 1s. a week. Then he has to buy books for the purpose of his naval education. He has to pay nothing to his tutor, as he used to have to do, but he has to pay for his books, scientific, technical, and sometimes rather expensive books, while in addition he has to pay for special note books, which the Admiralty makes and for which it charges the midshipman 1s. a piece. He has to pay for these out of his own pocket. Suppose we say these come to 1s. a week. Then he has to pay for newspapers; they have to make a contribution for newspapers, amounting to perhaps 6d. a week. Then he has to pay for his washing—a very important item. He has to keep himself clean, to have clean linen, and has to pay for the washing of his clothes. He cannot do that much under 2s. a week. There are then three most important contributions which the midshipman has to make. One is the wage of a servant, which amounts to exactly 2s. a week. Then he has to pay 1s. 3d., if he is in a turret, for polishing his gun and keeping the inside of the turret in good order, and another 1s. 3d. if he happens to have the honour of being in charge of a picket-boat.
    Those are the deductions which a midshipman has to make, and for which in ordinary circumstances no allowance is made in his pay. He gets 31s. 5d. from

    1475
    his parents and the Government. It costs 31s. 6d., and, in addition to that, he has to pay somehow another 14s. 6d. a week. That is the ordinary average expenditure, so that whereas he gets 31s. 5d., his total ordinary expenditure amounts to about 45s. a week. Suppose, as we are in war time may easily happen, a midshipman's ship goes into action, and that a German shell comes along and hits the midshipman's mess and explodes. The result of that is that all his mess crockery is smashed to pieces, if nothing worse happens, and in all probability the midshipman's effects are blown to smithereens. What happens is that the damage to mess furniture, crockery, and so forth, has to be largely made good by the midshipmen themselves. The Admiralty pays a contribution, not always an adequate or full contribution, towards the damage which has occurred to the midshipman's outfit. But so far as the property of the midshipman's mess is concerned, they have to a large extent to make good these damages themselves. There are other headings under which a midshipman is liable to an expenditure of an extraordinary kind, or rather of an abnormal kind, but, even under ordinary circumstances, and considering his ordinary expenditure, his pay is nothing like sufficient. Even with the Government allowance of 1s. 9d. a day and his parents' additional contribution, I do not think the average midshipman is by any means in affluent circumstances.
    My right hon. Friend will tell me, and I quite agree with him, that a midshipman ought not to have too much money. Everybody will agree, of course, that nobody ought to have too much money. We all agree that too much money is a bad thing, but how much is too much nobody can tell. I do not know, and I never met anyone who did know. I certainly never met anyone who admitted he had too much. We will admit, however, that on general principles it is a bad thing for a midshipman to have too much money, but I do not think 1s. 9d. a day is too much. A private in the Army gets 1s. 2d. a day and his food, and he is housed and clothed by the State. A second-lieutenant in the Infantry gets 7s. 6d. a day. I did not think he got so much, but I find he gets 7s. 6d. a day. But surely the midshipman, with his duties, is at least entitled to half the pay of a second-lieutenant in the Army. I think when the right hon. Gentleman goes into this matter, as I am sure he will with an
    1476
    open mind, he will realise that something might be done for our midshipmen. I think he will agree, as we all agree, that whatever pay they get they give extraordinarily good value for it. I think we all agree that whenever they have had the opportunity of doing their best to serve their country they have displayed the most conspicuous gallantry, and I hope, in view of the further points I have brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, and in view of the fact that the midshipman has to pay more than the right hon. Gentleman imagined a short time ago, he will consider the matter with an open mind, and give us some guarantee, at all events, that the Admiralty will consider whether some slight addition should not be made to the pay of midshipmen in His Majesty's ships.
    Mr. HOHLER: It is some time since the right hon. and gallant Member for Dundee spoke, and I confess there was that in his speech which I hoped would have been answered in the course of this Debate, because I cannot doubt that this warning, which he came apparently from the trenches to utter, will have weight with the country. Speaking for myself, I was somewhat pleased to hear that as the First Lord he had done so well, but apparently anything that the present First Lord should say would not by any means placate him. I seem to recollect the speech he made in this House in which he talked of "digging the German Navy out like rats"—a very different tone from that which he adopted to-night. I seem to remember he told us, when First Lord of the Admiralty, that Zeppelins were to be surrounded by aeroplanes like hornets and brought down. He certainly does not seem to have been very successful in that respect. Then my recollection further is that, on leaving, or very shortly before leaving, the Admiralty, he made a speech which, I am quite sure, was a direct attack on Lord Fisher. Lord Fisher had the last word to say in that matter, and I think he said it with great discretion. He said that this was not the time to enter into questions between the First Lord and the First Sea Lord. I very respectfully suggest that for the right hon. Gentleman to come from the front and warn this nation in the way he has, unless he has serious ground, is a little disturbing and unpleasant. It is calculated to do considerable harm, and I do hope that somebody who replies for the Admiralty on the subject of that speech will tell us really whether there is any ground for the suggestion that programmes have been

    1477
    hung up, that work has not been delivered in accordance with contract, or whether it is something which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has got on. Is it some intrigue to try and remove from office the present Sea Lord and to get the return for some reason of Lord Fisher to that position? Like any other Member of the public, I have little or no knowledge of the sea or the merits of admirals, but I was very pleased when the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth spoke as he did in reference to the matter. I am quite sure it is desirable that the speech made to-night should be fully answered.
    I want to address myself to the Royal Naval Air Service. I understood that when there was a Debate a fortnight or some three weeks ago upon aeroplanes the First Lord very frankly said we had not got the guns. He said that we were doing our best to get them, and, speaking for myself, if this country suffers a little from aeroplanes I regret it, but I would rather it suffered than that anything should be needed for our men fighting in the trenches or for our Navy at sea. Therefore, what I want to draw attention to, and what I would like some competent person to inquire into, is what strikes me as being great waste and incompetence. Cases have come under my special observation. I am not going to name any places, becouse it might be said I was giving information useful to the enemy. I want to know whether, in regard to these air stations that we have, what the officers and men are doing, and what they are being paid to do? It is within my knowledge that at a particular station, of which I can give the name, when Zeppelins came over not long since there was no aeroplane, but there was a Maxim gun which was perfectly useless. Subsequently there was an inquiry, and a Lewis gun was sent down. I believe at this very station quite recently they had an aeroplane and an observer, but no pilot, so that you have an aeroplane which is perfectly useless for any purpose. I understand they have an officer there driving about in two motor cars, but what he does with them I do not know. I believe there is another station a little further on where they have no gun or other appliance, and I want to know really what it is we are paying these vast sums of money for. Would it not be infinitely better, as the First Lord frankly told us, to wait until we get these things and train the men meanwhile to some useful purpose?
    1478
    I have another case which has come under my direct notice, I was at Chelmsford Assizes, and a curious question arose as to whether a case was one of arson or fire by a Zeppelin. Men of the Royal Naval Air Service were interested in the case, and I questioned a young fellow, about three or four-and-twenty years of age, in naval uniform. I have no doubt he had two suits of naval uniform. I do not know what his wages were—I dare say 4s. or 5s. a day. I said, "What do you do?" I discovered that he could not fly, he could not drive a motor or work a serchlight, and he had never been to sea. I do not know whether that state of things exists now, but I could give the name of the place if necessary. Are we being frankly told the position? We must make provision as best we can for this Service after we have provided for the Navy and the Army, but what is the good of having a Royal Naval Air Station which is no earthly use and wasting money upon it? I had another case at Maidstone where in an accident with a motor car a boy was knocked down and badly injured. Who were in the motor car? Two gentlemen in the Royal Naval Air Service, who were speeding along, on the evidence, at 25 miles an hour. A verdict was given against the driver for £150. Why do these men have motors? I know another case in which officers at these stations have £350 and £250 a year, and I have reason to think that all they do is quietly to attend to their business just as in times of peace, and they are serving no useful purpose. I suggest that the Admiralty should take this matter in hand. If you want these men, train them, but do not simply dress them in uniform and call them a Royal Naval Air Service when in truth they are nothing but an expense and a convenient shelter for men who ought to be serving in the trenches or in the Navy.
    9.0 P.M.
    I suggest that there should be a careful inquiry by some competent officer sent by the Admiralty to these various stations to ascertain what these motor cars are being used for, what petrol they burn; and we should find out who these officers are, what is their competence, and whether they can lay a gun and instruct men. You might save a considerable sum of money in this way, because, with all this expense, we arc suffering damage from the Zeppelins. There is another question which has puzzled me with regard to the dockyard at Chatham. I have had a series of well-

    1479
    founded complaints from the men as to their treatment. What is their position? More than once I have written to the Secretary to the Admiralty on the subject, and on the 1st of February last he told me that the matter was under consideration. I want to know if that consideration has been concluded. The character of the complaint is that this dockyard, which is fitted with machinery for making munitions has for a long time been running slack, and there has been no overtime. The complaint is that competent mechanics have applied for their discharge from this yard, because outside they can get better wages and appointments as foremen where they can get overtime as well. They have applied for their discharges and they have been refused, and that is within my own knowledge. This is a grave injustice to these men, because they might go to other munition works. Why is it this yard is so slack? I am told that it is proposed to reduce the labour still further, and send the work to different parts of the country and close a number of the shops. I would like to know if that is so. I think that is very wrong. We are taking factories over and controlling them, and we are short of lathes and machinery, and here you have a dockyard which has not worked overtime for months, in fact some of the shops are closed and you have refused these men their discharge. I should like my right hon. Friend to make a clear statement upon his proposals, and to give me an answer to the letter which I wrote as long ago as January last when he replied that this matter should have his consideration.
    I now pass on to deal with the question of the men serving in His Majesty's Navy. I wish to raise the case of Lieutenant Hayward. It is a case which I have brought to the notice of the Department on several occasions. I want to let the House know the facts because it is a point of serious importance. Lieutenant Hay-ward was a sergeant-major in the Royal Marine Light Infantry, and for talent and able conduct on the field at Gallipoli, he was promoted to a lieutenant. This promotion was confirmed by his colonel, who by reason, I suppose, of the distance and the difficulty in getting messages home, had never had the promotion confirmed by the Admiralty. Meanwhile the man fought on in the trenches as a lieutenant, and I have papers which show that mess-
    1480
    ages were addressed to him as Lieutenant Hayward. He is wounded and sent to the hospital, and there he is treated apparently by a French doctor, because the certificate is in French, and he dies in the hospital. In the certificate he is described as a lieutenant, and he is buried as a lieutenant, nevertheless the Admiralty turn round and say, "We will not pension your widow and child as a lieutenant but as a sergeant-major," although the extra responsibility of the duties of his acting as lieutenant was no doubt the very cause of his death. I think that is a scandal of the worst kind you can possibly have, that to a man who has served his country, risen from the ranks and has been killed in that position, you should turn round and say, "We will not give your widow the pension of an officer because the promotion has not been confirmed at the Admiralty." Think what it would mean, for instance, if at the Persian Gulf some man in the Royal Marines, or any other branch of the Service, is killed. It might be weeks before they would hear at the War Office that he had previously been promoted, and yet he goes on fighting for weeks and months, and nothing is heard of his promotion at the War Office. Indeed, that message may not come home for months, and in the meantime the man is killed and you only give his widow the pension of the position he left, and not the pension of the position which he obtained by his gallantry. If a man is killed in an acting position to which he has been appointed by his commanding officer, and for which he has been recommended by his commanding officer, his widow and child ought to be entitled to a pension and allowance on that scale. If it is not done in this case it is a piece of incredible meanness, and I shall take the opportunity of ventilating the matter again and again until we get redress.
    I want to say a word on the subject of promotions in the Navy. I raised a question in this House with regard to the artificer engineers, but I did not draft my question as carefully as I should have done. I put a question to my right hon. Friend on 28th September last year. I pointed out to him that he was giving a great number of temporary lieutenancies to the Royal Naval Reserve, whereas the claims of the chief artificers and artificers were being passed over. I intended to frame my question so as to ask that more engineer lieutenants should be appointed from the chief artificers, but it was read

    1481
    as if I asked that chief artificers should accept temporary appointments. My right hon. Friend, in answering my question, said:
    "Appointments and promotions in the permanent Naval service are governed purely by the permanent requirements of particular classes of officers in that service, and it is considered that to introduce the system of promoting a man to officer's rank temporarily, which is the hon. member's suggestion, would be very undesirable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th September, 1915, col. 726.]
    That was not intended to be my suggestion. But what have the Admiralty done? They have done this very thing, only instead of giving these appointments to the men who have borne the burden and heat of the day, namely, the chief artificers, they have brought in men of the Royal Naval Reserve, and have given them temporary appointments. The Order which has been issued says:
    "On the conclusion of hostilities a limited number of engineer lieutenants or engineer sub-lieutenants who have been entered for temporary service in the Royal Navy may be selected for transfer to the permanent list of engineer officers,"
    and so on. Therefore they are doing in regard to the Royal Naval Reserve the very thing which they say is undesirable, and yet they will not do it for the chief engine-room artificers. They are bringing into this Service, of which the chief artificers are the backbone, a great number of men from the Royal Naval Reserve, no doubt gallant men, and they are ignoring the men who have done all the hard work and to whom great credit is due. These men have got an association, and I have asked them to fortify me with some case which I could put as one of great injustice. There is a chief artificer on Torpedo-boat 16. He was recommended by his captain in May last for promotion. That recommendation was forwarded to the rear-admiral at the naval barracks at Portsmouth, but it never got further. Apparently the rear-admiral thought it was a case which would come under Order 287, and he said that on the next occasion the man's name was to be forwarded. As a matter of fact that Order had nothing to do with him. He was too old to be affected by it. That man has been in the Navy four years, doing his duty admirably, and yet a Royal Naval Reservist gets the appointment over his head. He was still serving on the same torpedo-boat when there was an explosion and some damage was done. By his skilful conduct as an engineer and by his assistance three lives were saved and the torpedo-boat was prevented from being put out of action. A recommendation was forwarded, and it
    1482
    came before the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth. He forwarded it to their Lordships at the Admiralty, and the man was highly commended for his service. That case shows the injustice which has been done in the past. It is the case of a man twice highly recommended, first for promotion to the rank of engineer-lieutenant for his ability and skill, and then for his saving of life and for preventing his ship from being put out of action. Yet he is still doing duty as a chief artificer.
    The men in the Navy feel these things deeply. They have a great pride in their profession, and they look forward to these promotions particularly in a time of war. I do ask that these matters shall be looked into and that these men who have served the Navy for years shall get their just reward and be appointed to these positions. Take, again, the case of the chief gunners. Some time in 1885 there was issued a warrant, under which thirty-one engineer gunners were made gunner-lieutenants. At that time there were something like 800 chief gunners. Now, I think I am right in saying, there are something like 40,000 gunners and chief gunners—those are my right hon. Friend's figures—but all they have got is about thirty-three gunner-lieutenants. There, again, precisely the same thing has happened, only in a rather different form. It is the grossest possible injustice. If a man retires from the Service as a chief gunner then automatically after three years following his retirement he becomes a lieutenant. If he is called back into the Service he gets the automatic rise just as if he were on the retiring pension. They have called back a number of these chief gunners who had retired on a pension, and at least four of them have got the promotion to gunner-lieutenants. I urn glad, of course, that these men have got promotion. I have been urging that more lieutenancies should be given. But the extraordinary injustice is to the men on active service, because when a retired gunner comes back and is given a lieutenancy he is very often junior to the men already serving. In one case a lieutenant so appointed was junior to eighty-nine men on the active list. In another case he was junior to eighty-seven, and in another case he was junior to sixty-six. The trouble at the bottom of it all is that you will not realise that in a great war you ought to give to the acting branch of the Service all the promotions and positions that are open, because you think a man will get a

    1483
    little more pension for having risked his life. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this matter with a little more care than he had done when he answered the question I put to him upon it.
    I want to say a word about dental surgeons. For the life of me I cannot understand why a dental surgeon afloat gets his commission, whilst the dental surgeon ashore gets none. They feel this grievance very acutely. Many of them are comparatively young men, and they are frequently told that they ought to have joined up. They are asked why they are not fighting. Yet they are under the Navy, and the Admiralty for some reason will not give them commissions.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: While ashore.
    Mr. HOHLER: It is extraordinary how faddy the Admiralty can be. I think the whole matter turns on the cost of uniform. A statement to that effect was made by the right hon. Gentleman in answer to a question on the subject put by another Member of this House. It was suggested that the conditions were different, and that one is at sea while the other is on shore. But very often a man is kept ashore because he is deemed to be indispensable, although personally he would like to go to sea, and why on earth should he be treated differently to the man afloat who is given his commission? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this matter also. The points I have raised have by no means exhausted what I should like to say, but I do not desire to detain the Committee any longer. In other branches of the Service no doubt like injustices with regard to promotion will be found to exist. Everybody speaks in terms of the highest praise of our silent Navy. No compliments are too high for what they have done, and the value they are to our lives. They have nobody to voice their grievances here as have workmen at home, or munition workers, and I have therefore the greatest pleasure in doing what I can for them. I submit that they are men who are entitled to everything they can get, and it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to see to it that they do get that which is their just due.
    Mr. WING: I should like to say in reference to the First Lord of the Admiralty, that so far as concerns cases I have submitted to him I have received
    1484
    most sympathetic consideration, and I think even the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) will fall in with that view.
    Mr. HOHLER: Hear, hear.
    Mr. WING: I want to raise a question in regard to medical examination. I want to ask if it is possible to ensure that there shall be as great care taken in connection with medical examinations for entry into the Navy, as is taken when pensions have to be declared. There is great care taken apparently in settling whether or not a man shall have a pension. In fact a board sits to consider a matter of that kind. Possibly that is because of the financial importance of the question to the nation. I submit, however, it is exceedingly important that when a candidate for the Navy is passed by the medical officer, there should be some responsibility attaching to that examination. There has been given to men in connection with the Army and Navy a general promise that, providing the conditions are fairly equal, they shall maintain the position from which they previously enlisted. I have had several cases brought to my notice which constitute a very great grievance. Medical officers have passed men who have been in receipt of compensation pay, and, at the same time have been granted light employment. They have enlisted and been passed by the doctor and after enlistment have developed some trouble which probably was existing at the time of their medical examination.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Are these cases in the Navy?
    Mr. WING: Yes. I will give some to the right hon. Gentleman. The men have been discharged as medically unfit, and when they have come back they have found they could not return to their previous light employment. At the same time they get no compensation from the Navy, and thus they suffer a double penalty. I want the right hon. Gentleman to sympathetically consider these cases, and to make, in regard to them, the concessions which he promised to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Hodge), and at the same time to make it retrospective. I personally shall appreciate his so doing, for I have in my Constituency several men who are interested in this matter. I should like to express on behalf of the men in the small boats their appreciation of the tribute paid to them by the First Lord this afternoon, following as it does the tribute paid by

    1485
    the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty last week. I feel sure that these remarks will prove an exceedingly great encouragement to the men in small boats with small crews who get very little of the Navy's glory—I do not use that word in a depreciatory sense. They will be a very great encouragement to them. I really rose for the purpose of calling attention to the double penalty which some men have to pay—men who are receiving compensation pay with light employment, who enlist and are passed by the doctor, who subsequently are discharged as medically unfit, who are refused employment at their former work and at the same time get no relief from the Navy.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I desire not to deal with the questions which have been under consideration in the two last speeches that have been delivered, but rather to refer to some wider questions of Admiralty policy which are, I understand, in order on this particular Vote. In the earlier part of the day it seemed to me the attention of the House was withdrawn from the main question of policy to purely personal considerations. We have had personal considerations raised as to the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and we have had somewhat histrionic suggestions as to changes in the constitution of that Board. The late First Lord of the Admiralty, whose Department from that position is still somewhat a mystery, actually suggested that all would be well in this country, and that people would once more be able to sleep quietly in their beds if that distinguished naval strategist who formerly acted as First Sea Lord returned once more to his former post. It seems to me that all such questions of personal position are calculated to withdraw the attention of the country from much more serious considerations. One of the more serious considerations to which it would have been better that the attention of the country should have been drawn was one on which both the present First Lord of the Admiralty and his predecessor were agreed. The First Lord in his speech referred to the difficulties in regard to naval shipbuilding. He pointed out the great demands which the Admiralty made upon all our shipbuilding yards, not only those dockyards which in normal times of peace were monopolised by the Admiralty, but also those shipbuilding yards which in times of peace were mainly concerned with the production of mercantile ships. He said that while the Admiralty might be
    1486
    pleased with the results of the efforts of all these establishments, nevertheless the Board of Admiralty could not say that they were satisfied. The late First Lord of the Admiralty followed in a somewhat similar strain, indeed, he was almost alarmist in his tone. He suggested that at the present time those shipbuilding yards which were concerned with the production of the various types of ships required for the Navy were not delivering with the punctuality which was absolutely necessary in the national interest. Both speeches it seemed to me were calculated, I will not say to cause a certain amount of alarm, but certainly of misgiving and anxiety among the people of this country.
    We were told also by the present First Lord of the Admiralty that the production of merchant ships was a matter of very great concern at the present time. But if, as he admitted, the present Board of Admiralty could not be satisfied with the deliveries for the purposes of the Navy, it is obvious, in these circumstances, that the yards cannot be called upon to produce merchant ships. If there is a difficulty in regard to the punctual and regular delivery of cruisers, torpedo destroyers, submarines and so on, then it is obvious that it is well nigh impossible, if not entirely impossible, to ask those shipbuilders who in times of peace are building ships for the mercantile marine to divert their energies from the needs of the Navy in order to supply deficiencies in our mercantile tonnage. We all know, of course, that there are serious deficiencies in our mercantile tonnage, and we have been told that in order to supply those deficiencies an effort has to be made in many shipbuilding yards to complete ships which are at present in the course of construction, or which, at least, were in course of construction before special demands were made on behalf of the Navy, so as to make good this shortage. The reasons which have brought about this shortage are obvious to everyone. During the past twenty months of the War we have had a gradual wearing away, as it were, of our mercantile tonnage. It is true that the German Fleet has not presented itself in the open sea up to the present time, but in the earlier months of the War a number of German cruisers were still at liberty in various parts of the world to attack the British mercantile marine, and ever since the last of those cruisers was destroyed there has been a submarine warfare which, though it

    1487
    has not accomplished the objects of its promoters, has nevertheless been responsible for the destruction of a very large number of British ships. Then there is the "Moewe," which has to its credit—I do not know the exact number, but I think certainly nearly a dozen British ships destroyed, some of very considerable value—and there is no doubt that in the months to come attempts will be made by other ships of a similar class to rival the exploits of that vessel, which have caused, according to the First Lord of the Admiralty, so much jubilation in Berlin.
    Mr. WINGmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. PRINGLE: It is practically admitted that some others have endeavoured to do it. The extent of their achievements is not known to us. We have obviously from these cuases a very serious diminution in our mercantile tonnage. It is impossible, without some return from the Admiralty or the Board of Trade, to assess the exact extent to which British mercantile tonnage has been diminished by the operation of the submarine warfare and of the commerce destroyers. Therefore it quite obvious that now it is absolutely misleading to boast, as we were in the habit of boasting in the days before the War, that the British mercantile marine represents one-half of the mercantile tonnage of the world. It is even doubtful whether we could make that claim before the War, but it is self-evident that it is quite impossible to make that claim now. To what extent the decrease has gone it is impossible at the present time, without more adequate information, to set any figure. During the latter part of my remarks I have been endeavouring to make the point that the mercantile marine has during the twenty months of the War been considerably diminished as the result of the attrition caused by German submarine warfare and the exploits of the German commerce destroyers.
    Mr. WING: And mines.
    Mr. PRINGLE: And, as my hon. Friend remarks, as the result of accidents through mines and so on. There has been also the natural attrition due to the ordinary accidents of the sea—shipwrecks owing to storms, accidents through running upon rocks, and so forth. All those things have to be taken into consideration. During all that time there has practically been
    1488
    nothing done on the part of the shipbuilding yards of this country to replace deficiencies. It seems to me that this is the most important problem which faces the Admiralty. After all, in the days of peace, we were told that we maintain a Navy for a threefold purpose. We maintain it to protect our shores, to protect our Empire, and also to protect our shipping. But if the process goes on which has been going on during the last twenty months, it is possible that we may lose as effectually our supremacy in commercial shipping as if the German Fleet had come into the North Sea and fought a successful battle with our own Fleet. Obviously in these circumstances it must be a matter of the most urgent concern for the Admiralty that nothing in their policy and nothing in their administration should in any way aggravate the unfortunate situation which is thereby being created. If we have to face this constant diminution by attrition, if we have to face also the impossibility of replacing the tonnage lost in our own shipbuilding yards, then surely it is the duty of the Admiralty, in so far as they are using our mercantile ships, to use them as economically as possible, so that there should be available as large a number of ships as possible for the purpose of carrying on the ordinary trade of the country.
    Dr. MACNAMARAindicated assent.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I should be glad if the assent of the Admiralty was something more than a theoretical assent. I should be glad if, in addition to the theoretical assent to the proposition which I have laid down, we saw some practical evidence on the part of the Admiralty in their use of merchant shipping that they were doing all they could to economise and so to increase the number of merchant ships available for carrying on the commerce of the country.
    Attention called to the fact that forty-Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present,
    Mr. PRINGLE: I could give many examples of the results which arise from this situation. At present I believe something like 1,250,000 tons have been withdrawn from the British mercantile marine, but that is not the only aspect of the matter which we who are concerned with British interests should bear in mind. The result of these two causes operating

    1489
    together is that at present neutral countries which in former days only occupied a position of comparative unimportance in respect of commercial tonnage at sea are now advancing by leaps and bounds, and are, to a large extent, taking the place of British ships. Trade routes which in former days were monoplised by British ships are now falling one after another into the hands of neutral competitors. Only the other day, at a meeting of the Cardiff Chamber of Shipping, one prominent firm of charterers in Cardiff, Messrs. Morgan, Walkley and Company, stated that during 1915, of 529 vessels which they had chartered or loaded, only twenty-three were British vessels. Of these 529 114 were Norwegian, 121 were Danish, 101 were Greek, forty-five were Spanish, fifty-five were French—and, by the way, we are requisitioning British ships to meet the needs of the French Government—twenty-three were Swedish, sixteen were Italian—we have also been requisitioning British ships for the purpose of bringing oats to Italy—twelve were Russian, ten were Belgian, four Dutch, and one Roumanian. I think that these statistics, taken from one firm of charterers at Cardiff, prove the extent to which neutrals are entering, as it were, into the inheritance of the Bristish mercantile marine. This is not an isolated instance. The experience of that particular firm fairly represents what is going on, not only in Cardiff, but in many other parts throughout the United Kingdom.
    We are, as a result of all the cases which I have mentioned as being in operation, losing our old mercantile supremacy. Instead of having, as we used to boast we had, half the mercantile marine of the world, we are being reduced almost to an insignificant fraction. It is, of course, impossible to say to what extent the Admiralty and other Departments of the Government have called upon British ships by requisitioning. We know that mercantile tonnage has been depleted from a variety of causes, We know that a large number of our merchant ships have been called into the Navy for the purpose of acting as auxiliary cruisers, and patrol vessels. In that capacity they are undoubtedly doing admirable work, but we could have hoped that, in view of the large increase of smaller vessels in the Navy, destroyers and so forth, to which the late First Lord referred, it would have become possible in the course of twenty months of the war
    1490
    to release a certain number of these auxiliary cruisers for the mercantile work to which they ought in the main be devoted. We know also that a certain number of mercantile ships have been requisitioned by the Admiralty for other purposes which have not been publicly divulged. In addition to that, we have large demands for transport ships and supply ships in connection with our overseas expeditions. I do not think that anybody in this House would complain of the demands made for transport and supply ships for the purpose of the expedition to France, but I think that there is undoubtedly good grounds of complaint that it has been necessary to divert so much valuable tonnage from the work in which it would normally be engaged in order to provide for those distant overseas expeditions in the Eastern Mediterranean, from which no valuable results have up to the present accrued. But if I were to enter into this question it might be objected that I was entering into larger questions of policy which were not relevant to this particular Vote. I do not wish to deal with the policy of these particular expeditions.
    It is true that on previous occasions when the requisitioning policy of the Admiralty has been under discussion that the defenders of the Admiralty, who are its spokesmen here, have alleged that the Admiralty have been in no way to blame, that it has been solely their duty to meet and provide for the demands made upon them by the military authorities, and that as they were bound to satisfy those demands, no criticism could be justly laid at the door of the Admiralty. Apart altogether from the question of policy, I submit that in past discussions a very strong case has been made against the Admiralty as to the uneconomic method in which it has used the ships which it has requisitioned. I do not think on any past occasion on which this subject has been debated that any real attempt has been made to meet the case of the critics of the Admiralty. I remember that twelve months ago this question was first raised by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, who at that time was Leader of the Opposition. He then made a most damaging attack upon the Admiralty in relation to this question of requisitioning. Practically no reply was offered at that time. I remember subsequently when a Debate analogous to that which is going on to-day was opened

    1491
    by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Colonel Churchill) that instead of meeting the detailed criticisms of the present Secretary to the Colonies, he rode off with a eulogium upon the Director of Transports, whom he represented as the great creative genius who had been discovered by the present War. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must apparently always have a genius under his wing. In March of last year the genius whom he had under his wing was the Director of Transports, Mr. Graeme Thomson. To-day, now that he is out of office, the genius whom he desires to take under his wing is the ex-First Sea Lord, Lord Fisher. Nobody made any attack at that time upon the Director of Transports, nor has it been the desire of any critic in the course of these discussions to make any attack upon the personality of any permanent Civil servant. We regard, as we are entitled to regard, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and those who share with him the Parliamentary control as responsible for the policy of the Admiralty. We do not, therefore, desire to make any attack upon any permanent officials. At present, to use a common phrase, so long as they do not put their heads over the parapet, we do not wish to snipe them, but if they do put their heads over the parapet, the situation is somewhat different. Under these conditions we are content to snipe at the Secretary to the Admiralty, who is the only Minister present. There are a great many points of criticism to which I say no answer has been given up to the present time. There is the use of colliers, to which the hon. Member for West Toxteth (Mr. Houston) has referred in a large number of Debates. We know that large numbers of valuable ships are being used and have been used for many months during this War practically as coal ships. That is obviously a most uneconomic way of using tonnage, particularly when you remember at the present time how valuable mercantile tonnage is and how difficult it is to get the necessary mercantile marine to carry absolute necessaries to this country. We know that the Board of Trade has been issuing Orders in regard to a large number of things practically prohibiting their importation. Paper has gone, or at least a large proportion of it, and we shall soon be seeing evidence every morning at break-fast of the extent to which our mercantile
    1492
    tonnage has been depleted in the diminution in the size of our morning newspapers. We know that there has been a great restriction of the importation of wood pulp for the purpose of making paper, and that there are also to be restrictions on the importation of fruit, sugar, wood, and tobacco.
    Mr. GOLDSTONE: Very little on hops.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Up to the present hops have passed without any limitation, much to the chagrin of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Augustine's (Mr. Ronald McNeill), but if this process continues I have no doubt that his heart's desire will be fulfilled. These restrictions on importations are bound to a great extent to increase as time goes on. All these things are the natural inevitable result of the restrictions of tonnage to which I have been referring. They are going to mean a very considerable injury to the industries of this country. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend opposite has not considered that the diminution in the importation of hops will be an injury to the industry in which he is specially interested, but undoubtedly many of the other restrictions upon importations will have the effect which I have described. In these circumstances it is obvious that every effort should be made by the Admiralty to meet the criticisms which have been passed upon them and improve conditions so that no longer can it be asserted of them that they are making an extravagant use of the ships which they have requisitioned. I have referred to the use which they are making of ships which are requisitioned for the purpose of coaling. I have had in my possession, as I said on a former occasion, the record of a considerable number of these ships—I think, something like eighty ships. That record disclosed that these ships, owing to bad management, had lost in the aggregate twenty years time. That is a very serious complaint to make, that ships requisitioned in respect of coaling have been used in this uneconomic way. We have also to complain that ships which have been constructed for one particular purpose or one particular trade have been requisitioned and used for purposes quit different. There have been several instances of ships which were built exclusively as tank steamers which have been requisitioned as transports. I think in regard to four of them that, after being

    1493
    requisitioned and kept lying idle for a considerable period, they were never used at all. But it was obviously a most extravagant policy to requisition ships which were constructed for a completely different purpose to be used as transports. These are only a few examples of the extravagant and uneconomic way in which these requisitioned ships were managed.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty, in the speech which he made a few weeks ago, gave a very interesting but not very convincing defence. He made his defence before the real attack was made. The real attack was made by the hon. Member for West Toxteth (Mr. Houston), and the defence of the First Lord was delivered before my hon. Friend made his speech. In the circumstances the First Lord had a comparatively easy time. It is significant that to-day, when he had an opportunity of dealing with this question, instead of doing so he occupied seventy-five minutes of the time of this House very largely with generalities of very little interest, instead of dealing with particular matters which had been alleged by way of criticism against his Department. It seemed to me that at one point he was endeavouring to suggest that any discussion of this particular subject would be out of order. The First Lord might have said, "It is quite true that ships have been used uneconomically, but that cannot be helped in time of war. We are at war." That is the favourite argument of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty. Whenever any criticism is raised to which my right hon. Friend has no answer he gets up and, in eloquent tones, informs the House, "We are at war. War is waste; therefore there must be waste." But I join issue with my right hon. Friend. Undoubtedly there must be waste in war, but there need not be avoidable waste. Our case against the Admiralty is that there has been avoidable waste. Take the case which was given by the First Lord of the Admiralty in the course of the last Debate. He said that a military officer in Lemnos might ask for supply, and, of course, it would be the duty of the Admiralty to transport these supplies. The Admiralty would send out a ship carrying the supplies, and it would arrive at Lemnos in the month of March. But it might be found that it would be two months before these supplies were required by that officer in Lemnos, and consequently this valuable ship containing these supplies would require to lie there waiting the pleasure
    1494
    of the military officer. Surely, when a responsible Minister of the Crown rises in this House and tells a tale of that kind, it is not sufficient to meet criticism which is made against him. Surely there is a case for some better co-ordination between the two Departments.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty said that you cannot have every general a first-class transport officer, or with the knowledge of a shipowner; that a general knows the details of his military art, but that in respect of shipowning he is a child. It must be remembered that many men who have skill in the management of ships have been drafted into the Army during the twenty months of this War, and a far-seeing Cabinet or Department would have taken care that men who had skill in these things would have been drafted to the aid of a military commander, so that cases of wastage such as those I have quoted might have been avoided. No such attempt has apparently been made. Then we know of other cases equally flagrant, where ships which have been requisitioned have gone to several ports, at the first finding that the portion of the cargo which was to be delivered there was at the bottom of the hold, so that the upper parts of the cargo had to be removed before that which had to be delivered could be reached, and the same process was repeated at the second port. All these things could have been averted by judicious management, but judicious management seems to have been a thing entirely neglected. I could have wished to detain the Committee by enumerating a large number of abuses and a large number of instances in which this mismanagement has taken place. I think on the last occasion we debated this question we had a sufficient number of awful examples to satisfy both the House and the country, and the significant thing on that occasion was that no attempt was made either by the First Lord or by the Parliamentary Secretary to dissipate the damaging impression which was created by the speeches which were then made. We are, therefore, I think entitled to claim that a case has been made out against the Admiralty of an extravagant use of the vessels which they have requisitioned, and we have a right to claim that a case has been made out of extravagance, and that the Government must now be required to use the ships which they have requisitioned in the most economical way possible, so that as many ships as can be made available are made

    1495
    available for the ordinary purposes of the trade and commerce of this country. We know that in regard to coal a large part of the difficulty in coal prices has been due to the shortage of tonnage. We know also that in regard to our Overseas supplies of food, the increase of prices has been very largely aggravated by the great increase of freights directly attributable to the shortage of tonnage. All these things in the main can be laid to the charge of the Admiralty. It is only to the Admiralty that we can apply for any relief in respect of the grievances which I have been bringing to the attention of the Committee. As I have stated earlier in my speech, we see a general drain of our shipping.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been speaking for about an hour, and many parts of his speech he has already repeated two or three times. It is really an abuse of the Rules of the House.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I was nearly drawing my remarks to a conclusion, and I was endeavouring to gather up the general arguments.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has done that more than once.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I regret very much to have incurred your censure in that respect, Sir. The conclusion which I wish to draw is the plain and obvious one, that in the circumstances which I have endeavoured to set forth in regard to the position of our mercantile marine, a case has been made out against the Admiralty, as to their uneconomic use of our ships, and in view of that, and in view of their extravagant use of our ships, I submit that it is their bounden duty in the future to see that in so far as they requisitioned mercantile ships they shall be used as economically and expeditiously as possible, so that we may have in future as large a number of vessels as possible available for the purposes of trade and commerce.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I listened with great attention to the effect of the argument just addressed to the Committee by my hon. Friend opposite. It was a somewhat protracted one, but I am certainly not concerned either to assent or dissent from what I understood to be the only conclusion he asked the Committee to draw. I think that the whole of my hon. Friend's speech comes to this, that there
    1496
    has been on the part of the Admiralty not only some waste in the use they have made of commercial tonnage, but a certain amount of avoidable waste, and I am not concerned to deny either of those propositions. Then my hon. Friend drew the conclusion that it was the duty of the Admiralty to use commercial tonnage as economically as possible for the benefit of the nation. That is profoundly true, and like many other things my hon. Friend said in his speech it appears to me to be not only true but a truism. My hon. Friend in laying the foundation of that not very momentous conclusion, laid down one or two propositions. First of all he said that we had lost a great deal of commercial tonnage owing to the activity of the German submarines. I do not think it required my hon. Friend to tell us that. He also told us that the proportion of the total world tonnage which we used to enjoy, we enjoy no longer. I think that also is a pretty obvious proposition, which did not require very much elaboration. What I was unable to make out from my hon. Friend was where he laid the blame for these things. Does he blame the Admiralty because German submarines have sunk our mercantile tonnage? Does he blame the Admiralty because a large proportion of our world tonnage has gone? I do not understand why he elaborated those various propositions unless he was going to allege that the fault lay with the Admiralty as to the results of submarines.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I thought I made clear that it was in respect of extravagant use of shipping I was speaking.
    Mr. McNEILL: I do not see then why the hon. Member made so much point of pressing those facts on the Committee, if all that that led up to was that there had been a certain amount of avoidable waste. I profoundly wish there were no greater fault to lay at the feet of any Government Department than that there had been a certain amount of avoidable waste. I do not join in the odium which the hon. Gentleman wanted to throw on the right hon. Gentleman when he said that the answer would be that we were at war. I think if that is the answer the right hon. Gentleman is about to give it is a perfectly good answer. It is childish and foolish to suppose that, however reprehensible, as we all agree it is, that there should be either at the Admiralty or anywhere avoidable waste, that we can go through the War without a certain amount of avoidable

    1497
    waste. When I was listening to those propositions being laid down by my hon. Friend, they reminded me very much of conversations which some of us used to have before the War with my Noble Friend who then represented Portsmouth and who is now Lord Beresford, about these very matters. I am afraid that the genial and breezy humour of my Noble Friend often used to blind Members of the House to the real profound foresight of insight that he has and had into naval conditions and matters of naval warfare. I can quite well remember my Noble Friend often telling us that the result of the great shortage which he always complained of, especially in regard to smaller vessels in the Navy, destroyers and light cruisers, would be that, if we ever should find ourselves at war, first of all that we should not be able to protect, as we ought to protect, our mercantile tonnage in carrying on the commerce of this country along the trade routes, and, secondly, that as soon as war broke out we should be forced to requisition an enormous proportion of mercantile tonnage for Admiralty purposes. Those two prophecies of my Noble Friend have been entirely fulfilled. I cannot say that I can recollect my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle) in those days when those prophecies were made not only in private conversation with personal friends, but in speeches in the House, was to the fore supporting my Noble Friend in calling upon the Government of that time to avoid those evils to which he was so alive, or that he did anything to prevent those evils by the proper methods which were open to him. I wish we had nothing worse to fear and nothing more to complain of than that which my hon. Friend has taken an hour to bring to our notice.
    What strikes me as surprising in this Debate is that the Government in the first place allowed Mr. Speaker to be voted out of the Chair and that they apparently are about to allow this Vote to be taken without making the smallest attempt to deal with, to remove, or even to comment upon the very striking speech made earlier today by the late First Lord of the Admiralty. I was wondering when the First Lord came in just now whether he intended to take any steps to deal with that very remarkable speech. I wonder if my right hon. Friend the First Lord or my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, either of them, in the least appreciates what the effects of that speech are likely
    1498
    to be in the country to-morrow. What was the purport of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Colonel Churchill). His speech might be expressed almost in a single sentence. He said in effect, "I hope the Admiralty are doing their duty, but I wish to heaven I had some confidence of it." I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman spoke from a serious desire to-do his duty in his responsible position of the ex-First Lord. The effect of his speech has been and will be to implant in the public mind a germ of disquiet. When read and commented upon to-morrow, his speech will cause a great deal of disquiet throughout the country. I am not referring mainly to the very remarkable concluding portion of the speech, in which the right hon. Gentleman called upon the Government—in order, as he said, to give more driving power, which he says it does not possess at present—to reinstate Lord Fisher as First Sea Lord. Is it possible that such a demand as that can be made by a right hon. Gentleman in the position of ex-First Lord and be absolutely and entirely ignored, and passed over sub silentio by his successor and by the whole of the Treasury Bench? I do not intend to recall or to take any part in the controversy which has been echoed in the House this afternoon as to the qualifications of Lord Fisher. I do not belong to either of the factions, Fisherite or anti-Fisherite. I do not possess the inside knowledge of the Navy to express any judgment. But I thought a very extraordinary defence of Lord Fisher was. offered to-day by a Gentleman who speaks with some authority—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. G. Lambert)—who tried to make us believe that Lord Fisher had no responsibility for the Gallipoli Expedition. He endeavoured to make that point by saying that at some earlier date Lord Fisher had expressed disapproval of the proposal for that expedition. I should have thought that, instead of lessening, it increased his responsibility, if when the point of time came for the expedition to be ordered he, notwithstanding his private expression of opinion against it at an earlier date, remained a consenting party and retained his position while the expedition was ordered out. Therefore I do not think that particular defence goes very far. On the other hand, I am sure that the statement is perfectly justified that

    1499
    Lord Fisher is a great naval strategist, that he has rendered immense service to the country in a variety of ways, and that he is a man of great ability, courage, and other admirable qualities. Whether or not a man of Lord Fisher's age—for he cannot be regarded as among the younger members of the community—would really be an improvement upon the present First Sea Lord is a question upon which it would be absolute presumption for me to offer any opinion. But if I think it is presumption on my part to offer an opinion, it is equally presumption on the part of many Members of this House who have offered opinions. I would suggest that that particular question, as to whether or not an individual admiral should or should not be placed in the position of First Sea Lord, with the tremendous responsibility falling upon his shoulders in time of war, is a question upon which we, Members of the House of Commons, are entirely unqualified to give an opinion, and is one of the matters on which we must trust to the Government. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty spoke this afternoon in deprecation of what he called sub-acid criticism. I do not know to what my right hon. Friend was referring when he spoke of sub-acid criticism—whether it was criticism in this House, criticism outside this House, or "where it may be. I notice that members of the Government are rather apt, from time to time, to use somewhat sneering expressions with regard to criticism which they do not venture to define, and which they do not trace to its origin. I remember the Prime Minister on one occasion speaking very scornfully of what he called the whimperers. Whether the whimperers were Members of this House who ventured to address criticism to the Front Bench opposite, or whether it was the iniquitous doings of certain unmentionable members of the Press, I have never been able to determine, and I am equally unable to decide what was meant this afternoon by sub-acid criticism. I cannot help thinking when the right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Churchill) the predecessor of my right hon. Friend got up to address the House that his speech might very well answer to the description of sub-acid criticism, if you take away the "sub-." A good deal of it was sub-acid without the "sub-."
    Mr. HOUSTON: Super-acid.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: As my hon. Friend suggests, it was rather super-acid than sub-acid. My right hon. Friend began in this depreciation of criticism by saying, "I wonder where are the people who invent the daily lie, the lie that comes along day by day. Who invents them? "I also would like to know who invents the daily lie. What is the lie? There are from time to time criticisms made, facts alleged, rightly or wrongly, and events stated to have occurred which may or may not be true historical facts, and these, of course, are the daily lie. My belief is that the people who are responsible for the daily lie are the Government, and I will tell the Committee why. I hope no one will imagine that I am suggesting that any member of the Government, that the Government either jointly or severally, give expression to anything that is not an accurate statement of fact. What I do say is this: I thought, when my right hon. Friend was speaking, that with his great cultivation he must be very well familiar with the passage which, I think, occurs in a certain book of the Iliad, describing the way in which rumour grows, how it is borne along. Rumour, which is really the source of the daily lie, is a germ which is killed if it is introduced into a certain antiseptic region of truth and candour, and if the Government were to spread a medium of truth and candour with regard to their proceedings and with regard to actual facts, rumour, which is the mother of the daily lie, would be immediately destroyed, and my right hon. Friend would not be able to come down and complain that the inventor of the daily lie was in alliance with the sub-acid critic. In what way do I say that the Government fails to give us an atmosphere of truth and candour? I am really serious in saying that, if the Government were to treat the country with more openness, if they were to deny false rumours when they arise, if they were to give a greater knowledge of what is actually occurring, these alleged occurrences, these rumours of what is happening, sometimes true, sometimes false, sometimes pessimistic, sometimes optimistic, would at least be reduced to a minimum.
    Let me give an example which, I believe, has given rise to this, or, at all events, did give rise at an early period of the War. I do not know whether, after this lapse of time, it would still be audacious on my part to refer to a mishap which occurred off the north coast of Ireland;

    1501
    but it will be within the recollection of most Members of the House, and certainly of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that there was such a mishap, that it was hidden from the public, and that it was denied when it was spoken of. It was denied in the hearing of many men, of whom I was one, who had seen circumstantial and illustrative accounts in the American press. I myself put down questions on the subject in this House, and, at the request of the Admiralty, withdrew them from the Paper, protesting that to attempt to keep these matters secret when already widely known in every country but our own was folly. You cannot have that sort of thing going on and not think that people will imagine the same things to-day. You get accounts of this or that disaster, because that sort of incident is living and burning in the recollection of the British public. I heard within the last few days, and it came very circumstantially from a naval source—from an officer who was on board one of the ships said to have been concerned in it—that only recently, I think in the Adriatic or Mediterranean, there was an attack upon a vessel by three German submarines, and we succeeded in "bagging" the whole of those three submarines. I do not know whether it is true or not. But that is how rumour grows. That may be one of the daily lies. I am only showing that it is because those things are said, and nothing is told us by the Government whether they are true or false, that you get these rumours, and very often pessimistic rumours, spread abroad, which is entirely the fault of the Government, and not of any inventor, as my right hon. Friend seems to think.
    Let me pass to the Air Service. I am particularly interested in this matter, because I represent a constituency which is particularly open to air attack, and I wish to say again, as I have already said, that, so far as my Constituents are concerned, and I believe the same can be said of all other parts of the country, while they quite naturally are anxious to press the Government in order to get as much as possible done to protect the country against those raids, it does not mean that they are in any way in panic, or in any way intimidated or frightened by what has occurred. But it did surprise me to hear my right hon. Friend, who seems to think it very necessary, with his accustomed courtesy, to say very nice things about everybody all round—his predecessor in
    1502
    office and others—say he was not even prepared to blame those who before the War had absolutely refused to consider the question of making airships of the Zeppelin type for this country.
    I am unable to feel the great charity and tolerance of my right hon. Friend. It is not as if this question was an entirely new one, or that there were no factors which would have enabled the leaders of the nation to come to a decision. In the Debate I quoted Lord Beresford, who, speaking with great knowledge of naval gunnery, said it was nonsense to suppose that you would ever beat Zeppelin attacks with gunnery, because you can only do it by meeting like with like, and Zeppelins and engines with machines of a similar character. No doubt those responsible at that time were acting to the best of their knowledge, but if that knowledge was defective, and they neglected to provide engines of defence which events have proved were necessary for our protection, it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to say he has no blame for those who failed to provide these articles. The right hon. Gentleman said that even now it may be that in ten years' time Zeppelins will have become obsolete, or some invention will have been provided showing that they have been very much overrated, but that is small consolation to the people who are suffering because Zeppelins are allowed to come with impunity now owing to our own slackness and want of foresight in the past in not providing means of resisting them. Such a reply seems a perfect mockery of the real question.
    My right hon. Friend says that our difficulty was not so much that of making the machines as housing them. I really can hardly believe that the difficulty of making housing accommodation for these machines is a real and sufficient answer. To-day the country is suffering from the annoyance and loss caused by these raids. I do not know whether labour and material is so scarce that it is impossible to house these machines. I know the suggestion was made that the best and safest way of housing airships would be to make dugouts for some of them in the face of some of our Downs. That would not take a great deal of time with the machinery we have, and it could be done, if necessary, by military labour, which is already employed digging trenches. I should have thought that in

    1503
    this way it was possible in a very short time to have made tunnels in the face of some of our chalk hills were these Zeppelins could have been housed. If that were done it would be a secure way of housing them, and they would be perfectly safe from bomb attacks from over the sea. Although the Government deal with the generalities of the situation in this and other respects, it appears to me that although my right hon. Friend says we cannot go into details, the speech did not touch the main subject, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee has made a speech which will fill the whole country with a certain amount not of panic, but a feeling of disquiet and want of confidence as to whether everything in the Admiralty and the Navy is quite so sound and perfect as they hope and expect it to be. On the top of that speech this Debate is allowed to close without the slightest attempt on the part of the Government to remove that impression.
    Mr. WATT: I do not propose to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-West Lanark (Mr. Pringle) in the interesting speech which he made, but my theme is the same as his, namely, the injudicious management of the Admiralty in requisitioning trawlers on the East Coast of Scotland. I have drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend to this matter before, and I regret to say that my eloquence has not persuaded him and his Department to desist from this line of action. They are requisitioning these trawlers in very large numbers and are preventing what remains of that fleet from pursuing a calling which supplies my Constituency and the West of Scotland generally with the food which is necessary for them. Again and again the Department has reduced this fleet, till now it is practically imperceptible. If there were no other vessel suitable for the purpose we would agree that they must be requisitioned, but there is another type of fishing boat which would equally well serve the purpose of the Admiralty, and the requisitioning of which would not in any way interfere with the fishing on the East Coast of Scotland and the supply of cheap food. That is the boat called the drifter, which under the present circumstances is quite unable to pursue fishing and is now drawn up on shore to the extent of two or three thousand vessels. That fleet, which is useless at the present time for
    1504
    fishing, would perfectly well fill the object the Admiralty have in view in requisitioning those trawlers.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we have confined ourselves to trawlers?
    Mr. WATT: I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman's Department had con-confined itself to trawlers. It has taken some of the drifter type of boat, but it has certainly interfered with the trawler, and it has not called on the drifter to the extent which it might have done. That type of boat would suit the general purposes of the Admiralty, which is generally that of boom protecting. The Admiralty, as no doubt the Committee is aware, have, for the safety of the nation, placed booms at the entrance to many of the harbours, and these booms have to be watched and tended and kept in working order. The drifter type of boat would quite suit for that purpose instead of requisitioning these trawlers which mainly supply the fish from the West of Scotland. That fish, which is the cheapest kind of food at the present time is sold in the Glasgow markets and in the markets generally on the West at something like 3d. per lb. Therefore it is incomparably the cheapest food for the workers. The right hon. Gentleman well knows how many of the West of Scotland workers are employed in doing work for his Department. From one end of the Clyde to the other there are innumerable men working on vessels which his Department needs, and therefore it amounts to this: that he, by the action which I seek to condemn, is depriving those workers of one of their main foods at the present time, and certainly of their cheapest. The right hon. Gentleman might prevent his Department in the future requisitioning or commandeering that particular type of boat, and if it is necessary to utilise some fishing boats for the purpose of boom, protection he might take the drifter, which is useless at the present time for fishing, instead of the trawler.
    Mr. HOGGE: It is now nearly eleven o'clock, and what has most struck me about this Debate is that although this House prides itself on the British Navy as the bulwark of the safety of the Empire, we have had absolutely no news of that great Fleet. I think that is a very significant fact. I hope to put one or two points upon that issue to my right hon. Friend, because I presume that so many

    1505
    important questions are still undiscussed the Government do not intend to press for the Vote to-night. This, after all, is a token Vote. We know the House of Commons will give the Navy the money it requires. The money is not required to-night, and it can be got when it is wanted, therefore I hope the Vote will not be pressed for to-night. This is really the important point. We have had the First Lord of the Admiralty speaking for nearly an hour and a quarter, and we have had the ex-First Lord of the Admiralty speaking for the best part of an hour, he having returned from the front where his mind has been cleared of the confusion which was in it when he was at the Admiralty, and from neither one nor the other have we heard a single item of news about the Fleet. We do not in fact know whether it exists or not. That is not fair to the men who man the Fleet. After all the Prime Minister has told us from the Front Bench that at this moment they are in a position with regard to out great Army at the front of actually being able to publish official accounts of what has taken place since the outbreak of war, I put it to the Committee that if we have reached a point in the carrying on of our operations in Flanders with the Army which enables the Government to present to the House and to publish an authentic account of what has been done by out soldiers, why is it that after nineteen months of War we have been told nothing about the accomplishments of our Navy?
    With regard to the question of the capture of German submarines, we are sent to sleep by soporific phrases in this House about the fact that we can meet the submarine menace. It is all very well to be told we can meet the submarine menance. I do not want, and nobody would ask for any information which would indicate to our foes how the latest developments of their naval policy were being dealt with, but I respectfully submit to the Committee that we are entitled to know, not only for the purpose of our own information, but for the credit of the men of the British Navy, what they have accomplished, say, in the first six months of actual warfare, and made a statement in this House some considerable time ago that over fifty German submarines had been captured by the British Navy. Everybody listening to me now knows that that number has been exceeded, and far exceeded, since I made the statement, which was never denied. I do
    1506
    not want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how many German submarines they have caught or accounted for in any of the mysterious ways in which the Admiralty accounts for them, but surely they have done sufficient now to be able to give the nation a consecutive and precise account of what the Navy has done in that way in the first nine or twelve months of the War. That surely is a reasonable request to make to the Government with regard to that matter.
    We have been told nothing of the happenings in the Navy. We heard about the Falkland Islands fight, the Heligoland fight, and one or two other things, but none of the smaller actions in which the greatest bravery has been shown by men whose acts are screened from the British public at the moment, have been reviewed, and I appeal to my right hon. Friend, who has, in addition to a great amount of common sense, some imagination, to realise that the great British public do want to know something about the Navy.
    My right hon. Friend's position is this: After all we tell them all we can tell them. We do not want to tell them any more. That is the excuse offered by my right hon. Friend for all the officials under his wing. But the British Navy, after all, is the thing of which we are proudest, and at the moment it is the instrument of war of which we know the least. Surely the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, after all, has got a literary and sometimes even a philosophical touch, could give us some sort of communiqué to the British people, some account up to a certain date of what the great British Navy has been accomplishing. Why cannot we have that? Are we to wait until the whole War is over before we hear a single word of what has been happening to the Navy? I myself have frequently put awkward questions on the Order Paper, and I have never refused to withdraw one of them. I have met the Admiralty every time one of these has been put down. I might not have got the information, but I might have demanded it. If I have that sort of curiosity—I am not an inquisitive person; I do not want to know very much; but if I am that type of person, what about the British public? What about the family associations of the men who are serving in the Fleet? What about the relatives of the sailors? They read great accounts in the newspapers of what the Army has been

    1507
    doing, and about this general being appointed here and that general being appointed there. We have daily reports now from Headquarters at the front in Flanders, but we have not had since the War began any report about this Navy for which we are freely giving everything they ask in order that it may be maintained. Therefore I ask that my right hon. Friend might, at any rate, consider whether the period has now arrived in the progress of this War when he might give some account of what the Navy is doing.
    It is almost impossible at this hour to analyse the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty or of the ex-First Lord of the Admiralty, though I have analysed them in my notes. But there are one or two points which I think ought to be, made, if I can make them in this short time. And I choose the most important from the point of my own nationality. The First Lord made a great point of the lack of labour, and I presume he had in his mind, when he made that point, the fact that on the Clyde we have probably the greatest output of ships in the United Kingdom, and I think my right hon. Friend will agree that the men on the Clyde at the outbreak of the War worked magnificently in response to the Admiralty. They worked night and day—in fact, to such an extent that they practically physically tired those men in the response they made to the effort to get ready that particular type of ship to which the First Lord referred. A great deal of criticism has been made about those men. I do not think it is fair to them. You cannot expect any single body of men to work at high pressure night and day indefinitely. They made an absolutely magnificent response, as every Member for Scotland knows, and they have been doing excellently since, and will continue to do excellently in the Clyde Valley for the Navy. Those men are not fools. They realise the weapon that is in their hands and the contribution that they must make towards forging that weapon.
    It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Wednesday).
    The remaining Orders were read and postponed.
    Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 21st February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    Mr. R. MCNEILL: At Question Time to-day I gave notice that in consequence of a reply given to me by the Prime Minister on a question of mine I would call attention to the subject matter of that question upon the Motion for the Adjournment this evening. Since that time it has been intimated to me that, owing to the state of health of the Prime Minister, which we are all very sorry is not perfect, he is unable to be here to take part in the discussion. I therefore at once intimated to the Prime Minister that in the circumstances I should defer raising the question until a time that would be more convenient to him. Therefore I propose, instead of referring to the matter to-night, the subject of which was an allegation made by the Member for the Tottenham Division of Middlesex (Mr. Alden) in regard to some unknown Minister of the Crown, I shall refer to it on the Motion for Adjournment on Thursday, when I hope very much that the Prime Minister's health will be so completely restored that it will be convenient for him to be in his place. If that should not be so, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister, in the two days between now and then, will be able to communicate to one of his colleagues the facts of the case so far as they may be known to him in order that some other member of the Government may be able to take his place in answering the observations which I may have to make upon the subject.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes after Eleven O'clock.