Commons Sitting of 8 March 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Aberdeen Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Major-General Sir IVOR HERBERT: I object.
Mr. ESSLEMONT: May I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his objection? I think that Welsh Members might allow Scottish Members to deal with their own Private Bill legislation without interfering in this way.
Mr. HOGGE: May I join in that appeal? The hon. Member knows that Scottish distilleries are being shut down; he surely cannot object to Scotsmen getting water?
Objection withdrawn.
Bill read a second time, and ordered to be considered to-morrow (Thursday).
Gas Orders Confirmation Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Fleetwood Gas and Long Eaton Gas," presented by Mr. PRETYMAN; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 4.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,
"To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bradford, Burton-upon-Trent, Buxton, St. Helens, and Warrington," presented by Mr. HAYES FISHER; read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 5.]

NAVAL AND MARINE PAY AND PENSIONS ACT, 1865.
Copies presented of Five Orders in Council, dated 29th February, 1916, under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NAVAL PRIZE ACT, 1864, AND NAVAL AGENCY AND DISTRIBUTION ACT, 1864.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 29th February, 1916, providing for the distribution of Prize Money amongst the Officers and Crews of His Majesty's Ships of War entitled thereto [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
LIVERPOOL CATHEDRAL ACT, 1902.
Copy presented of Order in Council, dated 29th February, 1916, approving a Scheme of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for substituting the Chapel of St. Nicholas for the Church of St. Peter as the Parish Church of Liverpool [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
Copy presented of a Licence granted to a Convict discharging her from Aylesbury Convict Prison on condition that she enters a home [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the under-mentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
Urban district of Cleethorpes-with-Thrunscoe
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Copy presented of Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, under Section 2 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, that they are of opinion that the provisions of the North British Railway Order are of such a character and raise such questions of policy and principle that they ought to be dealt with by Private Bill and not by Provisional Order, that save as aforesaid the Provisional Orders be allowed to proceed, subject to such recommendations as they may hereafter make with respect to the several Orders [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS, 1911 TO 1913.
Copy presented of Second Report on the Work of the National Insurance Audit Department, 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
Accounts presented for the year ended 21st December, 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 40.]
DUCHY OF CORNWALL.
Account presented of the Receipts and Disbursements of the Duchy of Cornwall for the year 1915 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 41.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations, dated 6th March, 1916, made by the mittee, entitled the National Health Insurance (Arrears) Amendment Regulations, 1916 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    FOREIGN OFFICE AND DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (APPOINTMENTS).
    Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has taken, or proposes to take, upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission anent the mode of recruiting persons to be appointed to the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service; and whether he intends to give effect to the recommendation that the existing rule confining the appointments in the Diplomatic Service to persons assured of a private income of £400 a year shall be abolished?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I am afraid that it will be impracticable to deal with the recommendations,
    1512
    of the Royal Commission during the War, especially as they involve if adopted a considerable permanent increase of expenditure.

    BRITISH PRISONERS IN GERMANY (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. GILBERTasked if British military or naval prisoners or British subjects interned in Germany are employed on any kind of work in the various camps or prisons; if so, is the work optional or compulsory; and do they receive any wages or remuneration for their employment?
    Lord R. CECIL: I believe that British military and naval prisoners in Germany are in considerable numbers compulsorily employed on work for which they receive remuneration. Civilian prisoners are not so employed, though they are employed on ordinary fatigue work in their place of internment. This is in accordance with the Fourth Hague Convention.

    CONSULAR SERVICE.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering the importance of our trade with Scandinavia and Holland at the present time, and the fact that out of 111 salaried and unsalaried British Consuls and Vice-Consuls in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Holland only eleven salaried and seventeen unsalaried are of British descent and that the remaining eighty-three are all unsalaried aliens, and the desirability of replacing these unsalaried alien Vice-Consuls by men of British race at the earliest possible moment, he will now consider the question of obtaining the necessary funds for the payment of these salaries without extra cost to the State by directing the British Consuls resident in those foreign countries, whose Consuls; in Great Britain levy fees for Consular invoice certificates, certificates of origin, or for legalisation of bills of lading on all goods exported from this country, to levy the same fees for corresponding documents on all goods shipped from those countries to Great Britain?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer returned by the President of the Board of Trade to the question asked by him on 26th January.

    1513
    Salaried Consular officers of British nationality have been, and will be, appointed so far as is possible at all places where their presence is necessary, but it must be remembered that apart from the question of expense it is exceedingly difficult at the present time to find suitable candidates with the requisite linguistic attainments.
    I may add that the Diplomatic staff in those countries has been considerably increased since the War.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, inasmuch as the price of living in Russia as well as the Home taxation of salaries of British Government officials has very largely increased since the rates of pay were fixed for 1913, he will take steps to secure for our Diplomatic and Consular representatives in Russia a reasonable compensating allowance for these disadvantges?
    Lord R. CECIL: The increase which has taken place since 1913, both in the cost of living and in Home taxation affects British officials in all parts of the world including this country, and I fear no special provision can be made for the benefit of those serving in Russia.

    BRITISH SUBJECTS IMPRISONED IN SWITZERLAND.
    Mr. MALCOLMasked whether any British subjects are now imprisoned in Switzerland under military law; whether Messrs. Purcell, Service, and Draycott were incarcerated for over fifty days and seventy-two days respectively; what trial did they receive, and upon what charge were they condemned; and whether any explanation of these procedings has been forwarded to His Majesty's Government from the Federal Council?
    Lord R. CECIL: Messrs. Purcell, Service and Draycott were arrested by the Swiss military authorities on charges of espionage, and were kept in prison, the two first-named for over fifty days and the last-named for seventy-two days. His Majesty's Minister at Berne reports by telegraph that Messrs. Purcell and Service have been acquitted of the charge brought against them. I understand that they were tried before the Federal Tribunal. Mr. Draycott was not brought to trial. He was released owing, apparently, to the absence of evidence against him, but it
    1514
    was decided to expel him from Switzerland. He is, however, appealing against this decision and putting forward against the Swiss Government a demand for compensation for wrongful imprisonment. The Federal Government have agreed to make full inquiries into this case. So far as I am aware there are no other British subjects now in prison in Switzerland.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Is any redress to be had from His Majesty's Government by Messrs. Purcell and Service for their fifty days' confinement?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not know quite what my hon. Friend suggests. I should imagine, if any compensation is to be paid, that it would be due from the Swiss authorities. But I would not like to express an opinion without knowing a little more about the legal aspects of the case.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Will His Majesty's Government press for compensation from the Swiss authorities?
    Lord R. CECIL: I should not like to pledge myself about that. I think that the practice of this Government is not to give compensation to those who are arrested and tried. But it must depend upon the circumstances of the case. I will inquire into them.

    STAMPING PASSPORTS (PARIS).
    Mr. MALCOLMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why it is necessary to provide a new office in Paris for the purpose of stamping passports for Great Britain, seeing that this duty has been admirably performed since the outbreak of war at the British Consulate-General, and that the number of passports has enormously diminished during the past year; if be can state the rent paid for the new offices in the Rue Chauveau Lagarde and the salaries of the staff, and whether the secretary in charge will be a member of the Consular service?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): The Permit Office in Paris has been established to deal with passengers proceeding from France to the United Kingdom. It is the counterpart of an organisation in London under the control of the French military authorities, who have also detailed an officer and assistants to co-operate in Paris. The work of the Permit Office will

    1515
    not be confined to the perfunctory stamping of passports, and the nature of the work necessitates the employment of a staff which, unlike that of the Consul-General, can give its entire time and attention to the objects in view. The number of passports issued generally has increased and not diminished, but this has little relation to the work to be accomplished at the new Permit Office. The rent paid for the offices in the Rue Chauveau Lagarde is at the rate of 7,000 francs per annum. The salaries of the staff appointed by the War Office amount to £2,050 per annum. There is also a Home Office representative paid by that Department. In addition, an official of the Consular service assists in an honorary capacity. The officer in charge is not a member of the Consular service. The Army Council has found the establishment of this office a necessity, for reasons which it is not desirable to state at present, and it is anticipated that its formation will result in a saving in time, labour, and expense in other directions.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this arrangement has been made when the Consul-General with a few more clerks would have done just as well and at considerably less expense?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that my hon. Friend is not correct in that assumption.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    MEDICALLY UNFIT.
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of William Cameron, of Methil, Fife, who, although suffering from a weak chest and spinal disease, presented himself under the Derby scheme and was rejected as unfit; whether he is aware that subsequently a soldier attended at Cameron's house and ordered him to report himself for the purpose of obtaining his armlet; that he did so and was attested, although the doctor still adhered to the view that he was unfit; that Cameron has now been informed that he will have to travel to Perth in order to be certified as unfit; and whether he will have inquiries made into the case and release this man from an unnecessary journey which would probably be detrimental to his health?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am having inquiry made.

    TERRITORIAL FORCE. (HOME SERVICE).
    Mr. HOGGEasked whether, in connection with the application of the Military Service Act, 1916, to Territorials not yet signed for Imperial service, it is only the single men who are being asked to make the declaration?
    Mr. TENNANT: Only the single men amongst the Home service Territorial soldiers are subject to the provisions of the Military Service Act, 1916. Others may have been canvassed from time to time to undertake the Imperial service obligation, but if they do undertake it it would be a voluntary undertaking.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the intention in those cases is to persuade these men they are in some way or other under the Military Service Act?
    Mr. TENNANT: I can only say that any person who is so imposed upon must be a person with a very small knowledge of affairs.

    MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATION.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked by what authority Howell Eames Williams, of Groeslon, Carnarvonshire, was requested to submit himself for medical examination at Wrexham, having applied to enlist on the 3rd February, and been rejected as medically unfit, his certificate being signed by the recruiting officer on Army Form No. 178?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am having inquiry made into this matter, and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

    MEDICAL FEES.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of a tobacconist's assistant at Shoreditch who suffers from consumption and has a cork leg, and who was passed by the doctors as fit for the Army and afterwards given a certificate of total exemption by the local tribunal; and how much is paid to the doctors for every man examined and accepted and for every man examined and rejected?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): I should be glad to have precise details of

    1517
    the case referred to. Subject to certain limitations, the usual fee for medical examination is 2s. 6d. per man. If within three months the man is found to have been improperly passed, the doctor is liable to refund the fee.

    DESTROYED MEDICAL CERTIFICATES.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a case which came before the Manchester tribunal on 3rd March, when an applicant who had been twice rejected stated he was unable to produce his certificate of rejection, because when he took it to the recruiting station at Houldsworth Hall an official there, after examining it, tore it up; that the military representative, on being asked by the chairman whether this story could be true, replied that he supposed the man's statement was quite right as something of this sort was done at one time; that the application for exemption was refused; and what action, if any, the Government propose to take to ascertain in how many thousands of cases medical certificates have wrongfully been torn up, and on whose authority and for what purpose this action has been taken?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, my attention had not been drawn to this case, but I am having inquiry made, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

    RIVER TWEED COMMISSIONERS (EMPLOYES).
    Sir J. JARDINEasked the Secretary for Scotland what is the number of persons of military age employed under the River Tweed Commissioners; and whether he can state the number who have been attested?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I have no information on the subject referred to.

    LOCAL TRIBUNALS.
    Major NEWMANasked whether, in view of the exhibition of lack of manhood and cowardice displayed before local tribunals by young men seeking escape from military service on conscientious grounds, he will censor in the public Press all reports of such exhibitions?
    Sir W. BYLES: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not mistaken conscience for cowardice?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Sometimes "conscience makes cowards of us all." Although the prominence given to those cases in the Press is out of all proportion to their number or intrinsic importance, and can hardly fail, therefore, to produce a false impression, there are serious objections to prohibiting the publication of the reports.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Does my right hon. Friend accept the innuendo contained in this question as correct?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am afraid it is correct, but I trust only in a small minority of these cases.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman's view of that minority due to the fact that he has no sympathy with the views of the early Christians?
    Mr. WATTasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that tribunals are in some instances refusing to treat as exceptions under the Military Service Act, 1916, the fourth of four sons in a family where already three are serving in the Army; and whether, in view of his pledge to the House on 5th January on the introduction of the Bill, he will take any action, by regulation or advice, to have his pledge fulfilled?
    Mr. TENNANT: I must ask my hon. Friend to refer to the Prime Minister's speech on 5th January, in which it is made perfectly clear that the case he regarded as entitled to exemption is that of the man whose dependants would be deprived of their means of maintenance were he to be called up. It is the duty of the tribunals to decide whether this condition exists, and if an applicant is aggrieved by their decision he has the right of appeal.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Is it not a fact that in the speech from which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted the Prime Minister did not say that the Bill exempts the widow's son?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the decision of certain local tribunals to exclude the public generally from all their sittings; whether this action has been taken in contravention of the instructions

    1519
    issued by the Board to tribunals; and whether he has been able to take any action in the matter?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: My right hon. Friend's attention has been drawn to a few cases in which tribunals are reported to have acted in this way, and he has communicated with them, pointing out that, under the Regulations governing the procedure of local tribunals, applications are to be heard in public, unless the tribunal in any particular case consider that any application or any part of the proceedings should be heard in private.

    IRISH MEDICAL STUDENTS.
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John T. Dur, an Irish medical student at Edinburgh, who has been ordered to report himself for enlistment; whether Mr. Dur and others similarly cir cumstanced in Great Britain are bound to enlist; and what steps have been taken in Mr. Dur's case?
    Mr. TENNANT: If Mr. Dur is unattested and is only temporarily resident in the United Kingdom, he would be excepted from the operation of the Military Service Act; if he is ordinarily resident he would be treated as explained in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North-West Lancashire, 2nd March.

    EXEMPTION APPEALS: ONLY SON OF WIDOWED MOTHER.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of an applicant for exemption before the Camborne (Cornwall) tribunal on the ground that he was the only son of a widowed mother and that the Prime Minister had given assurances in respect of such cases; whether he is aware that the chairman of the tribunal replied that the Prime Minister's pledge unfortunately was not carried out by the Military Service Act, 1916, and did not remain a pledge since what was said in the House had not been put into the Act; whether he is aware that this view appears to be widely held by tribunals; and whether, since the Military Service Act, 1916, was passed on the ground that the pledge of the Prime Minister had to be redeemed,
    1520
    steps will be taken to see that the tribunals regard his other pledges as valid and binding?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I may refer to previous answers of my right hon. Friend on this question, and particularly to his reply to the hon. Member yesterday. He cannot deal with individual decisions of local tribunals. If their decisions are not satisfactory the aggrieved party has the right of appeal.

  ROYAL ENGINEERS (DAMAGE TO FISHING INTERESTS).
  Mr. JOYCEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the claim for compensation made by the Abbey net fishermen of Limerick to the military authorities in Ireland on account of damage done to their fishing interests on the several fisheries owned by them on the River Shannon above Limerick during the fishing season of 1915 by reason of bridge-building by a corps of the Royal Engineers in the course of military instruction during that year; whether the representatives of the fishermen called attention to the fact that damage would be done to them by the operations being carried out at this particular place and suggested that another portion of the river would be as suitable for the work; is he aware that a small sum of money was offered as compensation, which sum the fishermen think is utterly inadequate for the damage sustained by them; will he give favourable consideration to the claim of those men with the view of granting some reasonable sum for the injury done them; and is he aware that half of this body of fishermen, including all the young men, are serving in either the naval or military forces of the country?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that the pontooning started on the 11th May, and that the fishing season closes about the end of July. The part of the river used by the military is rarely fished, and while the fishing hours are from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. no pontooning was done at night except on four occasions. After full consideration of all the circumstances it was decided at the headquarters of the

  1521
  Irish Command that no claim for compensation could be entertained, and I regret I do not see my way to reopen the matter.
  Mr. JOYCE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a sum of money was offered to an hon. Member of this House as compensation from the military authorities in Ireland for these fishermen?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir.
  Mr. JOYCE: Will the hon. Gentleman see me after questions on the subject?

  TERRITORIAL FORCE (TIME-EXPIRED MEN).
  Mr. PERKINSasked whether Territorials who have completed three years' service are returning home to civil employment and are exempt from further military service?
  Mr. TENNANT: I do not see how it is possible that any Territorial soldier should become time-expired after an aggregate of three years' service. The normal period of engagement prior to the War was for four years, and since mobilisation it has been for four years or alternatively for the period of the War.

  SHIPS REQUISITIONED.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many vessels fitted with insulated chambers which before the War brought chilled and frozen beef and other descriptions of meat food to this country have been requisitioned by the Transport Department of the Admiralty during the War for purposes other than the carriage or storage of meat; whether he can state the total quantity of meat-foods in tons these steamers would have brought to this country during the period of the War had they not been so requisitioned; and whether he can give the names of the steamers so requisitioned by the Admiralty, and their respective meat-carrying capacities in tons' weight of meat?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Twenty-one of the class of vessels referred to have been requisitioned by the Transport Department and used for naval and military purposes other than the carriage or storage of frozen meat.
  1522
  I may add that four of the ships were laid up when requisitioned, and in all probability would have continued laid up for the rest of the War, owing to the cost of running them on their ordinary service. these twenty-one ships would probably have made about fifty voyages and carried about 80,000 tons of frozen meat. It is not considered desirable in the national interest to publish the names of vessels engaged on transport work.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is this a kind of requisition which my right hon. Friend would call proper?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: With respect, the question is argumentative, but if I must reply I would say the ships were immediately available at a time of urgency.
  Sir J. D. REES: Are arrangements made to safeguard the interests of British meat companies as compared with those of American firms operating in England?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a matter for the Board of Trade.
  Mr. PRINGLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the steamship "Maine," ex "Heliopolis," which was bought by the Admiralty three years ago and has been lying unused at Pembroke ever since, was on 1st March bought at auction by Messrs. Harris and Dixon, Limited, on the undertaking given by the auctioneer, who stated that he was authorised by the Admiralty to announce that the vessel would not be requisitioned except in case of urgent necessity and that, if so requisitioned, the market rates current at the time would be paid and not Blue Book rates; and if Blue Book rates for this ship would amount to about 7s. per ton on the deadweight per month, and current market rates at present ruling amount to 40s. per ton on the deadweight per month for neutrals and 25s. per ton on the deadweight for British steamers?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The current market rate, as my hon. Friend implies, is several times higher than the Blue Book rates. It has for some time been the practice to give a guarantee of the kind in question to British purchasers of neutral vessels in order to enable them to pay a price sufficient to obtain such vessels in competition with foreign purchasers, who would not in any event be subject to requisition. In view of the fact that the "Heliopolis" required

  1523
  some months' work at a considerable expense before She would be fit for work, it was considered that a reasonable price could not fairly be expected unless a similar guarantee were given. The financial advantage of the guarantee, of course, accrues to the Exchequer, and it is the intention to leave the vessel for employment in the ordinary trade of the country.
  Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of steamers owned by the Lamport and Holt Line fitted with insulated chambers for the carriage of chilled and frozen meat, etc., which are at present running regularly between the Argentine and the United States, giving their names and respective carrying capacities of meat in tons; and why, in view of the shortage of merchant ships and the high price of meat, these steamers are not employed between the Argentine and the United Kingdom or France?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Messrs. Lamport and Holt, Limited, have at present eight vessels fitted with refrigerated chambers. Their names and carrying capacities are as follows:—

  Steamship.

  Tons of Meat.

  Steamship.

  Tons of Meat.

  "Vauban"

  …

  2,900

  "Voltaire"

  2,900

  "Verdi"

  …

  1,800

  "Meissonier"

  3,000

  "Versari"

  …

  3,100

  "Memling"

  3,000

  "Vestris"

  …

  2,900

  "Murillo"

  3,000

  The "M" boats have been mainly employed in carrying meat to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, and certain of the "V" boats have on occasion been so engaged, though their regular employment is in trading between the Argentine and the United States. I am at present in communication with the company as to utilising all the above vessels for carrying meat to Europe.

  NASIRIYAH OPERATIONS.
  Sir J. JARDINEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is in a position to give an account of the battles of the 14th January and the 7th February, and later battles in which troops belonging to the garrison at Nasiriyah, on the Euphrates line, have been engaged?
  Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend should seek information regarding any action on the 14th January from the India Office who Were at that time in control of the opera-
  1524
  tions. In regard to operations at Nasiriyah on the 7th February, I would refer him to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for the Enfield Division on the 21st February. As regards later battles, I may inform him that a small punitive column set out against a hostile Arab concentration about 4 miles north of Nasiriyah on the 22nd February, and that the enemy fled and suffered severely, whilst we had no casualties.

  RECRUITING OFFICER (ALLEGED ASSAULT).
  Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) whether he has appointed a military Court of Inquiry into the circumstances of the assault committed by Second-Lieutenant Plummer on a man named Stewart, and into the action of Colonel Leith, commanding at Aberdeen, in suppressing the civil proceedings which were commenced; and (2) whether he is aware of the effect on opinion in Scotland caused by the action of the local military authority in attempting to hush up all inquiry into the assault committed by Second-Lieutenant Plummer when acting as recruiting officer at Aberlour; and what action he is going to take to bring the offender to military justice?
  Mr. TENNANT: As I informed the House, in reply to a supplementary question put to me on the 1st March, no Court of Inquiry in the ordinary sense of those words has been held, but the military authorities at the War Office, in conjunction with the local military authorities, are making an investigation. This is not yet quite complete, and until it is complete I cannot say what action may be necessary.
  Mr. PETO: If the result of the right hon. Gentleman's informal inquiries leads him to the conclusion that there is a case to be investigated, will he hesitate to appoint a military Court of Inquiry?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I shall not hesitate to appoint such a Court.

  BOYS IN ARMY.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of creating a special battalion of young lads who, without their

  1525
  parents' consent, joined the Army and are still under nineteen years of age; and whether such persons could be kept in this country until they are the age of nineteen or used in other places than the fighting line?
  Mr. TENNANT: If I may say so without presumption, the locus classicus on this point is the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn on the 2nd November. My hon. Friend is a stern and unbending advocate of economy, and I am advised that the creation of special battalions such as he ingeniously suggests would cause avoidable expenditure, and would not, from the military point of view, give such good results as the present system of retaining the lads in question in Reserve units until they are old enough to be sent out in drafts. I may add that for a considerable period now recruiting officers have been required to see the recruit's registration card, on which his real age is shown, before accepting him.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulty does not exist with regard to the new Regulations, but with regard to boys who are already in the Army; and is he further aware that Members of this House have more requisitions about this matter than practically any other?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am, of course, quite aware that the real difficulty has arisen prior to the arrangements which were made in the autumn. I am also aware, judging from the questions which I get, that a great many representations do come from parents who are anxious about their lads of tender age on this subject, but beyond that I do not think it is possible for us to make further arrangements different from those that have been made, which, I think, have been made with a view of safeguarding these boys of tender age.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the parents of these lads are not against their being used for fighting purposes, but only against their being used before the age of nineteen?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Before my right hon. Friend answers that question, can he give an assurance that no boys under the age of eighteen shall be sent to the front without their parents' consent?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of this question.

  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR (EMPLOYMENT).
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) the number of German military and naval prisoners now in this country and the number of prison camps or buildings they occupy in Great Britain and Ireland; if any of them are employed at any camp on any useful work, and if so, if they receive payment and at what rates; if they are not employed is it proposed to find work for all or any of them during the present year; what kind of work it is proposed to employ them on; and (2) the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of alien enemies now interned and the number of camps or buildings they occupy in Great Britain and Ireland; if any of them have been employed on any remunerative or useful work during last year and, if so, what kind of work; and if it is proposed to employ any or all of them on any work during the present year; and, if so, the employment proposed?
  Mr. TENNANT: As regards question No. 21, there are 13,821 German naval and military prisoners of war distributed over thirteen camps and buildings in Great Britain. There are none in Ireland. Some of them are employed in the immediate neighbourhood of their camps, and for this work they receive the same working pay as British soldiers. Others are employed in making mail bags, for which they receive payment at the rate of 6d. a bag. It is hoped to employ large numbers-shortly in clearing forest areas, and perhaps in quarrying. There are 32,181 alien enemies interned in eight camps in Great Britain and one in Ireland. Some of them are employed in quarrying, for which the rate of remuneration is varying, and others in the manufacture of mail bags, at the same rate as the military and naval prisoners. It is hoped to employ some of these prisoners also in clearing forest areas in the near future.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Are these rates of pay the same as paid to British prisoners who are prisoners of war in Germany?
  Mr. TENNANT: Yes, I think that is so, as provided by The Hague Convention.

  SOLDIERS IN HOSPITAL (PAY).
  Mr. ADAMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether

  1527
  it is a practice in some cases when a soldier is in hospital to deduct 9d. per day from his pay; if so, will he state the reasons for this deduction; whether the deduction is made in all cases; if not, will he state the reason for the differentiation; whether he is aware that, in the case of a married soldier who has allotted 3s. 6d per week to his wife, such deduction means that while in hospital he is getting into debt; and whether he will have the matter reconsidered with a view to wounded and sick soldiers receiving their full pay?
  Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Devonport.

  RIPON TRAINING CENTRE.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked whether the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in whose command the training centre at Ripon is situated is to receive increased pay for the extra duties which fall to him by reason of the suppression of the general and staff at the Ripon training centre?
  Mr. FORSTER: No proposal to this effect has reached me.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (PENSIONS).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked what steps, if any, are being taken to provide pensions for soldiers discharged from the Army owing to disease developed in the Service?
  Mr. FORSTER: This question was dealt with in Debate yesterday.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked whether the officers of the Armies and Navies of our Allies have been subjected to an increase of taxation upon their respective incomes as officers during the present War; and, if so, when and to what extent this increased taxation was imposed in France, Russia, Italy, and Japan, respectively?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): The information which I possess as to the legislation of Allied countries is not sufficient to enable me to answer this question.

  LORD LONSDALE'S STUD.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he can give the names of the horses belonging to the Tully stud or, alternatively, the names of the horses leased to Lord Lonsdale?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The names of the horses leased to Lord Lonsdale are Albion, Calais, Candescent. Eagle's Nest, Halewood, Lionella, Royal Favour.

  FLAT RACING.
  Mr. HOGGEasked whether there is to be any increased facilities for flat-racing during the approaching season; and, if so, what the increased facilities are to be?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has informed the stewards of the Jockey Club that no objection will be raised by the Government should they sanction in addition to race meetings at Newmarket a limited number of meetings at Newbury, Lingfield, Gatwick, and Windsor, provided that these courses are not required for military purposes, and that no requirements are made upon the railways.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can my light hon. Friend say whether any of the horses just mentioned by his right hon. Friend have been entered for these meetings?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The Board of Trade has not been consulted on that matter.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Are the conditions under which admission is allowed to these meetings submitted to the Board for approval?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I must have notice of that.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask if this is part of the new economy campaign?

  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the scientific representative on the Fishery Board is paid a salary of £500 a year; whether, up to the , time of the present holder, no payments

  1529
  were made to the scientific members of the Board; and whether the work done by the holders of this post is now possible under the present War conditions?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the detailed information on these points which I gave in answer to two questions by him yesterday.

  HOUSING ACCOMMODATION, LANARKSHIRE.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been called to the shortage of houses for the working classes in the middle ward of Lanarkshire; and what steps he proposes to take?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I am not in a position to make any definite statement.

  NATURALISED SUBJECTS.
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked whether subjects of foreign countries who have become naturalised subjects of this country, and notwithstanding this naturalisation still remain subjects of their original countries, are, as regards status and treatment, placed in the same position as those people who have become naturalised in this country and have been denationalised from the countries of which they were originally subject?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; no distinction can be drawn between the rights and obligations of a British subject who may also possess a foreign nationality and those of a British subject who has lost or never had any such nationality. The point in question arises not only with naturalised, but also with natural-born British subjects.

  LORD KITCHENER'S SALARY.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether the salary paid to Lord Kitchener is paid to him in virtue of his functions as Secretary of State for War; if so, why it is in excess of the amount usually paid, or whether it is paid to him as Agent-General in Egypt; and, if so, whether he is performing at present, or
  1530
  has performed since his appointment as Secretary of State for War, any of the functions of Agent-General in Egypt?
  Mr. COWANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether on the occasion of Lord Kitchener's appointment as Secretary of State for War an engagement was entered into guaranteeing him a certain salary for the duration of the War?
  The MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Lloyd George): On the outbreak of War, Lord Kitchener was in receipt of £6,140 a year, which was the salary drawn by the British Agent and Consul-General in Egypt while on leave. On his acceptance of the post of Secretary of State for War this salary was continued.
  Mr. LYNCH: Is not the moment badly chosen to pay a public functionary an excessive amount for services which he does not perform?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter upon which everyone can form his own opinion.
  Mr. COWAN: Do I understand that the salary paid to the Secretary for War is guaranteed for the term of the War?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, as long as Lord Kitchener holds office.
  Mr. WATT: Does that figure include the duty of looking after munitions?
  Mr. COWAN: Is that salary guaranteed for the term of the War whether Lord Kitchener remains Secretary for War during the whole of the War or not?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is the salary guaranteed to Lord Kitchener.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it paid irrespective of the duties he performs?
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, when Lord Kitchener was appointed Secretary of State for War, he resigned his functions of Agent-General in Egypt?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, Sir: on Lord Kitchener's departure from Egypt the business of His Majesty's Agency and Consulate General was, as is customary, conducted by a Chargé d'Affaires. Subsequently it became necessary, in view of the altered status of Egypt, to appoint a High Commissioner, and Sir Henry McMahon was appointed to this position on 18th December,1914.
  Mr. LYNCH: Will the whole situation be revised, because, as it stands, it is discreditable to all concerned?

  ALIEN ENEMIES.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any statistics, are available to show the number of aliens in the United Kingdom or in any part of it who claim to be subjects of neutral countries but who have not conclusively established the truth of such claims; if no such statistics are available, will he say how a correct statement can be made of the number of uninterned alien enemies there are in this country; and if he has given, or will give, instructions that all aliens who may reasonably be suspected of being of enemy birth and who have not conclusively proved that they are neutral subjects shall be interned until their neutral nationality is proved beyond doubt?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the figures which have been given as to uninterned alien enemies are not and could not properly be arrived at by any process of subtraction such as that suggested. They give the results of the enforcement of the law requiring all alien enemies to register and all persons as to whose nationality any question arises to prove that they are what they claim to be.

  MUNITIONS.

    CENTROL CONTROL BOARD (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).
    Sir WILLIAM BULLasked the Minister of Munitions whether his attention has been called to an announcement in the advertisement columns of the "Richmond and Twickenham Times" for Saturday, 26th February, to the effect that the Rev. Henry Carter would give an address on the subject of war and drink at the Twickenham Wesleyan Chapel; and whether it is with the sanction of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) that in such connection one of its members should advertise himself as a member of the Central Control Board?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My attention had not previously been called to this announcement, but I have made inquiries and I am informed that Mr. Carter did not direct or authorise the insertion of the announcement in the form suggested, nor did he attend the meeting.

    SPLINT COAL (SHORTAGE).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware of the shortage of the supply of splint coal avail able for the Scottish ironmasters engaged in the production of hematite; and, seeing that this shortage involves a restriction in the output of hematite, whether he will suspend the issue of export licences for splint coal until the requirements of local hematite producers are satisfied?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The export of Lanarkshire splint (which is the brand chiefly in demand by the Scottish ironmasters) has for over two months only been permitted to Allied countries, and only then sparingly and in cases where no other coal would suit the intended purposes. Further restriction would necessarily cause injury to our Allies, but the situation is being closely watched, and, if necessary, the export of this kind of coal will be even further curtailed.

    BLACK WATCH, No. 4 SUPERNUMERARY COMPANY.
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is aware that men of No. 4 Supernumerary Company of the Black Watch are being employed at an aluminium works at the rate of 1d. per hour; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter with a view to these men being paid the proper rates according to Regulation?
    Mr. FORSTER: Inquiries are being made, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result.

    MESSRS. RAMSDEN, CAMM AND COMPANY.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has had reported to him a case which came before the Huddersfield Munitions Tribunal in which Harry Dennis Earnshaw, small-wire drawer, in the employment of Messrs. Ramsden, Camm and Company, complained that his certificate had been with held unreasonably; whether he is aware that Earnshaw contended that the firm would neither provide him with work to do nor let him go elsewhere, and that the firm admitted that that was the position; and in view of the statement of this firm that they were trying to obtain compensation for this workman from the Ministry of Munitions will he say whether such a demand has been made and, if so, what answer, if any, has been returned?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend received a letter from the firm asking for advice as to the course they should pursue in this case, and inquiring in particular whether they should make an offer of compensation. Since the case was about to come before a local tribunal, and appeared to involve questions of law under the Munitions of War Acts, my right hon. Friend did not feel justified, pending the hearing, in advising them. In view, however, of the decision now reported to have been given by the tribunal, the firm are being advised that this is a case in which, in the Minister's opinion, compensation should be paid by them.

    PROSECUTION OF WORKMEN.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether, in prosecuting a fitter before the Newcastle Munitions Tribunal, Mr. Bunbury, as representing the Ministry of Munitions, alleged that many firms urged the Ministry to undertake the prosecution of their workmen, so as to spare themselves the odium of the proceedings, and that this was particularly true of the Clyde; whether this Newcastle fitter was charged with being the worse for liquor on the establishment and with failing to attend diligently to his work; whether the first of these charges was withdrawn with the consent of Mr. Bunbury, on the ground that the evidence did not support it, and that in respect of the second charge the chairman refused to impose a fine, stating that the workman, on the whole, had worked very well; and whether, before a decision is taken by the Ministry of Munitions to prosecute an individual workman, any independent investigation is made into the circumstances or any understanding reached as to the justice and necessity of the proceedings, apart from the word of an employer or a foreman?
    Dr. ADDISON: The facts of this case are substantially as stated by my hon. Friend. In every case in which the Ministry undertakes a prosecution, evidence adduced in support of the alleged facts is subjected to a close scrutiny, and in many cases instead of lodging a prosecution the person accused is admonished by the local labour officer. I much regret that the Ministry of Munitions was misled in this case by the statements made to it. Special measures are being taken which I hope will avoid a repetition.

  RECRUITING (IRELAND).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Attorney-General for Ireland if he will specify the alleged illegality or breach of duty as a magistrate for which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has deprived of his statutory commission of the peace Mr. James O'Shea, member of the Kerry County Council, chairman of the Killarney Rural District Council and, in virtue of this position, a magistrate for the county of Kerry; what evidence was given; by whom; what opportunity was given to Mr. O'Shea for cross-examining the informer; and under what statute the Lord Chancellor purports to override the provision on this subject in the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): Complaints were received by the Lord Chancellor that Mr. James O'Shea, J.P., was one of a party which interfered with a recruiting meeting at Killarney on 6th February last, and an explanation of his conduct was thereupon requested. The Lord Chancellor not being satisfied with the explanation of Mr. O'Shea, and considering that such conduct was incompatible with Mr. O'Shea's position as a Justice of the Peace, caused a writ of supersedeas to be issued under the provisions of Section 95 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.
  Mr. GINNELL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question: What opportunity was given to Mr. O'Shea to cross-examine the informer?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir, I do not think that any opportunity was given him to cross-examine anybody. He was asked by the Lord Chancellor to give an explanation. He furnished it, and the Lord Chancellor thought that it was not satisfactory.

  IRISH WOMEN'S FRANCHISE LEAGUE (FORD PEACE MISSION).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Postmaster-General if he will explain the non-delivery of the cablegram sent by Mr. Sheehy Skeffington from Dublin on 8th January last to Ford Peace Crusade, The Hague, Holland, in these terms: Dublin public meeting convened by Irish Women's Franchise League endorse your mission; and whether the money paid for its transmission will be refunded?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I have not yet received the information in regard to this, but I am having inquiry made and will communicate further with the hon. Member.

  LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "PERSIA."
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether depositions have been obtained from the officers, crew, and passengers of the steamship "Persia" relative to the circumstances attending the loss of that vessel; whether these depositions have been examined; and what steps are being taken with regard to them?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Representations were , made on the Motion for the Adjournment in this House on the 17th January last in favour of a formal investigation into the circumstances attending the loss of the steamship "Persia," and, as there appeared at that time to be good ground for taking such a course, I informed the House on the 25th January in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Warrington that a formal investigation had been . ordered. The necessary measures for holding the investigation were immediately set on foot.
  As the result, however, of a very careful scrutiny of the depositions obtained from passengers and members of the crew of the steamship "Persia," it does not appear to the Board of Trade that any fresh fact of any consequence would be brought to light or that any material advantage would be gained by a formal investigation.
  In view of the fact that the services of every officer and seaman are urgently required afloat in the national interest, the Board of Trade have reconsidered the question of holding a formal investigation, and have come to the conclusion that an investigation would not lead to any result of sufficient importance to justify the further detention of the officers and crew or the considerable expense which would be involved.
  In the light of the experience gained in this and other cases, the Board of Trade with the assistance of their technical advisers, will take every step that appears to be practicable with a view to minimising loss of life at sea.
  I would like to add a word of appreciation, in which I am sure the House will join me, of the coolness and courage of the
  1536
  passengers and crew and the discipline of the ship maintained in face of this sudden and appalling disaster. I am told that the captain, officers, and engineers of the "Persia" had spent their lives in the company's service, and all had unblemished records. The country is deeply indebted to those who are facing the perils to which our merchant ships are being subjected.
  Mr. PETO: Do the Board of Trade contemplate any alterations in the Regulations with regard to life-saving apparatus in view of the danger from submarine attacks?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, we are contemplating modifications of the Regulations which are now under technical consideration, and we will make them public as soon as possible.

  BUTTER TRADE (GREASEPROOF PAPER).
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the President of the Board of Trade if vegetable parchment and certain papers are indispensable to creameries in connection with their butter trade; and if he will take their case into consideration in connection with the proposed restriction of the paper import?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the requirements of the butter trade in the matter of grease-proof paper, but I cannot see my way to exempt paper for this purpose from the restriction which it has been found necessary to impose upon imports of paper of all descriptions.

  MEAT SUPPLY (ARMY AND NAVY).
  Mr. MACMASTERasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total quantity of chilled or frozen beef imported into Great Britain or for the purposes of the Army and Navy elsewhere during 1915 from, respectively, the Dominion of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, or any other British Dominions; what was the total quantity imported from the United States of America and the Argentine Republic, respectively; and what provision is being made for increasing this portion of our food supply from our own Dominions, and for preventing the productions of our food supply from our own Dominions from

  1537
  being diverted into foreign channels by the purchase of such productions in foreign markets?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think there would be any advantage in stating publicly the exact sources of our supplies of meat, but the hon. and learned Gentleman may rest assured that the Government have in mind the same considerations that he has and that their operations are not likely to have the effect of diverting any food supplies from our own Dominions to foreign channels.
  Mr. MACMASTER: Is it not a fact that the comparative amount of supplies is well known through the medium of the public Press, and at a time when there is so much talk about Imperialism and the consolidation of the Empire could not a larger proportion of meat supplies be obtained from the British Dominions?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know what extra proportion the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish us to take, because my information is that we take now the entire refrigerator output of Australia, New Zealand, and Canada

  WOODS AND STONES LICENSING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade on what principle the Woods and Stones Licensing Committee have acted in prohibiting the importation of certain kinds of wood and permitting others to come in as before?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Proclamation of the 15th February prohibits the importation of furniture woods, hardwoods and veneers. Woods not classified under this heading by the Customs authorities are not regarded as affected by the Proclamation.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question and say on what principle they act? Why do they prohibit certain goods and allow others to come in?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Proclamation prohibits the importation of furniture woods, hardwoods, and veneers, and woods not classified under this heading are not regarded as affected.
  Mr. ASHLEY: I will put it down again.

  BRITISH TRADE (EXHIBITION OF GERMAN GOODS).
  Mr. MALCOLMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Majesty's Government will promote or give facilities for an exhibition of German goods which might be made in this country, similar to the museum for the same purpose that is now in course of preparation in Paris?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A large number of samples of German and Austrian goods collected from oversea countries have been exhibited by my Department in London, Glasgow, Leeds, Leicester, and Nottingham, and arrangements are now in progress for their exhibition shortly in a number of other localities.

  SPUN COTTON SUPPLIES (IRELAND).
  Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the President of the Board of Trade if power-loom manufacturers in the Belfast and Dublin districts are experiencing increasing difficulty in securing supplies of spun cotton from Lancashire and that consequently workers are often enforcedly idle; that, in order to relieve congestion on the railways, Lancashire spinners have conveyed their cotton by motor lorries from the mills to the ship-side, but that this traffic has been held up at Liverpool; and that supplies of materials carried by Scotch railways and steamboats reach Ireland practically without delay; and if he will inquire into the organisation of the English railways and steamboats with the view of facilitating traffic and removing these difficulties from this Irish industry?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that there has recently been some difficulty experienced in connection with the transit of traffic of this description from England to Ireland, owing partly to the limited amount of shipping accommodation available under the present circumstances. I doubt whether any such general inquiry as is suggested could usefully be undertaken, but I am in communication with certain of the railway companies upon specific complaints which have reached me, and any further complaints that I may receive will have careful attention?
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a representative down to Liverpool to inquire into the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Trade has its representative in Liverpool now. We have made inquiries, and we are making inquiries there every two or three days into the state of the traffic.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS (STATUTORY COMMITTEE).
  Sir HENRY CRAIKasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the Statutory Committee on Pensions has passed a resolution declaring that they are unable to take steps in many cases where relief is urgently required owing to the lack of office accommodation and staff; and whether he is now in a position to make an announcement as to the immediate provision of adequate accommodation as a necessary preliminary to giving effective operation to the relief which Parliament has decided shall be promptly available for our soldiers and sailors and their dependants?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The only resolution passed by the Statutory Committee with reference to the question of office accommodation and staff is as follows:—
  "That this Committee views with the gravest apprehension the inability of the Office of Works to find adequate and suitable offices. That this Committee considers that the closing of the London Museum offers an opportunity for providing them with such offices on the most economical plan. That the Committee understands ample accommodation is there for both the Foreign Trade Department of the Foreign Office and for the Statutory Committee: that failing such accommodation being provided, they will be compelled immediately to take offices at a rental of possibly not less than £2,000 a year and on a lease which will prevent them from taking advantage of the ample office accommodation which is likely to be available at a cheap rate after the War."
  Copies of the resolution have been sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Commissioner of Works, who, I understand, are giving the matter their consideration.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Will any steps be taken in accordance with the Statutory Committee's Resolution for obtaining premises accessible to those concerned? Cannot accommodation be secured in the premises formerly occupied by the London Museum?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Inquiries are being made, and premises are being visited almost every day, but nothing suitable or adequate has yet been found.
  Sir H. CRAIK: What about the premises of the London Museum?

  TECHNICAL EDUCATION (GRANTS).
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board have informed local education authorities and the managers of technical schools that the Grants for technical instruction for the year 1915–16 may be reduced below the sums paid for the year 1914–15; and whether the Board are aware that the fixed commitments of these schools were made last year and cannot now be reduced without throwing upon the rates the additional sum that may be required for any deficit?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Lewis): The Board have informed certain schools where the number of students has greatly diminished that they must not assume that the Grant for the current session will be as large as that for the preceding session. The Board, however, are fully alive to the point raised in the second part of the question, and where reasonable economy has been practised will have due regard to the expenditure necessarily incurred.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Have the Board fulfilled the intention announced in one of its circulars to base the Grant on class hours instead of students' hours, in order to avoid the loss which has been caused by the unavoidable absence of students?
  Mr. LEWIS: I must ask for notice of that question.
  Sir P. MAGNUSasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board can give any information for the guidance of local authorities in framing their estimates as to the probable amount of Grants to be allocated for technical instruction for the Session 1916–17; and whether, in deciding as to those Grants, he will consider the urgent importance at the present time of maintaining the standard of efficiency of teaching in our local technical classes?
  Mr. LEWIS: In view of the great uncertainty as to the volume and cost of the work which will be done in the Session 1916–17, and which furnishes the basis for the assessment of Grants, it is not possible to give such information as is suggested. The Board fully appreciate the importance of maintaining the efficiency of technical instruction, and since the War broke out have done their best to meet the various difficulties experienced in carrying on the schools.

  DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT.

    PROSECUTIONS (IRELAND).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is for the offence of having used the Irish language in Ireland the police at Ballingeary arrested Claude Uasal Chavasse, B.A., of Christ Church, Oxford, imprisoned him, stripped him of his clothes, told him that a man born at Oxford had no right to speak Irish, insulted him, and got him fined; whether it is for that offence alone he maintains that the police treated Mr. Chavasse properly; if not, for what offence, seeing that no other was charged; whether he is aware that the resident magistrate who tried the case is an ex-policeman, and admitted that his reason for not allowing the policeman who had witnessed the whole occurrence to be cross-examined was his fear that the policeman was under the influence of drink; whether he is aware that local gentlemen have applied for Irish-speaking police to be sent to the place; and whether he can state any other reason for the conduct of the police in the neighbourhood of all the Irish colleges than the known hostility of their superiors to the Irish language?
    Mr. BIRRELL: The offence for which Claude Chavasse was arrested was that mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member on the 22nd February. The accused after arrest was treated with kindness and consideration by the police and not at all in the manner suggested by the question, and when released he expressed great thanks for the kindness shown to him. No resident magistrate attended the Petty Sessions at which Chavasse was convicted. Requests have been received for Irish-speaking police to be sent to Ballingeary, but compliance with them has not been found practicable or necessary. I have no reason to believe that the conduct of the police in the neighbourhood of Irish colleges has been in any way blameworthy.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has Mr. Chavasse been accused of any crime whatsoever except that of answering a policeman in Irish?
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; but under the Defence of the Realm Act, when a person is asked a question by the police he is bound to answer to the best of his competency.
    Mr. GINNELL: So he did.
    Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir. Being an Englishman, he was asked a question in English and he replied to it in Irish to a man who does not understand that language.
    Mr. LYNCH: Is the right hon. Gentleman still under the Cromwellian influence he mentioned the other day?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that, in the case under the Defence of the Realm Act against Mr. John M'Galey at Tralee Petty Sessions, the uncorroborated evidence of one recruiting sergeant was accepted, and the evidence of a sergeant of the Munster Fusiliers, who had distinguished himself for bravery during thirteen months at the front, was rejected, though corroborated by three civilian witnesses, and Mr. M'Galey sent to prison for three months with hard labour; whether he is aware that his imprisonment has been unanimously condemned by the Kerry County Council and other representative bodies; and having regard to the means by which it was compassed and the effect of it on recruiting in Munster, what action is being taken with regard to the recruiting sergeant responsible for it and with regard to Mr. M'Galey?
    Mr. BIRRELL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 29th February to a similar question of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin, in which it was stated that the decision was confirmed on appeal.
    Mr. GINNELL: Is it not the fact, as stated in the question, that the evidence of one sergeant which was uncorroborated was accepted, while that of another sergeant, who has been fifteen months at the front, and which was corroborated by four civilian witnesses, was rejected?
    Mr. BIRRELL: All I can say is that the case has been heard twice, and each time the decision has been the same.

  ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT.
  Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary for War whether he is aware of the number of officers of all ranks, noncommissioned officers, and men sound in health and fit for active service who are at present employed in the Army Pay Department; and whether it is the inten-

  1543
  tion of the War Office to release in rotation batches of all ranks in the department for active service in the trenches and replace them by officers and men invalided from the front by wounds or disease and only fit for such light duty?
  Mr. FORSTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject on the 23rd February last to the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Armagh and the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow.

  SUPPLY RECEIVING DEPOT (IRELAND).
  Mr. PATRICK MEEHANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will procure a report as to the urgency and expediency of establishing a receiving depot in Dublin for all supplies made in Ireland from their superintendent-engineer for Dublin and the South of Ireland; and whether the War Office will give full consideration and effect to such report when received?
  Mr. FORSTER: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him in reply to a similar question a week ago.
  Mr. MEEHAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that question was directed to a totally different subject?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, I am not.

  SHORTAGE OF COAL (GLASGOW).
  Mr. DUNDAS WHITE(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received representations about the great shortage of coal in Glasgow, owing to supplies being withheld unless merchants agree to contract for a considerable time ahead at the present inflated prices, and whether he can make any statement as to the action which the Board of Trade propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not received any specific representations regarding an actual shortage of house coal in Glasgow. As regards the question of contracts, I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to the right hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division.
  Mr. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when he thinks he will be able to make any statement on this subject?
  Mr RUNCIMAN: I think I should first have to hear what the deputation from Glasgow has to say.

  BREWING MATERIALS (RESTRICTED IMPORTS).
  Sir GEORGE YOUNGER(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with the view of restricting the imports of materials used in brewing, he has concluded an arrangement with the brewing trade, and whether he can state its terms?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I placed before the representatives of the Brewers' Society the requirements of this country and the Allies for tonnage space and the extent of the shortage, and invited them to cooperate with us in restricting imports of brewing materials in order to set space free.
  The society have now offered, by unanimous resolution, to abide by a diminution of their output of beer by a sufficient proportion to secure that the importation of brewing materials shall be reduced by 33⅓ per cent. I am not yet in a position to state the exact reduction of total output which will be necessary to achieve this result, pending certain inquiries which are in progress as to the relative quantities of home-grown and imported materials used by brewers. I should add that steps will be taken in due course to give effect to the arrangement arrived at.
  I take this opportunity of recording my appreciation of the readiness with which the traders concerned have met the wishes of His Majesty's Government in the matter.
  Mr. SHERWELL: Is it proposed that the arrangement shall refer exclusively to limited output or to greater dilution, and, in the latter case, do the Government propose to take any steps to protect the public by a readjustment of retail prices?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I can only express an opinion on the tonnage side of this question. What I had in view in negotiating with the Brewers' Society was to set free tonnage space, and the

  1545
  arrangement I have made will set free 331/3⅓ per cent. of the space usually occupied by the brewing materials.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will an Order be issued restricting the imports as in the case of fruit and other things?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, it will not be necessary to proceed in that way, but the procedure will be quite effective.
  Mr. LEIF JONES: What is the actual tonnage space that will be saved?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not say quite definitely. I should have to make much further inquiries, and the census which is now proceeding would have to be completed before I could give exact figures. It would be somewhere in the region of 200,000 tons.

  Colliery Accident (Houghton Pit, Durham).
  Mr. WINGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has been informed that on the 28th of February a fatal accident occurred at the Houghton Pit, county Durham, as a result of a fall of stone, and that it was reported at the inquest that, on bringing the miner to bank to the colliery ambulance station, there were no bandages; and if he will call the attention of the district inspector to this fact with a view to remedying such a state of affairs, and see that a similar shortage of surgical appliances does not exist at any other pit in the northern district?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): I have received a report on this case. There was no shortage of surgical appliances at the pit, and the injured man was bandaged and attended to before being brought to bank in a manner which earned the commendation of the doctor, who was waiting on the surface. The doctor thought some further bandaging advisable before removal, and, unfortunately, the key of the cupboard where the supply was kept was not immediately forthcoming. Improvised bandages, however, were used instead. Better arrangements have now been made to ensure that the key shall always be immediately available. I do not think that any further action on my part is called
  for.

  Land Valuation Department.
  Mr. RAFFANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, previous to inserting an advertisement in the "Builder" for 7th February for an assistant valuer in a Government office, any attempt was made to fill the position from the re trenched staff of the Valuation Department?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am informed that the advertisement referred to a vacancy in the office of the Public Trustee, who is in communication with the Board of Inland Revenue with a view to ascertaining if the post can be filled as suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. RAFFANasked whether arrangements are in progress for releasing a further number of the members of the Land Valuation Office for military service with the benefit of the Treasury Regulations; if so, whether their positions are to be filled by former members of the Land Valuation Office since retrenched; and at what date such arrangement is to take effect?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are releasing for military service with the benefit of the Treasury Regulations further members of their permanent Valuation Staff and are re-engaging on a monthly engagement a certain number of former temporary valuers to act as substitutes.
  Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether he has been able to study the latest balance sheet of the Land Valuation Department; and whether the activities of the Department were withheld from the purview of the Retrenchment Committee?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am fully aware of the position with regard to the Land Valuation Department. The Retrenchment Committee considered the administration of the Department and heard evidence on the subject from the Inland Revenue, who assured them that the staff had been reduced to the bare minimum necessary for the continuance of the work imposed by Statute. The question withheld from the purview of the Committee was that of the repeal of the Act itself; it was not considered desirable that a highly controversial political question of this nature should be raised at the present time.
  Sir G. YOUNGER: Will there be any objection to this question being raised?
  Mr. McKENNA: I suggest that it should not be raised at all during the War. As my hon. Friend knows, the Land Taxes raise very controversial questions, and it would be most undesirable to raise them now.
  Mr. GEORGE TERRELL: Is it not possible, without repealing the Statute, to stop all the activities of this Department, which are a waste of money?
  Mr. McKENNA: No. If the Statute remains it is absolutely necessary that the work consequent upon the Statute should be carried out.

  Sheep-dipping (Ireland).
  Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if the Royal Irish Constabulary have up to the present carried out the supervision of sheep-dipping in Ireland satisfactorily; and whether there has been any outbreak of disease in Ireland to warrant the creation of a new body of officials in this period of retrenchment and economy, such as is involved by the Sheep-dipping (Appointment of Inspectors) Order, 1915?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Royal Irish Constabulary have not at any time been required to carry out the supervision of sheep-dipping in Ireland, although when on patrol duty they endeavour to find out cases of failure to comply with the provisions of the Sheep-dipping Order. They have never been required as part of their duty to superintend the actual process. During recent years a considerable number of cases of scab amongst Irish sheep have been discovered both at the Irish ports of embarkation and at the British landing-places. In these instances the animals had come from flocks in connection with which no reports of the existence of the disease had been made to the authorities. It has therefore become necessary, in the interests of the important sheep export trade, to take further measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Many of the local authorities in Ireland have already appointed inspectors for the purpose, and it is not considered that the proper carrying out of the Order need cause any considerable expense to the local authorities concerned.

  Gold Production, 1915.
  Mr. FELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if it is possible to supply the total value of the production of gold in the year 1915, distinguishing the amount produced in the British Empire, in the United States, in Russia, and in the rest of the world?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no official information on the subject, but I understand that estimates have been published in the "Engineering and Mining Journal "of New York which put the value of the world's output of gold in 1915 at about £96,400,000, of which about £59,000,000 was produced in the British Empire, £20,300,000 in the United States, and £17,100,000 elsewhere.

  Irish Language.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Secretary to the Treasury the total amount included in the Estimates for 1916–17 for teaching the Irish language in Ireland; and what reduction, if any, has been made in the cost of this item compared with last year?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In the Estimates for Public Education, Ireland, in 1916-17, a provision of £13,750 is made in respect of fees payable to teachers for instruction given to pupils in Irish. The provision in 1915-16 was the same.
  Mr. GINNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that five times that amount is being spent on the teaching of German in Trinity College, Dublin?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot dispose of the curriculum of Trinity College.
  Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that no such sum is being expended at Trinity College, Dublin?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I do not know anything about it at all.

  National Health Insurance Commissioners.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been directed to the fact that the cost of the National Health Insurance Com missioners' staffs for every 1,000 insured persons is in England, £28; in Scotland, £36 14s.; in Wales, £51; and in Ireland, £59; and what steps are to be taken to diminish the cost of administering this Act in Ireland?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The final Report of the Retrenchment Committee, in which the figures quoted by the hon. Member appear, is now under consideration.

  Untenanted Lands (Ireland).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will say at the instigation of what local person the original scheme for the distribution of the Ballinakill ranch, on the Nugent estate, near Multyfarnham, Westmeath, was altered; for what reason two allottees named in the original scheme, both within the statutory provisions, were struck out and the two holdings intended for them given to one person not within the Statute; whether he is still unaware of the local dissatisfaction with that alteration; and whether the alteration will be cancelled and the original scheme put in operation?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No such alteration as that alleged in the question was made in the scheme approved by the Estates Commissioners for the allotment of the lands. The allottees have signed purchase agreements for their respective allotments and have been placed in possession, and the question of the distribution cannot be reopened.
  Mr. GINNELL:Is there not a good deal of dissatisfaction locally?
  Mr. BIRRELL: It is very difficult to dispose of untenanted land in any neighbourhood without creating some dissatisfaction among those who have not got it.

BILL PRESENTED.
Naval and Military War Pensions, etc. (Expenses) Bill,—"to provide for the payment of a Grant-in-Aid of the funds at the disposal of the Statutory Committee constituted under the Naval, and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, and for payments by local authorities in aid of the expenses of local and district committees under that Act," presented by Mr. MONTAGU; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Hayes Fisher; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 6.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1916-17.—VOTE A.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed [7th March], "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."
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Balfour): I occupied the time of the House yesterday at considerable length on the question of the Navy Estimates for the year, and I should not again have trespassed upon the patience of hon. Members but that I think some brief notice should be taken of the speech made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dundee (Colonel Churchill), who immediately followed me in the Debate yesterday. That speech deserves some notice because it was a speech very unfortunate, both in form and in substance, and I rather conjecture that the Committee would wish me to deal with it as far as it may seem necessary on the present occasion. The speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend practically was divided into two parts. In the first part he strove to arouse doubts, misgivings, and suspicions about the strength of the Fleet and the energy of the present Board of Admiralty in dealing with national interests; and in the second part of his speech he suggested a remedy that would, he thought, put an end to a condition of things which, if it existed, everybody would admit would be lamentable. I may say something, perhaps, on each branch of my right hon. Friend's speech.
    Anybody who listened to the speech in which I tried to give a general account of the building for the Navy would know beforehand that I absolutely deny the charge which my hon. Friend made. He did not refer to that speech. His own charges, I imagine, had been prepared before that speech was delivered. I reiterate, what I then said in the most explicit manner, that there has been no breach of continuity between the last
    1564
    Board and the present Board; that there has been no slackness in pressing on the construction of ships for naval purposes; and, as a matter of fact, that construction has gone on at a rate which, if not so rapid as we could desire, at all events-compares most favourably with anything that has ever yet been done by this or any other country in times of peace. I pointed out yesterday that the real limitation to our building at the present moment is due to the difficulty of obtaining labour.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: How long has that prevailed?
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am sorry that at the time I stated the facts I did not make the House clearly understand—it was my omission—that we had not sat down contentedly under this difficulty, but were doing all that we could to alleviate it, if not to remedy it completely. That, however, is a fact. I pointed out that there were three difficulties in the matter of labour. There was the difficulty that a certain number of highly-skilled men had gone to the front; there was the difficulty arising from the bad timekeeping in certain yards and among certain sections of the shipbuilding population; and there was the third cause that we had not yet carried out to any adequate or sufficient extent the policy of dilution. Let me say that, under all those three heads, every effort is being made, and has been made, by the Admiralty to bring about a better state of things. My right hon. Friend knows, much better than I do how it came about that when he was First Lord of the Admiralty those skilled mechanics were permitted to go to the front. That, at all events, had nothing to do with me, or with my colleagues on the Board of Admiralty. If anybody in the Admiralty at any time was responsible, I presume it was my right hon. Friend and those with whom he worked. But the evil having occurred, we have done and are still doing everything we can to remedy it. As regards dilution of labour, that is a subject which presents considerable difficulties in its execution, but those difficulties, chiefly through the efforts of the Minister of Munitions and under his guidance, have been and are being overcome, and though a shipbuilding yard is not perhaps the most favourable theatre of operations in which to carry out dilution of labour, undoubtedly it can be carried out to a great extent in

    1565
    those yards, and is being carried out. The matter cannot be done by a wave of the wand, or a stroke of the pen, but it can be done gradually, dealing with each yard in turn; it is being done, and His Majesty's Government has every reason to hope for good results from that operation. I presume when my right hon. Friend spoke yesterday these were facts with which he was not at that time acquainted.
    My right hon. Friend—acting I know not, speaking I know not on what basis, inspired I know not by whom, or whence—indulged yesterday in a comparison between the work of the present Board of Admiralty and the Board of Admiralty over which he presided, very much to the disadvantage of the former, and he gave as a crucial instance of his energy and our slackness the case of the monitors and the case of the capital ships. He hinted that the time might be now approaching when this country might be in need of a larger number of capital ships than it at present possesses, owing to the fact that our enemies may have been building in the interval. He said, although this necessity must be apparent to His Majesty's Government, they have not pressed on the completion of the ships of the "Dreadnought" class which were laid down by their predecessors, and he suggested, in the first place, that that was a grave charge which lay against His Majesty's Government, and, in the second place, that it was an imminent peril to the country. Compare that with the energy, the speed, the push, and the drive that animated the last Board, which created these monitors in a period of six months! I think that is an illustration which from almost every point of view is singularly infelicitous for the right hon. Gentleman who used it. The main cause why these "Dreadnought" ships have not been completed as soon as had been hoped and expected is that the right hon. Gentleman and his Board, in order to make the monitors, used the guns and the gun-mountings which had been designed for the capital ships. What on earth is the use of bringing forward a comparison of these two rates of building, when the rapid rate for which he takes credit was obtained at the cost of delaying the ships for whose delay he blames us? These are facts which, now that I have reminded him of them, must be perfectly familiar to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The monitor guns came from America.
    Mr. BALFOUR: There was more than one monitor. There were guns that came from America, and there were guns for monitors which were designed for the "Dreadnought" ships. Then what is the value of an argument which, on the one hand, takes credit to the late Board of Admiralty for having hurried on the monitors, and blames us for having delayed the capital ships, the two Operations being intimately connected, and the delay in the capital ships being due in this way to the monitors? But that is not all. What are the monitors? They are a kind of vessel of war, which for certain purposes have proved and may again prove themselves of the greatest value. So far I am quite ready to go, but neither these monitors nor all the monitors in the world add a tittle to the strength of your Grand Fleet. They cannot work with the Grand Fleet, they are not intended to work with the Grand Fleet, and to take guns and gun-mountings from a capital ship and put them into a monitor may be right or may be wrong, but it deliberately weakens your Grand Fleet in order to obtain another kind of naval intrument to be used, more usefully perhaps, in what may be called amphibious warfare than in a straightforward fight for the command of the ocean. I do not say it was wrong to create these abnormal vessels for purposes outside the ordinary work of the Grand Fleet. I am not sure it was wrong. They have done very good service at the Dardanelles, and they may still do good service. They have done good service on the coast of Belgium, and yet may do good service there or elsewhere, but it does not lie in the mouth of those who have deliberately, and perhaps rightly, weakened the strength of the Grand Fleet in order to create these monitors, to turn round to their successors and say, "You are neglecting the strength of the Grand Fleet, which ought in the face of foreign building to be bigger than it is." The two lines of policy are absolutely inconsistent. I think the whole House is unanimous in thinking that the Grand Fleet must be strong enough in capital ships for all that is required of it in fighting the enemy. There is no difference of opinion on that point at all, and I am not in the least pessimistic about the strength of the Grand Fleet to carry out that policy. I recognise that the Grand Fleet is now

    1567
    more powerful than it was when my right hon. Friend left office. As the months go on it will be more powerful still, and when my right hon. Friend left office it was more powerful than it was when the War began. I therefore do not suggest for a moment that it has been dangerously weakened by the policy of monitors, and I do not get up and suggest that anybody was responsible for unduly weakening the Grand Fleet at the very moment when I boast, as the right hon. Gentleman boasted, that he had been the creator of this particular and rather abnormal fancy kind of vessel, which can only be created, and has only been created at the cost of other ships more clearly and legitimately connected with purely maritime warfare.
    4.0 P.M.
    I think that is almost all that need be said about monitors, but there is one other observation that I must permit myself. The right hon. Gentleman is extremely proud of his six months rapidity of building, although that six months was only made possible, as I say, by getting guns and gun-mountings elsewhere, partly from the Grand Fleet and partly, as my hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) has suggested, from America. But the point of these six boasted months, arrived at in this particular fashion, is really an indication that bustle, hurry, and push, and all the great qualities which the late Board arrogates to itself and denies to its success may sometimes be pushed to an undue extreme, because so hastily was the design of some of these vessels, and so ill were they contrived to carry out their purpose that even now it has not been found possible to use some of them for the purpose for which they were originally designed. They are in process of being modelled or remodelled so as to make them suitable for this amphibious warfare. The design was hasty, the execution was hasty, and the result is, therefore, as might easily be expected, not always satisfactory.
    I do not wish in the least to make a charge against the late Board or against anyone connected with the late Board. In my opinion there are risks which you must run. You cannot have everything your own way. In some of the destroyers that have been finished under the present Board it has been found, I believe, that undue haste in construction has rather led to delay than to speed. You have to strike the medium. No doubt if you press on to the extremest limit, and allow
    1568
    neither the designer nor the contractor to have a moment's pause for thought, you may get a good vessel quickly, or you may get a very indifferent vessel quickly, and you may or you may not have wasted both time and money. But because of some failures, while, no doubt, there are some successes, I do not wish to attach any blame in connection with these monitors or anything else in connection with hasty building. But do not suppose that over driving in the matter of haste is an impossibility. It is not an impossibility, and it sometimes happens. That really is, I think, a sufficient analysis and examination of the crucial case which my right hon. Friend brought forward when he was engaged in the congenial task of showing how well he had done, and how ill his successors had done. After all, a contest between two Ministers who have successively held the same office is not very decorous or proper, and I certainly do not wish to dwell upon that aspect of the case any longer. There is a far more important and far more serious aspect of the case, of which I think the Committee should take notice. To me it seems that this deliberate desire to suggest doubts, fears, and alarms among the public, who cannot by any possibility know intimately all the facts of the case, is really acting against the public interest.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: The same old tale.
    An HON. MEMBER: The same old true tale, too.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Munitions of war.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I am not quite sure that I follow my hon. Friend's interruption, but at all events I take it that he does not dissent from the broad proposition which I have ventured to put before the Committee. Of course, there are degrees of crime. It is a much better and a much less serious attack upon public policy to suggest suspicions which really on examination have no foundation at all than to suggest suspicions, fears, and misgivings which have a foundation. It is one of the cases in which the greater the truth the greater the injury to the public, and, therefore, I admit that in the charges which my right hon. Friend has levelled against the present Board of Admiralty he has not done nearly the same injury to the public interests as he would have done supposing his charges had been 'ell founded. I might illustrate the proposition which seems, I think wrongly, to

    1569
    some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway to be rather a paradox. Really it is not a paradox at all. Supposing I give an imaginary illustration. Supposing somebody in the month of August, 1914, had gone about whispering and spreading rumours, even making public speeches, in which it was said, "It is all very well to be happy about the Fleet. It is perfectly true that the Admiralty have with admirable promptitude brought their Fleet into the war stations at the very moment they were required, and by so doing they have done a great and an unforgettable public service, and that Fleet had a margin of safety in access of any fleet that could be brought against it at the moment." Then supposing it was added that the Admiralty responsible for that Fleet had not got at that time a single naval base upon the whole East Coast of the British Isles which would save them from submarine attack, and that the immense trade routes of the world were being most imperfectly policed by fast cruisers. Both those statements would have been true, and, therefore, anybody who had gone about spreading these stories and raising these alarms among the population would have been guilty of the fault of which I speak in its greatest magnitude. That would have been an unforgivable offence. It would have done no good, and it would have seriously alarmed the public mind. Yet everybody knows it was a fact; everybody knows it was true. Everybody knows that that was absolutely and entirely due to the responsibility of the Board of Admiralty which had to conduct the naval operations in the early time of the War. That would have been the worst form of the offence. That form my right hon. Friend has not committed. He has simply suggested slackness, indifference, want of push and drive, which cannot be proved or disproved in the simple form in which the statement which I have just made can be proved or disproved, which it calculated to cause uneasiness, which has caused uneasiness, and which has, in my opinion, absolutely no foundation.
    If the Fleets at the command of this country at this moment are not sufficient to secure national safety, then in the whole history of this country they never have been sufficient to secure national safety. They are much stronger than they were six months ago. They are still stronger than they were twelve months ago, and their excess over what we pos-
    1570
    sessed nineteen months ago is still greater. As I said yesterday, in every class of ship, big and little, ships designed to meet on equal or superior terms the German High Sea Fleet—auxiliary ships, patrol ships, anti-submarine ships, light cruisers, destroyers, flotilla leaders, submarines, every kind of ship available in modern war—we have increased, and largely increased, since the War began. Well, then, let us dismiss vain and empty fears. As I said yesterday, war is necessarily and always an uncertain game. It may be true, and it is true, that maritime warfare, under modern conditions, and against the new form of attack constituted by submarines, aircraft, and mines, is a more uncertain game than it was in the "good old days," when it was merely a question of counting your 74-battleships and your 36-gun frigates and the rest. Therefore, I repeat, that I will make no boast about the British Navy. I will not guarantee it against misfortune or accidents. But I say, in perfect confidence, that it is stronger in the face of any overt attack which it is likely to meet, that it is far stronger than it was at the beginning of the War, and is, I believe, stronger than it has ever been in its history. So much for the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, a speech in which he was explaining the "diseases" from which we suffer.
    Let me say now one word about the remedy which he proposed at the end. I do not imagine that there was a single person who heard my right hon. Friend's speech who did not listen to this latter part of it with profound stupefaction. My right hon. Friend has often astonished the House, but I do not think he ever astonished it so much as when he came down to explain that the remedy for all our ills, as far as the Navy is concerned, is to get rid of Sir Henry Jack son and to put in his place Lord Fisher. My right hon. Friend has never made the smallest concealment, either in public or in private, of what he thought of Lord Fisher. Certainly the impression that we all had of what he thought of Lord Fisher was singularly unlike the picture that we should ourselves have drawn uninspired as to the character of a saviour of his country. Because, what did he say when he made what at the time he thought was his farewell speech, when he exchanged a political for a military career? He told us that the First Sea Lord, Lord Fisher, did not give him, when he was serving in

    1571
    the same Admiralty with him, either the clear guidance before the event or the firm support after it which he was entitled to expect. The speech from which that is a brief extract was one not made in the hasty irritation that might be excusable in the midst of a political crisis, such as that which accompanied my right hon. Friend's resignation of the position of First Lord of the Admiralty on one side and Lord Fisher's resignation of the position of First Sea Lord on the other. Speeches made on such occasions as that are apt to lack balance and meditation. But my right hon. Friend had six months in which to meditate over his relations with Lord Fisher before he made that considered judgment, and anybody who knows my right hon. Friend is aware that when he makes one of these great speeches they are not the unpremeditated effusions of a hasty moment. He takes care to weigh well and balance every word which he utters. That being so, we must assume that this was his considered judgment, that his First Sea Lord did not give him either the clear guidance or the firm support which he had a right, as he told us, to expect.
    Then my right hon. Friend, with the memory of that speech in his mind, had naturally to frame some explanation of advice which suggested that Sir Henry Jackson should be relieved of his office in order to put in his place the most brilliant and distinguished sailor who had, however, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the defect of not giving his chief either the clear guidance or the firm support which his chief had a right to expect. It was not a very easy thing to explain, and I must honestly say not a thing which was very adequately or satisfactorily explained. All that my right hon. Friend said was that he had gone since then to the front, and that with the opportunity for calm meditation which apparently the front presents his mind was cleared. The great ancestor of my right hon. Friend, the first Duke of Marlborough, was always supposed to be more cool, more collected, more master of himself, more clear in thought amid the din of battle than he was in the calmer occupations of peace, and perhaps my right hon. Friend shares this hereditary peculiarity. I venture to suggest that that clearness of thought which we all desiderate is bought at a rather costly figure if
    1572
    it involves a European war in order to obtain it. And what was the result of my right hon. Friend's meditation? May I remind the House that he told us yesterday that he and Lord Fisher parted on a great enterprise, upon which the Government had decided, to which they were committed, and in which the fortunes of a struggling and ill-supported Army were already involved.
    "I therefore,"
    he goes on,
    "should have resisted, on public grounds, the return of Lord Fisher to the miralty—and I have on several occasions expressed this opinion in the strongest terms to the Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. col. 1 430, Tuesday, 7th March, 1916.]
    Just let the Committee consider what that statement means. It means that when my right hon. Friend and Lord Fisher were colleagues at the Admiralty, and when the Admiralty were taking part in the difficult enterprise of the Gallipoli Peninsula, and when the fortunes of the sister Service, ill supported, were already involved, then such was his opinion of Lord Fisher that he could not count on his support, and he would have resisted to the utmost allowing him to come back to the Admiralty to share in his responsibility for the Navy. I do not know what Lord Fisher thought about that apology. I know that if a friend of mine had made it about me I should regard it as the deepest insult that could be offered. It means that because Lord Fisher—that is the way I interpret it—disapproved of the expedition to Gallipoli, therefore, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, although the Army was involved, he could not be trusted to carry out effectively and vigorously the measures necessary in order to support the Army. If that were true, it is almost high treason. I do not believe for a moment that it is true. If that were true, what would we think of Lord Fisher, one of the most distinguished members of his great profession which any of us have seen in our lifetime? "But," says the right hon. Gentleman, "that is all over. If it was not all over I could never think of suggesting that Lord Fisher should go back to the Admiralty. But it is all over. Therefore it may be supposed that in future Lord Fisher and his colleagues will act in perfect harmony, and as they act in perfect harmony, Lord Fisher's loyalty would be beyond all question." Who ever got up in this House and commended to a Government the acceptance of the services of a great

    1573
    public servant in a great position of public responsibility on the ground that he could not be adequately trusted to do his work when he disapproved of the policy of the Government, but that he could be trusted to carry it out when he approved of it? That is a charge which I should have thought Lord Fisher would have the right most bitterly to resent, and which for anything I know he does most bitterly resent.
    I cannot follow the workings of the right hon. Gentleman's mind. He told us in his speech yesterday, I have not got the quotation, but it came however to this, that he told the Prime Minister when Prince Louis resigned the position of First Sea Lord that the only man he could work with was Lord Fisher. He seemed dogged by ill-fortune. Is it not a most extraordinary and emphatic coincidence that the only man with whom my right hon. Friend could consent to work at the Admiralty was the most distinguished sailor who, after five months, refused to work with my right hon. Friend? And why, if my Friend is unfortunate in his relations with Lord Fisher, did he think that he is the one and only man to remedy the defects of the present Board? I do not know if my right hon. Friend is under the impression—perhaps he is—that if the change which he desires to force on the Government were accepted, I should still remain a member of the Government. But let us suppose that that is so, and that I was prepared to take my Board of Admiralty from the right hon. Gentleman—rather a violent supposition—why does he suppose that Lord Fisher should behave differently to me from the manner in which my right hon. Friend declared Lord Fisher behaved to him? Is it my merits? Am I more happily gifted in the way of working with people than my right hon. Friend? Does he think that I could better utilise Lord Fisher's great gifts and avoid this want of harmony which rose between them and which in different circumstances might still have prevailed if Lord Fisher were still First Sea Lord? I do not know whether that is the explanation or not. The fact remains that the right hon. Gentleman, who could not get on with Lord Fisher—I will not say that, but with whom Lord Fisher could not get on, says that Lord Fisher, who according to my right hon. Friend neither supported him nor guided him, is nevertheless the man who ought to be given as a supporter and a guide to anybody who happens to
    1574
    hold at this moment the responsible position of First Lord of the Admiralty. It is a paradox of the wildest and most extravagant kind.
    I am neither prepared to endorse my right hon. Friend's opinion of Lord Fisher as it was six months ago, or my right hon. Friend's opinion of Lord Fisher as it may be now. They seem to me to be totally inconsistent. It is possible that both are remote from truth. Just let the Committee ask itself this question. My right hon. Friend comes forward with this suggestion. He put it in the form of a suggestion that Lord Fisher should come to the Admiralty. There is another form in which it could be put, which is equally veracious. That is that Sir Henry Jackson should go from the Admiralty. Now Sir Henry Jackson is an admiral who no doubt is less known to the general public than Lord Fisher. He has not been, like Lord Fisher, in the public eye for many years. His name is not familiar to newspaper readers. He has not been associated with great and dramatic changes in naval policy, but I think, if you ask competent judges in the Navy, they will all say that a more admirable officer than Sir Henry Jackson and one better fitted to fill the place which he now occupies could not be found. By character, experience, abilities, and position he is the man who commends himself to naval opinion in this country. His experience has been great. He has been head of the War College. He has been Chief of the Staff. He has been controller. He was designated as admiral of the Mediterranean Fleet at the moment war broke out. He is known to every officer throughout the Fleet, and wherever he is known he is respected and admired. I think when the right hon. Gentleman comes down to this House, and, without a tittle of evidence, giving us no argument, no ground, suggests to the Government that this great public servant should be turned adrift in order to introduce in his place a man of whom I would never say anything which does not indicate my enormous admiration of the great services he has performed to his country in connection with the creation of our Fleet, but who, according to the right hon. Gentleman himself, has not done that which is his first duty as First Sea Lord to do, namely, to give guidance and advice to the First Lord and his colleagues in the Cabinet, seems to me the most amazing proposition that has ever been laid

    1575
    before the House of Commons. Certainly that is the way it strikes me. I should regard myself as contemptible beyond the power of expression if I were to yield an inch to a demand of such a kind, made in such a way. The right hon. Gentleman was not fortunate enough to get the guidance and support of the First Sea Lord when he was in office. I have had a happier fate. I have received both guidance and support from the present First Sea Lord.
    I do not dictate, I have no right to dictate, I have no desire to dictate, either to my colleagues or to the House, or to the country, but I say, so far as I am concerned, nothing would induce me to yield to such a demand made in such a way.
    Colonel CHURCHILL: Yesterday I occupied for a very long time the attention of the House, and I rise now only for a few moments to reply to the speech of my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman is a master of Parliamentary sword-play, and of every dialectical art. His great position, his long standing in the House, enable him to convey rebuke to others, wherever they may sit, and of course that attitude is more effectively assumed in the case of one who is so much younger than himself. But the right hon. Gentleman must excuse me if I say that he applied to the statements which I made yesterday all the familiar Parliamentary devices. First of all, he proceeded to state my charges in a crudely exaggerated form. He proceeded to say that I had stated that ship construction had been unduly delayed, and that I had charged them with unduly weakening the Grand Fleet and so on.
    I was naturally and necessarily vague, I had to be; though I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman, under the exigencies of his reply, has not lifted more the veil than is perhaps desirable. At any rate, I am not going to amplify in any respect the statement which I made yesterday, but I may as well define it in a sentence. My feeling of disquiet arises from doubts as to whether the battleship and destroyer programme is being worked to the dates which were arranged, and, when I say that, I mean the revised dates, in certain cases. I carefully said that many reasons might arise which would justify the delay of a ship, and I remember perfectly well the history of the various monitors and where the gun-mountings
    1576
    were obtained from; but it is of the revised dates that I am speaking, and I notice that the right hon. Gentleman neither yesterday nor to-day is able to give us the assurance that the revised dates are, in fact, likely to be realised. That is the point which I make. I carefully said, and I repeat now, that there is. no reason to suppose that our margin of strength in the Navy at present is not sufficient, and that there is no cause for alarm. I said that if there were cause for alarm then it would be necessary, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, to be silent. But I have tried, in as full a statement, of course, as I could make, to bring to the House and the country the feeling that the greatest efforts must be made to carry the programme out at the highest speed. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman yesterday in his speech gave us the feeling that the labour difficulty has been grappled with the resolution and energy which were required. It is very easy to exaggerate the statements which I made, and then to protest against the form in which they were couched. But the right hon. Gentleman ought, I think, not to be unduly offended or vexed at the speech which I made, because, after all, a speech is a very small thing, and a failure of any kind in this matter is a vital thing. Do not let us be too touchy on the Treasury Bench in regard to matters of that kind. It is right that a note of warning should be sounded, and sounded in time. So far from having gone beyond what the facts of the situation justified, I have been restrained only by the strictest regard to secrecy, in the public interest, from making my statement in a stronger form, in which it would have been justified, and that is perfectly well known to those who sit on the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, was very effective in dealing with my relations with Lord Fisher. I make him a present of all the rhetorical and debating retorts which he can derive from that fertile field, and I must say that I do not at all wonder that he was able to rove about in this luxuriant field, so well fitted to the special arts he exercises. But, after all, what is the real fact? The real fact is that if we could associate in some way or another the driving power and energy of Lord Fisher, with the carrying out of Lord Fisher's programme at the highest possible speed, there is no reason to suppose that great public advantage would not result from that
    Mr. HOGGE: The Debate which has taken place leaves the situation where I think it cannot be left, and I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee will not assume that this can be made something in the nature of a political discussion between those two Members of Parliament, and that the House of Commons itself shall not take some notice of what has transpired. I feel very strongly that the House is entitled to some further explanation from the First Lord of the Admiralty, and that those who speak with and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee have still some reasons to place before this House. Let us for a moment examine the point which we have reached. The right hon. Member for Dundee has done a very extraordinary thing—having made his statement he has apparently left the House. As an ordinary hardworking active Member of this House I do object to Members coming from the front and raising matters of such vital urgency as these and then disappear from any discussion which may be conducted in the House as the result of their maladroit appearances. In this case I am with the Government. I am not always with the Government, but in this case I think the Government have the better end of the argument.
    At the same time is this not the conclusion that the general public will come to, that the ex-First Lord of the Admiralty has made more or less specific charges—[Interruption]—more or less was my phrase, but very much less as a matter of fact, only I wish to be courteous—that have not been specifically met by the present First Lord of the Admiralty? We will, however, give the advantage of the phrase "more or less" to both sides. The First Lord of the Admiralty has not met certain arguments that have been advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. Let us take one—I wish to show the House what it is that is in my mind; I really did not get up so much to make a speech as to indicate that I felt this matter could not be left where it is—let us take the question of the labour difficulty. That seems to me to be one of the most serious questions that has been brought up in this Debate. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has very rightly said to-day that the question of dealing with labour in our shipyards is a very difficult one. He knows, and the House knows, that you cannot
    1578
    dilute labour in the same way in a shipyard that you can do in other workplaces. You cannot have women riveters or women holders-on going round the stages. It is true to say that in a shipyard it is less possible to dilute labour in that way than in any other. The shortage of labour is both a shortage of skilled and unskilled, and if you take unskilled labour and make it skilled there will still be a proportionate shortage of unskilled labour. Can the First Lord assure us on this point? He said that his Friend the Minister of Munitions was dealing with the question of labour. Can he assure us that the Admiralty Board in itself has actually gone into or is going into the question of labour in our dockyards and round the coast? Is he himself personally observant of what is but one of the duties of the Minister of Munitions? The Navy is a great thing to the people of this country, and I do not think the people of the country like to feel that the question of the labour available for the Navy is under the control of the Minister of Munitions along with many other things. Can the First Lord assure the House that he has got this problem well in hand?
    There is another matter to which I desire an answer, and that is whether or not our shipyards round the coasts are also attending to the question of our mercantile marine. I will not use any argument about it, because the matter has been raised several times. The British Navy exists to preserve our mercantile marine. In this House we talk politically of the "usual channels." The great usual channel for bringing everything to the country that is wanted is our mercantile marine, and on that is based much of the greatness of this country. Is the Admiralty so utilising that as to preserve after the War has concluded the easiest access again to all those usual channels between this country and the rest of the world? Those are the two points which I should like dealt with. I wish to emphasise that the House of Commons has witnessed this afternoon a political tournament which I hope will not be repeated on the floor of this House. I have no objection to a fair and square Debate, but I do object to a man leaving the Government, going to the front, clearing his mind in charge of a Scottish regiment, and coming back to this House and starting a hare which, despite the very excellent effort made by the First Lord this afternoon, has not yet been caught,

    1579
    because it has got a start in all the papers of the country and in the minds of all the people of the country. If you unsettle the minds of the people about the Navy you are doing a great disharm to the people of this country, and the man who seeks to do that with so inadequate arguments in this House is certainly not performing a national service.
    Sir ALFRED MOND: I quite re-echo what the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) has just said. Many of us have listened with some pain and some amazement to the Debates of the last few days. When we have asked very moderate questions endeavouring to extract a modicum of information for our guidance about military or naval matters we have usually been informed that even the smallest information could not be vouchsafed to us, because of the public interest. Yet yesterday, and still more so in the speech of the First Lord to-day, we have had stated in this House in rather a bald way matters which some of us would have considered questions for secrecy and of the utmost importance. What will outsiders feel, who do not enter into the controversy between an ex-First Lord and a First Lord, about the present state of the Admiralty? Undoubtedly we can only listen with some amazement to their mutual recriminations and their mutual charges of incompetency.
    Mr. BALFOUR: I did not make any charge of incompetency.
    Sir A. MOND: The right hon. Gentleman did not make any charge of incompetency, but he referred to the question of bases on the East Coast, and that when the War broke out they were not properly provided. Fortunately we have now got over those difficulties. These things will not create a good impression in the country nor stimulate our Allies, but they may cheer our opponents. In this matter and many others there is one question only which ought to animate the mind of any responsible man in this House, and that is, is the position in any public department of such a character that it is necessary to produce the fact in order to avoid a greater catastrophe which may occur? We have had instances of pleasant optimism, not by the present Government, but by a former Government. I considered, for instance, that it was a scandalous and criminal thing for people either to draw attention to or
    1580
    make the charge that we had not sufficient munitions. I considered that those statements must be ridiculous and untrue, and the Prime Minister's statement at Newcastle set all my doubts at rest. Since that time the statement which was then denied proved to be true, and enormous efforts have been made to provide a remedy. Are we to sit down and absolutely accept statements made, no doubt, in good faith by Ministers?
    I am very glad the First Lord made the speech which he has delivered to-day, because the speech yesterday, I think, was perhaps over modest. The right hon. Gentleman desired to avoid what he calls personalities. With regard to the impression that there was a certain amount of delay in shipbuilding, the right hon. Gentleman has told us that every effort is being made to do away with the difficulties. We must accept statements of that kind and hope that not only every effort but every possible effort is being made. I agree that a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman said that over-hurry does not necessarily produce the best results, and that you can waste as much time by over-hurrying matters as by delaying matters. On the other hand, there is a margin between what we have thought possible and what is possible. If the right hon. Gentleman and the able men associated with him say that everything possible is being done and no effort spared I, for one, will be satisfied. I think it is an extremely regrettable incident in this controversy that we should have Lord Fisher's name used and bandied about from one side to the other. Lord Fisher, I think, has deserved better of this House. I have only a very slight acquaintance with him, but surely there is nobody but will admit that he is one of the greatest admirals this country has ever produced. It seems unfortunate to some of us that, owing to circumstances, of which we know nothing and at which we can only dimly guess, that he ever left the position he occupied. The present First Sea Lord is a man whose qualities are universally recognised, and surely the services of Lord Fisher should be co-operated and co-ordinated as far as possible.
    Mr. BALFOURmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Sir A. MOND: I know that Lord Fisher is head of the Inventions Board, but he has devoted the best part of his life to great strategical questions, and I should

    1581
    have thought that those services would have been of the very greatest importance to anyone who had to deal with maritime affairs. I believe he has now been called into consultation by the War Council. When we have men of great intelligence and of great experience such as Lord Fisher, and whose intelligence and experience are not utilised for reasons of machinery or organisation because there is a certain man in one position and that therefore somebody else cannot be utilised, that, I think, is a system quite inexcusable in the serious times we are passing through.
    Sir JOSEPH WALTON: There is no Vote considered by this House to which more willing assent is given than any Vote for the purposes of our Navy. The whole nation is profoundly grateful to our Navy for the splendid way in which they are giving to the nation the sense of security and safety during this time of war. But whilst we are prepared to supply to the full the financial needs of the Navy, there is at the same time most urgent need that all wasteful expenditure in connection with the Navy should be prevented as far as possible. We have commandeered about 7,000,000 tons of the mercantile marine, and the management to a large extent of that is in the hands of the Naval Transport Department. We had the other day a Report circulated in defence of the management of the commandeered mercantile marine by the Admiralty Transport Department. I refer to the Report of a Mr. T. Paterson Purdie, who is, I understand, the manager of three tramp steamers, and who states that he is president, also, of the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association, which owns 1,750,000 tons of merchant ships. What I have got to say is that Mr. Purdie had no authorisation whatever from the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association to make the statements he has made in this Report, and the great majority of the shipowners in that association do not endorse them. The Report makes many statements, but I cannot go into detail. It says that the system of organisation at the Naval Transport Department includes a return showing what previous service under requisition each owner has done in the period during which market rates have risen considerably above requisition rates.
    5.0 P.M.
    But it was a fact that for months after the War began the Government requisi-
    1582
    tioning rates were higher than anything obtainable in the open market, and therefore to the advantage of the shipowners. That should be brought into the consideration whether there has been anything like equal requisitioning as between one owner and another owner. It states in that Report that the system takes into account the number of ships in the owner's fleet, but one has to ask whether any allowance is made for ships which are interned or detained to avoid capture by the enemy in Germany, in the Baltic, in the Black Sea, or detained in the White Sea when under charter to or with cargo for the Russian Government. Other considerations to be taken into account are whether any allowance is made for any ships repairing; whether any distinction is made between ships repairing on Admiralty account; damage caused by accidents, marine, or war risks, compulsory work and survey work. Then there is the question whether ships sold since the beginning are taken into account in estimating what might be fairly requisitioned from one steamship-owning firm and another. Mr. Purdie states that a vessel is only requisitioned on expert advice, that she is entirely suitable for the Service, or is the most suitable of those available. Well, the experts have been very wrong in many cases, or perhaps it was unfortunate that at the particular moment suitable ships were not available. Good measurement ships have been taken for dead-weight cargoes, and ships built for dead-weight cargoes have been taken for measurement goods. Ships have been sent to the White Sea which should not have been sent. Much criticism, we are told, has been levelled against the Department, or rather the Government, because the Report states that the business of the Naval Transport Department is conducted on commercial lines. Was the "Apollo" case an example of business conducted on commercial lines? If the Department were so conducted they would have ascertained if the coal could be taken into store at Malta before despatching this steamer. Then, as regards sugar. Would not any commercial man have ascertained last winter, before sending forward so many cargoes of sugar, whether it was possible to effectively handle the ships and cargoes at their discharging ports without causing delay and loss of carrying capacity to the country? The same applies to oats this winter. The Admiralty requisitioned ships to bring oats for the Army—
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): That is an Army matter.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that is so. This is really the Army, and the responsibility for these stores does not lie with the Admiralty. The only thing the Admiralty can do is to provide ships, and the hon. Member should confine himself to the matters included in the Estimate.
    Sir J. WALTON: As regards the White Sea trade, that is dealt with by the Naval Transport Department, and the question is, if the business of the' Naval Transport Department was conducted on really commercial lines they would surely ascertain beforehand whether late last autumn it was safe to send ships to the White Sea so that they could get safely away again, and not get frozen up and kept there until the month of May next. However, turning to the question of requisitioning the Naval Transport Department have commandeered 7,000,000 tons of shipping, and the Government have taken 80 per cent. of war risk on the whole of the commandeered shipping. And, although they will not tell us, it is common knowledge that it has been extremely good business, and they have large accumulated funds to the credit of that Insurance Department. The suggestion that I have to make is that the Naval Transport Department will be well advised if, in addition to taking war risks to the tune of SO per cent., they should take the whole of the hull and machinery marine insurance risks usually covered by Lloyd's time policies. It has been a very satisfactory transaction, as far as it has gone, in taking war risks, and the suggestion I have to make is that if they are not prepared to cover the whole of the marine risks under a Lloyd's time policy, that they might, at any rate by the machinery now arranged, take war risks, and also accident, including the total loss risks on the whole of the commandeered shipping. There is no doubt whatsoever that underwriters are having the time of their lives at present, and the very fact that the Government take the war risks on the whole of the 7,000,000 tons of commandeered mercantile marine lessens the marine risks. Vessels in this time of war are making fewer voyages in the year; they have long delays; in many cases they are convoyed by Government war vessels, which adds to their safety; very often they are not allowed to run at night time; and
    1584
    by the very fact of the removal of the whole German tramp shipping from the North Sea, the risks of collision are considerably lessened. I am interested in a small shipping concern with twenty-one steamers, and for the last twenty-three years we have taken one-third of the marine risks, and, with that number of steamers at the end of that period, we have a quarter of a million to the credit of the marine insurance fund. That was done in normal times, and now in these abnormal times, when the Government take war risks, there is no doubt whatever that the extension of Government insurance would produce a very considerable saving and profit for the Treasury. The greater the number of steamers over which these risks can be spread the greater likelihood there is of it being a profitable undertaking.
    The CHAIRMAN: Surely that is under the administration of the Board of Trade. I think there is no question about that. The hon. Member must remember that, wide as is the scope of Vote A, all the matters discussed must be strictly within the power of the Board of Admiralty to deal with.
    Sir J. WALTON: If I am mistaken in thinking that these insurance matters are dealt with by the Naval Transport Department, well, then I am out of order. Do I understand, Mr. Whitley, that your ruling is that war risks are not arranged by the Naval Transport Department, and that marine insurance of vessels going to the White Sea are not also arranged by the Naval Transport Department?
    The CHAIRMAN: I cannot give an opinion on that point. The hon. Gentleman was discussing the general Government scheme for war risks on commercial vessels. That was announced here in the House by the President of the Board of Trade, and questions on that subject have been answered by him.
    Sir J. WALTON: I was only raising the question so far as Government commandeered ships are concerned. My remarks have nothing to do with ships outside that category.
    The CHAIRMAN: That may be so, and so far as the hon. Member keeps to the question of requisitioning ships he will be in order.
    Sir J. WALTON: I am merely dealing with requisitioned ships, which number

    1585
    about 2,500, and I was saying that as the taking of insurance risks on a small fleet of twenty-one ships has in twenty-three years provided a profit, how much more profitable would it be for the Government not only to take war risks but marine risks on those 2,500 ships that they have requisitioned? When requisitioned steamers come to grief private owners and underwriters have the greatest difficulty in getting repairs done, and if the Government had marine risks as well as war risks they could have the repairs to the steamers effected in the controled establishments. That would be done at much less cost, and would increase the carrying power of our tonnage, so that that would be another indirect and very great saving. I merely raise the question to-day because I am desirous that it should be very carefully considered both by the Admiralty and the Board of Trade. I do not wish to injure underwriters, but in this time of great financial difficulties which we have to face the interests of every section and of every trade in the country might be put out of consideration so long as a paramount need of the State comes in to justify any particular change or the taking up of any particular business which in normal times is left in the hands of underwriters or any other traders. I am quite aware that, although I have given reasons why this taking of marine insurance on requisitioned ships would be a profitable undertaking, there are arguments against it. I mean that in the removal of lights all round our coasts there is no doubt that we have had more ships stranded and that in that respect they run greater risks, and also that the fact that they have to proceed without lights in certain parts of the world increases the risks. But I have not lost sight of the fact that although there might be very substantial saving were the Government to take marine risks on requisitioned steamers, that it would not all be gain to the Treasury, because of course the Excess Profits Duty would take a portion of the largely-increased earnings of underwriters that they are making to-day. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will be able, at any rate, to give us an assurance that the matter that I have raised specially is having the careful consideration of the Admiralty, and I hope that he will consider that it is one well worthy of their most careful consideration.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I wish to bring before the notice of the Financial
    1586
    Secretary to the Admiralty the question of allowances to dependants of ships' apprentices. Ships' apprentices get very small wages. Many of these apprentices have enlisted, and the allowance that the mother receives is very small. I have a special case which I should like to mention, where the mother gets an allowance of only 5d. a week. This woman, who has now become a widow, has two children, one a schoolboy, and the other a married man with five children to support. I think the Financial Secretary will agree that 5d. a week is a very small amount to enable this woman to support herself and bring up her child. This is not an isolated case. On the contrary, there are many such cases, and many of them from the Royal yards. Would it not be possible to increase the allowance where the mother is a widow? Further, would it not be possible to make an increased allowance where there are mothers with other children? We know that there must be some arrangement made, and I find no fault with the arrangement that when a boy or man enlists the amount that he has been allowing to his mother should be the basis of the calculation on which the Government allowance is made. But it is entirely different in the case of apprentices. An apprentice begins with very small wages—perhaps 3s., 5s., 9s., or 10s.—whereas in the Royal yard when he becomes a man he is able to earn 23s. or 24s. This would allow him to make a much larger allowance to his mother. I would therefore press the Financial Secretary to place before the First Lord the case which I have mentioned. The boy, who is now a sergeant fighting in Egypt, must be getting a fair amount of pay, and if he had been at home would probably have been able to allow his mother 10s. or 15s. a week.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I regret very much that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not in the House. It seems to be the practice for Ministers to come in, deliver their speeches, and then go out again. During the whole time I have been a Member of the House I have never been so profoundly dissatisfied with any statement made by a Minister as I am with the speech of the First Lord to-day. The First Lord used all those dialectical powers in the exercise of which he is a past master and which he used with such great effect when he was Leader of the House and sent his party into the wilderness for many years. But he entirely ignored the real

    1587
    issue which the late First Lord brought before the attention of the House. What was the charge made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee yesterday? It was this: Are you to-day building at the same rapid rate and with the same energy as you were in the early part of the War? I know from my own knowledge and association with the engineering trades that the same push and energy and the same speed are not to-day being devoted to construction work for the Navy as in the first six months of the War. If that statement be true, as it is, the whole charge of the late First Lord has not been in any way met. Is it or is it not a fact that the speed of building to-day and the amount of labour devoted to it are less than they were at the beginning of the War? I know in point of fact that they are. Therefore I ask, Why have you not, when you are admittedly short in certain classes of boats, laid yourselves out, with the open purse of the British nation at your command, to obtain the craft that you require? Large numbers of them have been bought. Why have you not bought a further number?
    I never thought that argument in this House would sink to such a point that, in order to damage and discredit the right hon. Member for Dundee, an ex-Prime Minister of the country would rise from that bench and ask what was the opinion that the Member for Dundee had privately expressed to his friends in addition to what he had said in this House. If the First Lord of the Admiralty is going to maintain that it is legitimate argument to ask what the Member for Dundee has privately said, I say that every Minister on that bench has in private life stated that Lord Kitchener is the greatest failure there has ever been at the War Office and that we should have been much better without him. The right hon. Gentleman is included in that statement. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman brings in private conversations to justify his attack on the Member for Dundee, he should at the same time remember that other people can use that weapon. In the case of the Navy we know, or the country thinks, that we have an immeasurable superiority over the Germans and over any combination that the enemy can bring against us. We are satisfied that that is so. I do not think that anything suggested by the Member for Dundee in any way touched that point. What he said was that the whole of the
    1588
    dockyards of Germany to-day are surrounded by a cordon beyond which the workmen are not allowed to go, and that complete secrecy is maintained as to what is going on Having regard to the great inventive genius of the Germans, the} Member for Dundee asked, "Are you, in view of the unknown dangers which may arise from new inventions, doing all you possibly can to maintain this great superiority of the Fleet for the maintenance of which the country is prepared to pay anything that is necessary?" You may be too late with your munitions; you may be, as you have been, too late in every respect in carrying on the War. We have had to pay for that with huge sacrifices of life and treasure. We cannot be too late with the Navy. If once the Navy is too late that will be the end, not only of the British Empire, but also of the liberties of the human race. Therefore, the Member for Dundee asked, "Are you doing all that you can? Is every yard in the country still engaged at the same high pressure as Lord Fisher brought to bear?" Is that a statement for which the right hon. Gentleman should be held up to obloquy by the First Lord to-day?
    I think the country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the Member for Dundee. No one questions the right hon. Gentleman's courage, both in the field and in political life. I have attacked him many times. At the same time one has always recognised that his chief anxiety was to serve the office committed to his charge. A few months before he resigned, before the outbreak of war, I had an interview with him with a view to seeing whether some saving could not be made in buying coal for the Admiralty. The right hon. Gentleman at once said to me," If I could save that money I should have more for my aircraft, of which I am so sadly in need, and for which I cannot get money from the Government to make it, as efficient as I want it to be." It is only right that it should be known to the public that the right hon. Gentleman went to the Prime Minister and others and urged the necessity of being prepared for War with Germany. We were all kept in ignorance of what was going on. The Prime Minister neither directly or indirectly gave any hint to any of his supporters that these large Estimates were necessary for the Navy. We blundered along into War. The party opposed the Estimates put forward by the Admiralty—Estimates which caused the Member for Dundee to

    1589
    be held up to public execration by Liberals in the country as a spendthrift and a man whose judgment could not be trusted. He worked under great difficulties. If he had had the money he would have made the Air Service something which would not be the discredit to the country that it is at the present ime. That the First Lord of the Admiralty should come down to the House, as he has done to-day, and, because the Member for Dundee, not for any personal interest, but solely in the interests of the country, made the statement he did yesterday, level at him all that cheap rhetoric is, I think, unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman and of the office which he holds.
    Then the First Lord did not hesitate to repeat the old tale told so many times during this War on that bench, namely, that it was not in the public interest to refer to these matters at all. I challenge any man in this House to prove that with regard to the Armay, to start with, there has been any statement made here during this War by any of us who have been forcing the Government which has been to the detriment of our country. We have time after time called attention to the utter lack of energy which has been thrown into the War by the Government. I think that equally applies to the Navy, and the Financial Secretary cannot say to-day that any Member in this House has asked a single question during the course of the War which has been to the detriment of the Navy. Therefore, what is the crime which the late First Lord has committed? No one questions the fact when Lord Fisher was at the Admiralty he brought a driving force into that Department such as there had never been before and has never been since. I do not think my right hon. Friend made any charge against Sir Henry Jackson; on the contrary, I think he never mentioned his name. What he asked was that Lord Fisher's services should be used at the Admiralty. Then with all that cheap rhetoric, the First Lord now says, "You, the late First Lord, could not and did not trust, and did not receive support from, your own First Sea Lord, and, therefore, why should you ask the present Board of Admiralty, of which I am the head, to take Lord Fisher back?" Ask everyone who is associated with shipbuilding, ask everyone who has been brought into contact with the Admiralty—not politicians, but business men—and every business man in the country who has had business with the Admiralty will
    1590
    tell you that never at any period in the history of the Admiralty was such fighting force brought to bear by the unbounded energy which Lord Fisher showed in the first six months of the War, and which he imparted to everyone associated with him. The First Lord referred to the views of other officers of the Fleet about Lord Fisher. We all know what are the views of the men who, after all, holds the defence of this country in his hands, namely, the Admiral in charge of the Grand Fleet. We know that, in his opinion, no man has ever done more for his country than Lord Fisher did when he was at the Admiralty.
    I notice the First Lord has come back to his seat, and I want to ask him this question: Will he get up in his place and say that the Admiralty to-day are keeping all the shipyards in this country working at the same high pressure as they were during the first six months of the War, when Lord Fisher had the administration of affairs? I know they are not doing so, and whatever the First Lord or the Financial Secretary says, being associated with the engineering trade myself, being associated with firms who build the engines and machinery and the guns for these ships, I know something of what is going on, just as well as people at the Admiralty, and perhaps a little better; and what I say is that when the late First Lord came down here yesterday and made this statement he made it only in the interest of his country. All he said was, "Are you doing all that you possibly can, in view of the unknown danger, which may not fructify, probably never will, but are you doing all that human effort can do at the present time to maintain this driving force which Lord Fisher brought to bear?" I say you are not, and, if that be so, then the whole charge the right hon. Gentleman has made is justified. There is either a negative or an affirmative answer to that charge, and all these side issues, all these small, cheap sneers which the First Lord of the Admiralty thought fit to bring against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, are all beside the question. The First Lord of the Admiralty was not in his place when I made my opening remarks, but what I wish to impress upon him is that the Government can afford to-take no risks in this matter. You have been all through, in the words of the Government, "too late." You cannot be too-late with the Navy. Once you are too late with the Navy, that is the end of it;

    1591
    and if the right hon. Gentleman, who has played with every political subject, is entitled to make these cheap sneers at the right hon. . Member for Dundee, we are entitled to reply to them. During the whole time he led this House when I was a Member of it he followed the same kind of argument he did to-day, to try to score a cheap debating point at the expense of the real issue before the House.
    I am only going to refer to one other matter, and that is with regard to the question of hasty construction. It is true, in regard to the monitors there has been a certain alteration made. It is not desirable, of course, to say what that alteration is, and I am not going to say what the cause of it was; but the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression to the House that it was due to the hasty action taken by the right hon. Member for Dundee, which was unfair and unjust, because the cause is due to an entirely different reason, which, if stated to this House, would at once prove to the House how unfounded is the charge made by the First Lord. I do not know how he comes, therefore, to make this statement, leaving the country to think that the right hon. Member for Dundee had acted wrongly in this matter when, in point of fact, those very ships themselves were the creatures, if I may use the word, of Lord Fisher himself, and it was unfortunate, unforeseen circumstances, which necessitated the alteration. The country must spend any money necessary to maintain not only safety, but a double or treble margin of safety Have you kept all the shipyards in this country working at full pressure? Have you kept all the shipyards of neutrals working at full pressure? That, after all, is the question, and the only question that is raised by the late First Lord of the Admiralty. When the history of this period under review comes to be written it will be seen that the statement made by my right hon. Friend yesterday was perfectly true, and that, despite any statements made by the Admiralty, you have not kept the same great push and energy in your dockyards as you did during the first period of the War.
    Mr. CURRIE: At a time like this, when the whole country is so much the debtor of the Navy, and when many Members of this House are under obligation to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, I recognise this is not the time
    1592
    to bring forward any criticism of the Administration which might be described as carping. At the same time, I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what, I think, may be fairly described as a minor and exceptional miscarriage of administration, and which has involved expense and the waste of the time of naval officers. I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to certain proceedings in the Criminal Courts in Scotland the other day, in the form of a question, and the right hon. Gentleman's answer rather led me to think that his own personal attention had not been directed to the subject-matter quite as closely as I would almost have expected. However that may be, I think it reasonable to remind him that a little more was at stake than a vital question of principle. Indeed, I do not think that the vital question to which he referred was really seriously questioned by anyone. It is, of course, very easy for a Department like the Admiralty, with the Law Officers and the whole legal machinery of the Crown Office at its disposal, to instruct a prosecution, and the ease with which it can be done greatly increases the responsibility. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not counter that proposition. In the present exceptional instance, I can only think a very unhappy use of the power was made. What took place was really this: Leading citizens of Edinburgh—in fact, men well known throughout Scotland—who have been working as hard as possible since the outbreak of war to assist the Government, suddenly find themselves pilloried in the Criminal Court, just as if they had been charged with forgery, theft, or embezzlement, and are subjected to examination and these proceedings for no less than three days.
    I do not want to go into the question of who is to blame for these unhappy instructions and these unhappy proceedings. I do not ask for any victim. I do not seek to lay any charge at the door of any individual, but I do wish to point out the grave injustice that was done to these gentlemen. The strain which such proceedings is bound to place on any man's health is a serious one. Had these gentlemen been poor men, the action of the Government would have absolutely ruined them financially. As it is, they are left with a heavy law bill of costs to pay, and that in itself, I think, is a considerable injustice While not wishing to press the right hon. Gentleman for details of what happened, I want

    1593
    to remind him how damaging proceedings of that kind are to his Department and to the ministration of justice and legal administration generally. I think he must admit that that is so, and that the prosecution was really most unfortunate, and we may be thankful the jury refused to be convinced by any of the evidence placed before them. My suggestion is that without loss of dignity—indeed, very far from loss of dignity—it really lies with the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of his Department, to tender these gentlemen an apology from the Government for the unfortunate action which was laid against them. Beyond that I think, in the circumstances, the Government should consider whether they cannot pay the expenses which these gentlemen are left at present to bear. These are the suggestions I make to the right hon. Gentleman, and I would only say that, in my view, the public will judge his Department a great deal more severely for what has happened if he fails to make the amende honorable to Mr. White-law and Mr. Jackson.
    Mr. PETO: I somewhat regret that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) has copied the right hon. Member for Dundee in his policy of making very considerable charges and immediately leaving the House; but, in spite of his absence, I do want to protest against his grotesque travesty of the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty when he said it consisted of cheap sneers and avoided the real issue. I do not think there is any other Member who heard the First Lord's speech who has any such impression of it; on the contrary, I think it would have been perfectly impossible for the First Lord to take any other course than that which he did take, in view of the speech made yesterday by the late First Lord. The hon. Member for Mansfield said that the only real question was whether the Government have kept the shipyards working at full pressure. That is the point I want to deal with. The First Lord of the Admiralty answered that question perfectly clearly, and he said:
    "There are limits not to our will but to our power The limit is the limit of labour."
    That is the only part of this question which it does not seem to me as being satisfactorily dealt with and about which the country may now have some anxiety, in spite of the speeches which have been made from the Treasury Bench. Yesterday the First Lord of the Admiralty said that no further advance in rapid construc-
    1594
    tion or repair was possible except under three conditions—that is to say, by getting new skilled labour, by somewhat diluting existing skilled labour, and by inducing those who are now working to-work more. I think we are entitled to know which of those three ways the Admiralty are depending upon, and whether they are doing everything possible to get an increased labour force for this problem which is so vital to our success in the War. I did not see in the speeches of the First Lord yesterday and to-day any indication as to what steps are being taken to put any of these three methods into operation to increase our labour force at all in the great dockyards in this country. It would be most unfortunate if this labour question is not tackled at once in such a manner as will ensure there being the necessary increase of skilled labour available. This point is exactly appropriate to Vote A and Vote 1, and it has not been brought out in the Debate yesterday or in Committee. If we increase in every six months' period that the War has lasted all the different varieties of ships of war with the one exception of armoured cruisers, we can man them. We do not know what is going on upon the other side of the North Sea in the German shipyards, but we are satisfied that there must be in Germany an insurmountable difficulty in manning and officering any considerable increase of naval force to which we may be opposed before the end of the War.
    With regard to officers alone, the Imperial Merchant Service Guild has induced, without a halfpenny of expense to the Government, over 2,000 officers of the merchant service to serve in the Royal Naval Reserves. Could anything of that kind be possible across the North Sea in Germany? Where do we draw 160,000 additional men from? To a small extent we draw them from the Reserve, but we must draw the great bulk of them from the personnel of the merchant service. Much as we deplore the loss from time to time of our vessels, and much as we miss them in the carrying trade of the Empire, we have always to recollect that in a large measure the crews and the officers of those ships are not lost in a very large proportion, and I am thankful to say many of them are saved and come back to this country, and are therefore available as a fresh reserve, for these additions to our Navy. From that point of view we have an immense advantage over the enemy, whose

    1595
    merchant service is now interned in ports all over the world. Their crews are also interned, and neither they nor their Navy have for eighteen months had any opportunity of getting sea service to improve themselves as sailors or fighting units in their Navy.
    I hope nothing will be allowed to interfere with our naval construction. There are two things which we have been told in recent speeches do interfere with naval construction to some extent, both of which are essential to carry on the War, and which make demands on skilled labour—one is the anti-aircraft gun, but the larger matter is the completion and construction of new mercantile tonnage. Both these are vital matters, and I feel satisfied that if the Government will tackle this labour problem and solve the three difficulties which the First Lord has put forward, they will find not only the skilled labour they require for the increase and repair of our Navy, but they will be able to do something very substantial to increase our now somewhat unfortunately depleted mercantile service. I have been told several times, when I have raised the question of the assessment of officers to Income Tax, that I ought not to ask for any remission of Income Tax but for an increase of pay. As this is the appropriate Vote I do not want it to be said, when I press this matter again upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for an extension upon what has already been given, that when the Navy Estimates were before the House I did not ask for an increase in pay. I do not ask for this concession with regard to all ranks because I do not think it would be appreciated if I did, or that this is a proper way of meeting a direct diminution of the pay which was considered proper in time of peace. We have had our Income Tax doubled, and the percentages have been increased. They will probably be increased again until they reach a figure which may probably take a quarter of all incomes not below a very limited amount. I think, however, that I shall be justified in pressing upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should give some further concession in this respect in regard to the incomes of the officers of the Navy. I do not want to make any further criticism upon this point now, and I am only doing what the legal profession would call entering a caveat, so that it will not be thrown up
    1596
    against me that I did not take this opportunity of pressing for an increase in the pay of officers.
    There is one rank to which the hon. Member for Wexford called attention yesterday, namely, that of the midshipman, whose pay is so contemptible that it does not come within the limits of our present reduced Income Tax scale, and is not touched by this other question. It is really a most scandalous thing that now, when this country is at war, midshipmen should be called upon to go to sea and serve their country under all the conditions of stress and danger inherent to the carrying on of a great naval war, when the bulk of their pay is provided by their parents. I have looked very carefully at the figures, and that is the only conclusion I can draw from them. These midshipmen who go to sea are in many cases doing the duty of sub-lieutenants, while the pay they receive is at the rate of one-and-ninepence a day, so far as the pay which is really found by the country is concerned. I only want to make one further reference to what the First Lord of the Admiralty said with regard to officers and crews of the merchant service and the service they are rendering to the country. I am satisfied that out of the many things we shall have learned from this War we shall find that the merchant service and the Navy are much more closely interdependent the one upon the other than we have had any idea of in recent years. I believe that we shall have to do a great deal to find the appropriate place for ships of all kinds, whether they are under the red ensign or the white when we are at war. It is quite clear that we never could have carried on this War for nineteen months at all if we had not had this fine reserve of suitable vessels of all kinds to use for various purposes, and this could not have been done if we had not had that great reserve of officers and men to draw upon. I hope a definite policy will be adopted of making these great reserves more immediately available in the case of any future emergency, and that the principle of the Royal Naval Reserve will be carried out a great deal more so that practically every Britisher who goes to sea will be required to put in a certain amount of service upon fighting vessels at one time or another or upon vessels that may be required for special services, so that if war ever overtakes this country again we shall be able to avoid having to improvise everything after the declaration of war.

    1597
    I appreciate immensely the very happily-worded tribute which the First Lord of the Admiralty paid to the merchant service yesterday. Through the Parliamentary Committee of the Guild I have referred to I claim to represent the marine service, or, at any rate, over 70 to 80 per cent. of the officers, and on their behalf I wish to assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that what the right hon. Gentleman has said will go a great deal further than any much more substantial reward, which has not been asked for, and which might have been thought appropriate. What they do want is the recognition of their services, which were so admirably recognised in this House when the First Lord conveyed, not only the thanks of the Admiralty, but he also said that he thought he could convey the thanks of the House for the services that had been rendered to the country.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: This is practically the only opportunity which hon. Members have of introducing matters dealing with the Navy from a broad point of view, and that is my only reason for intervening in this Debate. I wish, however, to take this opportunity of registering once again my protest that in a great and important national matter like this not one single member of the Cabinet thinks it worth while to come and listen to the opinions which are expressed in the House of Commons. I think this is a Parliamentary outrage, more especially because after the last time we complained we had a definite and distinct pledge from the Prime Minister that such a thing would never occur again.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The First Lord of the Admiralty is very busy.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I do not think it is at all necessary for my right hon. Friend to interrupt me in order to tell me that. I know that the First Lord must be busy, but it is part of his duty to be here to answer criticisms which are made against him and his Department. Granted that he is so busy at the moment that he cannot come here to listen to the Debate, is it unreasonable to ask that some other member of the Cabinet who can represent the views of the whole Cabinet should pay us the courtesy of coming here and listening to what we have to say? I say that the Prime Minister himself, if the First Lord of the Admiralty could not be present, ought to be here to listen to the views expressed
    1598
    from different parts of the House. It is no ordinary Debate. The Debate that took place yesterday was one that is calculated to give grave cause for anxiety to the whole of the people of this country, and up to this moment we have not had a full and adequate explanation which would justify any relaxation of that concern and that anxiety. It is not a question of any controversy over one man. I deplore more than I can say the introduction yesterday of Lord Fisher's name into these Debates. I have the greatest opinion, as every man must have, of the genius and ability of Lord Fisher. No one denies that. There is not a single member of the Cabinet who would deny it. The First Lord of the Admiralty did not deny it. Therefore, we are all at one with regard to the ability of Lord Fisher. But we really have not the facts before us to judge as to what the attitude of the Cabinet ought to be in regard to Lord Fisher. No private Member of this House can be in possession of information which might be of a vital character in regard to the whole question of the continued association of Lord Fisher as a member of the Board of Admiralty.
    My confidence in Lord Fisher, I must say, was rudely shaken when I found that he left the Admiralty voluntarily at his own instigation, and left it without a chief, at one of the most critical and vital moments in the history of this country. I have never heard any explanation of that, and until I have that explanation, and unless it is full and adequate, I cannot give my full confidence to Lord Fisher, especially as I understand—I do not know whether it is true or not, but it is so stated—that he desired the privilege of nominating his own chief. That is a thing which cannot be granted to any Civil servant, however brilliant and however great a genius he may be. We must have Cabinet control and we must have Parliamentary control. Therefore, I say it is to be regretted that Lord Fisher's name should have been introduced in the manner in which it was introduced even by my right hon. Friend the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Churchill). My right hon. Friend, who knows more about these issues than any private Member can know, was entitled to say, "I have had my differences with Lord Fisher and I have stated them in this House"—by the way, he did not say that Lord Fisher did not give him generally that support which he ought to have received, but only in

    1599
    regard to one particular instance—"but these are over, and at a time like this no matter of personal consideration should be allowed to stand in the way, and if the Government think it right to call Lord Fisher back to their councils I shall be delighted," but he ought not to have made the demand in the manner in which it was made, making it more difficult for the Cabinet to carry out the very policy which he desires. Put in that light, I think it would have made it more easy for the Cabinet.
    Another very distinguished public servant has been mentioned in the person of Sir Henry Jackson. The public know very little about Sir Henry Jackson, and I think that is greatly in his favour. I personally approach the consideration of his name more favourably because, as far as I understand, he has never done anything at all to put his claims before the public. He is content to go on quietly with his work, and, as far as I know, to do it very successfully. I know nothing about the merits, and for my part I should hesitate to criticise him on that account. It rather counts in his favour that he has never entered into public controversy, and, as far as I know, his photograph has never appeared in the newspapers. Lord Fisher, who built the Fleet which we have now, is undoubtedly a great genius, and he has an amount of vigour which is not equalled by men half his age. It seems a pity that he should be side-tracked into a small Department dealing with all kinds of inventions with which a man of different intellect could deal. Is it possible that at this hour of crisis in our country's fate the Cabinet cannot forget personalities and take advantage of Lord Fisher's great ability and marvellous experience without in any way interfering with Sir Henry Jackson? We really must not make it an issue between the two men at the present time. Could there not be more cordial co-operation than there is at the present time? The evil of it is you are again creating two schools of thought throughout the Navy at the very moment when all minds ought to be concentrated on one purpose and one purpose only. In that direction lies danger, and unless the Government do something to stop this continued controversy I believe it will be bad for the Navy and bad for the country. The First Lord's statement yesterday was a very alarming statement. What did he
    1600
    say? He said, "I have not got the small craft or as many ships as I should desire."
    Mr. PETO: Armoured cruisers.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: He did not limit himself to that. He made what I thought was a very unwise and a most extraordinary statement—that we had not built any armoured cruisers—
    Mr. PETO: It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman should leave the House under any misapprehension, so perhaps he will allow me to read what the First Lord actually did say:
    "We have lost some armoured cruisers, and we have not replaced them. But in armoured cruisers our superiority is enormous and is uncontested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1916, col. 1413.]
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Of course, that is an obvious fact. We do not need to be told that. I assumed that the House knew it. What he did say was that we had not built any more. The distinguished Vice-Chamberlain of the Household (Mr. Beck) says that we do not require them
    Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I do not think my right hon. Friend realises that the First Lord of the Admiralty was not alluding to battle cruisers.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I say that if any newspaper had published that fact they would probably have been prosecuted. It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I can tell him that it is a fact. If any newspaper had published a fact of that kind they would at least have been warned, and on a second occasion they would probably have been prosecuted. The right hon. Gentlemen ought not to have made that statement. The point had not been raised, and I do not think that it was wise to state it. His statement that after eighteen months of war he has not got the ships which he would like to have, and that labour has been the difficulty, is to me a very surprising and, I think, a very disconcerting statement. We have never heard before in this House of any trouble with regard to labour so far as the Admiralty are concerned. We have never heard any complaint of labour trouble to give us cause to be anxious about the Admiralty programme. I am speaking now purely from the point of view of the Admiralty. Do let me put my case, however imperfectly, in my own way. I am speaking from the point of view of the Admiralty, and I say that throughout all the controversy which the Minister of Munitions had up and down the country there

    1601
    Was never a speech made in the country, or a prominent speech made in this House, by anybody on behalf of the Admiralty complaining that ships were going to be delayed because of that fact. It is true that the Minister of Munitions read a communication from the Admiral of the Fleet, a letter which was very much discussed and criticised at that particular time. It was a letter which was written in order to assist my right hon. Friend in regard to the drink proposals which he was then putting before the country. I still come back to the point that officially the Board of Admiralty have never made a definite and strong appeal on behalf of the interest of the Navy that more labour should be at its service, or that more industry should be carried on. It has not been done. The whole work has been left to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Munitions. He is the Minister who has been preaching it, but no support whatever has come from the Admiralty. I say, if matters were so anxious, as apparently they are at the present time, and if we have trouble with regard to labour, that one appeal that the Navy was in difficulty because of the want of labour would have got them all the labour they required in the course of a single week. After all, whatever else may suffer, and however late we may be with regard to munitions, as we have been late, that is a secondary matter compared with the actual necessities of the Navy. Therefore, I say that an appeal from the Navy would have been made with double force in regard to that matter. Is it the case that the Admiralty have done everything in their power, except, if you like, making this definite appeal, which I suggest they ought to have made, to get the ships and all that they want?
    I want to ask three questions of my right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara), and here let me say that when I complain about no Cabinet Minister being present it is not because he will not answer me, and answer me better than any of them—he probably knows more about it—but it is because of their want of courtesy to the House. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that no private firm with slips empty has been refused orders by the Admiralty until within these last three weeks? Will he assure me that the Bethlehem Steel Company of America have not been refused orders which they were willing to undertake with regard to ship building? Will he assure me, further, that no yard has been voluntarily given up
    1602
    by the Admiralty to the Munitions Department for the purpose of munitions, and, as my right hon. Friend reminds me, for the building of merchant ships? These are questions that ought to be answered. I do not think the position as left by the First Lord of the Admiralty to-day is a very satisfactory one. I have heard from sources which I cannot ignore that there has been less driving force at the Admiralty for some time than there was previously. It may be that they are doing their work quietly and are not making as much fuss about it, and as long as we get the results I do not know that we have anything very much to complain of, but I think, in the first place, the country will resent any controversy over persons with regard to this matter. They do not want there to be any possible doubt as to our security in regard to the Navy, and they will not be satisfied with less. We must not forget that 80,000 men have been working continuously in Germany since 6th August, 1914, with their yards surrounded by a great iron ring, within which no one at all is admitted. It may be that they are doing something which may not be of any particular value, but that they have been working night and day continuously all that time is an established fact. Therefore, we have to keep in mind not only our superiority but a substantial increase of our superiority, and we have to be prepared at all times for new ideas being instituted with all the enterprise of which we know the Germans capable, and we have to put forward every possible energy we can in order to deal with the situation which may soon arise.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will take this opportunity to reply to some of the points raised in the Debate last night and in the course of the speeches this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Sir Thomas Esmonde) yesterday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Peto) to-day, referred to the question of the pay of midshipmen. Let me, in the first place, associate myself with the tribute paid by the two hon. Gentlemen to the services rendered by midshipmen in common with their gallant comrades of all ranks. This is the position with regard to the pay of a midshipman. He receives 1s. 9d. per day, or 12s. 3d. per week. His parents are called upon to make him an allowance of £50 per year, which represents 19s. 2d. per week. His total receipts therefore amount to 31s. 5d. per week. His compulsory messing charge is 1s. per day, or 7s.

    1603
    per week. My hon. Friend the Member for Wexford yesterday stated that since the War broke out that charge had been raised to 1s. 6d. per day, or 10s. 6d. per week. If so, it must be a matter of local arrangement of a mutual character entirely outside the regulations; the authorised charge still remains 1s. per day. There are, I admit, other charges which have to be met. He has to pay washing, servant, hammock man, library, newspaper, games, and other charges. But if you multiply the compulsory charge of 7s. per week by three, that makes the total charge he has to meet £1 1s. per week, and it leaves him 10s. still in pocket. It should be remembered that the ages of midshipmen range between fifteen years ten months and nineteen years six months, and, on the whole, I think, the amount left for pocket money is not unreasonable.
    Mr. PETO: After all, he has but 10s. a week left for pocket, or just one-half of what his parents allow him.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a perfectly fair point, and I will deal with it presently. My hon. Friend the Member for Wexford suggested that the midshipman should be put on the same footing as regards pay as a second lieutenant in the Army and should receive 7s. 6d. per day. But the Army lieutenant is much older, as a rule, and his compulsory messing charges are much higher. I therefore think I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes must not quote the parents' allowance to me, because we have made known to everybody concerned that if a parent can show that as a result of the War his income is so reduced that he finds it difficult to make this allowance, the State will waive the allowance for the period of the War and take the charge upon its own shoulders. We have had quite a number of applications, which have all been granted, I think, with the exception of three, and in one of those cases we waived the allowance to the extent of one-half. Where we do waive the allowance it means increasing the pay from the State by 19s. 2d. per week.
    Colonel YATE: Why not waive it in all cases?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If parents make application, and show that as a result of the War it is difficult for them to continue the payment, we will certainly do so, and
    1604
    I think the figures I have quoted prove the readiness of the Government to act in this way. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Hohler) cited the case of a sergeant-major in the Royal Marine Light Infantry, now deceased, and he made an appeal on behalf of the widow that his pension should be on the scale of a lieutenant's pension. This man had provisionally been promoted lieutenant by his commanding officer on the field of battle. Subsequently, on the same day, he was wounded. His promotion necessarily required Admiralty sanction and confirmation. It was put forward in due course, but, in the meantime, the man had died in the hospital at Alexandria. My hon. and learned Friend suggests that the widow should have a pension on the lieutenant's scale. Of course, the Treasury have to be extremely careful in dealing with these matters, and it has a rule that posthumous promotions for the benefit of dependants shall not be permitted. This is a rule which, on the whole, is sound. Nevertheless, in this particular case I think there are features which entitle me to press it on the Treasury, and I hope my hon. and learned Friend will leave the matter there. My hon. and learned Friend made some comments on the personnel of the Royal Naval Air Service, and referred to a case at Chelmsford, where a man in that Service was unable either to fly, or drive a motor car, or work a searchlight. That is very likely. In all probability the man was a mechanic, who deals with aeroplanes and their engines.
    Mr. HOHLER: No.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Is my hon. and learned Friend sure of that?
    Mr. HOHLER: Quite.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: If he were a mechanic whose duty it was to keep the machine and its engines efficient, there would be no need for him to fly or to drive a motor-car or to work searchlights. My impression is that it will be found that he was a mechanic.
    Mr. HOHLER: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the man's name.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I was rather sorry my hon. Friend made somewhat disparaging remarks about this Service. Does he not know that the members of this Service are doing most excellent and most valuable war work? The hon. and learned Member referred to the

    1605
    fact that they appeared to do a good deal of motor riding and to indulge in joy rides. We have, at the present time, an Admiralty Committee dealing with motor transport. That Committee have had similar accusations before them, and I may state that, in practically every case which they investigated, it turned out that the man was driving his own private motor. Surely members of the Royal Naval Air Service who are the fortunate possessors of motor cars are entitled to use them occasionally!
    Mr. PRINGLE: Whose petrol do they use?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The Committee goes closely into these matters to see that petrol is only used for Service work, and the regulations in that regard are of the strongest possible character. My hon. and learned Friend referred to the question of promotion from the ranks of the Royal Navy, and he rather complained of the extent to which we had given commissions since the outbreak of the War to those outside the Navy. He put it that we ought to give promotions to a much greater extent to men already in the Service. I am glad to say we do give many such promotions. Since the 1st January, 1913, we have made a large number of promotions in the Royal Navy from the ranks. But we have always to keep in mind the permanent establishment which is to remain after the War is over, and if we did not avail ourselves to some extent of the services of men outside the Service to fill the commissioned ranks, the result might be that hereafter chief petty officers and warrant officers who had been temporarily acting in the commission rank would have to revert to their non-commissioned and warrant rank. That, I think, would be very undesirable, and I feel quite sure everybody will feel that it would be so. We have therefore to adjust the thing as far as we can. We have made a considerable number of mates from warrant officers and of lieutenants from mates. A number of men have been promoted for gallantry. A good many commissioned warrant officers have been promoted lieutenants for long service and a great many petty officers have been advanced to warrant rank, including gunners, boatswains, signal boatswains and carpenters. I am dealing with warrant rank as well as commission rank. Warrant telegraphists, warrant armourers and electricians, writers and
    1606
    warrant stewards have been made. The ranks of lieutenant and commissioned telegraphist have been opened since the War began. Warrant writers and warrant stewards have been given commissioned warrant rank. On the engineering side there have been a great many advances to warrant rank from engine-room artificers and from, warrant rank to commissioned warrant rank. In the Royal Marines since January, 1913, we have also had quite a number of permanent commissions granted and we have also during the War given a number of temporary commissions from the ranks to young fellows who went into the Royal Naval Division for the period of the War. I think I have made a satisfactory case out with regard to the extent to which men have been raised from the ranks.
    Colonel YATE: Have any superintending clerks been promoted to quartermaster?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that question without notice.
    Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the point?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, if the hon. and gallant Member will put a question down. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham referred to the Royal Dockyards and brought up the Labour question, especially in relation to the Royal Dockyard at Chatham. My hon. and learned Friend said that, in the yard at Chatham, we do not allow men to work overtime and that the machinery is not fully utilised. That is a charge which clearly demands an answer. As regards overtime, we very carefully surveyed the whole field of overtime in the Royal yards many months ago, and we came to the conclusion that continuous Sunday labour and continuous overtime did not necessarily mean pro tanto increased output. Undoubtedly war pressure and the acceleration of work in the early days of the War necessitated overtime being worked both in Royal and in private yards, and it resulted in men coming rather to look upon continuous overtime with the higher rates paid as the normal state of affairs and part of their ordinary due. It certainly meant more money, but it did not mean continued capacity for efficient work over a long period of time. Therefore, subject to national interests, which are of the first importance in these matters, and in the interests of the men themselves as well as in the interests of a continuous maximum output, we steadily

    1607
    cut the overtime down in the Royal yards, and, on 13th April last year, we issued a Circular to the Royal yards stating that Sunday labour must not, except in case of urgency, be resorted to unless special permission was first obtained. Then in the Royal yards we have steadily got down the overtime, but even now the current overtime expenditure at Chatham, which is the case in point, represents more than one-third of the time-rate wages of the men. Therefore it is not true to say that the men are not working overtime. I quite admit that in certain branches or departments there may be men not working much overtime. Possibly some are not working overtime at all in a particular case, although it would be a rare case. Although in the interests of the men themselves and of the maximum output we have got it down to a reasonable limit, still in Chatham the cost of overtime at the present time represents more than one-third of the time-rate wages, and for this current financial year the expenditure on overtime at Chatham will represent a 45 per cent. increase upon the expenditure on ordinary working hours. Therefore it is not correct to say that there is no overtime at Chatham.
    Mr. HOHLER: I was not referring to the whole year. There is not at the present time.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will give my hon. and learned Friend the figures for the present time. I do not think my hon. Friend need have any anxiety as to the alterations in the yards. With regard to transport work, the hon. Member for North-West Lanarkshire (Mr. Pringle) offered some criticisms upon that last night. I do not doubt that, after I have said what I am going to say, he will quite sincerely tell me that I have made no reply whatever.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Hear, hear!
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I imagined that he would say that, but I think he might have waited until he heard me give the reply. I felt confident, however, he would tell me beforehand that I had made no reply. I have insisted and do insist that those who make charges against the Transport Department do not, if I may say so, fully appreciate the precise function of that Department or the nature and scope of the work it has to perform. As regards its function, whether my hon. Friend likes
    1608
    it or not, the Transport Department is simply the servant and agent of the naval and military authorities. It has to carry out the orders given to it as it receives them. It may ask questions, and it does. It may make suggestions, and it does, but it cannot possibly have the last word. It cannot say to the naval or military authorities, "You do not want these ships; you do not want to keep these ships so long." What it has to do is to carry out the demands made upon it as promptly, as economically, and as appropriately as time and opportunity permit. That is its duty. It has to keep a close hand on rates of hire, and it has to be careful to see that, so far as it is concerned, the tonnage which it requisitions shall not be allowed to lie idle or uneconomically employed. If it fails in these respects, it is bound to meet with criticism in the House of Commons, and I have not the slightest doubt that in due course the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Commit tee would have something to say when they came to examine the Appropriation Account of the transactions and proceedings of any Department if it appeared that public money and merchant tonnage, which is of equally serious importance in this case, has been used wastefully in all the circumstances of the case. I hope I may be forgiven for saying that very much of the criticism—I have listened to it all with the greatest care on several occasions—
    Mr. HOUSTON: I have some more!
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot be expected to have listened to something which has not yet been enunciated. I have listened to all the criticism that has been levelled at us so far, and I think it is all based on the fallacy that you can conduct war transport work on the same lines as you conduct merchant tonnage under peace conditions. You cannot do it. War is war, and war is waste.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Wastage!
    Dr. MACNAMARA: War is waste, and war is dislocation. If anybody gets up here and says the contrary, I am here to deny it. An hon. Member spoke about colliers hanging about for a long time doing nothing. The very phrase "doing nothing" is evidence of the fallacy underlying the criticism, namely, that you can conduct war under peace conditions. Of course colliers hang about doing

    1609
    nothing. The Fleet has to be ready to take action at a moment's notice, and strategic conditions kaleidoscope those contingencies. You have to make provision for contingencies beforehand. If they do not come off, nobody can turn round and say that the provision you made was wasteful and that colliers were lying about doing nothing. That is very often what it comes to. Of course, I recognise the far-reaching effects of the inroads the war service has made upon merchant tonnage. I agree that we are bound, in the national interest, so far as administration is concerned and so far as opportunity and time enables us to do so, to see that we do not carelessly and unnecessarily detach merchant tonnage from its vital service to the State, and that we must do all in our power, in the circumstances in which we work, to see that the diversion of merchant tonnage is not wastefully and extravagantly large. All that is subject to naval and military considerations. I have assured the House, and I can assure the Committee, that we shall do all in our power, after receiving the advice of the expert Committees which we have had for over twelve months and who constantly watch the matter, not to take any further tonnage than the demands of the naval and military authorities render it necessary to take.
    The hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) referred to the method of insuring requisitioned tonnage, and suggested that we might do our own insurance. That is a matter upon which he has been good enough to put before us a memorandum which we are having carefully considered. Beyond that, I do not think he will expect me to go at the present time. The hon. Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) referred to the cases of civil apprentices who joined the forces, and said that even though they made considerable allotments to their fathers or mothers, as the case might be, the State allowance was a very small and exiguous. He must not address that criticism to me, but to the Select Committee on Naval and Military Pensions. The Select Committee, I will not say whether rightly or wrongly, laid down the principle that in dealing with other dependent relatives, mothers and others, there must be evidence of pre-war dependence, and that the allowance which the State makes must be decided in relation to the measure of the pre-war dependence. Here is the case of a lad who was near the end of his apprenticeship on
    1610
    the 4th August, 1914. With great patriotism he rushed to the Colours. He may very well be, and I think he was spoken of as a sergeant, but inasmuch as he joined as an apprentice and obviously was not making much of a contribution to the household at that time, there was substantially no pre-war dependence. Had he not rushed to the Colours, had he waited until a month or two afterwards, he might have become a journeyman workman in his trade and have made a considerable contribution to his household. There would then have been a larger State allowance in respect of pre-war dependence, and in that case he would, under the Select Committee's finding, have had a larger State allowance and allotment. I cannot alter that. The Select Committee have laid down that the basis must be pre-war dependence. I have stated the case put to me quite clearly. The hon. Member asked me whether we could not do anything in this case. So long as the Select Committee's rulings hold good I cannot alter them.
    Sir G. TOULMIN: Can the House have an opportunity of reviewing them?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That point should be put to the Chairman of the Select Committee or to the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend will see that is a matter which does not rest with me. The hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Currie) raised the case of the Edinburgh trial. Of course, he will recognise that it would be quite improper for me, and in fairness to him I do not think he suggested that I should do so, to endeavour to re-try the trial here. The proceedings were criminal proceedings for offences against the Defence of the Realm Regulation 43 and 47. I have them before me, but I do not think it is necessary to read them.
    Mr. CURRIE: They were alleged offences, of course.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, they were alleged offences. The matter was represented to the Admiralty as being a deliberate and intentional breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and the Admiralty, after obtaining the best legal advice it could, decided that there was sufficient evidence to prove the charge and that they could not overlook such an attempt to delay His Majesty's service in war-time. Therefore the prosecution was instituted, with the result that there was an acquittal. I stated in

    1611
    reply to a question put by my hon. Friend on 2nd March that—
    "The object of the Admiralty in instituting these proceedings was to establish the principle that no local authority or person shall have the power to hamper the movements of any ship engaged in His Majesty's service upon war work. This principle we still think of vital importance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1916, cols. 1194–95.]
    To that I do not propose to add anything at the present time. My hon. Friend asks me whether or not the Admiralty will be prepared to tender an apology in this case. He is anticipating an answer which I have no doubt will be given to a question which I think he has on the Paper. He had better possess his soul in patience until that question is answered. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) asked—I am not sure that I am using his precise words—if the amount of labour engaged on shipbuilding for the Navy is as great as it was at the beginning of the War.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I did. not say that.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I can reassure him on that point. The amount of labour engaged in the Royal dockyards—that is under Vote 8 for Shipbuilding and Repairs only, not the other branches—was 43,500 men. The number is now 55,500. I do not know what the increases are in the private yards. Certainly I can say at once, if I am asked the question, that there are more men engaged in building ships for the Navy now. I would call the hon. Member's attention to an answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty on 26th January, an answer which is very interesting in view of the Debates we have had yesterday and to-day. It arose out of a question by the hon. Member (Mr. Wing) as to whether he could assure the country
    "that the Navy is in a condition of preparedness for meeting any new developments of the German Navy made during the period of its inactivity in the matter of ships and larger guns?"
    Here is part of the answer—
    "As regards the preparedness of the British Navy, I can only say that successive Boards of Admiralty have most anxiously considered the mode in which the building resources of the country can best be employed. These resources are now used to their very utmost. Speaking broadly, it may be asserted that every dockyard, public and private, here or in the Mediterranean, is being used to its utmost capacity, either for new construction or for repairs required by ourselves and by our Allies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th January, 1916, col. 1259, Vol. LXXVIII.]
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Not true!
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think I can add a single word to that. It is perfectly true.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I beg pardon. That remark applied solely to the Royal dockyard, I think?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not think so.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Then it is quite untrue.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) said the Minister of Munitions had said he had no support from the Admiralty in handling labour problems. I am quite sure the Minister of Munitions would be the last man to say that. I am perfectly certain, if the question was put to him, he would say the Third Sea Lord has been in constant touch and has been rendering every assistance he could at every stage of his endeavour to deal with the labour problem.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the Admiralty has offered no objection to the dilution of labour in any Department under their control?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I want to make this quite clear. My right hon. Friend would be the first to admit that in the many admirable schemes in which he has endeavoured to meet the labour problem he has had any assistance which the Third Sea Lord and myself have always endeavoured to give to every suggestion which has been made. My right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) asked about dilution. The best thing I can do is to say exactly what the Admiralty have done. The Admiralty fully recognise the necessity to secure that the services of the skilled mechanic are everywhere devoted to the work which he and he alone can perform properly, and that on work not calling for the whole resources of his skill at this time of national emergency others less skilled than himself should be employed. That is vital to the successful prosecution of the War. We met the Minister of Munitions in conference on the 14th of February. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend rendered most admirable assistance in certain shipyards in this very matter.
    An HON. MEMBER: Why do you not carry it further?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should be only too glad to receive any suggestion my hon. Friend has to make. We discussed the best means of instituting dilution in connection with firms engaged on Admiralty work, and since then it has been carried out. Commissioners have been appointed

    1613
    by the Minister of Munitions and Admiralty officials have rendered every assistance. On the Tyne and the Clyde dilution has been to a certain extent established, and we look with confidence to a considerable extension of its operation. I should like to read the terms of a circular letter which we are sending out to all the more important Admiralty firms:
    "Dilution of Labour (Increase of Output).
    I am commanded by my Lords Commissioner of the Admiralty to call your attention to the circular letter L 29 issued by the Minister of Munitions and to inform you that my Lords have accepted the principle of dilution, and you have their full support in carrying it out in all cases where this is possible without affecting the quality of the work performed. They desire that you will press it forward in your works as extensively as possible and without delay. The main object is that the skilled men thus released should be employed in your own establishment to increase your output on Admiralty and other orders ranking as munitions work."
    Undoubtedly we are bound to give every assistance in a matter of this sort. It is vital. I am disclosing no secret when I say I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend on nearly every document he has issued on this matter. As regards our own dockyards, we have asked the yards to consider and report to us—
    "As to the methods which might with advantage be adopted for the dilution of skilled labour so as to extend the area of such labour. as to the possibility of employing to a greater extent than at present mechanics of the classes in which there is not a marked shortage on more of the work usually performed by trades in which there is at present a shortage, and as to the extent to which women can be introduced into the various engineering and other shops in the Royal yards for the purpose of undertaking work within their physical capacity and aptitude, and particularly work on repetition machines."
    We have, of course, for a long time availed ourselves of women in Admiralty establishments on the clerical side, and we shall certainly extend the employment of women at the bench, in the dockyards, on the engineering staff, and, if possible, in the shipyards, wherever the work is within their physical capacity and aptitude. We fully agree that the Minister of Munitions cannot man his new factories and cannot get his guns and shells, and neither can we get all we want with these great operations going on, with the expedition which is vital without every practicable effort in the direction of dilution being carried forward with earnestness and energy.
    Mr. PETO: Was that circular sent to the superintendents of the dockyards?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. The first circular I quoted was going out to private yards. The other I spoke of—I cannot give give the date—may be going out now, or
    1614
    it has just gone out I would not be quite sure that they have yet received it, but, at any rate, we have passed it at the Board, and it is by way of being circulated now to them, as far as the Royal yards are concerned. We are in the closest touch with the Minister of Munitions on this, and we are in the fullest sympathy with him. It is essential that the skilled mechanic shall only do work which he alone can do, and if the work on which he is engaged can be performed by less skilled men it shall be done by them, so that his usefulness may be extended over a wider area.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: Can my right hon. Friend give me a definite reply to a simple question? I do not think he has answered the question I put. Are the dockyards at present working with the same intensity and doing the same amount of work for the Navy as they did six months after the outbreak of war? Is it not a fact that you have diverted work for the mercantile marine, that you have ceased to order the ships that you purchased during the first six months of the War in neutral countries, and are not carrying on anything like the same amount of work you did during the first six months of the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As regards the last part of the question, it is obviously quite incorrect that we are not doing anything like the same amount of work. I can only repeat the statement of the First Lord, which my hon. Friend says is not true. If I repeat it, no doubt he will tell me it is not true—
    "These resources are now used to their very utmost. It may be asserted that every dockyard, public and private, here and in the Mediterranean, has been used to its utmost capacity, either for new construction or for repairs for ourselves and our Allies."
    Sir A. MARKHAM: If I send my right hon. Friend a case of a ship—I will not say what class of ship—on which not a blow has been struck for months, and the Admiralty have allowed the firm to work on ships for the mercantile marine, will he then say that the statement made by the First Lord is not correct?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Was it not the object of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act to allow this to be done and to allow men to be transferred to work for the mercantile marine?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. By Section (9) of that Act, the definition of munition work was extended so as to include not only the building and repairing of ships of war, but also work on any

    1615
    other ships, or vessels, or classes of ships or vessels, or parts of ships or vessels duly certified by the Board of Trade to be necessary for the successful prosecution of the War. Of course it is essential that we should add as far as possible, and with all rapidity, to the tonnage of the merchant service.
    7.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to intervene in the Debate before I had had the opportunity of speaking. I made every attempt to obtain a hearing, because I wanted to give him an opportunity of replying to the fresh facts which I have to put before him in connection with the Admiralty. Although I spoke at some length on the last occasion when we were discussing shipping, and I understand that I incurred the displeasure of the authorities, I do not propose to speak at any length on this occasion. I am rather speaking under a time limit.
    HON. MEMBERS: No, no!
    Mr. HOUSTON:Yes
    An HON. MEMBER: You have until eleven o'clock.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I am speaking rather about authority. I should have liked to have dealt with the two remarkable speeches made yesterday by the First Lord of the Admiralty and the late First Lord, and the still more remarkable two speeches made to-day, but in view of the limit of time I shall not refer to them, nor to the other speeches, as I would have liked to have done, because several interesting points were raised. I come down to grips with the right hon. Gentleman at once. As they say in America, "We will get right down now to brass tacks." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that all the criticisms I am offering to the Admiralty are offered in a friendly spirit, and with a desire to help and not to hinder. The right hon. Gentleman has told us, and the First Lord of the Admiralty did so the other day, of a most astounding proposition, and that is, that the Admiralty, or the Transport Department of the Admiralty, is simply the servant of the military and naval authorities. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that on the last occasion I made it quite clear that I was not criticising any Department of the
    1616
    Admiralty or any individual in connection with the Admiralty. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree to that.
    Dr. MACNAMARAindicated assent.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Let us take this astounding proposition that the Admiralty—call it the Transport Department if you like, but I prefer to call it the Admiralty—has simply to carry out the instructions of the military and naval authorities as to the number of merchant ships which shall be supplied to them. If you are going to carry that proposition to its logical conclusion it might result in this, that the military authorities might demand half of the merchant shipping and the naval authorities the other half. What becomes then of the needs of the people of this country? It is the most astounding proposition I have ever heard. In addition to that, we are to supply our Allies, we are to carry on the War in every direction, and we are to be at the mercy of, say, a General Incompetence or a General Ineptitude—and we have such generals in the Army—who might say in connection with an expedition, "I must have the whole merchant fleet placed at my disposal to effect one of these brilliant retreats." What then? Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to carry out that instruction from the military authority or even from the naval authorities? What has he got to say to that? He says that the Transport Department is merely the servant of the military and naval authorities. Are you going to allow the Transport Department of the Admiralty to carry out such an insane proposition as that without a word of protest to the military authorities who are making unreasonable demands? I do not say that the Transport Department can protest, but I do say that the Admiralty can protest. The First Lord is a member of the Cabinet, and it is incumbent upon him to point out such serious mistakes as might occur. The position is becoming really serious. The hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield (Sir A. Markham) spoke about work not being done upon a certain warship because the labour had been transferred to a merchant ship. Well, knowing as I do the alarming and the growing scarcity of merchant tonnage, I say at once that I prefer that the work should have been carried on in connection with the warship than upon the merchant ship. That shows that I am not prejudiced in any way against the Admiralty.

    1617
    We are really getting into a very serious condition in this country by reason of the requisitioning of British tonnage and the distribution of it amongst our Allies for military purposes, much of which is wasted. I maintain that statement, and I join issue and challenge the right hon. Gentleman upon that point. In consequence of this state of affairs we are rapidly drifting into a position when we shall be dependent upon the tonnage of neutral countries for the food supplies of this country. Can the right hon. Gentleman not see what a dangerous position that is? Supposing the neutrals made it a condition of supplying us with food that we should make peace with Germany. The merchant service is as vital to the prosecution of this War and the interests of the country as the Navy. I have the greatest admiration for the Navy, and I have always expressed it. You cannot divide the Navy from the merchant service. They are both indispensable. They are twin sisters, although I grant the Navy is the bigger, and the life of this country and the existence of the Empire is as dependent upon one almost as the other. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the serious position which I have put before him. Has the Cabinet ever given that matter any consideration? I am very glad indeed that in the Debate we had on the 17th of February on the Shipping Amendment to the Address, when I expressed myself in an outspoken manner, I was able to do some good by the direct references I made to Portugal and Italy. I then said that I did not think Italy was playing the game in demanding that British ships should be requisitioned for the purposes of carrying food to Italy when they had German ships lying in their own ports. I do not sit at the Cabinet table, nor have I a place under it, therefore I do not know the secrets of the discussion that goes on, but I have some common sense, and I can see what does go on. A question was afterwards put down and answered by the President of the Board of Trade. Any experienced Member of this House could at once see that it was an inspired question in order to elicit an answer. I am not going to make any difficulties for the Government if I can possibly avoid it. On the Contrary, I will try to help them all I can.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I asked the question. Following the speech of the hon. Member, I put a question down asking the
    1618
    Government whether these ships had been requisitioned. I was not asked by the Government to do it.
    The CHAIRMAN: Both hon. Members are out of order. That is a matter dealt with by the Board of Trade and not the Admiralty.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Forgive me, Sir, if I venture to suggest that this matter arises out of the action of the Admiralty by the Transport Department of the Admiralty requisitioning British ships.
    The CHAIRMAN: I have pointed out before now that in that matter the Transport Department is merely the agent of the other Departments, and the Board of Trade is the Department to answer in the House for the policy.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I like to be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not think that the Board of Trade had anything to do with the requisitioning of these ships to carry Italian goods, neither had the Board of Trade anything to do with the requisitioning of ships for nitrate and other things like that. So far as I know, the Board of Trade and the Admiralty are at daggers drawn over this very thing. It is a case of "pull devil, pull baker." They both want the ships. Therefore I venture, with all respect, to say that I hardly think the Board of Trade, who are looked upon as a business Department, were responsible for the action of the Admiralty in requisitioning these ships. However, I pass that by. I maintain that the First Lord of the Admiralty has not answered the allegations made against his Department, the Admiralty, neither yesterday nor to-day, in regard to the definite charges that were made. The last time that he spoke he got into a righteous state of indignation against anyone charging the Transport Department with the blunder about the "Heliopolis."
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Hear, hear.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Nobody did that.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Oh, yes.
    Mr. HOUSTON: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. Nobody blamed the Transport Department for the "Heliopolis." They blamed the Admiralty. It would be impossible to blame the Transport Department for the purchase of the "Heliopolis," because the Admiralty bought her three years ago. I am

    1619
    afraid that is a financial transaction which lies at the door of my right hon. Friend. I want to point out how astute he was. No one made the slightest charge against the Transport Department in connection with the "Heliopolis," but the right hon. Gentleman suddenly seized upon this and worked himself up into a state of indignation to repel these charges. It is within the recollection of the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman challenged me across the floor of the House. He said that if I make charges I must stand up to them. I did stand up to them. What happened? He sat down and claimed your protection, and I incurred a reproof from you for taking up the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman. He says there is no waste of ships. It is absurd to say that. He cannot tell me, because I know as well as he does, that when the Navy is stationed in a certain quarter, and does not know when it may have to move at a moment's notice, because the enemy may break out, there may be a battle or there may be escaped cruisers, or something of that sort which have to be followed, ships of war must have colliers there ready to attend them when they go. Anyone who said anything to the contrary would be a fool.
    I am not going to trespass on the time of the Committee by producing a lot of particulars, but when it comes to a question of saying that it is necessary to keep a collier—not a collier, but an oceangoing steamer for coaling—lying in Portland or in the Forth for five and a half months on end without ever moving a screw, and when it comes to keeping a steamer in Sheerness so long that her cargo takes fire by spontaneous combustion, I say that there is something very wrong there. I am not blaming the Transport Department for that. They have no responsibility for that sort of thing. I could go on for hours giving fresh illustrations, but I will not do that. The right hon. Gentleman has dragged the Transport Department or the Director of Transport into the fray, much against my intentions, because on the last occasion I never made any reference to the Transport Department when speaking of the Admiralty. But the right hon. Gentleman said that the Transport Department are the servants of the military and the naval people, and they have got to select the ships. Then
    1620
    surely they are responsible if they requisition in an ill-advised, foolish, or stupid manner. Again, I ask the one question, What about the oil ships that were requisitioned as troopers, fitted up as troopers, kept lying idle for six months and then dismantled and sent back to their occupations? Does the right hon. Gentleman attempt to justify that? Is not that waste? Is that the waste that arises in war?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.
    Mr. HOUSTON: No. It arises from stupidity. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question if I put one down, as to the cost of fitting up those ships and afterwards dismantling them? There are several of them.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: It is not in the public interest!
    Mr. HOUSTON: I do not know who is to blame for the requisitioning of ships to carry nitrate. The letter of requisition comes from the Admiralty, signed by the Director of Transport.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Gentleman should find out beforehand who is responsible for those things. Clearly it is the Ministry of Munitions which is responsible for claiming those ships for that purpose, and the responsibility cannot be passed on to the Lords of the Admiralty.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: May I point out to you that there is a Department charged solely with the business of selecting these vessels, and I submit that it is in order to say whether the Admiralty have wisely or unwisely requisitioned vessels for that specific object.
    Mr. KING: May we not call attention to this matter when we are voting the money for the Admiralty services, which include the Transport Department? Its clerks and personnel are paid out of the Admiralty Vote.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: They are.
    Mr. KING: Surely we are in order in referring to it in this Debate?
    The CHAIRMAN: By all means. If hon. Members keep to that point they will do well. I have never suggested anything else.
    Mr. HOUSTON: With all respect I was going to show that it was not the Minister of Munitions who was responsible, because although no doubt he makes demands for nitrate, still it is the Admiralty who have got to employ those boats economically and without waste. They ought to utilise them, as they have done, for bringing home the hay which we require for the innumerable horses here and in France. That the Admiralty did a short time ago, but now they have fallen off from grace. I will not labour those things, but there is also the question of the White Sea. The right hon. Gentleman could give me a lot of information, and doubtless I could give him a lot of information, if he was going to make use of it. I have here particulars of the ships that have loaded for the White Sea which are lying in Liverpool and elsewhere until they can be sent off. That is the fault surely of the Admiralty and not of the Transport Department. Surely the military authorities do not instruct the Admiralty as to when the White Sea opens and when it closes. The right hon. Gentleman tells me that the military authorities are responsible for that. I at once join issue and say that it is the duty of the Admiralty to avoid that waste by pointing out that it is impossible to send those ships during certain periods. When one reads of the appalling cases of hardship to merchant seamen it does make one indignant with those complacent assurances that everything is right.
    I may now refer to the question of ballast voyages. The Board of Trade, in the interest of economy, urge upon shipowners that they should not take any ballast runs, so that ships shall always be employed in carrying goods. What does the Admiralty do? When steamers are paid off or discharged, say at Alexandria—I am glad that my right hon. Friend (Dr. Macnamara) is amused at this—and they are released—that is the expression—then they are ordered to go, say, to Calcutta, Australia, or Java, to load cargo for this country. Now, when you take into consideration the question of tonnage, the matter of ballast runs is seen to be very important. I will give a case of a boat ordered in ballast from the coast of Chile up to Port Victoria, in British Columbia—that is, 5,800 miles of a run in ballast. You have other ships sent in ballast 9,500 miles, from Glasgow or Liverpool, to the nitrate ports and coming home with all their spaces empty; you have steamers requisitioned on the East
    1622
    Coast of South Africa to Antofagasta and Iquique, a distance of over 7,000 miles; and you have steamers sent from the Mediterranean, say Alexandria, to Australia, a distance of 8,500 miles, in ballast, to bring home Australian wheat. I will deal with that later on, but if that is not waste of tonnage I want to know what is waste of tonnage? And this is done at a time when we are short of food in this country and prices are going up. During the time occupied in this manner these boats which are sent off in ballast would have made three or four trips across the Atlantic to bring foodstuffs for the people of this country. It is absolute waste.
    The Government will say, "But we must help our Australian friends." I say Yes. Our debt of gratitude to our Australian friends is so great that nothing which we could do would ever repay them for the blood which they have shed for us, but we might have met the case in a different way. When in Australia the wheat was commandeered or requisitioned by the Australian Government, we could have bought it and could have paid for the storage and waited until we had more tonnage to spare. Who is to blame for those ballast cargoes? Surely the Admiralty. I have spoken about sending ships to Italy. What will the Committee think of this? The Australian Government requisitioned wheat from the farmers, and they paid them their prices. Also ships are requisitioned, and requisitioned say at 90s. to 110s. a ton, and they have taken a ballast run of 8,500 miles to Australia. The freight from the Argentine at the present moment is, under the Government scheme, 135s., and outside of that, 155s. to 160s. a ton. Do we get cheaper wheat in this country? Is Australian wheat sold for a farthing less in this country than Argentine wheat or English wheat? Who gets the profit? Not the Australian Government, I think; but it may be. These are things that require to be looked into. Instead of bringing that Australian grain home to this country, what are we doing with it? Some of the ships are sent to Spain. Is Spain an Allied country? Certainly it is not a belligerent. Why should we provide shipping to send wheat to Spain, instead of bringing it home to our own country? I do not know, and I lay this charge at the door of the Admiralty. There is no use in my right hon. Friend saying that they have no responsibility with regard to requisitioning. I raised the question a

    1623
    considerable time ago in the House. It is bad enough that the Transport Department should requisition vast, roomy measuring steamers for carrying nitrate or coal; but what are we to think of the Admiralty or the Transport Department delegating their authority to requisition to Messrs. Mathwin, who purchase coals for the Admiralty, and who evidently do not know one end of a ship from another? I would be very pleased to show my correspondence with them. They requisitioned one of my refrigerating steamers, which was intended to carry meat, as a collier for carrying coal. That is judiciously done!
    Mr. HOGGE: So that there would be no spontaneous combustion.
    Mr. HOUSTON: We have got every evidence of waste and every evidence of ill-considered and reckless requisitioning. We are told that the Transport Department is only a little Department, numbering some fifty or fifty-five. It has now-grown to about ninety, and must be the envy of the shipowners, whose staffs have been reduced by 50 per cent., with the consequence that the work is very much harder for them. It is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that the Transport Department can manage ships.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: They could not manage a fried fish shop.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I do not go quite as far as my hon. Friend. But I do say that there is no business, or profession, or occupation in which people can so easily go astray as in shipping. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who knows something about business and talks common sense when he stands at that table, told us that the shipping problem was not one problem, but several problems. I say that it is more than that. The shipowning business, the management of shipping, is a labyrinth with ramification so extensive, so intricate, and so involved that certainly an amateur would lose himself entirely, and even an inexperienced or a moderately experienced shipowner would lose himself in that labyrinth. Therefore it is ridiculous to talk about the Transport Department of the Admiralty managing these ships and managing them efficiently. The hon. Member for Barnsley referred to a circular which was issued by Mr. Purdie, and it is one which I did not refer to in
    1624
    the last Debate, for I detest anything in the nature of personalities or charges against individuals.
    In the last Debate we had what might be called an apologia of Mr. Graeme Thomson, and then we had a sort of vindication which we are told is entirely voluntary and impulsive on his part, in rushing out to tell the world what a wonderfully managed Department this Transport Department is. If it impresses the right hon. Gentleman it does not impress me. This gentleman, I know, owns three tramp steamers, and he tells us that he is chairman of the Clyde Steamship Owners' Association (Mr. Paterson Purdie), owning over 1,750,000 tons of shipping. The Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association has 4,500,000 tons, and a junior partner of mine was the chairman of that body. But importance must not be attached to that fact, or to appointments like that. The Liverpool Association has a very able secretary in Sir Norman Hill, but even he is wrong, and the association are very often wrong, and were wrong when they decided in favour of the Declaration of London. We are suffering now. We private Members are suffering here because we have no regular Front Bench. An hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the Colonial Secretary, when he was Leader of the Opposition, and how he got up in this House and denounced the ways of the Admiralty in connection with colliers. He read a letter from a Glasgow firm, and I know the firm from which the letter came.
    Imagine if we had a Front Bench filled with members of the Opposition. What would happen then, if we had leaders on this Front Bench who were trying to turn the Government out and to get in themselves? We have heard from that bench the suggestion that Gentlemen occupying the Ministerial Bench should be taken outside to adorn the lamp posts. We do not hear that now. There is no suggestion of hanging now, and that is one of the advantages of a Coalition Government. There can be no criticism upon the Government, and if a private Member gets up and makes any charges against the Government, not to injure them but help them, he is accused of want of patriotism, of giving information to the enemy, or even of acting from personal motives. I have no personal motives in this matter, and if I had any personal motive do you think I would get up in this House and denounce

    1625
    my old Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and the right hon. Gentleman himself (Dr. Macnamara), for whom I have every feeling of friendship. I criticise the Government in order to try to help them in every way, and do you think that I would fall out with the Transport Department of the Admiralty, who can confer favours or inflict injuries? No; I would kow-tow, like a good many others, and I would be better off now. I have had the temerity, or stupidity if you like, to be the one ship owner in this country who has had the audacity, if you like, to criticise the Admiralty and its various Departments from the beginning of the War, and pointing out mistakes. Of course, I am a fool. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why fool!"] Because I suffer for it.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a very interesting statement. I think it ought to be proved.
    Mr. HOUSTON: I think it will be proved. I have got to suffer everywhere. Do you think I do not suffer in old friendships who support the Admiralty and everyone else. But what I am doing is out of a sense of public duty, and I shall continue to do it but of a sense of public duty. It is of no use the right hon. Gentleman trying to discount that statement, because it is absolutely true. Members of this House will believe me when I say it is true. I do not want any personal advertisement, or any advantage, or anything of that sort. I have done it from the first out of a sense of public duty, and I shall continue to do it.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he suggests that because of his criticisms here it can be said that the Department treats him unfairly or unjustly, or has come down on him harshly in the requisitioning of his ships. That is what I took him to mean. I should like to know if that is the charge.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Let me say what perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is unaware of. Is he aware that I have by his Department been what I might call threatened in this House itself?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not quite follow what the hon. Gentleman means, but no doubt he will tell me. I should like to ask this question.
    Mr. HOUSTON: It is very dangerous to ask.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The hon. Gentleman told us of a steamer of his that was
    1626
    adapted to carry frozen meat, and had been taken up by Messrs. Mathwin to carry coals. Is it not a fact that within twenty-four hours he was notified that it was quite a mistake and the steamer was released?
    Mr. HOUSTON: No. Would the right hon. Gentleman like me to read the correspondence?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Is it not a fact that within twenty-four hours the hon. Member was notified that it was quite a mistake?
    Mr. HOUSTON: Entirely wrong.
    Mr. WILKIE: Having been attending a Committee, I am sorry that I have not been able to hear the whole of this discussion, and I have only risen in order to refer to some remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who alluded to the way in which officials have done their work, but overlooked some of those who, it cannot be denied, have also done their work—I refer to those who are engaged in the dockyards. I am one of those who have always supported an efficient Navy, and that at a time when such a view was not popular on these benches; and it is a great advantage to nearly the whole world, as the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out yesterday, that we have that efficient Navy to-day. When the War broke out, those who were vitally interested both in the construction of war ships and merchant ships, did their level best to assist the Admiralty, at their request. The Parliamentary Secretary, when stating what the officials of the Admiralty have done, ought, I think, to have also included those of the rank and file, with their officers, who have given every assistance possible to the Government. The question has been raised more than once about the dilution of labour. From the beginning of the War labour has been diligent in giving assistance, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit, and that assistance, given at the beginning, is still being continued. If there is any complaint it is possibly from one or two dockyards where the complaint is that there might be possibly more work done. That is entirely in the hands of the Admiralty.
    I have in my possession, from some of the principal shipbuilding firms in the United Kingdom, letters of thanks to our workers for their efforts in assisting them in the dilution of skilled labour and in carrying out their work. We have sent

    1627
    nearly 2,000 men to His Majesty's dockyards, and I think that it is only fair to recognise how the workmen have assisted in this matter. It is a fact that a number of highly skilled workmen in His Majesty's dockyards have assisted in every way in the dilution of labour, and wherever they have been called upon, either by the dockyards or by large private firms, or at the request of the Minister of Munitions, they have endeavoured to render all the help they can. We are told that the building of merchant vessels is just as necessary in some respects as the building of warships, and even with that the workmen have agreed. In reference to the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Houston), I would observe that with all their complaints the shipowners of the country have had the time of their lives, and the complaint of the workers is that while the shipowners and employers are getting from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent, for new vessels, and when old vessels change hands they get from 300 to 600 per cent., they, the shipbuilding workers, have only got 10 per cent., which, apparently, is to be the limit. That is the difficulty workmen feel in these matters. It has been clearly pointed out from these benches that neither the legal nor the medical profession have ever diluted their labour, and they require to dilute it just as much as the rest of us at the present time. Therefore I think it is only just to the workers, who have shown by the number they have sent to the fighting forces—(from our own organisation we have sent over 2,000)—as well as assisting the Admiralty in war work and giving assistance in private shipyards wherever possible, therefore, they should have these efforts put on record in order that it may be known what the men have done in giving their blood and their life, and working all hours in many cases. I think it was unfair that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in referring to what others had done, did not likewise recognise what has been done by those for whom I speak on behalf of the country.
    Sir THOMAS ESMONDE: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has not been able to make any concession with regard to the pay of midshipmen. I thought the Government would have acted with a little more generosity in the matter. I endeavoured to put the case very moderately, and at the least I think he might
    1628
    have agreed to an inquiry. If we are met with a refusal there is nothing more to be said now, but we shall have more to say about it by and by. No matter what the right hon. Gentleman thinks, it is my conviction that these young officers are not sufficiently paid. It is all very well to say that between the Government allowance and the parents' allowance they have quite as much money as they want. I think that 1s. 9d. per day is very miserable pay for a rich country like this to give its young naval officers, especially when we consider that the Government take 1s. 6d. of that amount, leaving the midshipman with 3d. per day, a huge sum to dispose of. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, does not agree with these figures, but with all respect to him, I am perfectly satisfied they are correct, and I have inquired into the matter.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I have also inquired.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: If the Government will not make any additional contribution, will they agree to the parents' contributions being increased? I am convinced that these young officers do not get enough to live on.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: There is nothing to prevent a parent increasing the contribution if the parents so desire.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: I mean the contribution through the Admiralty.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will look into that matter, but surely he can make a contribution himself.
    Sir T. ESMONDE: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Admiralty send circulars to the parents in which they say that midshipmen should not have too much money. The parents agree to a certain extent, but my suggestion is that the Admiralty should allow the parents to make a larger contribution through the Admiralty since they are not prepared to increase the pay from 3d. per day. Parents now are allowed to make a contribution of £10 in addition to the regular contribution of £50, but that is only to be expended under certain conditions, such as if these young officers go on shore. The expenditure of the money is at the discretion of their commanding officer. That is quite right, and in principle I agree, but I would suggest that the Government should either diminish the messing charge or else allow the parents to

    1629
    make an extra contribution through the Admiralty. We hear accounts of the conditions in the Fleet, and we know perfectly well how extremely arduous are the duties and the weather they encounter, so that altogether these young officers are not living on a bed of roses. We have the suspicion that the food supplied on board His Majesty's ships is not all it might be, and that very often there is a scarcity. When the Admiralty make a deduction of an amount for messing they ought to see that the quality of the messing is better than it very often is. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman cannot consider this matter, which will not be allowed to drop. He will, I think, be well advised to have it further investigated by somebody who understands it, and perhaps he will have some little trouble about that and some other questions.
    Colonel YATE: There are two points to which I wish to refer. The right hon. Gentleman told us that midshipmen ranged from fifteen years and six months to nineteen years, and that he considered the pay they were getting at the present time was as much as they were worth.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I did not say that.
    Colonel YATE: However much they may be worth at fifteen years and six months, I think that at seventeen or eighteen they are worth a little more than 1s. 9d. per day. The point I wish to raise is the new system which the right hon. Gentleman seems to have introduced into the Service by which parents are permitted to plead in forma pauperis if they are not able to pay the £50 per year. We have, of course, in the Army King's Cadetships at Sandhurst, and something similar, I suppose, in the Navy, but when once ranked as a midshipman, all the officers should be on the same level, and we should not have officers of the same rank serving side by side and on different terms, one having £50 paid by his parents, and the other £50 from the State. The money should all come from the same source. I think this new system will not be appreciated and I hope the Admiralty will consider whether it really is good policy. The second point I wish to mention is the question of the enormous cuttings from the pay of officers on account of Income Tax. I raised this question before the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the pay of officers in the Navy. An
    1630
    officer of the rank of commander in the Navy has pay of about £300 per year, and, if he is a married man he insures his life to make provision of say £100 a year for his wife and family in case of his death, which is as much as he can afford and not too much, and his insurance premium probably amounts to £60 to £65, and when war broke out, like all officers he had to pay to the insurance company at least £150 extra premium for war risks. There are officers who could not do that themselves, and had to borrow the money in order to pay the extra premium. They dare not give up the insurance because otherwise the policy would be forfeited and their wives might be left penniless. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an exemption from extra war taxes up to £300, but we asked that officers of commander rank and other rank up to £400 should be given the benefit of the exemption. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to press this matter on the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to urge that the exemption for £300 should be extended to £400.
    Mr. KING: I listened to the Debate yesterday and to-day, and I have come to the conclusion that the House of Commons has been treated in a peculiar way. We had the Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench full for a certain part of yesterday and to-day when one ex-Minister was warning and admonishing and lecturing the right hon. Gentlemen who were his colleagues a few months ago, and we had the not very edifying spectacle of the two Front Benches stretching forth their arms to one another and washing their own dirty linen. That is not calculated to give confidence to the country and not calculated, so far as I can see, to be really helpful. It has, however, served one purpose. It has shown to the House and the country what keen observers and judicious men have long realised, namely, that there are a great many points of divergence, division, and even disunion in the ranks of Ministers, and that on many points of their policy they are not clear, they are not consistent, and are groping their way. You cannot grope your way through a war. This War has been so unexpectedly successful for the Central Powers, not because of any inherent righteousness or justice or even strength, but because they have been consistent in their policy all through. They have been consistent with one another, and in their aims. What they have set out

    1631
    to aim at they have persistently and consistently pursued to the end. That is what our Government and our Allied Governments do not do. This is a theme which I have enlarged upon before and on which I am ready to enlarge again, namely, that there has been neither consistency nor harmony in the policy pursued by Ministers, and consequently we are suffering daily immense loss in the lives of our people and in the material resources of the country. I say that we want a consistent policy, and I will give an illustration of two minor matters which stand out clear as evidence of the vacillating, changing, shifting ground on which the Government stand. The first point is that of the Anti-Aircraft Service which defends us now.
    The CHAIRMAN: That does not come under this Vote, which covers a period after the 31st March next. I understand that this Department in the next financial year will not be under this Vote.
    Mr. KING: I am very glad to have that assurance. I have made inquiries, and I find that many of the anti-aircraft stations in London are still under the Admiralty, and they have no idea when they are going to be transferred. I have also had the information that some of the work that has been put upon the War Office personnel has been so inefficiently carried through, and with such unfortunate results, which I will not particularise, that fortunately for the Service, and for the safety of this City, they are continuing the Admiralty in those stations. I will not pursue this further. Of this I am certain, that at the present time many or several anti-aircraft stations in London are still manned and under the Admiralty, and there is no certainty when they will pass over to the War Office. That fact alone justifies me in saying that the policy of the Government in a matter like this is shifty, groping, uncertain, with no clearness of decision, and with no vision. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the well-known saying that where there is no vision a people perish. Even the right hon. Gentleman will admit that this has not been a happy instance of clear, consistent, steady policy, and that is what we want at the present time.
    8.0 P.M.
    I am now coming to another important matter which is undoubtedly under the Admiralty, and has always been under the Admiralty, and on which so far as I know
    1632
    we have had no discussion in this House. It is an extremely important matter, to which we ought to give more attention. I say that because it is the question which is at the present moment of extraordinary importance in the relations of the United States. It is the arming of merchantmen. This question, and the Admiralty policy concerning it, have led up to a great political crisis in the United States, involving its future relations to the Allies. Policy, therefore, on this question is obviously a matter of great importance. I must go back a certain way, nearly two years, and remind the House that during the summer of 1914—the right hon. Gentleman will probably remember, although possibly other Members of the Committee will not—I put down a long series of questions on the armed merchantmen policy of the Government to the First Lord of the Admiralty. I think he evaded the difficulty which I indicated, and I had a conversation with him at the time in which he practically told me his position, but which went to make my mind clear that the great difficulties of arming merchantmen and the diplomatic and foreign relations which would be raised by it, had not been fairly faced. That was the position when war broke out. Our Admiralty had arranged for the arming of a certain indefinite number of merchantmen. Whether these were to be armed in order to be taken over by the Government and used as auxiliary cruisers—which has actually been done, and about which, as these vessels have passed under complete Admiralty control and command, and are on the Navy list, I have no more to say—or whether those vessels were to be armed in order to defend themselves against possible hostile attacks, there was no clear decision taken at the time we went to war, and no clear indication was given. Probably the Admiralty had no clear idea itself of what its policy on armed merchantmen would be. It very soon appeared, however, that a large number of our merchantmen on the great trade routes, especially to America, were to be armed for defence against hostile craft. This was not altogether a new policy, but it had been made under Admiralty control and Admiralty orders into really a new development of naval warfare.
    On the 25th of August, 1914, the British Ambassador at Washington informed the State Department that a number of armed British merchantmen would soon be visit-

    1633
    ing American ports, that is, within three weeks of the opening of the War, and that their armament was solely a precautionary measure adopted for purposes of defence against attack by hostile craft. I shall be able to quote one or two State documents which so far as I know have not been published on this side of the Atlantic, and I am quoting from those published in America. I think, therefore, that they are worthy of some consideration. I am sorry that here, as in other matters, we who try patriotically to criticise and suggest questions of real policy of high interest to the Government are not fairly considered. There is nobody connected with the Admiralty on the Treasury Bench. I know the right hon. Gentleman is in the House, and I hope he is consulting the officials on the subject I am raising, for this is a very important matter. I was pointing out that within three weeks of war breaking out, the British Minister informed the State Department at Washington that armed merchantmen would be visiting American ports. Mr. Bryan, who was then Secretary of State, replied immediately acknowledging this Note and adding that he understood it to imply an assurance that armed merchantmen—this is important—would never fire unless first fired upon, and that they would never in any circumstances attack any vessel. That was the assumption with which this policy of armed merchantmen was immediately accepted at Washington. But during the following week two vessels arrived in New York armed with so many guns that difficulties were immediately raised by the United States authorities, and on the 4th of September—this is striking, only a month after war broke out—our Ambassador at Washington, Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, informed Mr. Bryan that these vessels were to be disarmed. Your policy changes within a month of the outbreak of war. These vessels were to be disarmed in order to avoid the difficult question of the character and degree of armament which would justify detention. The purport of my questions to the First Lord of the Admiralty was that the difficulties which would arise with port authorities, with Customs authorities, with neutrals, in the case of the arming of these merchantmen would be such that the policy could not be carried out. That actually occurred, and, as a matter of fact, here we have the Ambassador, a month after the outbreak of war, throwing aside, no doubt after consideration with the Foreign Office and, I suppose, the Cabinet, the policy on which
    1634
    we started at the beginning of the War. It is rather a long story, and I am not going to pursue all the steps of it, though it is very instructive, and no one can really understand the peculiar political position, and the crisis at Washington which has just been passed through in the last few days, without going into the question. But I am going to carry it a step or two further.
    On the 19th of September the State Department of the United States issued a memorandum saying what it was going to consider as proper defensive armament. Of course, it is not denied that in time of war merchant ships may carry purely defensive armament, but when the Government starts the arming itself of merchantmen with its own guns, and presumably with its own gunners, then, of course, difficulties at once arise. What the United States held was to be actually meant by defensive armament was as follows. The calibre of guns must not exceed six inches. Guns and small arms were to be few in number. No guns were to be mounted forward. The quantity of munition carried was to be quite small. Officers and crew were to be on a peace standard. The vessel was to follow the usual trade route and not to go out of it. The vessel was not to carry an unusual amount of fuel, and the cargo was to consist of articles of commerce unsuited to a ship of war engaged in operations against an enemy. These provisions are of course quite clear, and quite plain; but we accepted them, and I contend that our acceptance of these conditions again meant a departure from the policy which had been prepared before the War, which had been indicated in various ways and in the speeches of First Lords from that Bench for a year or two previously, and which was the policy of the Government when the War opened. Of course, even then, even against that principle of arming merchantmen for purely defensive purposes, there was a protest from Germany. That we might have expected. Germany could not allow the United States to lay down a policy in this respect which we would adopt without some protest. I will not follow out all the various steps, but I must point out that the whole of this question was brought into another sphere, in relation to another set of questions, with the opening of the submarine campaign against merchant shipping. Before this War, submarines had not been conceived of, or if they had been conceived of their full importance

    1635
    had not been realised, and I do not think the full importance of submarine warfare against merchant shipping had been discussed.
    When Germany, with remarkable audacity and a certain amount of success, started this policy of destroying merchant shipping through the submarine, of course the whole question of arming merchantmen came into a different set of facts, into a different position altogether, because armament which would be no use except possibly purely defensively against small ships of war would be, against a submarine, capable of very effective action, and, of course, when that terrible crime and horrible German outrage, the sinking of the "Lusitania," occurred, the Germans had just one ground for justifying their action, a ground, of course, which was only plausible to those who were prejudiced in their favour, but a ground which, making its appeal to the strict, neutral position which the United States had taken up, was very important. The "Lusitania" was in our Navy List, a large amount of money had been contributed towards it by the Admiralty, and it was believed to have guns of a defensive character. That being so, I say that our policy of arming merchantmen was a very unfortunate one.
    The CHAIRMAN: This discussion on the arming of merchantmen hardly comes on this Vote. It is surely the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary who would answer on a question of that kind. I do not think it can be held that these negotiations affecting Diplomatic questions come on the Navy Votes.
    Mr. KING: I will not say that the question is beyond the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, but it is perhaps rather beyond the range of the questions which they expected to deal with to-night. Therefore I will not pursue it further in detail. The facts I have brought forward show that the Admiralty policy in this matter has not been thought out, has not been really consistent, has been changed from time to time, and consequently has not been as effective as it ought to have been. We ought to have some statement of some kind or other concerning policy or principles. I will not ask for full details of all the merchantmen that have been armed, but I think we ought to have more information on the matter. We ought to have more information on many Admiralty matters. A demand for more
    1636
    information when the time has gone by when any publication could really assist the enemy was made last night, and I repeat it to-night. The country would be heartened and encouraged, and we in this House would take up a warmer and less critical attitude if we were taken more fully into the confidence of the Government, We have had no statement whatever about the number of submarines that have been accounted for. Surely it would be possible to give us information on this subject, say up to three months ago? I suggest that every three months we might have a statement showing the number of submarines or other craft which have been accounted for. If we had periodic statements on this and other matters of high naval policy it would do a great deal to hearten the country, to impress our Allies, and to get favourable opinions from neutrals, and it would also satisfy many Members of this House who are inclined to hesitate, or, if not to hesitate, to be critical and suspicious. After all, none of us want to be either critical or suspicious at the present time if we can be whole-hearted and enthusiastic supporters of the Government. I am sorry if I have brought forward a question which cannot now be dealt with, but I hope the importance of the matter will be understood by the Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS, SEAMEN, AND BOYS, COASTGUARD, AND ROYAL MARINES.
    Resolved,
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,000, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., to Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coastguard and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917."
    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow (Thursday); Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  SUPPLY [1st March].
  Resolutions reported,
  SUPPLY [1st March].
    NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1915–16.
    1. "That a Suplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for additional Expenditure on the Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, Coastguard, and Royal Marines."
    ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1915–16.
    2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Pay, etc., of the Army."

    CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1915–6.—Class I.
    3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £37,330, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the Maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
    Resolutions agreed to.

    ARMY HORSE BREEDING.
    Resolution reported,

    CLASS II.
    4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Sir F. CAWLEY: I make no apology for raising this matter on Report, because I think the Government have no sort of justification for going on with a scheme which admittedly cannot be of any possible service to the country during the War, which, in the opinion of many people, is foolish and wasteful, which has no weight of public opinion behind it, which involves an expenditure of nearly £70,000 down and £4,000 per annum afterwards—£4,000 is a very low estimate; I think it will very probably be double or treble that amount—and this at a time when the Government is asking working men with wages of £2 or £3 a week to save money, and give their savings to the Government for the purpose of carrying on the War. I had a postcard the other day from a man who is not a constituent of my own, but who is very sore about the Government's spending
    1638
    money on different things which are of no use in the War. He says:
    "Here am I, a professional man, whose income is rapidly declining, and who can with severe economy barely make both ends meet, taxed almost beyond endurance, any poor little investments being rapidly eaten up by taxation, and here are the Government absolutely throwing money away."
    That is the cry of a great many people. This purchase of land in Ireland and Wiltshire to carry on a racing establishment appears to many people a very serious matter, and one which the Government ought never to have touched. It is said, of course, that when we are spending £5,000,000 a day, £70,000 is not very much. But the Prime Minister, when meeting a deputation about museums, said it was not so much the actual amount but the aggregate amount that counted. He also said, "We are at war, and that is what you must consider." I wish the Government considered it. I do not wish to make any reflection upon Colonel Hall Walker, who has given these horses to the Government, but there are two sides, and we in the House of Commons have to examine the transaction from a different standpoint.
    What is the history of this transaction? So far as I can gather from what I have seen in the papers, Colonel Hall Walker offered the Government the whole of his racing and breeding stud if they would buy the premises and the land in Ireland and in Wiltshire. The Government, so far as I can make out, at first declined it, and, after some months, and Colonel Hall Walker had entered his horses for sale at Tattersall's, the very week when they were going to be sold, the Government came forward and accepted Colonel Hall Walker's offer I want to know why they did not accept that offer at first, for we have had no sort of explanation as to that. Now what is the scheme presented to this House? Colonel Hall Walker has a stud of horses, a very fine stud indeed, and in anything I say I do not wish it to be thought that I am making the slightest reflection on Colonel Hall Walker, who very generously offered the Government his stud. Colonel Hall Walker offered the Government his stud of horses in Ireland and also his horses in Wiltshire. Those horses have been valued by Captain Greer at £74,000. It looks a most generous offer, but he offered the horses on condition that the Government should take over his land and stables and all that he had at his racing and breeding stud, which he considered worth £75,000, but which he was prepared to let the Government have at

    1639
    a valuation. I really do not quite see why these figures were brought before Parliament, because Colonel Hall Walker's offer was that the valuation of his horses and the valuation of the land should be at pre-war prices. What really is the good of the Government talking about pre-war prices in a time of war? Pre-war prices are not the value of the horses now. Pre-war prices are not the value of the premises and the land how, and I think it is almost a slur on the intelligence of the House that the Government should come forward and talk to us about these horses being worth a certain amount at pre-war prices
    It is very difficult to know what the horses are really worth. I dare say Captain Greer could put a value on them, because he knows the value of thoroughbred stock perhaps as well as any man in England, and, as there have been sales at Newmarket and other places, he would have some ground for his calculations. The only thing we can do is to look at the results of sales. We have to look at something where you can compare like with like. I have, therefore, looked up the results of sales at Doncaster and Newmarket, before the War and since the War, and I find that at the Doncaster sales in 1913 the average price given for yearlings was 690 guineas. In 1914, a couple of months after the War had commenced, the average price for yearlings was only 249 guineas. In 1915, the sales were not held at Doncaster because there were no races there, and the sales had to be held at Newmarket, where the average price of yearlings was 196 guineas—that is to say, yearlings in 1913 fetched 690 guineas, and yearlings in 1915 fetched only 196 guineas, or less than a third of what they fetched in 1913, a year before the War. What is the use, then, of talking about pre-war prices? The price to take is the present-day price, and, therefore, instead of this gift being of the value of £74,000, it is not worth much more than a third of that amount. Instead of £74,000, it would be £27,000. Therefore, the offer of Colonel Hall Walker is this: he is prepared to give you £27,000 worth of blood stock on condition that his premises are taken over at a valuation, and how is the valuation to be made? It must be remembered that these horses have all been up for sale. If the Government had not stepped in, these premises, I do not say would have been derelict, but would not
    1640
    have been a going concern, and therefore the Government, having taken over the stud, the land is valued as a going concern. But if the Government had not taken over the stud it would not have been so valued, and I have no hesitation in saying the valuation placed upon it as a going concern is at least 25 per cent. more than would have been placed upon it if the Government had not taken over this stud. So much for the offer to the Government.
    I can understand very well that the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. J. O'Connor) was all in favour of these horses being accepted, because Tully, one of the studs, is in the constituency of that hon. Member who spoke the other night, and if the Government had not stepped in these horses of the Tully stud would all have been sold, and the Tully stable, instead of being full of horses, would have been practically derelict. Therefore, it is no wonder the hon. Member for Kildare is in favour of the Tully stud in his constituency being kept up at the expense of the Government. I do not know really that had anything to do with the final acceptance of the offer by the Government. We all know that the Irish party have been able at different times to bring great pressure on the Government, and if the hon. Member for Kildare was backed up by his party, and they represented what a terrible thing it would be if the Government did not come forward and take over this stud, I have no doubt it would have due effect. I did not know whether it was so, but it would be difficult to know what induced the Government to take this over unless some strong party pressure was brought to bear. We must ask now why the Government have gone into this scheme. So far as I am concerned, no satisfactory reason has been given by my right hon. Friend, because it is very peculiar that last August there was a Committee appointed by Lord Selborne to look into the question of horse breeding. That was twelve months after the War commenced, so that all the particulars from the War Office as to the effect the mobilisation had upon the Army, which horses were short, and everything we know now, was known when Lord Selborne appointed this Committee. What was the reference to that Committee? It was appointed by Lord Selborne, and he says:
    "I hereby appoint a Committee to consider and advise the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries what steps should be taken to secure the production and maintenance in England and Wales of a supply of horses suitable and sufficient for military purposes, especially on mobilisation."

    1641
    That was the reference which Lord Selborne submitted to a committee of experts, consisting of Lord Midleton (chairman), the Right Hon. Henry Chaplin, the Right Hon. Sir Ailwyn Fellowes, the Hon. Alexander Parker, Major Sir Merrik Burrell, Bt., Sir Gilbert Greenall, Bt., and Captain M. S. Adye. All these gentlemen were appointed for their great knowledge of horse breeding and horseflesh. I am not going to go into their Report, except to say that they never mentioned the buying of this stud, or the Government establishment of a stud, or anything of that kind, but what they did recommend was an extension of the present system. The point I wish to make is that Lord Selborne appointed this Committee. They only reported in October, and this offer of Colonel Hall Walker's was made to the Government in October. The obvious thing which the President of the Board of Agriculture should have done when this offer was submitted to him, more especially when it was an entirely new departure, was to have called this Committee together again and placed this matter before them. They were selected for their special knowledge of this subject, and although the President had the Committee to give an opinion upon this very important question, so far as I know, he never asked them at all. I think that is really a very strange proceeding, and I wonder myself why Lord Selborne did not communicate with that Committee.
    Personally I do not think such a Committee would have approved of this scheme; in fact, I do not think any practical committee would have approved of it. If they had approved it my right hon. Friend would have had some authority behind him, but I have not heard that he has any authority whatever behind him with regard to this matter. If he had had the authority of all these experts I should have been the last person to question that authority. I should have said, "I may have my own opinion, but here are these men, and they have approved of this plan; it is not for me to say anything more about it." But the Government did nothing of the sort. They did not ask these men their opinion. Were they suspicious or afraid that they would come to a contrary opinion? It looks very much like it, because it was obviously their duty to ask these men, and I cannot help thinking that the reason they were not asked is that the people who had to do with this scheme thought
    1642
    it better not to ask those who knew most about it. We had an opinion on this matter from the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) the other night, and he has been a well-known breeder of horses for a great number of years. I believe he has given it up now, but I think he knows horse breeding as well as any man in this country, and what did he say? He said:
    "In the first place it is false economy to use a horse for breeding purposes whose service in the market stands at 100 or 150 guineas or more with a half-bred mare that can be served by a stallion with greater likelihood of prodncing good useful stock for 30s. or two guineas."
    I think the hon. Member for Westminster was quite right, for it is absurd to think that these horses worth thousands of pounds should be travelling round the country to serve mares when a horse can be got whose stock will be perhaps better at a great deal less money. The hon. Member for Westminster went on to say:
    "While fully appreciating this exceptional and remarkable gift, it would be far better to spend this £70,000, and this £4,000 a year, in purchasing thoroughbred stallions which do exist, and which, in the opinion of good judges, are known to be useful sires for half-bred horses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1916, cols. 1125–26.]
    I agree with the hon. Member for Westminster that it would be much better to spend the money in the way he suggests. The Government, however, thought better and they did not consider it necessary to consult either their own Committee of seven gentlemen who knew all about horses, or even the hon. Member for Westminster, who was also an expert in this business. The height of absurdity was reached, as the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch) pointed out, when it was stated that in a few years this very celebrated and high-class racing stud is to be transformed into a stud for breeding half-bred horses. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) said the other day:
    "I understand that the intention is gradually to transform the training stud which is not primarily suited for the purpose of crossing with half-bred mares for the purpose of producing Cavalry horses into a stud which will be primarily suitable for that purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1916, col. 1105.]
    Absurdity could hardly go further than to take over this racing stud for the purpose of transforming it at some future date into a stud for breeding half-bred horses. The more one learns about this transaction the more ridiculous and wasteful it appears. It is almost heartbreaking to think that the Government could be induced to go into such a scheme at a time when the War is having such very serious

    1643
    effects upon us all and when our financial burdens are almost too grievous to be borne.
    Mr. HOGGE: I am sure the House has listened with respect to the very able speech made by my hon. Friend with a fulness of knowledge from long experience as to the methods by which horses are bred which probably no other Member listening to the Debate at the moment possesses. I am therefore encouraged to move the reduction of this Vote by £50,000.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Maclean): The Question having been put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," that is the only Resolution which it is open to the House to Debate. It is not in order now to move a reduction.
    9.0 P.M.
    Mr. HOGGE: That is a technical point which does not deprive me of the right to put the arguments which I propose to advance, and I can achieve my purpose by encouraging the House not to agree with the Committee in spending this money. The reasons I take this course are many. The first thing which this House must bear in mind is that we are asked to spend this money at a time when we are also being asked to exercise economy. If the House will take the trouble to look at the Supplementary Estimates they will see that but for the sum required to purchase the Tully Estate and Russley Park an additional £19,000 would have been saved. The real sum of money wanted is £67,000, but the Government are only asking for £50,000 because they are going to provide the other £l7,000 out of economies which can be made in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. That seems to me to be quite a point that requires to be met. Here you have the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries practising economy to the extent of being able to present the Treasury with £19,000, and then we have this lamentable proposal that not only the Government but the whole House also should be associated in future with the Turf as part owners of racehorses. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) told us to-day that the Albion, Calais, Candescent, Eagle's Nest, Hale-wood, Lionella, and Royal Favour, all of which belong to us, have been leased to Lord Lonsdale to enter for races which are to be run in the present year, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of
    1644
    Trade (Mr. Runciman) also told us this afternoon that if the arrangements could be made we are this year, in addition to the races which were held at Newmarket last year, to have a limited number of meetings at Newbury, Lingfield, Gatwick, and Windsor. There are to be five different centres of racing in 1916, the year in which we are being pressed every day of the week and every hour of the day to exercise economy.
    Unlike my right hon. Friend who represents the Board of Agriculture, I do not consider that horse-racing is a low form of sport. I never have done so. I like to see a horse-race, and I have seen a very great many. I hope those of my colleagues who have not will look forward with anticipation to the pleasure which can be derived from witnessing any very fine horse-race, such as the St. Leger, run at Doncaster If they have not seen that race they ought to see it. They would derive a considerable amount of pleasure from it. My right hon. Friend knows that those who take the view that horse-racing in itself is an excellent sport are disappointed with the associations which attend horse-racing at the various meetings. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman ever reads any of the sporting papers, but if he does he can select eminent authorities who will tell him what is the attitude taken with regard to this matter. Spearmint, who writes probably some of the best informing sporting articles we have in this country, says on March 5th with regard to these proposals:
    "Betting is as necessary to the maintenance of the life on the Turf as racing is to the vitality of breeding."
    It is also true that there would be no horse-racing in this country to any considerable extent were it not for the money that is associated with betting. My hon. Friend (Sir F. Cawley), who has the knowledge which I attributed to him about horses themselves, will agree with me in the statement I have made that but for betting you would have at once a great diminution in the number of races held in this country. The last time this subject was discussed in Committee I made a statement which was challenged by a great number of Members who are absent on this occasion. I pointed out, and I maintained, that the average race for which horses such as those which have been leased to Lord Lonsdale can be entered in this country are races which in distance are very much less than a mile, and the great bulk of them are five-furlong races. I pointed out then, and I maintain again,

    1645
    that five-furlong races are not the kind of distance races that will develop that stamina in horses which is the quality required for breeding purposes on this farm. Take the year 1914, the year in which you had over 1,800 races over the flat, apart altogether from what you had "over the sticks." [HON MEMBERS: "What are the 'sticks'?"] I do not want to explain every term that one uses, but my hon. and ignorant Friends must know that "over the sticks" mean "steeplechases." In the flat-racing season that year there were only sixty races over two miles. Eleven hundred of them were less than the mile, and the bulk of them were five furlongs and under. Yet in this House the other day I was laughed at by hon. Members who do not understand the Turf when I ventured to say as a critic of the Turf that the bulk of the races were of that distance. I would like to impress hon. Gentlemen who are present with the fact that it is all nonsense to talk about the present type of race meetings in this country as being a means of developing stamina in the horses for the purposes of horse breeding.
    9.0 P.M.
    There are other points which I think I ought to put with regard to this extraordinary proposal. I presume that when these horses are leased to Lord Lonsdale they will be leased on this arrangement—and I want a very precise answer to this question from my right hon. Friend—they will be leased on the basis that if he wins anything with these horses we Members of the House of Commons will get half the proceeds? Of course, I mean the Treasury which we try to control. What I want to know is, will the Treasury get half the stakes which the horses win, while if the horses lose, is Lord Lonsdale to bear the loss? I think it is a most extraordinary proposition that he is to be responsible for the upkeep of the horses during the racing season. My right hon. Friend, if he knows anything about the matter at all, must be aware that each one of these horses cannot be trained, taken about the country, and ridden, for less than an average of £350 per racing season. Is Lord Lonsdale paying that, or is the Treasury to pay it? There is another side of this question which ought to be borne in mind, and that is the moral aspect of the transaction. I presume that at the present moment the habit most productive of waste in this country is drink. So much so that we are all agreed that there should be drastic measures taken to control it during the War. Next to drink more money is
    1646
    wasted on betting and gambling than on any other vice in this country, and that is so much the case that we have legislation to deal with it, we have passed an Act of Parliament to control betting. We do not allow it on the street. We do not allow it, except on racecourses, or when the transactions are done through the post and no money changes hands. We are going to be put in this position. We are going to be the owners of horses run in races, in connection with which people may be brought within the law for betting. We are, in fact, to be the medium by which they are enabled to contravene the law. I do not think that is right. I do not want to be puritanical. I do not mind horse-racing, and I am willing to witness races. I never bet. I would never be foolish enough to do that. But we must recognise the fact that a great many people do bet, and that large sums of money changed hands during the racing season as a result of betting. This is so much the case that excessive betting is considered to be harmful to the community. I could have seen more sense in the proposal if we had allowed Lord Lonsdale to take the horses altogether for the purposes of racing, and if we agreed that if he lost he should bear the loss, but if he won he should take the winnings. I think we have made a very selfish arrangement. We have said to him, "You take the horses; you conceal for us the fact that we are the owners. You conceal the fact that the horses really belong to the Wesleyans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Anglicans in the House of Commons, as they do not want it published." I think it is an unfair position in which to place Lord Lonsdale. I do not think I would have opposed the proposal if we had allowed Lord Lonsdale to take the winnings, but the proposal we should insist on having one-half of them under such circumstances is the kind of thing which we Scotsmen in Aberdeen would only expect from a Jew. Many of us are magistrates; we sit on the bench on the Monday before coming down here on the Tuesday, and it may be that at one of these sittings we may be fining a boy for street betting. We may read him a lecture on the evils of betting, and then come along here to the House of Commons, and go to the tape in order to learn something about the form of the horses which we as Members of the House own, and which are entered for one of the race meetings at Newbury, Lingfield, Gatwick, or Windsor,

    1647
    and will run there provided that they are not required this year for military purposes.
    I do not think that such a thing is in the interests of common sense. In self-protection the House of Commons must treat this matter much more seriously than it has done so far. We are asked by the public of this country to address our minds seriously to the persistent conduct of the War, to pursue it with all the vigour we can, and at the same time in every Department to economise as much as we can. That feeling is so strong that it is proposed even to discuss the salaries of Members of this House. I am in favour of impressing the public outside by our acts within this House, but I do not think public opinion will be impressed by our action when people to-morrow read, along with the reports of the speeches made earlier in the afternoon about the Navy, the fact that the Members of the House of Commons have spent £50,000 when they could have saved £19,000 on the same Vote, but refused to do so, preferring to place themselves in the position of part owners of racehorses. I hope the House of Commons will not do this thing. I hope before this Debate is finished to-night the arguments which will be put forward will have the effect of inducing the House not to agree to this proposal, and not to allow the Government to spend any of this money. I want the House to repudiate this bargain entirely, in the interests of economy, and I say also it is degrading to the House of Commons to put itself in the position of owning one-half of the horses—the half that wins, while Lord Lonsdale is only to have the half that loses. For these reasons, I think we should have nothing to do with this matter, and should oppose this proposal root and branch.
    Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: I am afraid that I cannot pose as an expert upon horse racing, but I have in days gone by, on a good many occasions, ridden between the flags over pretty stiff ground, and I can therefore claim to know what is a good horse. Nobody in this House has a greater admiration than myself for a good horse, which is about the noblest animal in creation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture said he thought horse racing was a rather low form of sport. I fancy he was not thinking of horse racing pure and simple. In the old days of horse racing, when we had
    1648
    long races over four miles or three miles, and in the days of Eclipse, Herod and Waxy we had fine races. It has been said that horse racing is an institution which was designed to improve the breed of horses, but has only succeeded in degrading the "breed of man." That is, of course, an exaggerated statement like most general statements, but there is a great deal in it. Like the hon. Member who has just sat down, I have seen with enjoyment many horse races. One may go to Goodwood on a beautiful summer day and admire the horses and the racing, but the whole thing is spoiled to my mind by a lot of hoarse-voiced bandits bawling out the odds. I am not a Puritan, but everybody knows that the hon. Member who has just sat down spoke nothing more than the truth when he said that the two great curses of this country are, first, drink and, second, betting. They act and react upon each other. One drinks and bets, and bets and then drinks because he has lost his bet. That is a truism. In view of the fact that the State has become the owner of a racing stud, and that we are going to run horses, if we are to vote this money it is incumbent upon the Government to take steps to prevent betting upon the course. It will be their duty and our duty if we are the owners of a racing stud.
    Sir F. CAWLEY: They will not want the horses then.
    Mr. GREENWOOD: All I can say is that if it is impossible to have fine horses, and to improve the breed of horses without betting, that would be all the worse for the breed of horses. If that is so, I should be prepared to associate myself with the hon. Member who has just sat down, and, if necessary, to vote against the grant of this money.
    Mr. ROCH: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will be in a position before the Debate closes to throw a little more light upon the details of this stud If at any time, still more in a time of war, anybody were to come to me as a friend and say, "Shall I invest in a racing stud?" I should give him the advice which is now placarded on so many walls, "Don't!" That would be the best advice he could have. The sole reason which can justify the money spent on this stud is not whether it is going to be a good speculation, or a good investment, or a desirable thing in itself, but whether for the purposes for which it was presented by the

    1649
    right hon. Gentleman when the Estimate came up it really fulfils the objects he had in view. I understand that the first object that was suggested as a reason for this investment was that the War Office were looking anxiously towards the future of Cavalry horses. I take it that this stud was bought because of the fear that in the future, or even in the present, there might be a shortage of Cavalry horses. Therefore the object of this stud was to provide a means in the future of securing Cavalry horses. It is on that basis alone that the right hon. Gentleman can justify this Vote, and it is upon that basis that I hope he will throw a little more light upon the transaction. First of all, I should like him to tell us what are the liabilities of this stud. There are heavy forfeits for racing. As they come on, probably these young yearlings and fillies will have to be entered two, three, or four years ahead, and I should like to have from the right hon. Gentleman some kind of estimate of what these are going to cost in the future, for with a business department like the Board of Agriculture, with all the numberless Committees of business men that are advising the Government on business points, it is inconceivable that some accountants or some Committee should not have looked into this estimate very carefully. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what are the estimated liabilities for the next three or four years in the way of forfeits, entrance fees, and the like.
    I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how this scheme for the breeding of Cavalry horses is going to work out? Will he give us the number of stallions which will be standing for stud purposes at these establishments, what respective fees these stallions will be standing at, and, in particular, how many of these stallions will be standing at a fee, let us say, of from three to five guineas? Then I should like to ask him whether the War Office—I understand this is one of the activities of the War Office—during the last eighteen months, when this problem presented itself to them, asked the Board of Agriculture whether there was a shortage of thoroughbred stallions in this country suitable for obtaining Cavalry horses, whether during those eighteen months they came to the Board of Agriculture and said that the future of horse breeding and stallions was getting a serious one, and whether there was a shortage of thoroughbred stallions? I
    1650
    am told by dealers and others well up in this matter, and certainly I am speaking from my own experience when I say that there never was a time in the history of this country when the most suitable thoroughbred stallions for crossing with thoroughbred mares could be procured in profusion at any sale in almost any part of the country where blood stock is put up at prices varying from £150 up to £400 as the maximum price. I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the stallions of this stud are going to travel the country? Of course, it must have struck him and the War Office, after giving this matter careful consideration, that to keep stallions standing at a stud farm is almost useless for the ordinary breeder of stock. The person who is going to send his mare to any thoroughbred stallion can send it now. There is no value in keeping a Government stud permanently standing at one particular place. I should like him, therefore, to tell us not only how many of these stallions are standing at a reasonable fee, but how many of them are going to travel the country?
    I think that covers all the ground upon which my right hon. Friend can justify this Vote. This may or may not be a good speculation or a good gamble. Time will show. I think when the Government undertake any enterprise it generally is not a financial success. The circumstances are such, and the difficulties of management are such, that Government enterprises very seldom are commercial successes. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some forecast of the future in the management of this stud. In the last Debate I said that if it was formed mainly for the purpose of providing stallions solely for the purpose of crossing with half-bred horses it really was a proposal which could only have come out of Bedlam, for if the Government has gone into these large enterprises and purchased this valuable stock the only way to keep up the value of their investment is to breed the very highest class of high-bred horses, which no one would think of crossing with half-bred mares, and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what are they going to do in the future with this stud? As the years go by, in a well-managed blood-stock stud, they have to consider the purchase of fresh stallions. In a stud of this kind, which is going to be kept up as a good investment or speculation for the

    1651
    Government, you will not be buying stallions at £150 or £300 for the purpose of crossing with half-bred mares. You have to get some of the best horses in the country, like Ard Patrick and Galtee More. I do not know whether the Government is going to figure largely at the sales at Newmarket or at Tattersall's—whether they are going to be one of the retinue there that runs horses up to £25,000, £30,000, and £37,000, which was, I think, the price of Flying Fox when it was sold. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how this stud is going to develop in the future. Is the Government not only to continue leasing its horses, but is it going to keep the stud permanently up as a high-class breeding stud, and does he contemplate with equanimity the outlay of large sums of money, for I cannot think that my hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge), that any members of the Government, will use what is often a legitimate form of making a stud pay its way by putting a heavy amount of money on when a strong tip comes from the stable. That avenue of making a blood stock stud pay, I hope, will be permanently closed to the Government. I hope they will not embark on paths in that direction, for while individuals have made blood stock farms pay, I doubt whether the Government will; and while I know many people who have won heavy sums out of racing and betting, I think somehow the Government will not be a winner when it comes to try its luck on that scale. These are the points of criticism which I think it is perfectly fair to level at the Government. There is no need to reiterate, as I did on the last occasion, perhaps in rather heated terms, what an almost ridiculous figure the Government are cutting in their economy campaign. When I was at school there was a very old riddle," Why is a bad parson like a signpost? Because they both direct the way which they take good care not to follow themselves." To my mind, in preaching economy at the Guildhall and then embarking on costly luxuries like a high-class stud, I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentlemen on that bench are not only making themselves rather ridiculous in the eyes of the country, but they are frustrating an object which I think it should be their bounden duty to try to practise as well as to preach. It is only by following that path that they can really make any progress in economy.
    Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I desire to support those Members who have condemned the action of the Government in purchasing this stud. The national effect of an adventure like this at a time of crisis, and when national economy is being preached, will deservedly have a very disastrous influence, for I have not heard any speaker supporting this stud urge that by any possibility it could be of any use during the present War; and if the purchase of this stud can have no bearing upon what is rendered necessary for the Army by the present War, any shadow of justification that existed for this purchase is swept away. It is a matter which should have been left until the end of the War, when the whole question could have been dispassionately considered. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what has become of the Nonconformist conscience? There is, as I speak, a great Nonconformist gathering being held, which is being addressed by Members of this House, and an appeal is being made for greater simplicity of life and for national economy. Whilst these eminent Nonconformist Members of this House are making this appeal at that congress, they are becoming passive partners, I will not say in the business of those bottle-nosed ruffians—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—who bawl the odds on the racecourse, but in a business which, in its urn, enables those undesirable parasites of this sport to follow their calling. I am very much surprised that in this very moderate reference to these gentlemen any voice should be lifted in their defence. There is great moral degradation involved in this matter, and there is much more than the mere financial loss in our national life.
    I want to point out another connection that it has with the campaign for economy. This, too, relates to administrative action which has been taken in this connection by the Board of Agriculture and by the Board of Trade, because in connection with the purchase of this stud there has been a great revival of activity in connection with the various parties who are interested in the continuance of racing during the War. Although it was understood that the Government discouraged racing during the War, recently there has been a change of policy, and the two things are to some extent connected. I want the House to note what kind of new arrangements have been made in connection with the continuance of racing. The Government say, and properly say, that

    1653
    the holding of race meetings must not make any new demand upon the railways. What happens? The condition that has been agreed to by the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture is this, and it is the condition under which the recent meetings at Gatwick have been held, that the spectators attending these races shall buy a ticket for 25s. in advance and shall go in a motor car. If they present themselves at the gate for admission in a motor car they have a refund made to them on their ticket which has cost 25s. I am stating correctly the conditions that have been agreed to by the Board of Agriculture and the Board of Trade as the conditions of admission to Gatwick as to other races. What happened at the Gatwick races? I noticed it at the time with extreme amazement. There were some hundreds, I do not think I am exaggerating when I say some thousands, of motor cars making the journey to the Gatwick races, crowded with people who held tickets for which they had paid in advance 25s., and on presenting themselves at the gates, producing their motor cars and their tickets, they had a certain cash rebate made to them. Will the House notice what an amazing thing this is?
    We are being asked to economise in all directions. We have Mansion House meetings attended by fashionable audiences. We have appeals made, above all, to the poor to eat less meat. We have a Retrenchment Committee asking for economies in the amounts paid to the old age pensioners, and at the same time we are setting this national example of allowing races and imposing restrictions which mean that thousands of motor cars are used to convey idle people, who pay 25s. each, to witness these races, and to hear these gentlemen I have already referred to, who bawl the odds. I am sorry to disturb the sympathies of my hon. Friend here. I hope he will believe me that I am not wittingly offending his sympathies. We have great waste involved in the use of motor cars for this purpose and in the use of petrol for this purpose, and we have a spectacle which I say in all seriousness is not a very edifying spectacle, and is not a very good example to set to the nation when we are officially asking the people of the nation to live a more simple and austere life. I think that if these methods are to be justified they ought to be justified on more substantial grounds than has yet been hinted at, especially by my right hon Friend (Mr. Acland), who
    1654
    represents the Government in this matter. I hope he will not think me impertinent if I venture to extend to him an expression of sympathy. I listened to the speech that he made when he brought forward the Supplementary Estimate, and I confess that he did not give me the impression—I do not think I do him an injustice—that his heart was in this business. Therefore I feel sympathy with him in so far as he has to explain and defend this proposal before the House. When he replies I hope he will not only deal with the question of the purchase of this stud, but that he will deal also with the continuance of race meetings and the extension of race meetings, which have been sanctioned by Departments of the Government, and that he will particularly deal with these amazing conditions authorised by the Government and assented to by the Government, which lead in this time of strain and crisis to this unparalleled Spectacle of unforgive able waste.
    Sir A. MARKHAM: I think the Government is somewhat unfortunate in having a representative sitting on the Treasury Bench (Mr. Acland), who describes this transaction which His Majesty's Government has entered into as a low form of sport. In my earlier days I kept racehorses, and, like everybody else who keeps racehorses, I suppose I lost money by it. I am not at all clear that my hon. Friends sitting on these benches have recognised that during this discussion there has been sitting opposite the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Gulland), who is the man who is going to take charge of the tipster Department under which these horses will be running on behalf of the Government. So far as horse-racing goes, everyone knows that the great mass of people who attend the race meetings go there, not for the purpose of seeing horses gallop, but for the purpose of betting. You might just as well race with donkeys as race with thoroughbreds. The Government are well qualified to pull out of their stables a super-donkey, and I expect to see at an early date a horse called "Boyscout," by "Coalition," out of "Inefficiency." We may see, when the Government are the owners of the horses, a christening of them, because, as everybody knows, the owners of race horses always spend an amusing evening in christening their horses. It is quite a difficult task to find the right name for the particular sire and mare from which a foal has to be christened Perhaps we may

    1655
    see "Prime Minister" brought into the list. How he is bred I will not venture to suggest. For all practical purposes the Government is embarking in this undertaking on a gambling transaction. If the Government are going to undertake, or have undertaken, the obligations of being the owners of racehorses, they ought to go the whole hog and establish a pari mutuel. I am very glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman representing the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Acland) nods his head in approval of that statement, so that I gather from him, that when these horses take part in the lottery of racing the Government will favourably consider the establishment of a pari mutuel.
    I have always thought that horse racing breeds a race of blackguards. I say that, after being associated for a number of years with racing and hunting. Be that as it may, I do not think the fact can be controverted, that if you take the ordinary race meeting in this country you have special trains filled with all the blackguards that can congregate in every district or centre where the race meeting is held. The men who go to these race meetings for sport are very limited in number. The great bulk of them are professional bookmakers, who take money out of the pockets of the professional backers or the people who go to these meetings and think they are going to make money, whereas, as a matter of fact, according to the laws of averages, they are bound to lose in the long run. In my district, at Nottingham, which is famous for its lambs—the lambs do not come from the Mansfield Division of Nottingham, but from the city. Be that as it may, when a special train comes into Nottingham station every piece of crockery is taken off the refreshment bars, every spoon, fork, and knife on the whole of the counters of the refreshment department is swept clear, because the fraternity who arrive by these special trains for the race meetings place the property of the railway company carefully in their pockets. This is the class of people for whom the Government are about to cater in a time of national emergency. As my hon. Friend says, the railways at this time belong to the Government. Therefore it does not make any difference whether the knives, spoons, and forks, and the various articles of cutlery of the railway are put into the pockets of these people or not.
    1656
    Be that as it may, on the broad issue whether these stallions are necessary to improve the breed of horses, all I can say is that for a number of years of my life I hunted six days a week, and I have never known even in Leicestershire, where I hunt, that a thoroughbred horse was the best horse for that purpose. It was certainly not the view of Tom Firr, the most celebrated rider and the best huntsman who ever rode over Leicestershire, or of Mr. Tailby, one of the best riders in that county, a man who rode for sixty years. In his opinion a thoroughbred horse, owing to its very fine skin, was not the most suitable horse for hunting purposes. If you are going to breed thoroughbred horses solely for the purpose of improving the breed of horses, which would be accessible to the community at large, for commercial and Army purposes, I think that the Government would justify this expense. But I do not see how they are going to justify this expense because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Roch) very ably pointed out, the question arises: Are you going to let those horses travel for the benefit of farmers, or are you going to keep them in one centre? Who ever heard of taking thoroughbred horses worth several thousand pounds to travel about the country for fees of from three or four guineas? The fact is, as hon. Members know very well, that the fee for a very valuable horse runs to anything from £500 to £1,000. The Government will fix a fee in conformity with democratic principles. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Half a crown."] I have no knowledge of what fee the Government will fix, but what I do say is that it is impracticable for the Government to think that they can acquire a high-class stud of stallions, and that these can be acceptable to farmers generally in the country.
    Let us see now about Lord Lonsdale. Lord Lonsdale is a gentleman with very great experience of horses, and, they say, a very good man after the hounds. I know that Lord Lonsdale has used thoroughbred horses to a large extent at different times for the purposes of hunting with hounds, but I also know that the best hunters Lord Lonsdale ever had, when he rode across country, were not thoroughbreds, and I want the Government to tell us what these horses have been acquired for? Is it intended after the War to have a large stud for the purposes of breeding Cavalry horses, or are these horses to be used for

    1657
    breeding thoroughbred horses, or for breeding horses for racing purposes, or for what? The Government would have spent their money very much better in providing good Clydsdale or Shire stallions, which would be far more beneficial to farmers and to traders of the country than these thoroughbred stallions could possibly be. For my own part, if any one goes to a Division I will be glad to tell against this Vote. I think that it is pure waste of money, that it is one of these reckless proceedings into which the Government have entered from time to time, and that it is only adding one more to the blunders characterised by the hon. Member who has to support them and who referred to racing as a low-class form of sport.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): The thought which is uppermost in my mind is that I would like to have ten minutes of the right hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) in reply to the speeches which have been made on the other side, and I am sure that those who have spoken, though he would speak in opposition to everything which they have said, will join in my wish that he could be among us to deal with this matter. The only consolation which I have derived from the speeches to which I have listened is that most of those who have spoken, who have more knowledge by far of racing than I have, have said far worse things about it than ever I have said, and it is rather a hard task indeed, after listening to so many critics, to try to reply to them. But I think that I can answer, or try to answer, at any rate, some of the definite questions that were asked me. I think, for instance, that I can answer the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), who asked, Who is to be responsible for the expense of the training of the two-year-olds that are going to be leased to Lord Lonsdale during the period when they are leased? The answer is, Lord Lonsdale. I made that, I think, quite clear when we were discussing the matter the other night. The arrangement I do not think is unfair either to him or to the Government. He would bear the expenses of training, and if stakes are won, after recouping those expenses he will return to the national stud half the value of the stake.
    Mr. ROCH: Do I understand that the arrangement is not a form of lease in
    1658
    which the stakes are shared, but that the net balance is to be halved after deducting expenses?
    Mr. ACLAND: Yes. I made that quite clear in the answer that I gave to a question and in my speech, and in view of the extreme uncertainty of winning stakes at a time like this, I think that on the whole it is a reasonable arrangement for both sides. The hon. Member said that he would not object to this proposal to lease the horses to Lord Lonsdale during part of their racing career at so much, if we were going to hand over the horses altogether to him, and not to resume possession later on.
    Mr. HOGGE: I did not say that. What I said was that I would not object so much to the arrangement if the Government gains. I think you might retain the horses if they win, but what I do object to is the Government losing money.
    Mr. ACLAND: We do not lose, but we have a chance of winning; and, from the point of view of resuming possession of the horses, it is surely necessary, if we are to try to maintain, promote, and improve the national stud for the purpose of developing the light horse-breeding industry, to lease horses for a racing career, and that they should come back to the national stud for the purpose of breeding. It would not be possible to run any Government stud without heavy loss if the horses were untried by actual racing, or without any chance of taking them back again for the improvement and development of the stud. The hon. Member for Pembrokeshire asked me a lot of questions, which he has also put upon the Paper to be answered tomorrow. It is quite right for him to ask them now, but I think it is also legitimate for me to say that I would rather answer them tomorrow; at any rate, I cannot answer them now, because some of them involve reference to the controller of the stud in Ireland. For instance, the hon. Member asked me a question about the exact fees for those horses of the stud, and that, of course, is information which I can get only from Ireland, and I have written for it. I cannot give the information viva voce at the present time.
    Mr. WING: Adjourn the Vote.
    Mr. ACLAND: I think I can give a general description, and I trust that the House will dispose of the Vote. For certain horses the figure is 98 or 100

    1659
    guineas, but I cannot give the exact figure. These horses at Tully are not going to travel the country. There is no idea of horses like White Eagle, Royal Realm, Great Sport, and Night Hawk travelling the country. They are going to stay at Tully and earn as high fees as can possibly be obtained. In answer to hon. Members who asked whether we intend to keep this stud as a high-class stud, the answer is, certainly. The Member for Mid-Lanark and others complained about our connection with racing. I think it is a fact which any Member, even with my knowledge of racing must realise, that if you have a thoroughbred stud and want it to be of the greatest use for maintaining the light horse-breeding industry, you must lease the animals to be trained in racing. I suppose with horses, as with human beings, good looks are not everything, and it is only by racing a horse that you can be sure that the animal has the energy, the courage, the temper, and constitution and perseverance which are necessary if a Government stud is to be the foundation and support of the light horse-breeding industry, and therefore of the Army horse supply, which it is hoped that it will be. If you simply went on the looks of your horses you might find their progeny lacking in those moral qualities. [An HON MEMBER: "Moral!"] Yes, moral; horses can have moral qualities just like human beings, and unless a horse has power of perseverance up to the last ounce of its strength in a long race, whatever may be its breeding or whatever its looks, he is not anything like as good as he might be for helping the light horse-breeding industry. I was asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark what was the policy of the Government with regard to the holding of race meetings. I am very sorry that has not come before me at the Board of Agriculture; I think it is a matter the Board of Trade is going into, and I am afraid I cannot answer that question.
    In reply to the criticisms that have been made, I would like, first of all, to recall to the House what we are discussing. We are discussing whether there should be paid to Colonel Hall Walker the sum of £65,000, which is the valuation of the two estates which he has sold to us. The valuation is not a pre-War valuation; it is a present-day valuation. The valuation of the horses was upon a pre-war basis. I think that was necessary, because, with
    1660
    all respect to the hon. Baronet, I think it must be an extraordinarily difficult thing to put any estimate on the value of thoroughbred stock of the type that we have at the stud under war conditions. I am quite clear that the estimate I gave of the value of the stud was on the pre-war basis. I do not think any valuation I could have put on stallions such as I have mentioned would be worth giving to the House. I do not think there have been many sales recently. There have been those sales of yearlings, of course, but it would be very difficult to gather from them the value of horses like White Eagle, Royal Realm, and so on. I think it is only possible to take the valuation made on the pre-war basis, and which we hope may be justified when we return again to normal conditions after the War.
    Sir F. CAWLEY: Are the establishments taken as a going concern or are they taken just as ordinary stables?
    Mr. ACLAND: So far as my recollection goes, the valuation is as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and in that connection I would remind the hon. Baronet that the valuer satisfied himself that Colonel Hall Walker had spent over £100,000 on these properties, and therefore it seems to me that the valuation of £65,000 which he has accepted cannot be considered at all excessive. The point is this: Colonel Hall Walker has two properties which he values as between a willing seller and buyer at £75,000. He had the extreme generosity to say that if the valuation went beyond £75,000 he would not ask to get more than the figure named. He added that whatever the valuation was he would accept it, and as it came out rather lower he has accepted that lower sum. In addition to the purchase of the property he hands over to us an extremely valuable stud of thoroughbred horses, worth, as I said before, at a pre-War valuation, £74,000, but of which I suggest it would be extremely difficult to give any estimate of value at the present time under war conditions. This, I think, is the only justification for the acceptance of this gift, because, of course, it does not follow, however generous a gift is—and this is extremely generous—that it was right for the Government to accept it. This is the only justification that I can urge, or that I think can be urged, in its favour, and that is that it is thought desirable, in the interests of the Army, to do something to ensure the continuance

    1661
    of light horse breeding in this country at the highest possible standard. It is to our light horses possessing the best blood in pedigree that the country has to look for the foundation of our Cavalry horse supply, and the gift, surely, by Colonel Hall Walker of some of the best thoroughbred animals now living, and animals which very likely might have been exported and lost to the country if they had not been given to the State, must help to maintain the pre-eminence of our light horses, and must, therefore, materially assist the Army to attain a position of security in producing the type of horses they require for the future. That, at any rate, is the very definite view of the War Office, and the personal view of the Secretary of State for War, and it was on that definite view by the Army Council that the acceptance of this gift would materially help them in ensuring stability and excellence in our light horse breeding that the Government decided that the gift ought to be accepted. If this is not sufficient justification, the considered opinion of the War Office, I can make no other. I believe that under the circumstances it is right to look ahead and to secure ourselves against possible depletions of the horse supply by accepting a gift which enables us to maintain a stud with a maximum possible usefulness for maintaining our position as light horse breeders. I hope, in spite of the adverse criticisms that have been expressed to-day, that the House will confirm the decision of the Committee in the matter.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I think the hon. Members who are present will agree that the lameness of the defence of the right hon. Gentleman matches the extraordinary character of the transaction. I do not think in my experience in the House of Commons I have ever heard of a transaction so extraordinary in its character, nor have I known of one defended in such a halfhearted way. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the absence of the right hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), which we all sincerely regret. I think it would have been well if the defence of this transaction had been placed in the hands of that right hon. Gentleman instead of the Parliamentary Secretary. From the speech which he made to-night, and that in Committee, I think it is obvious that he himself has no belief in the transaction. He told us in an apologetic way in the Committee stage that racing was a low
    1662
    form of sport. His main justification, both then and now, is that, after all, this is a munificent gift on the part of Colonel Hall Walker, and, in the second place, that it will be of great value for stimulating light horse breeding in this country. During the Committee Debate, undoubtedly the general tenor of the discussion was largely affected by the view held about the generosity of Colonel Hall Walker. Nearly every speaker on that occasion suggested that if the slightest disparagement or the slightest criticism was made that that was casting a slur upon the generosity of Colonel Hall Walker. No one who has criticised this transaction, either now or in Committee, casts the slightest doubt on Colonel Hall Walker's generosity, which is not in the question in the slightest degree. The gift may be a gift of the utmost generosity, and yet, on the other hand, it may be extremely unwise and uneconomical for the Government to accept it. That is our contention in the present case. The right hon. Gentleman has been chairman of the celebrated Committee appointed to deal with Retrenchment. We have had a succession of chairmen on that Committee, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer down to the right hon. Gentleman. I wonder if that Committee was asked to discuss this question? The Committee was set up to bring about economies in the Civil Service Estimates, and I should say it was within their function to consider new expenditure as well. I am quite sure, had this particular proposal been referred to the Retrenchment Committee, we should never have heard any more of it. It is mainly on the business aspect of this matter that I think the House ought to disagree with the proposal. There is the other aspect of it which should not be absent from our mind. We will have the Chief Whip leading the supporters of the Government into the Lobby on behalf of a proposal which tends to support and stimulate racing. In my young days I remember reading a tract by the right hon. Gentleman. It made a great impression on my memory, and altogether prevented me from indulging in any gambling instincts in which I might otherwise have indulged. The title of that tract was, "Does racing pay?" and the answer was an emphatic "No," and that pamphlet was written by J. W. Gulland.
    Mr. HOHLER: I have listened to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Pringle), and although I have heard him so often

    1663
    in the House I have never been able to understand whether he is sincere to the cause he espouses or whether he is not, and I really think his argument to-night about tracts has nothing to do with the question we have under consideration. In my view, this proposal which is presented to us is a reasonable and a proper one to enter upon. We all know, at the outbreak of this War, how lamentably short we were of horses, and I should have liked those who are opposing this Vote to make inquiries, probably in their own markets, as to the amount of the immense sums the Government has spent in the compulsory purchases they have had to make. In every market throughout the country numbers of these horses have been sold for nominal sums after purchase for forty or fifty guineas. What is the proposal? It is that we are to have this exceedingly valuable stud, and the only thing is that it is to be purchased, and it is for that that we are asked to pay this money. Surely, in view of the great increase of motor traction in this country, it is essential for the Government to take some new step in order to provide themselves with the necessary horses for Cavalry, gun teams, and like purposes in case of any emergencies. It is in these circumstances that Colonel Hall Walker has offered his stud to the country.
    Sir F. CAWLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government appointed a Committee last year, since the War began, to look into all these matters, and that they did not recommend this purchase?
    Mr. HOHLER: Of course, I pay great respect to the Report of the Committee, but whether the members who sat on that Committee really knew what this was I am not informed. What we have to consider is not their Report, but this proposal. As I was saying, these horses are necessary to the country. Suppose this thing proves a failure, we have a valuable asset which the nation can sell and realise when it thinks fit. What is the loss we can possibly sustain? I quite agree that the hon. Member who has damned this proposal is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, who introduced it. I quite agree that his speech was not very apt, and I am not aware whether he has any knowledge of agriculture, or horses, or any-
    1664
    thing else. It is often the case that a Minister at that Table has the least knowledge of the subject he undertakes. With regard to this proposal, I certainly submit that it is most desirable that we should accept the gift. The land we are acquiring is, as I understand and am imformed, most valuable land, and is fully worth the price we are asked to pay. Meanwhile, we have the stud, and surely that in itself is an asset. Therefore, I am strongly in favour of the proposal. I am sure that unless we take this step for the nucleus of a breeding stud to be set up we shall never take it at all. No more favourable conditions could be proposed, and it seems to me that if we reject the Vote we are asked to pass at this time it will be merely because of that party below the Gangway who have on all occasions opposed every measure taken by the Government, but who ultimately, when driven to it, yield. They have always some case—labour, conscription, or something of that kind, and now they seek to take advantage of this measure proposed by the Government and fully considered by them. For my part I support it, and ask the House to support it also.
    Sir J. SPEAR: I am opposed to this Vote, not because I am against the Government for a moment—I count myself a loyal supporter of it—but because I believe it is a false step they propose to take in starting a racing career. I recognise the great importance of encouragement in the production of suitable horses by establishing the stud proposed in this step will make any gain in that direction. The Government have, I think wisely, secured and given assistance to the production of suitable sires throughout the country at King's premium, by which farmers can have access to suitable sires for the production of light horses for the Army in a way that will never be possible by establishing the stud proposed by this Vote. I am of opinion that the Government would have no difficulty whatever in securing horses for the Army if they would buy direct from the farmers, and pay prices that afford fair remuneration for the production of the animals. I feel that the farmer can produce horses more cheaply than the Government can. He can use the animals for a year or two to help him to cultivate the land, thereby securing maturity and stability and making them suitable for Army purposes. By the Government's help to the farmer in giving a premium on suitable horses I admit they

    1665
    have given great assistance to agriculture, and have taken a sane, businesslike step for providing animals for the Army. I am convinced, however, that this step will do nothing of the kind. It will promote the breeding of animals too delicate in their constitution, and too small in their bones, to be of any use whatever in producing stock that will be suitable for the Army. I admit the generosity of Colonel Hall Walker. We must all admit that as patriotic; and his motive is, no doubt, to promote the welfare of the country. I believe, however, that it is a perfectly useless step for the object the Government have in view, namely, the provision of horses for the Army. The class of animal that will win races is not the class of animal calculated to provide suitable horses for the Army. I am sorry the Government have taken the step they have. It was a tempting offer, but I believe they would better consider the provision of horses for the Army if they continued their policy of securing sires from King's premium, instead of spending so much money on this particular project. We all recognise the importance of the need of economy, and surely from that
    Resolutions reported,
    5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for His Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
    point of view there is no justification for the expenditure of this money on the present occasion. I object also to the scheme, because I do not think the Government ought to use their influence in promoting horse-racing. I know that horses can be raced without any infringement of moral law, but having regard to the fact that with horse-racing so much gambling is encouraged and promoted I think the Government should keep their hands clear from countenancing anything which would promote anything in that direction. I am, therefore, opposed to it on the ground that it is an unnecessary expenditure of money, and I am opposed to it because I do not believe for a moment that it will encourage an increase in the production in our own country, which is a very important matter, of horses suitable for the Army. I believe it will deter that rather than promote it. I think that the Government are ill-advised in the step they have taken, and I am opposed to the project from every point of view.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 20.

    Division No.1.]

    AYES.

    [10.17. p.m.

    Acland Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Shortt, Edward

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

    Brace, William

    M'Curdy, Charles Albert

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Watt, Henry A.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-Furness)

    Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

    Esmonde, Sir T. (Wexford, N.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Fisher. Rt. Hon. William Hayes

    Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Hewart, Gordon

    Radford, George Heynes

    Yeo, A. W.

    Hodge, John

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot.

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Rowlands, James

    NOES.

    Anderson, William C

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterb'gh)

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Byles, Sir Williams Pollard

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Campbell, Capt. D. F. (Ayr, N.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Winfrey, Sir R.

    Cawley, Sir Frederick

    King, Joseph

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Coote, William

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)

    Richards, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Davies, Timothy (Louth)

    Roch, Walter F.

    Hogge and Sir A. Markham.

    Fletcher, John S.

    Rowntree, Arnold

    Resolution agreed to.

    Resolutions reported,

    Class IV.
    6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salaries and Expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Millbank."

    Class V.
    7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £49,828, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for sundry Colonial Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid."
    8. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,847, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for making good the Net Loss on Transactions connected with the raising of Money for the various Treasury Chests Abroad in the year 1914–15."

    Class VI.
    9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,700, be granted to His Majesty to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses including certain Charitable and other Allowances. Great Britain."
    Resolutions agreed to.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS (STATUTORY COMMITTEE).
    Resolution reported,
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £414, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1916, for the Salary of the Vice-Chairman of the Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    Mr. HOGGE: I hope that the Government will get all these Supplementary Votes, but I think this is a case in which the House ought to exercise economy. When this Statutory Committee was being set up, the Chancellor of the Exchequer definitely stated, after this House had refused to pay a Chairman, and had agreed to pay a Vice-Chairman, that the salary should not be more than £1,500. On the Estimates that now appears really as £1,750, of which we are now voting £414. The arrangement is that the Vice-Chairman has been appointed for three years at £1,500 a year, with £250 extra, making £1,750, and this in view of the fact that he cannot have a pension. I submit
    1668
    that if a man has a three-years' engagement at £1,500 a year, no question of pension ought to enter into the matter at all. If this gentleman was going to be maintained as Vice-Chairman afterwards, then the question of a pension might arise, and if the particular occupant of this post is continued after the three-years' engagement, I think that would be the time to consider whether he should have a pension or not.
    I put on the Order Paper a notice to move a reduction because I thought it would be sufficient that the salary should be £1,000, and that we might allow the other £250, seeing that the President of the Local Government Board made a point of it. We could allow that to stand for the pension, and make the amount £1,250. This is a new post. It is not a very onerous one which demands the setting up of a pension scheme, the details of which are very well known to most Members of this House. I know that the Chairmen of some of our bigger permanent Boards are getting salaries of this kind, but it seems to me that we are in the throes of an attempt to economise, and when we are setting up a new post the position should be reviewed again in three years, when presumably the War will be over and we can then address ourselves to the question how much the nation can afford. For that work I think £1,000 a year is enough. You can get a thoroughly competent man for that sum, and I do not see why we should, under the present circumstances, incur a bigger salary. If the salary starts at £1,000, it will be easy for us to increase it, but you cannot do this if the salary begins at £1,750. This is an opportunity where we can economise if hon. Members will only show that they are willing to support us in these matters. If we economise in such matters as these, I think we shall find, before the allotted days for Supply are over, that we have been able to save something.
    Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to associate myself with my hon. Friend in protesting against this particular salary. At the time when the Bill was passing through this House the question of the salaries to be paid under it was raised both on the Committee and the Report stages of the Financial Resolution. I am not certain, but my recollection is that on that occasion the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), acting in his usual role, made a request for a limit to be placed upon the salaries to be

    1669
    paid under the Act. Ever since I came into this House the right hon. Baronet has pressed that claim on every Financial Resolution connected with any Act that was being passed. As a rule, he has been unsuccessful, but my recollection is that on that occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government did not contemplate paying more than £1,500. He mentioned the figure of £1,500 as a maximum, but as a matter of fact the intention of the Government was to make the commencing salary £1,000 and to leave the figure of £1,500 as a possible maximum to which the holder of the office could rise. That is my recollection of what passed in the House, and even in those days, when we did not hear so much of economy, the assurances which were then given had considerable effect upon the Members of the House. Now, however, without any warning, without any justification, and without any excuse, we have this Supplementary Estimate brought before the House indicating that the first Vice-chairman is to receive a salary of £1,750. Surely in these days, when we hear so much of economy, this was an opportunity of cutting down a salary? Surely some gentleman quite competent to discharge these duties could have been found who would have willingly undertaken the office for a less sum than £1,750?
    I do not wish to enter into any question as to what inducement had to be offered to the gentleman who has been appointed. Any such question, of course, is invidious, but I am certain that there are many gentlemen, both in the Civil Service and out of it, who would have been amply satisfied with a less salary than that which we are now being asked to vote. The right hon. Gentleman has given an explanation of the extra £250, but, after all, it is only a three years' appointment, and surely it is unnecessary in a temporary appointment to make any provision for superannuation purposes. We see no necessity for the £250 allowance for superannuation, and we think that it is absolutely unnecessary to go to the full extent of the maximum mentioned when the Bill was passing through the House. In these circumstances, unless something better is said than was said on the Committee stage, it may be necessary once more to put the House to the trouble of a Division. There are some superior people who think it is an act of high treason to divide this House during the period of the War. Apparently
    1670
    this Government can commit the most outrageous absurdities, and the only answer given is, "We are at war." When I passed through the Lobby I met a right hon. Gentleman who seemed to think it was a monstrous thing that we should be dividing on a question like a racing stud in the middle of a great war, but upon whom does the responsibility rest? Is not the monstrous thing that in the middle of a great war the Government should be making such preposterous proposals? It seems to me that the only check which we have upon the Government repeating these proposals and continuing this course is that when the opportunity offers Members of this House should divide against their proposals. That is the only way in which we can see that sanity is exercised in the administration of our finances. I am perfectly certain that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has some instincts for economy, does not in his heart approve of this thing. He has been chairman of the Retrenchment Committee, he has been one of the fleeting shadows that have passed across the chair. I do not know whether he was consulted about this or whether it came before the Retrenchment Committee which sat to consider the question of economy in the Civil Departments. Surely the question of the salary to be paid for this office might appropriately have been discussed by that Committee. It might have formed a subject of harmonious discussion, and on this question there probably would have been unanimity on that Committee. It is possibly because of the risk that the Committee would be unanimous that this question was never submitted to it. I am quite willing to wait and hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. If his explanation and defence are no better than the defence he gave at an earlier stage, then, as a protest against the grant of salaries of this description, it may be necessary to divide the House.
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): I am afraid I rise with little hope of satisfying the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, for I can add very little to what I said when the salary was attacked. What happened on that occasion? The Bill presented to the House as first framed enabled a salary to be paid both to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. A Debate took place on that matter, and, after considerable discussion on one or other of the stages of the Bill,

    1671
    we arrived at the conclusion that the power ought to be limited to paying a salary either to the Chairman or to the Vice-Chairman. The acceptance—most beneficial to the fund—of the Chairmanship by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales settled the question as to which of the two posts the salary should be paid. The Bill was passed enabling but one salary to be paid, and the salary went therefore to the Vice-Chairman. Many gentlemen undoubtedly would have been glad to have taken the post not only for £1,000 a year, but very likely for £500, but I do not say that those gentlemen would have been competent to discharge the duties. I wonder how much time the hon. Gentleman has spent in thinking over the kind of duties which will have to be performed by the Vice-Chairman of this very important body? The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) said that the duties would not be of an onerous description. I think I may really say that I have given as great a study to the question of the administration of pensions as anyone in this country. For fifteen years I served on the principal bodies engaged in the administration of pensions, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen I can conceive no duties more onerous and more continuous than those which ought to be discharged if this body is really going to give the satisfaction to the country which I hope it will do in administrating these supplementary pensions.
    Mr. HOGGE: It is quite true the Vice-Chairman will have these duties, but I am perfectly certain the right hon. Gentleman cannot assure this Committee that there will not be a great staff created with a secretary with large salaries. This man has a larger salary than my right hon. Friend, whom the House knows to be the better man in view of the great attention he has given to this whole question.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: At present not a single salaried officer has been appointed, as since we started the work in the middle of January we have carried it on with a staff lent us by the Royal Patriotic Fund. It is obvious if this House passes the Bill it will place £1,000,000 sterling at the disposal of the statutory body to be distributed and then its duties will become exceedingly onerous. They will have to be discharged certainly by a paid secretary and a paid accountant and a considerable staff of clerks, and I
    1672
    am convinced that the work of the Vice-Chairman in directing the operations of this body will be extremely onerous. They will have to administer not £1,000,000 or £2,000,000, but it may even be £5,000,000 sterling. We have no idea of the length of the War, of the enormous number of men who will go out, of the enormous number who will come back disabled, or of the enormous number of widows that will have to be provided for. I am confident that £5,000,000 of money may not suffice to carry on the work of this patriotic body if it is to perform its duties to the satisfaction of the public. Therefore any man who has to administer these funds and administers them satisfactorily must be a really first-class administrator and a man who will give the whole of his time to this work.
    The salary was fixed not by me. It was fixed, as it is bound to be under the Act, by the Treasury. It is quite true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned in this House, and I have no doubt that he did contemplate the sum of £1,500, but at the same time I am quite sure he had in his mind that this would be a pensionable office, as, indeed, most other offices of this kind are. Then it occurred to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in talking the matter over with the Treasury, that the gentleman who would take this position, Mr. Jackson, was not of pensionable age and would hardly be expected to contribute to a pension fund, and he was offered a sum of £250 a year in lieu of pension. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) said, "Oh, this is only an appointment for three years." This is an appointment for three years, it is quite true, but obviously Mr. Jackson in taking this appointment hopes that he will satisfy the body of which he is Vice-Chairman, that he will satisfy the country, and that he will be reappointed from time to time for further periods of three years. Obviously no man with Mr. Jackson's attainments and experience as an administrator would take an office of this kind for three years unless he thought he would satisfy the Committee of which he is Vice-Chairman and the country and that he would be reappointed. Therefore the question of pension does arise, because Mr. Jackson, like everybody else, would naturally expect to retire from his office after a certain number of years, perhaps at the age of sixty-five or whatever may be the age.
    Mr. HOGGE: What is his age?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: He is over fifty at any rate, and he would expect that. It is quite reasonable that if no pension were offered to him that some such sum as £250 a year should be offered to him in lieu of a pension. I can only express the hope that hon. Members will be satisfied with this explanation. I can make no other. It is a salary which has been fixed by the Treasury after full consideration, and I believe, looking at the fact that you have obtained a gentleman of first-class attainments as an administrator and with great experience both in the Civil Service and after he left the Civil Service in performing much voluntary work of a very wide character for the State in various ways, that you have obtained him at a salary which, even in these days when we all want economy, does not err on the side of generosity.
    Sir COURTENAY WARNER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's explanation is a very good one. The question of economy is a very serious one at the present time. A pledge was given distinctly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I was in the House at the time, that it would not amount to more than £1,500 a year, and it was generally understood at the time that it would be something less than that. When these pledges are given to the House I do not think it is quite fair for the Government to come forward afterwards and practically break them completely.
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: I hope the hon. Member does not accuse me of breaking a pledge. Perhaps he will refer to whoever it was who gave the pledge. I am quite confident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave no pledge.
    Sir C. WARNER: I withdraw the words "gave a pledge," and will substitute the words, "gave an assurance." In this House we have been accustomed to take the assurances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a pledge. It was a distinct assurance that this sum would not come to more than £1,500 a year at the outside. There was considerable feeling, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to it that the salary was to be something less. The only reason that has been given for the salary being more is that this fund was to be vastly increased. None of us at the time thought the fund was going to be limited to £1,000,000. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman thought so him-
    1674
    self. I think the right hon. Gentleman said in the Debate that it would be a great deal more than £1,000,000. Would it not be better when you are fixing a salary to fix it according to what you are proposing to do at the time? What will happen now will be that there will be great complaint. There is always complaint on the question of pensions from poor people who think they have been illtreated. They will point to the man at the head, and they will say, he is getting £1,750 a year, and you will not give me the 3s. or the 4s. a week, or whatever the sum is, that I ought to have. I think it is not only a mistake, but that after the assurances that were given to this House, that it is really verging on a breach of faith to propose this larger sum now. I do not wish to make any difficulties in time of war. None of us desires to make difficulties for the Government, but what we do say is that the Government ought to be economical, and that when Bills are brought in in this way, assurances ought not to be given if they do not intend to stick to them.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I think that the explanations which have been given from the Front Bench to-night are very far from being satisfactory. This is one more illustration of the sort of skeleton legislation that takes place in which the House of Commons writes a kind of blank cheque, hands it over to the Government, and allows the Government to fill it up just as it thinks fit. We have had a good deal of that kind of legislation, and very often we have had assurances, guarantees, and smooth words from Ministers whilst the legislation was going through the various stages, but their tone changes, and very often their method changes when they get the Bill through and there is no longer any need for using these smooth words and phrases. The hon. Member (Sir Courtenay Warner) said very truly that the purpose of setting up this Committee is to see that pensions are going to be levelled up as far as many of these poor people are concerned. The first step taken is to set up a paid office. In a time like this, when there is every need for real economy, they set up a paid office at £1,750 a year. That is a salary which was never contemplated by this House when this Act was going through. I think that the salary is altogether too high, and I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that he thinks it is doubtful whether

    1675
    people with ability in this country would have been willing to do this work for, say, £700 or £1,000 a year. I am quite sure that many people of real worth and ability, and commanding general confidence, could have been found willing to do this work in this way. I know very little about Mr. Jackson from the standpoint of his experience and work of this character. I know he is the Moderate leader of the London County Council, and it is only in that connection that I know his name, but I should like to ask, if this enterprise is going to absorb so much of his time, what is he giving up in other directions? What part of his other work is he giving up? Is he giving up his work on the County Council itself?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Yes.
    Mr. ANDERSON: I am glad to get that because that in itself would mean for many Members sixty or seventy hours a week hard work. I am very glad that is being done, and that to a large extent his whole time will be given up to this work. We come back to the question of the salary itself. I think it is too high, and I am quite sure that again and again, when poor people find it difficult to get a pension of a few shillings a week, the matter will be raised that the Vice-President of the Society commands a salary of £1,750 a year. There is bound to be, side by side with that, a large salaried staff gradually built up round this man. The work cannot be done otherwise. You cannot handle £5,000,000 of money without building up a large salaried staff, and in regard to so many questions of this sort you always get the idea that round the doing of charitable things you build up vested interests, you build up large salaried interests that become in themselves a danger very often to the object they have at heart. From that standpoint the start is a very bad start. The salary is far too high, and side by side with the amount of the salary paid there ought to be a larger claim made upon the patriotic endeavour of the man who is willing to do that, because I am quite sure there were many people from the standpoint of doing good to the soldiers, the wives of the soldiers, and the children of the soldiers, who would have been willing at a far more reasonable salary than that to have done
    1676
    the work efficiently and well, and I am sorry the matter should have been fixed in the way it has been.
    Mr. WILES: I desire to ask my right hon. Friend whether Mr. Jackson is receiving any pension as a retired Civil servant?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: No; he is receiving no pension. He was a Civil servant for many years. He was Chief Inspector of the Board of Education, and also Education Minister in Australia, but from neither post, or from any other source, has he any pension of any kind.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I raised that very point when I raised this question in Committee, and I am very glad to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that there is no pension attached to the previous post he occupied. From my point of view, I think he was more entitled to a pension for his services under the Education Department than he is in accepting a post for three years. It seems to me that the position of the Government in this matter is very curious. They are preaching economy all over the place, at the Guildhall and elsewhere, and here is a post which I deny they took proper precautions to see that they could get the right man before they appointed the leader of the Moderate party in the London County Council. I presume the Secretary to the Treasury accepts the responsibility for the appointment, because my right hon. Friend says it is a matter for the Treasury. Does he assure the House that after full and complete investigation he came to the conclusion that it was impossible to get a man to fill this place adequately at less than £1,750 a year? If he gives us that assurance, which I shall be surprised to receive, I shall be greatly disappointed, because I am certain you could at present get a man for a less sum than we are going to pay this gentleman. It is the touchstone of the policy of the Government. Whenever it comes to a good job going there is always a substantial salary attached to it, and all their fine precepts are thrown to the winds. In the ordinary course I would not say a word about a salary of this kind, but we are living now when every penny is supposed to count, and the Government refuse to do anything for the poor people with a 5s. a week pension, which is now worth about 2s. 6d. They cannot find a farthing

    1677
    for them, but they appoint someone for three years at £1,750 a year. I think it is too much. How much did the gentleman have at the Board of Education? I asked that before. If I am rightly informed it was only a few hundred pounds. I think that the Government ought to have been prepared to tell us that. I venture to think that the amount was not over £400. Then he served as leader and active organiser of the Moderate party in the London County Council, and immediately he jumps up to £1,750. I think that the Treasury had better say very little in future about economy. This is only one of the things which the Treasury have passed. Personally, I am getting tired of hearing their fine precepts when I see the example which they are putting before us from time to time, and I do not think the people of the country will accept the platitudes of the Government in bringing forward a proposal of this kind. I am certain that they could have got a man at a much smaller salary. There was a distinct understanding in this House that the salary would be £1,500. You cannot burn the OFFICIAL REPORT. You cannot get away from it by saying now that they did not think at the time that there would be no question of a pension. A pension for a man appointed for three years! The thing is ridiculous. Let them consider it in three years' time and give him the £1,500 which the Government promised across the floor of the House. I repeat, I think, that the Government are paying too high a salary in this case.
    Remaining Resolutions to be considered To-morrow.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this appointment after considering a large number of other men and believing this to be the best appointment. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in no way influenced one way or the other by the fact that this gentleman had been connected with the London County Council. He was chosen on his merits. The salary was fixed by reference to analogous positions in the Civil Service. The salary for similar positions, as far as I could judge, was £1,500 a year. Then came the question whether it was proposed that the position should be pensionable or not. Speaking for myself, I for one would very much regret that a reputable man of considerable standing should have a temporary appointment without making some provision for a pension afterwards when the appointment comes to an end. It leads to all sorts of difficulties, unless you have made arrangements as to whether the position is or is not to be pensionable. In reference to the question of retrenchment, I may point out that the Retrenchment Committee considered this particular case and came to the conclusion, and it is a notorious fact, that the Civil Service of this country is one of the cheapest and lowest-paid services in the world for the work that is done.
    Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Comimttee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 12.

    Division No. 2.]

    AYES.

    [10.59. p.m.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.

    Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Bridgeton)

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Jones, Leif (Rushcliffe)

    Shortt, Edward

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Strauss, E. A. (Southwark)

    Brace, William

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Millar, James Duncan

    Wilkie, Alexander

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

    Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

    Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham)

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

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. William Hayes

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E.

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Richards, Thomas

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Hewart, Gordon

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. M'Kinnon (G'sgow)

    Hodge, John

    Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Robinson, Sidney

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Gulland and Lord E. Talbot.

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Rowntree, Arnold

    NOES.

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Watt, Henry A.

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirk'dy)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Wiles, Thomas

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Roch, Walter F.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Rowlands, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    King, Joseph

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.

    Hogge and Mr. Anderson.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY WAR PENSIONS (EXPENSES)—(CONSOLIDATED FUND).
  Committee to consider of authorising the Charge on the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may become payable under any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of a Grant-in-Aid of the funds at the disposal of the Statutory Committee constituted under the Naval and Military War Pensions, etc., Act, 1915, and for payments by Local Authori-
  1680
  ties in aid of the Expenses of Local and District Committees under that Act.
  (King's Recommendation signified) tomorrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]
  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."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.