Commons Sitting of 24 May 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

SINKING FUNDS.
Account presented of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, showing the amount received and applied in the year ended 31st March, 1916, in respect of the Old and New Sinking Funds [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 81.]
HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
Copy presented of Diary of Viscount Percival, in the Manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont. Vol. I. [by Command]; 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.
Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—
National Insurance Act, 1911 (Part II.), Account. — Account showing the nature and amount of the securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt at 31st March, 1916, as investments for moneys, forming part of the Unemployment Fund, paid over to them by the Board of Trade under Section 92 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 82.]
Supreme Court (Rules).—Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court (Poor Persons), 1914, Amendment, 1916, dated 24th May, 1916 [by Act].
Supreme Court (Rules).—Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court (Friendly Societies Act Rules), 1916, dated 24th May, 1916 [by Act].
Supreme Court (Rules).—Copy of Rules of the Supreme Court (Industrial and Provident Societies Acts Rules), 1916, dated 24th May, 1916 [by Act].

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    GERMAN DYES (EXPORT).
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have issued licences for the export from Germany to the United States of America of $5,000,000 worth of dyes, part of a shipment which may reach $30,000,000; and, if so, will he say why such licence was issued, seeing that this export must financially assist Germany?
    Sir J. LONSDALEasked if the British Government has been asked to allow a safe passage for 15,000 tons of dye-stuffs sold by Germany to the United States on condition that none of it is re-exported to Great Britain or her Allies; and what reply has been returned to this request?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): The answer to both these questions is in the negative. Negotiations took place in April of 1915 in reference to two cargoes of dye-stuffs which His Majesty's Government were then willing to allow to be exported, but this offer was not taken advantage of, and must now be considered to have lapsed, and we so informed the American Government in a dispatch dated 22nd April of this year. We have since received a fresh proposal with reference to the export of dye-stuffs from the American Government. No reply has yet been sent to this proposal.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Is the Noble Lord aware that Germany's object is to improve

    2073
    her exchange with America, and is it to our interest that she should be allowed to do so?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have very little doubt that what my hon. Friend says is accurate, and that that is the object of the German application for the export of these dye-stuffs. Unquestionably it is not to our interest to allow that to take place, and I will bear that consideration very carefully in mind in any reply sent to the American Government.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the Noble Lord give an assurance to the House that that permission shall not be granted?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think it would be courteous to the United States to give any assurance to the House about any reply sent to them, certainly until we have actually sent it, but I can assure my hon. Friend what he says and what is the general feeling of the House will be borne in mind in any reply that is sent.

    BRITISH DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE, MEXICO.
    Mr. FELLasked if the Government have any Diplomatic representative in Mexico at the present time?
    Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Diplomatic representative in Mexico is Mr. Hohler, Chargé d'Affaires.
    Mr. FELL: Is he at Vera Cruz or Mexico?
    Lord R. CECIL: I should not like to answer that definitely, but I think at Mexico, though I am not quite sure.

    AFFIDAVITS (CEYLON).
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action was taken by Sir Robert Chalmers, Governor of Ceylon, now Under-Secretary for Ireland, on the affidavit made before a magistrate at Colombo last September, by Jayasuriya Aratchige Sobo Nona Hamine, that she herself had witnessed English soldiers, on the morning of 5th June, 1915, shoot her husband and another native on their own land at Kalagedihena, where there had been no disturbance, and that for seven hours no one ventured to remove the bodies for fear of getting shot; if the
    2074
    facts are denied, what did the two men suddenly die of; and whether in Ceylon magistrates are free to administer false affidavits, and proctors to register them, setting forth facts amounting primâ facie to murder without any consequences following?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Harcourt): I am not aware what action, if any, the Governor took on this affidavit, and I have no reason to believe that the facts are as represented.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether there is any restriction at all on what would be perjury if this affidavit is false—whether there is any restriction at all upon perjury in Ceylon?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am not in a position to give that information. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down any further question to my right hon. Friend.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    MILITARY ACTION IN DUBLIN.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will give the text of the order under which, in certain streets in Dublin, during and after the recent insurrection, the military fired on all persons indiscriminately, whether combatant or not, entered all the houses, drove out all the male occupants, and fired on them when out; and if he will say what was the purpose of this order?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Tennant): No such order was ever given, and I have previously informed the House that every care was taken to secure the safety of women and children.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that, order or no order, the action described in the question was taken?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is certainly not in accordance with the information that reached me.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he will state the number of men, women, and children shot, fatally and otherwise, while crossing the drawbridge at Great Brunswick Street, Dublin, during the insurrection by the

    2075
    military from the belfry of St. Mary's Church, Haddington Road, and from Beggarsbush Barrack; what was the object of concentrating on that bridge, where there were no armed men and no fighting; whether he has got a report on the case of Mrs. Naylor, shot on the bridge; of a doctor wearing a white coat and Red Cross armlet fired upon by the military when he ran to her assistance; of civilians waving white handerchiefs to be allowed to assist her being fired upon by the military; of her lying on the bridge in agony for five hours; of her death on reaching Sir Patrick Dunn's Hospital, where two men at the risk of their lives had carried her; and whether the military have prevented any inquiry into this and the other casualties on that bridge?
    Mr. TENNANT: It is difficult to identify the locality mentioned, but it is impossible to give the number of persons shot in this or any other particular locality during the rebellion. No report of the occurrences stated to have taken place has been received.
    Mr. GINNELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any account at all of the killing of Mrs. Naylor?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir.

    EXECUTIONS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War, in view of the promise given by the military authorities in Dublin to Mrs. Sean MacDermott that the body of her husband would be given to her after his execution, and of the comfort this was to both of them, will he say why that promise was not kept and the body was instead buried in quicklime at the place of execution?
    Mr. TENNANT: This promise was never given.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number and nature of the wounds which James Connolly when he surrendered was found to have sustained; whether the military authorities first decided that he should not be tried until his wounds were healed; whether on the surgeon reporting that Mr. Connolly was dying of his wounds they tried him; whether, being too ill to walk to or stand for his execution, he had to be carried on a stretcher to the place of execution, propped up in a chair there,
    2076
    and shot in that condition; and if he will give the date and place of any precedent for the summary execution of a military prisoner dying of his wounds?
    Mr. TENNANT: The hon. Member will see that this question raises a large number of points of detail, and he will not consider it unreasonable that I am not yet in a position to reply.
    Mr. GINNELL: Seeing that this question has been long on the Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman say the earliest day upon which he can answer it? Clearly he is not in a position to deny it.
    Mr. TENNANT: I neither deny nor affirm. I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend the information as to what the earliest day will be. I am asking for answers to all these questions at as early a date as possible.
    Mr. GINNELLasked whether the late Mr. Sean MacDermott, while in prison, including the night between sentence and execution, was confined in a cell without bed or stretcher of any kind,, with no clothing but what he were on his body, except two extremely small light blankets; whether he had to wrap his boots in one of these to form a pillow; why the priest he specially desired to attend him was not sent for; and whether in all these particulars this was the treatment of all those executed?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not in a position to answer this question.

    STATEMENTS BY WOUNDED NON-COMBATANTS
    Mr. GINNELLasked, seeing that all the wounded non-combatant civilians in the Dublin hospitals have maintained throughout that they have been wounded by the military and not by the Irish forces, whether depositions on this point have been taken from those of them who have died of their wounds; and whether two non-military persons, such as clergymen or magistrates, will be appointed to take the depositions on this point of those who still live?
    Mr. TENNANT: The assumption made in this question is not according to facts. There is no reason to make any further arrangements than those now obtaining. Every endeavour is being made to discover the truth or otherwise of statements made by wounded non-combatants.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why the Government shrink from asking these sick people in hospital by whom they were wounded?
    Mr. TENNANT: On the contrary, there is no shrinking at all. Every endeavour is being made to ascertain what actually did occur.

    REBELS' TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.
    Mr. GINNELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the attention of General Maxwell has been directed to the statement of Private William Richardson, 6th Connaught Rangers, of the treatment he and a dozen others received while prisoners in the hands of the Irish Volunteers by direction of P. H. Pearce, The O'Rahilly, and Thomas Clarke, Volunteer officers; whether that statement and an equally impartial one of General Maxwell's treatment of Volunteer prisoners may be sent to America; and whether he can guarantee that Private Richardson will not be punished for giving a true account of his experience?
    Mr. TENNANT: General Maxwell is aware of the statement made of the treatment received by soldiers while prisoners in the hands of the rebels. Private Richardson will not be punished for any such statement he may have made. Consent cannot be given for any statement being sent to America.

    ARRESTS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked why Councillor Patrick Mahon, national director of the Harbour Division of Dublin, was arrested, and why he is being detained; if there is any charge against him, and when he will be allowed to take his trial or release; and if he is aware that Patrick Mahon is a prominent and respected member of the official Nationalist organisation, and is now in custody without trial for the past seventeen days?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have received information that the trial of Patrick Mahon opened on Monday last, and that his solicitor was furnished with particulars of the charge against him. I have not heard whether the court-martial has been concluded nor what has been the result.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is this charge in connection with the rising, and, if so, will there be a court-martial?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, I imagine that is so. The trial is by court-martial, as I have stated.
    Mr. BYRNE: If it is not in connection with the rising, will it be a civil trial?
    Mr. TENNANT: As I understand the matter, it is in connection with the rising, and so I do not think that question arises.
    Mr. W. O'BRIENasked whether Thomas O'Driscoll, of Round Hill, Bandon, was arrested on 8th May, not being charged with any offence or found in possession of any firearms or ammunition; whether he has since been deported to Dublin or to England, and, if so, why he is detained and when and where he will be brought to trial; and whether, having regard to the fact that he took no part whatever in any disturbance of the public peace and is the sole support of his father, who is over seventy years of age, immediate inquiry will be made into his case?
    Mr. TENNANT: This question only appeared on the Paper yesterday morning, and it has been impossible to obtain the information to answer it. I would appeal to hon. Members from Ireland to allow a somewhat longer interval; it is quite impossible to obtain information if only the ordinary interval is allowed.
    Mr. O'BRIEN: I quite agree, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember that in certain cases I have asked questions fully a fortnight ago, and I have received no answer yet.
    Mr. TENNANT: I quite appreciate that fact, and I am endeavouring to rectify it.
    Mr. SCANLANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the fact that fifteen natives of Cliffoney, county Sligo, were arrested and taken from their homes by the military without warrant and have now been lodged in a detention prison at Wandsworth; whether any, and, if so, what charge has been made against them; whether they are to be put on trial forthwith or else liberated; whether he is aware that these men bear the character of being all of them respectable and law-abiding citizens, and that it is well known to the police and military that they were in no way connected with the recent disturbances in Dublin or anywhere else; and, seeing that such action as the imprisonment and deportation of those men is calculated to exasperate the feelings of the people in

    2079
    the district and bring the law and the Government into contempt, will he say what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. TENNANT: This question appeared on the Paper yesterday morning only. I would ask my hon. Friend to allow more time.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Who is responsible for the detention of men arrested in Ireland and deported to prisons either in this country or Scotland against whom no charge has been preferred? Is it Sir John Maxwell or the Prime Minister?
    Mr. TENNANT: Under the Constitution of this country all officials are under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman will see that the Government of Ireland must be subject to the supreme control of this country.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men are not such desperate rebels as he imagines? Some seventy of them were recently drilling on my ground, and when requested by my gamekeeper, who was alone, moved peacefully away.
    Mr. SCANLAN: What steps are being taken by the Government to investigate the circumstances of men like those referred to in the question, who have committed no offence, and who are brought to prisons in this country without any charge being preferred against them? Who is going to investigate them? Is it Sir John Maxwell or the Government?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must give notice of that series of questions.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Under-Secretary of State for War on what ground Miss Kathleen Brown was arrested in Wexford on 4th May, and since detained in four different prisons; whether, with eleven other women, she was served on 20th May in Mountjoy Gaol with a deportation order to be interned in England without any trial or any charge being made against her; will some responsible person be asked to examine into her case; and, if the Government are satisfied that she has been guilty of no offence whatever, can she be allowed to return to her home? As this young lady had been guilty of the crime of performing at the Abbey Theatre, of which Mr. Birrell was so fond, perhaps the Government will be able to see their way to release her?
    Mr. TENNANT: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that if this lady is guilty of no offence whatever she will be released without delay, under instructions already given.
    Mr. NOLANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can give the number of men arrested under martial law in South Louth subject to the recent disturbances in Ireland; how many of them have been already released; and whether he will cause an immediate investigation into the cases of those who are still under detention, and who state they can prove that they were at home attending to their business from the date of the outbreak till the time of their arrest?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not in possession of the information to answer the first two parts of the question. As regards the last part, all cases will be investigated with all dispatch.
    Since this answer was drafted I have received some correspondence from my hon. Friend bearing on this matter. I am much obliged to him for this, but I have not yet had time to study it.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the majority of the prisoners deported from Ireland took no part whatever in the actual rebellion and have not so far had any charge preferred against them, they will be allowed the use of cigarettes and tobacco if sent to them by their friends?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid that I do not see my way to accept the view stated in the first part of the question. As regards the latter part, I will have the matter considered.
    The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. FLAVIN:—
    80. To ask the Under-Secretary of State for War on what grounds James M'Elligott, clerk in the Local Government Board, Dublin, has been arrested and deported to England; whether this young man has an unimpeachable character; whether James M'Elligott's mother's health is in a precarious condition as a result of her son's arrest and deportation, and that she cannot get any information about her son; and whether his release will be ordered at once?
    Mr. FLAVIN: I have been asked to postpone this question, but may I ask the

    2081
    right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the members of the family of this boy came from Ireland lately to see him, but were denied the right of seeing their own son? The boy is now in gaol for thirty-one days and has had no trial.
    Mr. TENNANT: I will, of course, see that the relatives are allowed to visit their son if my hon. Friend will give me the names.

    TEADE UNION MOVEMENT.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to receive a deputation of the trade union movement, to hear their views as to the cause of the dissatisfaction in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I shall be very glad to consider any representations which the hon. Member, and those for whom he speaks, care to make to me in writing, but I fear I cannot undertake to receive deputations representing the various views and interests of parties in Ireland.

    TERMS OF AGREEMENT.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Prime Minister whether, as a result of his visit to Ireland, any terms of agreement have been settled that will ensure peace and good will between all classes in Great Britain and Ireland; and, if so, will he order the immediate trial or release of the Irish prisoners who have been deported?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the general statement I shall make to-morrow.

    COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed unanimously by the Limerick Board of Guardians at their meeting on the 17th May, expressing their opinion that on the Committee of Inquiry appointed to investigate into the matters in connection with the late attempt to establish an Irish Republic it should not alone have included in its personnel some member possessing the confidence of the majority of the Irish people, but that the scope of its authority should be widened so as to enable it to investigate the treatment meted out to Irish men and women by the military authorities both during the rebellion and since the establishment of martial law, and that it should deal with the Irish question
    2082
    for some years past; and, if so, will he say whether he has taken any action in the matter to meet their wishes?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part of the question, I certainly do not think that these matters can properly be inquired into by Lord Hardinge's Commission.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime Minister whether the terms of reference of the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Hardinge empower the Commissioners to hold part of their inquiry in secret; whether an assurance was given before the appointment of the Commission that its proceedings would be held in public; and whether, in view of the fact that the Press and public are being excluded from important parts of the proceedings, he will amend the terms of reference of this Royal Commission so as to ensure that no further part of its proceedings will be held behind closed doors?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; the Commission has absolute discretion as to whether its sittings should be held in public or in private, and I do not intend to interfere with this discretion.

    SHOOTING OF MR. SHEEHY-SKEFFINGTON.
    Mr. T. M. HEALYasked the Prime Minister when the promised public inquiry into the death of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington is to be held; and whether the deaths of Messrs. Dixon and M'Intyre will also form the subject of a public inquiry, as the three are alleged to have been shot together?
    Mr. DEVLINasked whether any and, if so, what steps have been taken in connection with the inquiry which he promised into the circumstances surrounding the shooting of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington; who will constitute the Court of Inquiry; whether the proceedings will be public; whether any provision will be made to have the relatives of Mr. Sheehy-Skeffington represented at the inquiry; and whether, meantime, the military officer or officers concerned in the shooting have been placed under arrest?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think it is clear that this inquiry cannot take place until the conclusion of the court-martial, which is being or is about to be held on the officers concerned.

    ULSTER VOLUNTEERS.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether the guns imported from Germany to arm the Ulster Volunteers, in 1914, are still in private possession; and, if so, can he state for what purpose they are held?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As far as I know the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no special knowledge which is not common to the whole world to enable me to answer the second part of the question.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is it proposed that disarmament should take place throughout Ireland.
    The PRIME MINISTER: That is a question which can hardly be dealt with across the floor of the House in this way.

    RELEASE OF PRISONERS.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the late Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland that a contributory cause of the rebellion was the gun-running of the Ulster Volunteers and the preparation to set up a provisional government; and, in view of the fact that those responsible have not been prosecuted, will he take steps to secure the immediate release of all prisoners arrested in connection with the rebellion who are not charged with the commission of acts of violence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I cannot give the undertaking asked for in the second part of the question, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are taking all possible steps to secure that no innocent person should be detained a moment longer than, is necessary to establish his innocence.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the persons against whom no charge has been preferred be now released?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We are taking every possible step in that direction.
    Mr. GINNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the men against whom no charge has been preferred will be given an opportunity of proving their innocence?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They are being released day by day.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Are there not men who were arrested a month ago, against whom no charge has been made, who have not been put on their trial and whose friends are denied the right to see them? What action is going to be taken in regard to them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: These cases are being dealt with as quickly as possible. The desire of the Government is as strong as that of anybody that no man should be detained a moment longer than is absolutely necessary.
    Mr. SCANLAN: With regard to the Sligo prisoners, will the right hon. Gentleman see the hon. Member for Black-pool, who knows the constituency?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that 150 cases are being investigated daily.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Prime Minister whether he will order the immediate revision of the lists of Irish prisoners with a view to the release of those who had no connection with the disturbances in Dublin?
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime Minister whether he will order the immediate release of all deported prisoners from Ireland who are under the age of eighteen years and against whom no proceedings by trial are pending?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot give the undertakings asked for in the question, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the authorities are, under the instructions of the Government, actively revising the list of the prisoners with a view to ensuring that no innocent persons should be unnecessarily detained.
    Mr. DEVLIN: May I ask whether the Irish Volunteers, who took no part in the disturbances, are included?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Prime Minister whether printed forms on which release may be claimed have been issued only to those deported prisoners from Ireland who have stated that they had no connection whatever with the Irish Volunteer movement; whether he is aware that in various parts of Ireland large numbers of Irish Volunteers had no knowledge whatever that any rebellion was contemplated, and took no part whatever

    2085
    therein; and whether the printed forms will be supplied to prisoners in this position?
    Mr. TENNANT: Forms have been issued to all prisoners who claim that their arrest was a mistake, and who state that they are not in any way connected with the rebellion or with the organisation which was responsible for it.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Who decides whether these persons are properly deported or imprisoned? Is it General Maxwell?
    Mr. TENNANT: The investigation is at present being carried on by the military authorities in Dublin.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Will these forms be issued to the Irish Volunteers, who had no connection with the rising, seeing that the organisation has only been declared illegal since the rebellion?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, I will see that the forms are issued to them.

    DUBLIN UNIONISTS' REPORT.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that Lord Midleton forwarded to the Irish Government some time ago a Report on the state of Ireland drawn up by a number of Unionists in Dublin; and whether, in view of the fact that Lord Midleton declined to give the names of these persons to the Hardinge Commission, he will now communicate them to the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question I have no knowledge whatever of these names.
    Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say whether those parts of the evidence which have been given in secret will be communicated to the Members of the House?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I must consult the Commission on that subject. The members are their own masters in the matter of procedure, and they are an absolutely independent body.
    Mr. DILLON: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. Is it just that evidence given in which the names of Members of this House may be implicated should be kept from the knowledge of hon. Members?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think it will be. I will communicate with the chairman.

    LISTS AND TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Prime Minister whether he will have published a complete list of the places where the Irish prisoners are interned, the names of the prisoners in each place, and the regulations as to letters, parcels, and visits from their friends and relations?
    Mr. TENNANT: Lists of the names of the Irish prisoners have appeared in the Irish papers, and these state, I think, the place of internment. Regulations as to letters, parcels, and visits from friends and relatives were published in the Irish papers early last week, were read out by me in this House on Thursday last and appeared in all the English papers on Friday last. I will ask the Press to reprint the communiqué of Friday last.
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state how it is proposed to deal with the prisoners deported from Ireland; and whether they are to be kept on in the various detention barracks, in separate cells and denied all intercourse with each other, or whether, pending any decision as to their future treatment, they will be allowed the ordinary facilities extended to prisoners of war?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet, though I hope very soon to be, in a position to answer the first part of the question. The prisoners are, I am informed, except in a very few cases, allowed intercourse with one another, and I understand that they are allowed the ordinary facilities extended to prisoners of war.

    SEARCHES FOR ARMS.
    Mr. DEVLINasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that house searchings continue to take place and arrests to be made in districts in Ireland where no disturbance has taken place; that many men have been arrested who have had no connection whatever with the disturbances; that these arrests are being made under every circumstance of indignity and outrage; that the conditions of imprisonment of these men, and of the prisoners generally, are degrading; that no charge has been preferred against many of the prisoners; that the continuance of this system is exasperating public opinion in

    2087
    Ireland and producing an atmosphere charged with danger and menace to public order and peace; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Most of the suggestions made in the question do not accord with my information. If the hon. Gentleman has specific cases in view I shall be glad if he will furnish me with particulars. The prison treatment of those who are under arrest is not, I believe, the subject of any serious complaint. Every effort is being made to accelerate the release of innocent persons.
    Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether now, even at this eleventh hour, he will undertake to put a stop to the system of marching troops into peaceable districts and making wholesale arrests in counties and districts where the population remained perfectly peaceful and loyal throughout the whole insurrection, and even stood by the Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think wholesale arrests or anything deserving that description have been made. There has been a certain amount of searching for arms, but as to the marching of troops, I think it is popular.
    Mr. DILLON: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to inquire whether it is popular to march troops into a district, surround houses, and search them in the dead of night for arms. Innumerable cases have been brought to my attention of people who were absolutely loyal being thus treated in districts in which no disturbance was even attempted. It has been done in hundreds of cases.
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is very difficult, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for me to deal with general allegations, but if specific cases are sent to me I will undertake that rigorous and most careful inquiries shall be instituted.
    Mr. J. MacVEAGH: What was the object of deporting nine or ten ladies to England?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. DEVLIN: Is it not the case that, after the right hon. Gentleman left Ireland, the deportations were resumed and large numbers of people were sent over—400 in one day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure whether it is the case. Undoubtedly some people have been deported, but I took care, when I was in Dublin and Cork, to ensure there should be no unnecessary delay in inquiring into these cases. There has been a combing out, and in cases where there are found to be no reasonable grounds for suspicion the prisoners are at once sent home.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: They might have left the girls alone.

    ARRESTED MEN (SUPPLY OF CLOTHING).
    Mr. LUNDONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any provision has been made for the supply of clothing to the Irish prisoners of war at Wandsworth, Knutsford, Stafford, and Wakefield, in view of the fact that most of these prisoners had to leave Ireland without an opportunity of bringing anything with them?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir; arrangements have been made for the issue of clothing in all cases of necessity.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    ENGLISHMEN IN JERSEY AND GUERNSEY.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any information that a number of Englishmen have recently gone to Jersey and Guernsey and enlisted in the militia for the purpose of escaping military service; and can he say how many men have enlisted in the militia forces who were not resident in the islands prior to the War.
    Mr. TENNANT: Inquiry is being made.

    RECRUITS FROM SOUTH AFRICA.
    Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he has any information that a number of South Africans have come to this country who served throughout the South-West African campaign for the purpose of enlisting in the Armies here; whether the War Office insist that these men should be treated in the same way as raw recruits taken in this country; whether he is aware that for this reason a number of South Africans who have patriotically come to

    2089
    assist the Mother Country refuse to surfer this indignity; and will he make immediate inquiry into the matter?
    Mr. TENNANT: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 8th May, and I would add that arrangements have been made to deal with these men at the Central Recruiting Office. They will be posted to battalions of the Rifle Brigade. It has been settled that those with former training and experience shall, if fitted, be placed in squads in the more advanced stages of training.

    IRISH MIGRATORY LABOURERS.
    Mr. DORISasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Patrick M'Cann, of Manulla, county Mayo, a migratory labourer, who came to England on 29th January, 1916, was arrested at Birkenhead on 2nd May instant, and charged at Birkenhead Borough Police Court with having failed to register on 15th August, 1915, when he was at home in Ireland, and with being an absentee from His Majesty's Army on 1st March, 1916; and that the accused was convicted and fined on both charges and handed over to the military authorities, who have placed him in the Reserve Battalion, 3rd Monmouth Regiment, although evidence that he was at home in Ireland from Christmas, 1914, to 29th January, 1916, was not disputed, and his English employer, a milk purveyor, deposed that the employment was only temporary; and will steps be taken to have the fines remitted and to have this Irish migratory labourer, who has not been ordinarily resident in Great Britain, discharged from military service?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am sending the hon. Member a letter about this case, and, as there is a long list of questions to-day addressed to me, I will ask him to be good enough to accept a reply by letter.
    Mr. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make it clear with regard to Irish migratory labourers under what conditions they can safely come to this country?
    Mr. TENNANT: I quite agree that it is a very important question. I understand that in the case mentioned in the question the man has been resident in Birkenhead for three or four years.
    Mr. DORIS: Is it not a fact that he was in Ireland from Christmas, 1914, to a month before his arrest?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am afraid that I cannot answer off-hand that question. Probably the material which the hon. Member is asking for is contained in the answer which I am going to send to him.

    MEDICALLY REJECTED MEN.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked whether instructions were issued by him prior to the 18th April that Private Jack Bannister, of 11, Chippingham Street, Attercliffe, Sheffield, a medically rejected lad who had been forced into the Army, should obtain his discharge; and whether these instructions have been carried out?
    Mr. TENNANT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat this question. I have not yet been able to ascertain whether any instructions were issued.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether rejected men who attest before 7th June will thereby render themselves liable to be called up before the date on which they would become liable if they refrained from attesting, namely, 1st September?
    Mr. TENNANT: If a rejected man voluntarily attests, and on examination by a medical board is found fit for military service, he would be called up in the ordinary way according to his group. If he is found unfit for military service, he would not be called upon for service with the Colours.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked why it has been decided to increase the number of men medically unfit in the Army by suspending the check of examination by regimental medical officers when men join second-line units; how long must a man have been in training before the regimental medical officer is allowed to examine him except for infectious disease; and when a man breaks down under training and is sent to hospital, may medical examination then take place?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no limitation to the examination of soldiers by their regimental medical officers when it is necessary in the interests of the men's health.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Do I understand that the statement made on this question last

    2091
    week has been rescinded and that these recruits on joining can be examined by the medical officers of the units?
    Mr. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, when it is considered necessary.
    Mr. ASHLEY: By whom?
    Mr. TENNANT: By the medical officer of the battalion.

    OVERSEAS UNITS.
    Mr. THEODORE TAYLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that boys who are not yet seventeen years of age are still being sent overseas if certified by the medical officer as up to the standard of eighteen and a half years and fit for service abroad; and whether he will give instructions that boys under seventeen are not to be sent abroad?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have many times stated what the rules are on this matter, and in particular in answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn on the 2nd November, 1915. If boys under seventeen are discovered in units overseas they are sent back to England.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked what are the terms of the Army Order which protects officers serving overseas from losing seniority of rank in comparison with officers who join overseas battalions from Reserve Service battalions and from Second and Third Line Territorial battalions when these officers were commissioned or promoted at dates later than officers now serving overseas?
    Mr. TENNANT: There is no Army Order on this subject. Nothing but a universal roster for promotion can absolutely make certain that officers will not on occasion obtain further promotion in a Home unit than in one doing duty overseas.

    MEDICAL RE-EXAMINATIONS (CLASSES TO BE ELIMINATED).
    Mr. HOGGEasked the nature of the instructions which the Government propose to send to recruiting officers regarding rejected men; and whether he can give any indication of the kind of certificate which is recorded in the military register as exempting from re-examination?
    Mr. TENNANT: The following classes of men will not be summoned for reexamination medically:—

    (a) Those who are recorded in the military register as having been rejected at the primary military examination.

    (b) Those who are recorded in the military register as having been rejected by a medical board.

    (c) Those who now willingly present themselves for re-examination medically and are found by a medical board to be unfit for any service.

    (d) Those concerning whom the recruiting officer is satisfied that there is no possible doubt.

    The aim of the Army Council is to eliminate only the improperly "rejected" men, i.e., men holding certificates which have been granted to others than themselves and transferred to them, and men holding certificates saying they were unfit because of some transient and now long past disability.

    WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.
    Mr. PETOasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a case before the Somersetshire Appeal Tribunal on 20th May, in which work under the Society for the Relief of Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians in Distress was accepted as work of national importance, and which was held to be good ground for conditional exemption of a conscientious objector; whether the military authorities consider it necessary to employ British subjects of military age to do rough work for enemy aliens interned in this country; and whether German subjects are employed in doing similar work for British prisoners of war or interned civilians in Germany?
    Mr. TENNANT: The power to determine what is work of national importance does not rest with the War Office. The Committee on Work of National Importance decides these matters, I understand, and the opinion of the military authorities is not sought. I am unable to answer the last part of the question.

    INNS OF COURT OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS.
    Major HUNTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, since the introduction of the Military Service (No. 2) Bill, the War Office have directed the Inns of Court Officers' Training Corps not to accept any more recruits; and, seeing that

    2093
    this Officers' Training Corps was originally started by barristers of the Inns of Court for the purpose of training themselves in arms, whether, as barristers find themselves debarred from their own corps, he will direct that all barristers who apply to be recruited in their own Officers' Training Corps shall be accepted?
    Mr. TENNANT: Recruiting for the Inns of Court Officers' Training Corps was closed in February by order of the War Office. The strength of the unit was more than twice that of the establishment, and until the strength is reduced to the establishment it is not proposed to re-open the corps to further enlistment.
    Major HUNT: Is it not rather hard on these barristers, who prepared it in peace time, that the Government should use their organisation to help other people, and then refuse to allow them to use it when they want it?
    Mr. TENNANT: Any barrister who is anxious to serve in His Majesty's Forces is probably doing so now by means either of this Officers' Training Corps or some other corps, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bring to my notice the case of any barrister who has been denied the right of serving his country owing to the closing of the Inns of Court Officers' Training Corps, I will consider it as a special case.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS (PERIOD OF SERVICE).
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if discharged soldiers now in civil life who have served not less than twelve years in the Army and who are now under forty-one years of age, and who will be called up under the Military Service Act, will be entitled to discharge during the period of the War on reaching the age of forty-one years?
    Mr. TENNANT: A discharged soldier who is called up under the Military Service Act will be enlisted for the period of the War.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if eighteen conscientious objectors, named, respectively, Elliott, Philcox, Hanson, Hitsburger, Pope, Gahagan, Baber, Fulford, Arnold, Sutherland, Pierce, Essan, Record, Tritton, Greenwood, Pendry, and Moate, who have been stationed at the Happy Valley, Shoreham, have been, or
    2094
    are about to be, sent to France, and, seeing that all these men are refusing to obey any military order, will he say what military advantage is expected from these men's services in France; and if, in the interests of national efficiency, he will take steps to have these men transferred to civil work of national importance?
    Mr. TENNANT: No. 3 Eastern Company of the Non-Combatant Corps is now stationed at Shoreham, and has not been sent to France. In reply to the last part of the question I may say that the companies of the Non-Combatant Corps which have been sent to France are doing work of considerable advantage to the Army.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Is it not a fact that the Non-Combatant Corps to which the right hon. Gentleman refers does not contain men who are resisting?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir, I do not think my hon. Friend is correctly informed. I understand that certain Non-Combatant Corps now in France do contain persons who object to all kinds of military service, including non-combatant.
    Mr. SNOWDEN: But they are not resisting.
    Sir W. BYLESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Mr. Frank Elder, of Salford, claiming total exemption on conscientious grounds from military service, appealed from the Salford Tribunal to the Manchester Appeal Tribunal and was twice told by Sir William Cobbett that they could not grant total exemption to any conscientious objector; and, having regard to the provisions in the Military Service (No. 2) Act and to his explicit undertaking, will he say what steps he will now take to make the tribunals conform to the law?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I am communicating with the Appeal Tribunal on the subject.

    RECRUITS UNDER EIGHTEEN.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he can arrange for the Bradford boys of eighteen, who will be called upon to join the Army under the Military Service Bill, to be trained together, as the Pals battalion raised in Bradford were, instead of being trained

    2095
    indiscriminately among older men; and whether he can arrange for them to be trained for the first six months at least in Bradford, where there are two barracks practically empty, so that parents may keep in touch with their boys as long as possible?
    Mr. TENNANT: I regret that what my hon. Friend suggests is not possible. Owing to the number of men under training in England, and the large number of instructors required, it is not possible to set up a separate establishment for recruits under eighteen at Bradford. If this were done at Bradford, obviously the same consideration would have to be given to other cities.

    LOCAL TRIBUNALS (TRADESMEN).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that numbers of tradesmen who sit on local tribunals under the Military Service Act, 1916, are asked to adjudicate on the claims for exemption on the part of trade rivals who happen to be of military age; whether he is aware that the closing down of the shops of competing traders is financially profitable to some of the men who are called upon to make the decision; and whether steps will be taken to remove even the suspicion of influence of this sort?
    Mr. LONG: I am prepared to rely on the general good sense of the members of tribunals to prevent any injustice of the kind suggested occurring. In any event there is an Appeal Tribunal to whom a dissatisfied applicant can appeal.

    TRADE UNION OFFICIALS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the President of the Local Government Board if he can obtain a hearing before the Central Tribunal of the case of Charles Dukes, of Warrington, district organiser for the Gas-workers' and General Labourers' Union, secretary of the Lancashire and Cheshire Federation of Trades Councils, secretary of the Warrington Trades' Council, member of the Warrington Munitions' Tribunal, member of the advisory committee of the Labour Exchanges (Liverpool district), his appeals to the local and county tribunals having failed; and, as hardship is likely to result to the workmen whose interests are in the hands of Mr. Dukes, will he have this case referred to
    2096
    the Central Tribunal in order to have an authoritative decision on a matter which is likely to be of importance with the calling up for military service of married men?
    Mr. LONG: I am making inquiry in the matter.

    TIME-EXPIRED MEN.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board, concerning the case of a time-expired soldier who has served twenty-two years, including service in Belgium and France from the beginning of the present War, until 31st March last when he took his discharge, and who will be forty-one years of age on the 1st November next, whether the man in question will be at liberty to take his discharge again when he reaches the age of forty-one if he is once more called to the Colours under the provisions of Clause 2 of the Military Service Bill?
    Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir. If such a soldier rejoins the Colours, under the provisions of the Military Service Act, before he attains the age of forty-one years he will, under the terms of the Act, be enlisted for the period of the War.

  PERISCOPES.
  Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the shortage of periscope pattern No. 14 at the front, and that in particular artillery observers have been unable to obtain this pattern, though they have many times applied for the same; and will he say who is responsible for this shortage?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am informed by the Ministry of Munitions that every effort is being made to meet demands of No. 14 periscope, but, as these are complicated instruments, the output is slow. At least four other types of artillery observation magnifying periscopes have been approved to supplement the output of No. 14 periscope. These, while not being quite so good as the No. 14, are useful substitutes, and are being produced as rapidly as possible.

  STEEL HELMETS.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked in how many different sizes the French steel helmet is made; and in how many different sizes the English steel helmet is made?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am informed that the French steel helmet is made in three sizes. The English steel helmet is also made in three sizes.

  SUPPLIES RESERVE DEPOT.
  Mr. ASHLEYasked why at a port near London where troops do not embark, and which is only used to ship stores and material, and at other ports of a similar character, it is considered that one of the senior military officers of the supplies reserve depot is not competent to deal with the military side of the shipping work, and cannot be relied on to link up the supply staff with the naval transport staff?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have already answered this question in previous replies, and there is nothing to be added to what I have already said.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Regular staff officers are not considered necessary at the ports in France where stores are embarked. They were never used in the South African War, and are they necessary now?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have already stated that they are considered necessary, and I cannot place the hon. Member's opinion or mine against that of the military authorities.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR IN GERMANY.

    STATEMENT BY MR. TENNANT.
    Major WHELERasked whether, owing to the reported scarcity of meat and other articles of food in Germany, he can make any further statement as to the amounts of the rations supplied daily to the British prisoners of war by the German Government?
    Mr. TENNANT: I stated on the 3rd May, in reply to a supplementary question, that the authorised scale of rations for British prisoners in Germany was carried out very generously. Since then I have had further information, derived from returned prisoners. These do not, I find, confirm the statement made, but, on the contrary, show that the German scale is, in practice, disregarded with serious consequences to the prisoners. I should, therefore, like to take this opportunity of
    2098
    correcting my previous answer, and of stating that I am advised that, if it had not been for the parcels of food sent to the men from this country, they would in very many instances have starved. I do not, therefore, think that there should be any relaxation of the efforts which have been made, and are being made, to send relief to the prisoners. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity of correcting an error which I made, and from which I had reason to fear consequences of a most undesirable kind might follow. I sincerely hope that this correction will receive the publicity it demands, and that it may be in time to avert those evil effects, which I can assure the House have caused me not a little anxiety.
    Colonel BURN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not think that the time has arrived for something to be done to the German prisoners in this country, when evidence is given by independent people as to the brutal and cruel way in which our prisoners are being treated in Germany?
    Mr. TENNANT: I have answered this question many times, and I would appeal to the House to give grave consideration to the effect which might be produced by any such course as that which the hon. Gentleman advocates. If the Germans choose to treat our prisoners in the way described, can it be argued that we should do as they do?
    Colonel BURN: Has my right hon. Friend read the report from the American Embassy people as to the treatment of some of our prisoners quite recently which appears in the papers to-day?
    Mr. TENNANT: I am not quite sure that I have seen the particular report to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but I have seen a great many.
    Admiral of the Fleet Sir H. MEUX: Has any endeavour been made through the American Ambassador in Berlin to bring these disgraceful facts personally to the knowledge of the Kaiser, who, with one word, could stop the whole thing if he chose?
    Mr. TENNANT: I think it is desirable that that question, if answered at all, should be answered by the Foreign Office, after due notice has been given.
    Mr. R. McNEILL: Is there any guarantee that these parcels of food ever really reach our prisoners and that they are not taken by the Germans?
    Lord R. CECIL: As far as we know all parcels, or almost all, so far have reached the prisoners. The matter is one which I think ought to be regarded with grave anxiety as to what may possibly happen in the future. It is one of the matters which ought to be very carefully considered by all the Departments concerned.
    Mr. GINNELL: Will either of the two right hon. Gentlemen enable the House to compare the treatment of British prisoners by Germany with the treatment by Britain of Michael Davitt and O'Donovan Rossa in time of peace?

  MILITARY LEAVE.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the fact that some units in France, e.g., the 3rd London Brigade of the Royal Field Artillery, have had no leave for eight months, whilst other units have had leave twice within that period; and whether arrangement will be made for a fairer distribution of leave amongst soldiers at the front, so as to remove the sense of grievance felt amongst them?
  Mr. TENNANT: I can only refer my hon. Friend to previous answers which I have given on this matter. It is one within the discretion of the General Officer Commanding - in - Chief. What might appear to my hon. Friend to be an arrangement calling for some explanation would not so appear to him if he were acquainted with all the military exigencies.

  MILITARY COURTS-MARTIAL (SENTENCES OF DEATH).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War if any men have been shot during the War for military offences without previously being tried by court-martial, and, if so, how many; and whether the names of the officers directing such executions are kept at the War Office for reference?
  Mr. TENNANT: There is no power to inflict a sentence of death for a military
  2100
  offence except after conviction by court-martial. The rest of the question, therefore, does not arise.

  FIELD PUNISHMENT.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of cases in which Field Punishment No. 2. has been inflicted upon men at the front during the War; whether there is a record kept of such cases at the War Office; and whether the names of the officers ordering the infliction of this punishment are recorded at the War Office for reference?
  Mr. TENNANT: No, Sir; no such record is kept.

  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (WAR EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES).
  Mr. ASHLEYasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that periodical lectures on questions connected with the War are given by Ministers to editors of newspapers, he will arrange that similar educational facilities shall be extended to Members of this House?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I think the recent Secret Session of the House showed that there are practical difficulties in the way of adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.
  Mr. HOGGE: Can my right hon. Friend say why, when Members of Parliament were invited by the Minister of Munitions on the ground that they had brought men back to munition work, the invitations were not distributed to all men who had done that work?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question.

  FOOD PRICES.
  Mr. GRANTasked the Prime Minister if the Government contemplate any regulations to limit prices of articles of general consumption?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 15th May to a question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for Derby, of which I am sending him a copy.

  AIR BOARD.
  The following questions stood upon the Paper in the name of Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: 49, 52, 53, and 56: To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether the new Air Board has any control over or responsibility for the personnel and discipline of the Royal Naval Air Service and the Royal Naval Anti-Aircraft Service; (2) whether the new Air Board has any powers in relation to anti-aircraft gunnery, and, if so, what; (3) whether the new Air Board has any control over or responsibility for the Royal Aircraft Factory; and (4) whether the new Air Board has any responsibility for or power over the defence of London from hostile aircraft?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand that these questions should be addressed to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rugby (Major Baird). May I take the opportunity of congratulating him upon his appointment.
  Major BAIRD(representing the Air Board): The question of the exact powers to be exercised by the Air Board over Services or establishments still under the control of other Departments is one that cannot be defined at the present moment, before the Air Board has commenced its work. They will depend very largely upon interdepartmental arrangements, and will be developed as time proceeds.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether the new Air Board will present Estimates in this House, or whether the expenditure of such Board will be borne on the Navy or Army Votes?
  Major BAIRD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The intention is that any expenditure incurred by the Air Board should be defrayed direct from the Vote of Credit.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask what opportunities we shall have of criticising the expenditure of the Air Board? Surely there will be Estimates.
  Major BAIRD: There will be full opportunity on the Vote of Credit.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister under what power the new Air Board can develop its own body with a regular department under it, or is the Board to be confined to thinking about such development?
  Major BAIRD: Any proposals that the Air Board may make for the development of its own functions or department under the terms of the reference, which have already been communicated to the House, will be addressed to the War Committee.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (LAND SETTLEMENT).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he can give any date for bringing in the Bill dealing with the land settlement of ex-sailors and soldiers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My Noble Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture will, I understand, move the Second Reading of this Bill in another place to-morrow.

  UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (STRAIN OF WORK).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a considerable strain is placed on the Under-Secretary of State for War owing to the unusual number of debates, questions, and discussions of grievances on the Adjournment of the House; and whether, by following the precedent of the creation of a new post in the Foreign Office, he can ease the growing burden now falling on the Under-Secretary of State, for War?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, I am well aware of the great pressure of work under which my right hon. Friend has laboured ever since the beginning of the War, and I believe the whole House shares my feeling of gratitude to him for the courtesy and ability with which he has discharged his duties. I am glad, however, to say that my right hon. Friend shows no sign of being unable to bear the strain, and I do not think it necessary to adopt the suggestion contained in the last part, of the question.

  MEN CALLED TO THE COLOURS.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES.
    Major NEWMANasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the number of men now serving at the front who may desire to

    2103
    fill in personally or study the form, in order to advise the representative at home who will have charge of the matter for them, he will secure that an ample supply of regulations and forms of application for special assistance is sent to our various fronts, and arrangements made for the soldier to obtain a copy where he so desires?
    Mr. TENNANT: This matter is being considered, with a view to the necessary steps being taken.
    Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the relief scheme for men called up to join the Forces contains any provision covering the liability for friendly society contributions; and, if not, whether he will consider extending the provisions of the scheme so as to cover this liability?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Yes, Sir. If a member of a friendly society is unable by reason of undertaking military service to pay his contributions to the society and is thereby in danger of forfeiting his rights to benefit, he may apply for assistance to enable him to continue his contributions. The form of application provides for an entry in respect of expenditure of this nature.
    Mr. BARLOW: I take it it will apply to applications under an insurance with a friendly society?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: All obligations connected with insurance.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the President of the Local Government Board, in regard to the regulations under which grants will be made to meet the civil liabilities of men serving with the Colours and in view of the fact that the Commissioner is required to satisfy himself as to the accuracy of the statements made by the applicants, whether it is proposed to establish any machinery for the investigation of the accuracy of such statements, or to utilise any existing machinery?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: If my hon. Friend will refer to paragraph 8 of the Regulations he will see that the Commissioner may require an applicant to furnish receipts or other documentary evidence in support of the application and also to
    2104
    furnish a sworn declaration in support of any statement made in or in connection with the application.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the Commissioner required to conduct a further investigation as to the truth of these statements?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That will be in his own discretion.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is any machinery placed at his disposal?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: He ought to have fairly extensive machinery for this purpose.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does that refer to the old age pension committees? Is it proposed to use them at all?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Commissioner can make use of any existing machinery for satisfying himself of the truth of the statements which are made.
    Mr. BARLOWasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board how soon the forms of applications by married men serving with the forces in connection with the relief scheme will be available at the post offices; and when will the local Commissioners begin their sittings?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: The forms of application will be available at most of the post offices to-morrow, and the Commissioners will enter upon their duties on Monday next.
    Mr. BARLOW: Has any arrangement been made for forms being distributed to soldiers abroad?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Soldiers abroad will be able to apply either by themselves or through their wives or friends for forms, and can send them in either by their wives or their friends to be dealt with by the Commissioners.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not the fact that the answer now given totally varies from the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for War?
    Mr. LOUGH: Has any estimate been formed of the cost which will be incurred this year under the proposal?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: Nothing that is worthy to be called an estimate.

  WORCESTERSHIRE YEOMANRY (KATIA PRISONERS).
  Mr. BALDWINasked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of officers and men of the Worcestershire Yeomanry taken prisoners at Katia; and if he has any information as to the number of wounded who were captured?
  Mr. TENNANT: No lists of officers or men taken prisoners at Katia have yet been received from the Turkish Government. It is reported from the base that Colonel Coventry with 20 officers and 202 men of the Worcestershire Yeomanry were taken prisoners, also two officers of the Gloucestershire Hussars. In addition, two officers of the Worcestershire Yeomanry were reported missing, believed killed, one of whom has since been reported dead. Nine of the rank and file missing were reported wounded.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Are the names of the rank and file as well as the names of the officers known?
  Mr. TENNANT: If my hon. Friend will inquire at the Casualties Department he will ascertain that. I cannot give him the information.

  VACANT LAND CULTIVATION.
  Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is following up the letter of the President of the Board, issued in January, addressed to the mayors of all boroughs and county boroughs, drawing attention to the importance of utilising all available land for growing food-stuffs; whether he has precise information as to the extent to which the recommendations have been carried into effect; and will he state the number of war-food societies which have been formed and the extent of their activities?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): Replies to the President's letter have been received from a number of mayors stating what has been and is being done to provide allotments, but the Board have no precise information of the extent to which the suggestions made have been adopted. Neither can they state the number of war-food societies which have been formed as a result of the suggestions made in their leaflet to which I referred
  2106
  in my answer to the hon. Member's question of the 18th instant, or the extent of the activities of these societies.
  Mr. NEEDHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the movement stilt further?
  Mr. ACLAND: As I have said before, the arrangements to increase allotments and to use existing allotments are well used. They have really been going very well.

  TIMBER SUPPLY (CANADIAN LUMBERMEN).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture in what woodlands the Canadian lumbermen are now being employed; and what varieties of timber are now being cut out of season?
  Mr. ACLAND: The Canadian Forestry Battalion are already at work in the New Forest, in Windsor Forest, and in Devon. They will shortly begin operations elsewhere in England and Scotland. The timbers now being felled are chiefly coniferous. It is not possible under present conditions to have regard to those considerations which under ordinary circumstances make it expedient to fell timber during the winter months only.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Who is directing their operations in Scotland?
  Mr. ACLAND: The officers of the Home-Grown Timber Committee.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the cutting being confined to old wood past maturity or is young wood being cut?
  Mr. ACLAND: We are cutting a good deal of wood for pit props.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Cannot we have some of these men in the Midlands?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, if there are good enough and big enough forests.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: We have plenty of them.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture on whose expert advice and under whose authority is timber now being cut out of season?
  Mr. ACLAND: The timber is being felled by the authority of the Home-Grown Timber Committee, who have

  2107
  fully considered the reasons for and against the felling of timber during the summer months.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the Committee consist of experts?
  Mr. ACLAND: There are some experts on the Committee, and they are being advised by experts. We must have the timber—that is the point.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that timber can be obtained from abroad?
  Mr. ACLAND: That is exactly the main point for which the Committee was set up, namely, to save freights from abroad.

  MUNITIONS.

    FEMALE WORKERS (MINIMUM WAGE).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether the tribunal appointed under Section 8 of the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act to deal with questions affecting female munition workers has reported to the Ministry concerning the mandatory Order prescribing a minimum wage for women engaged on munition work of a class to which Circular L 2 does not apply; whether the tribunal was informed of the urgency of the matter; and what action it is proposed to take and when it is proposed to enforce a mandatory Order?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MUNITIONS DEPARTMENT (Dr. Addison): The points raised in this question are under consideration, and my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be in a position to make a statement thereon. The proceedings of the tribunal are confidential.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many weeks ago he said that he was going to report this as a matter of great urgency to the Committee, and that nothing has been done since; and can he give us any indication as to whether they do or do not mean to enforce these Regulations?
    Dr. ADDISON: I cannot give the hon. Member the information for two reasons, one that the Papers are confidential, and the other that I have not seen them.

    DEPORTED WORKMEN
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Minister of Munitions whether Harry Crichton Glass, one of the trade union workmen deported from Glasgow to Aberdeen, was permitted, subject to certain conditions, to proceed to Cardiff for the purpose of finding employment; whether he will make public what these conditions were; whether the workman was pledged to report himself immediately on arrival to the chief constable at Cardiff and to proceed without loss of time on board the steamship "Erinier"; whether the work man was further pledged not to acquaint any representative of any labour party of his arrival and not to address any trade union or other labour meeting; and whether he will state who was responsible for the enforcement of this undertaking?
    Dr. ADDISON: I know nothing of this matter, but I will inquire.

    WHISKY OUTPUT.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Minister of Munitions if the patent-still distilleries not required for the production of munitions of war are to be under Government control; and if any control or restriction is contemplated in the use of pot-still distilleries?
    Dr. ADDISON: The patent-still distilleries referred to will not be controlled, but their output of spirit will be under Government control. The question of control or restriction in the case of pot-still distilleries is under consideration.

  INDIAN ARMY RESERVE OFFICERS.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for India how promotions to the rank of lieutenant, captain, and major, in the Indian Army Reserve of officers, are regulated; and whether the claims of officers who were already serving in the Indian Army Reserve of officers before the outbreak of the War have been duly considered in the grant of these promotions?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Chamberlain): The ordinary Indian Army rule, as to promotion by length of service, is applicable generally to Indian Army Reserve officers, with some exceptions in respect of officers serving in the Supply and Transport and Veterinary

  2109
  Corps, or holding other appointments of special importance and responsibility. The Government of India may, in particular cases, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, grant accelerated promotion. I have no reason to suppose that the claims of officers who were serving in the Reserve on the outbreak of war have not been duly considered.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Government of India to inquire into this matter?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, not until I have information to show that there is, at any rate, a primâ facie ground for doing so. If my hon. and gallant Friend has evidence of such a ground, I shall be very glad to consider it, but I should not feel it proper to trouble the Government of India with an inquiry without feeling myself assured that there was a primâ facie ground for doing so.
  Colonel YATE: May I send the right hon. Gentleman some particulars?
  Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, certainly. I am always glad to receive particulars from my hon. and gallant Friend.

  SUMMER TIME ACT (SHOP WORKERS).
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any communication from the Shop Assistants Union asking him to take steps to protect shop workers against any extension of their working hours as a result of the Summer Time Act; and whether steps can be taken in districts and towns where no general closing order has been promoted under the Shop Act to insist that, where the shops open an hour earlier than formerly, they will also close an hour earlier, so that the workers, as well as others, may have the full advantage of the new arrangement?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I have received a letter on the subject from the National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants. It would certainly be most unfortunate, and contrary to the wishes of Parliament, if shop assistants were prevented by an increase in their working hours from taking ad-
  2110
  vantage of the benefits of the Act; but I have at present no reason to anticipate this, and experience will, I believe, show that the shopkeepers generally are acting in full accordance with the spirit of the Act. Meanwhile, it would be premature to consider the question of taking any special steps in the direction suggested.

  NATIONAL WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE (ECONOMY POSTERS).
  Mr. PRATTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much public money has been expended by the National War Savings Committee in the printing and posting upon hoardings of the economy posters, such as "Don't Use a Motor Car for Pleasure," "Bad Form in Dress," and so on?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): A sum of £233 18s. has been expended on the printing of the posters dealing with economy, and the cost of bill-posting has amounted to £105, making a total of £338 18s. in all. I may add that nothing has been spent on the hire of hoardings, as patriotic citizens throughout the country have provided space free of charge.
  Mr. WHYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what purpose he thinks these bills serve?
  Mr. McKENNA: So far as I can judge, there has been a very great change in public feeling upon the subject of economy, and, to a certain extent, I think that is due to advertisements.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Does that apply to horse-racing meetings?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware that they have been advertised.

  FACTORY ACCIDENTS.
  Sir W. BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether certifying factory inspectors have been relieved of their statutory obligation to investigate factory accidents and to visit the injured person; if so, will he state by whose authority an Act of Parliament is superseded; whether he is aware that the arrangement deprives certifying surgeons of a portion of their income; and that the changed labour conditions due to the War make it

  2111
  not less but more important to preserve every safeguard against factory accidents, which generally arise from inexperience or fatigue?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to the questions on this subject on the 2nd and 18th instant. No alteration has been made, or can be made, without the authority of Parliament in the statutory duties of the certifying surgeons.

  ROYAL PATRIOTIC FUND CORPORATION.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the delay in the framing of the regulations as to grants to be made by the Pension Committee or Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation; whether this delay is due to the civil or to the military authorities; and how soon the regulations are likely to appear?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Regulations both for separation allowances and for pensions and allowances to widows and dependants of deceased sailors and soldiers, and to the disabled, have been the subject of much careful consideration, and it is hoped that they will be ready for submission to the Treasury for approval in a few days. My hon Friend will be aware that the question of granting pensions in the case of men disabled by disease aggravated by service, and of granting allowances in respect of the interval between a man's discharge from the Forces and the award of his pension, have recently been receiving the attention of His Majesty's Government, and it has been necessary for the Statutory Committee to consider their Regulations for pensions in close association with the decisions arrived at on these matters by the War Office and by the Admiralty.
  Mr. HOGGE: Is it a fact that as the result of those Regulations being drafted the Statutory Committee will have at once to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a larger Grant?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: No; I do not think the hon. Gentleman can at present draw that conclusion.

  ALIEN COALOWNERS.
  Mr. BARLOWasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the German coalowner Hugo Stinnes or the Westphalian Coal Syndicate still own or hold any interest in coal mines in Wales or Yorkshire, or other parts of the United Kingdom; if so, whether these properties or interests can be sequestered on behalf of the Government; and whether he will introduce legislation providing, as is the case in most other countries; that no aliens can hold 'and in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no information as to any interests in coal mines in the United Kingdom being held by Hugo Stinnes or the Westphalian Coal Syndicate other than the shareholding of him and a German company with which he is probably connected in the Northern Union Mining Company, Limited. An Order requiring the business of that company to be wound up was made by the Board of Trade on the 10th April last, and the Controller appointed by the Order to wind up the business is now negotiating for the sale of the property of the company to British subjects. The question of the holding of land by aliens in the United Kingdom is under consideration.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: How will the sale be advertised? Is it under the direction of the Board of Trade?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think so, but I should like to have notice of that question.

  IRISH MAIL TRAIN (REPORTED OVERCROWDING).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the overcrowding on the Irish mail train from Euston, notably on the evening of 19th May, when a number of soldiers on leave from the trenches were unable to find accommodation; whether steps will be taken to compel the railway company to put on extra carriages or to run the trains in two parts; and whether, in view of the near approach of Whitsuntide, steps will be taken immediately to secure decent travelling accommodation on this line for soldiers and civilians?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have asked the railway company for their observations on the points raised by my hon. Friend, and I will communicate with him on receipt of their reply, but I am afraid that in view of the present conditions of railway traffic it may be difficult to prevent overcrowding, particularly at holiday times.

  Cinematograph Films.
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the character of many of the films now being exhibited at cinema theatres; and if it is intended to establish a censorship of these productions?
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: A number of representations have been made to me respecting the character of some of the films shown at cinematograph theatres, and I have the whole question under consideration. I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,
That they have agreed to,—
City of Dublin Steam Packet Company Bill,
Cardiff Railway Bill, without Amendment.
Amendments to—
Swansea Harbour Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS,—That they have referred the Government of India Bill to the Joint Committee of both Houses appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session; that they have added Three Lords to the said Committee for the consideration of the said Bill and request this House to add an equal number of their Members.

BILL PRESENTED.
Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Treaty Bill,—"to amend the Anglo-Portuguese Commercial Treaty Act, 1914," presented by Mr. PRETYMAN; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Ordered, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be not interrupted this night under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), and may be entered upon at any time though opposed."—[The Prime Minister.]

MILITARY SERVICE BILL.
Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
Resolved, "That the Lords Amendments he now considered."

MILITARY SERVICE BILL.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions as to Certificates of Exemption).
  (1) Where a decision of a local tribunal has been varied on appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, any certificate of exemption granted in pursuance thereof shall be reviewed or renewed only by the Appeal Tribunal by whom the decision has been varied or by such other Appeal Tribunal as may be provided by regulations on an application made direct to that tribunal, and the provisions of the principal Act as to the review or renewal of certificates of exemption shall apply accordingly.
  (2) A certificate of exemption may be granted under the principal Act subject to the condition that the certificate shall not be renewable or open to review except on an application made with the leave of the tribunal, and unless leave is so given, the provisions of the principal Act as to the renewal or review of certificates shall not apply to a certificate granted subject to such a condition.
  The decision of the tribunal granting or refusing leave under this provision shall be final.
  Lords Amendments:
  In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "review" ["renewable or open to review"], and insert instead thereof the word "variation."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): This is not of a very far-reaching
  2124
  character. The word "variation" is required instead of the word "review" in order to make it quite clear that it would be possible to make application for the withdrawal of a certificate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments:
  After the word "tribunal" ["with the leave of the tribunal"], insert the words "on whose decision the certificate has been so granted."—Agreed to.
  Leave out the word "review" ["renewal or review of certificates"], and insert instead thereof the word "variation."—Agreed to.
  At end of Clause add new Sub-section—
  "(3) It is hereby declared that the power to grant special certificates of exemption in the case of an application on conscientious grounds under Subsection (3) of Section 2 of the principal Act is additional to and not in derogation of the general power conferred by that Act to grant an absolute, conditional, or temporary certificate in such cases."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. LONG: This is an Amendment I promised on Report stage should be made in another place, and it has there been adopted. It does not affect the law, but merely declares the law to be what it is intended to be.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having caused this Amendment to be inserted. I believe he thinks, and I entirely agree with him, that the original Act was perfectly clear, and that the tribunals under the original Act have power to grant absolute exemption on conscientious grounds. The Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to cause to be inserted will now remove any possible grounds for misapprehension on the part of the tribunals, and will be a material step towards clearing up the whole of this vexed question.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments: Add new Subsection.
  (4) Paragraph (6) of the Second Schedule to the principal Act shall have effect as if for the expression "local

  2125
  tribunals" wherever that expression occurs there were substituted the word "tribunals."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. LONG: This Amendment is inserted in order to give my Department the same power in regard to the Appeal Tribunals as they already have in regard to the local tribunals. The words of the principal Act did not cover the appeal as well as the local tribunals.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Lords Amendments: Add new Subsection.
  (5) Regulations made under the Second Schedule of the principal Act may provide for permitting the rehearing of a case by a tribunal in cases specified in the regulations.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. LONG: This Amendment is also intended to clear up a point in regard to the power of rehearing cases. There seems to be some doubt in the matter. This Amendment provides that in cases where a rehearing is desirable arrangements can be made for a rehearing.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose in the Regulations to be framed to make himself the authority to decide whether a case shall be reheard or not?
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Regulations will give him the power to compel a rehearing?
  Captain CASSEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be possible under these Regulations to permit a rehearing when a man has once joined the Colours? If the Regulations permit that, I submit it opens a very serious objection, because it would then throw a doubt on the status of a man who once was a soldier serving together with soldiers, and would place courts-martial in a very difficult position through not knowing whether he was a soldier or not. If the right hon. Gentleman can give an assurance that the Regulations will not allow such rehearing when a man has once joined the Colours, it will meet my objection.
  Mr. LONG: I am asked whether I propose to constitute myself the authority to decide whether a case shall be reheard or not. I have already undertaken that in certain cases where there seems primâ facie evidence that there has been some miscarriage of justice, we should suggest a rehearing. That would not apply to the case of a man already serving in the Army.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to have this matter cleared up. I understand that the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Captain Cassel) was as to whether the case of a man who was improperly with the Colours could be reheard by the tribunal. I understand that this power of rehearing was given mainly for the purpose of dealing with cases of men who had been improperly handed over to the military authorities and had become soldiers. If that is not so, then the advantage of the Regulations seems to be practically of no account.
  Mr. MORRELL: May we have some definite reply?
  Mr. LONG: I have already given a reply which I thought was perfectly plain. The fact that it was plain is emphasised by the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just made. He suggests that the tribunal should come in between the Army Council and the soldier. Once a man has passed into the Army he is under the control of the Army Council, and it is for them to release him. The tribunal cannot rehear the case of a man who has passed out of their jurisdiction into the jurisdiction of the Army Council. It is quite a misstatement to suggest that all that was asked for was that the case of the man who had enlisted should be considered. What has been asked for repeatedly is that where a case has been heard by a tribunal and where it appears that there has been a miscarriage of justice, before that man passes to the Colours there shall be a rehearing. The case of the man who joins the Army has to be dealt with on totally different grounds. It is a question whether the Army Council decide to retain him, or pass him over to the civil authorities to be dealt with in some other way. If they take that course some machinery must be provided. I cannot interfere in the cases of men who are already in the Army.
  Mr. MORRELL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his position in

  2127
  this matter. I would like to give him a definite case, for the facts of which I can vouch. Jack Forster applied for exemption and was refused exemption, and then appealed against the decision of the local tribunal. Under the law it is impossible for this man to be taken as a soldier, but by some mistake of the military authorities he was arrested as a deserter.
  Mr. LONG: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. That is a case for the military authorities. The military authorities have power to release that man if they see fit. I have no power.
  Mr. MORRELL: This is a very important matter, because it may prejudice his hearing before the Appeal Tribunal if he has already been taken as a soldier. It is very desirable that the Local Government Board should have the power to take this man back, seeing that he has been improperly taken by the military authorities.
  Mr. LONG: No!
  Mr. MORRELL: Surely if he has been improperly taken the Local Government Board should have power to take him back and see that he has a fair rehearing of his case, otherwise it seems to me that the power which the Local Government Board have taken under this Regulation is really of no value.
  Mr. LOUGH: I do not desire to raise the case of the man already in the Army, but I would like to ask whether, from the way this Sub-section is drawn now, it is within the power of the Local Government Board to fix in the Regulations the conditions under which the rehearing should take place. That is a very strong power, and this House ought to know the conditions under which a rehearing may be asked for. If it is left to the Regulations, not only to fix the rehearing, but the conditions and circumstances under which the rehearing may take place, it amounts to this, that the legislation is not done here in Parliament, but really by the Local Government Board. I do think that the concluding words of the Sub-section are drawn a little too widely. I want a reassurance on this point, and I want to be told what is the object in view.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Two types of cases have been raised, and I think there is some confusion. I do not under-
  2128
  stand the explanation of the President of the Local Government Board. The case raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Morrell) is that of a man whose application had been determined, and who had improperly and contrary to the Statute been taken into the Army. My right hon. Friend's reply to that was that it was for the Army authorities to deal with that man and decide whether he should be released or not. Is that answer not contrary to the fact? Is it not rather a case where the Army authorities have no power to retain the man, and that it is not a case where they have power to release him? The other type of case is that in which a man's application has been determined by a tribunal and they have refused to grant him exemption, and he has passed into the Army. After that has been done the tribunal discovers that it has made a mistake, that it is wrong, that it has decided this man's case contrary to the evidence, or through a mistake as to the exact meaning of the Statute. The tribunal then desires a rehearing of the case, to decide whether this man ought, in accordance with the Statute, to be granted exemption or ought to be passed into the Army. According to the Amendment, I understand that the tribunal is to be given power to rehear cases. Is that not a proper case for the tribunal to rehear? What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that this is a case for the Army Council to consider and determine? The Army Council cannot take the place of a tribunal, and cannot do the work of a tribunal. If the tribunal is to have power to rehear cases, is this not a clear and proper case for them to rehear?
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. HOGGE: I only rose because the right hon. Gentleman did not get up. He is usually very clear, and the fact that we do not understand him now should convince him that some other explanation is required. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will state the point of law as to whether if a man who is arrested improperly by the military and made a soldier, the question of retaining him in the Army rests with the Army Council? I see the Solicitor-General shakes his head, which shows that he differs from the President of the Local Government Board, and that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong for once.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir G. Cave): No. But the question now asked is, if a man is improperly taken into the

  2129
  Army, whether the remedy is through the Army Council alone? The answer is quite plain. It is for the Civil Courts, and should not be dealt with by these Regulations.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Let us be quite clear about this. I do not wish to obstruct the Clause, but I will give a case from my own Constituency. A man was taken into the Army. His appeal was refused by the local tribunal. He appealed. Meantime, he was sent to Aldershot. The question arose whether he was to appeal back to the county authorities. Eventually the military authorities agreed to allow him to come back from Aldershot to allow him to have his case tried by the Appeal Court. Can the Solicitor-General give the House an assurance that under this Amendment no power will be vested in the military authorities to prevent the Appeal Court bringing this man back to have his case tried?
  Sir G. CAVE: I can give that assurance at once.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of Section 2 (3) of Principal Act.)
  The provision in Section two, Sub-section (3) of the principal Act that no certificate of exemption shall be conditional upon a person to whom it is granted continuing in or re-entering into employment under any specified employer or in any specified place or establishment shall not apply to a certificate of exemption granted on the ground of a conscientious objection to the undertaking of combatant service.
  Lords Amendment: Leave out the word "re-entering", and insert instead thereof the word "entering".—Agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment of Section 3 (3) of the Principal Act.).
  Sub-section (3) of Section three of the principal Act shall as respects certificates which cease to be in force after the date of the passing of this Act apply only in the case of a man who has been engaged in an occupation certified by a Government Department to be work of national importance, or whose conditions of employment have been subject to the provisions of Section seven of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, and in all other cases the Sub-section shall be construed as if "two weeks" were substituted for "two months," and as if the words "unless in
  2130
  the meantime the man has made an application for a renewal of his certificate" were substituted for the words "unless in the meantime the man has obtained a renewal of his certificate."
  Lords Amendment: Leave out the words "a man who has", and insert instead thereof the words "men who have".
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. LONG: I desire to make a brief statement in connection with this Amendment. It will, I think, be convenient that I shall deal with the question as a whole. Following this Amendment, there is a second, to leave out the word "or" ["or whose conditions of employment"], and insert instead thereof the words "and were engaged in such an occupation before the fifteenth day of August, 1915, and in the case of men".
  The really important words are "and who were engaged in such an occupation before the fifteenth day of August, 1915." This is an Amendment to what is known as the Industrial Compulsion Clause. This Clause underwent some alteration when the Bill was before this House, and both in this Bill and also in the original Act it gave rise to no little difficulty, and in some quarters there was, I think, an impression that there was a sort of conflict between the Army Council on the one hand and the representatives of Labour, in this House and out of it, on the other; that while the Army Council was striving by means, legitimate or illegitimate, to get every man it could into its hands, Labour was striving, on the other hand, to defeat the legitimate objects of the Army Council and to prevent men being enlisted in the service of their country. I can speak with some personal experience because I have been engaged in connection with these two Bills in the consideration and settlement of a great many of these questions, and I have been brought into the closest possible contact, not only with the Army Council, but also with the representatives of Labour in and out of the House, and I can state emphatically that all that the Army Council desires is to fulfil its duty to the State by getting the soldiers that are required to serve their country, and, on the other hand, I can state with equal emphasis that, so far as Labour is concerned in and out of the House, throughout the whole of these negotiations and the whole of our work, it has co-operated with

  2131
  the Army Council and with the Government in a spirit of loyalty and self-sacrifice which not only reflects great credit upon Labour, but to which is due in no small measure the great success which has attended the efforts of the Government in raising these great armies. There has been no attempt on either side to steal or obtain any improper advantage. We really have had throughout the same object. The only difficulty has been to find words which would give effect to what both the Army Council and the representatives of Labour thought right.
  What was desired and intended was to make it impossible that there should be, under any form of compulsory service, what is known as industrial compulsion. In another place words were inserted which excluded from the operation of the amended Section those men who have gone into their employment since the 15th of August, 1915, the date from which all our new arrangements date. I thought when the Bill left this House, as I think still, that on the whole our plan was the simplest and the best. But that was not the view taken by the Army Council. I have discussed it with them at very great length and on many occasions, and they hold the view that the Clause as it stands, while it does not prevent industrial compulsion, which they are anxious to prevent, does undoubtedly open the door to the escape of many of those who ought to be recruited. The House knows that we have been engaged now for some time in what is known as combing out our various industries in order to get men who can properly be released from industry and enlisted with the Colours, and the Army Council assure me that this Clause operates so widely that it allows these combings, as they are called, to escape, and consequently throws upon the older married men the obligation of recruitment first when it ought to fall upon the single men who would be available if we could get at them. They attach the greatest importance to this change, and they authorise me to say that in their opinion for military reasons this is essentially necessary. In those circumstances the Government propose to ask the House to agree with the Lords Amendment, and in making that recommendation I desire to state that, in order to avoid, not merely industrial compulsion, but if we can what has been a most unfortunate and expensive mistake in the past, namely, the en-
  2132
  listment with the Colours of men who are required for work at home, and who have consequently to be released subsequently from the Colours and brought back to England, and in order to assist the Army Council in this, and other matters, we have asked the Labour party to appoint a small committee—I hope it will not be composed of more than three members—who will be constantly in session and will be prepared to advise and assist the Army Council in regard to the particular labour problem.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Why the Labour party?
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Why the Labour party? I represent a large industry.
  Mr. LONG: If my hon. Friend desires to show that he thinks our proposals are unsound, we shall be glad to listen to him. I am stating what we have done, for which I take full responsibility. Those who disagree can state their views afterwards. There is no reason for interrupting me now. I doubt whether the particular questions upon which the Army Council desires assistance and advice are not questions upon which it is essential that the advice should come from those who are conversant with the actual conditions in which men are working in the various industries rather than those who, though they may represent labour politically, as they are entitled to do to a greater or less degree, have not under their immediate charge the protection of those special rights and privileges, and the supervision of those difficulties which have from the beginning been connected with this question and with the maintenance of national industries throughout the country. The Army Council believes that this committee will enable these difficulties if they should occur to be overcome. For instance, supposing there is a case of industrial compulsion, all that the committee would have to do would be to bring that case to the notice of the Army Council.
  Sir E. CARSON: Will the duties of the committee be defined?
  Mr. LONG: That does not really rest with me. I do not know that it will be possible actually to define the duties of the committee. What we want to stop is these cases of industrial compulsion. So far as I know no ease has yet occurred, but that does not make it impossible for one to occur.
  Sir E. CARSON: I thought that we were told previously that the Bill would not have anything to do with industrial compulsion.
  Mr. LONG: Our object is to prevent industrial compulsion. I have always said that in my view industrial compulsion is impossible, but that is not the view taken by a considerable section of this House. The Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, undertook that if it could be demonstrated that there was any risk of industrial compulsion under the powers of this Bill, it should be made impossible by the introduction of the necessary powers. Well, that is not easy. We have done our best to find words which would make it impossible to use the powers of this Bill for the purpose of industrial compulsion. It seems easy enough, but it has been found impossible to simply set that out, and therefore the protection of Section (6) is limited by the Amendment inserted in another place to those who were in these occupations before a particular date; and I am now only explaining the machinery by which we believe we can—and certainly the Army Council are very positive we must—deal with any case of industrial compulsion of the kind to which I refer, namely, where men such as fitters, moulders, or others are taken into the Army, but ought to be in their industries, the Army Council have authorised me to say that they have had to deal with this very difficult question already. I think the House knows that where men have been enlisted into the Army, and it has been found necessary to transfer them from the Army to industry, the Army Council have done their best—everybody will realise that—to meet the practical difficulty by releasing these men temporrarily from the Colours for certain industries. I am not quite certain which are the industries, but I think they are mainly connected with munitions. But the Army Council find that this has undoubtedly resulted in some limitation of the actual freedom of these men, and they do not think it is a system that will continue to work. They therefore authorise me to say that, as soon as they have the machinery available, they intend to place these men in the new Reserve which is created under this Bill, taking care to obviate any financial loss or detriment to the men. I think it is quite clear that by the policy already decided upon it will make absolutely impossible, so far as that can be effected,
  2134
  that anything in the form of industrial compulsion shall come under the powers of this Act. I have always said that we did not believe that it was likely to happen, and so far as we can see it is impossible; but it is quite obvious that there is a way in which the ultimate fate of compulsory service might be used to compel a workman to do what he did not want to do. Therefore this machinery, coupled with the statement I have made on behalf of the Army Council, will, I hope, satisfy the House that we are doing our best to carry out the promise made to the House by the Prime Minister, and that the Government and the Army Council, in endeavouring to get men, at the same time are desirous of avoiding this difficulty, which we all seek to obviate. I hope the House will accept my motion to agree with the Lords in their Amendment.
  Sir E. CARSON: I desire to make only one or two observations on the speech of my right hon. Friend. Certainly, so far as I am concerned, I quite agree with the Amendment made by the House of Lords. I think it was a necessary limiting Amendment upon the Amendment which was passed, rather in a hurry, at the end of the passing of this Bill, and without very much consideration, when the Bill was in this House.
  Mr. LONG: Oh, no!
  Sir E. CARSON: The matter has been further considered, and of necessity further considered, and it is quite plain that the Army Council, who felt that the Bill would not work, thought that this Amendment should be drawn up and proposed in the other House. It was proposed in another place, and the Amendment was accepted. But my right hon. Friend gets the Amendment accepted as an extraordinary kind of deal with the Labour Members. I do not mind that; the House understands what it is; I have not the faintest objection in the world. Some Members of the House imagine that I am in persistent hostility to the Labour Members. It is exactly the contrary. Certainly, since this War broke out, I do not think I have ever said one word disrespectful of anything that was done for them, or as to concessions made, having regard to the enormous services they have rendered during this War. But we really cannot allow, simple as the proposition is, that it should be said, "This is all right; we understand all about it." I do not believe anybody in the House who heard

  2135
  the statement of my right hon. Friend knows what this Committee is about. I say honestly that I do not.
  Mr. LONG: My right hon. Friend will allow me to interrupt him. He stated that there has been a deal. There has been nothing of the kind, nothing at all of the kind. This Committee was set up a very long time ago, but it has not been in operation. It was set up long ago in order that the Government might get the advice of Labour representatives.
  Sir E. CARSON: I am not in the least objecting, but I think the right hon. Gentleman did not give the names of this Committee, even though it was set up a long time ago.
  Mr. LONG: I was never asked.
  Sir E. CARSON: Then my right hon. Friend does not know to whom it is to be entrusted, or going to be entrusted. Let the House see what is the effect of this kind of statement. The Government have told us over and over again—and I believe it to be absolutely sound—that this Bill has nothing to do with industrial compulsion. It is on the faith of this that the Bill has gone through, and everybody has supported that idea without, I think, a single objection being raised. The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that there may be an apprehension of industrial compulsion. By whom? Is it by the employers? Is it by the employed? If by the employers, who is to represent them? If by the employed, has this Committee to deal with them, and how? Let us see what would happen. Somebody may say, "There is a man put into the wrong place, amounting to industrial compulsion," and thereupon the Army Council are suddenly to summon the Committee of Labour members, who are to decide whether the person is inside or outside the Act of Parliament. On a matter of that kind, ought not we to have a definite scheme for deciding a difficult question. I have not the slightest objection to leaving it to the Labour party, if you like, but let us know what we are leaving to the Labour party—and there is no man in this House at the present moment who knows what is to be left to the members of the Labour party! I believe you cannot administer without friction your Act of Parliament in this kind of way. You must frame your Act of Parliament so as to make it clear what you mean, and there is really no difficulty in
  2136
  doing that. Look at the kind of friction that might arise. Supposing the Army Council took one view, and the Labour party, whatever it is, takes the other view, whose view is to prevail? I do submit to my right hon. Friend, "before this Committee is set up, and before this matter is finished, that the House ought to have before it in black and white the exact relation of this Committee to the administration of this Bill and to the Army Council in carrying out the Act.
  Mr. BARNES: I am sorry that a very simple matter has been clouded over with a number of words. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I was not aware that my hon. Friend had risen.
  Mr. WARDLE: I quite accept the explanation of my right hon. Friend who has just said that he was not aware I was getting up. It is simply a misunderstanding which I hope the House will not think has any importance attaching to it. I got up at once because I felt it was my duty to do so in view of the statement which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. I say quite emphatically that there has been no such thing as any deal or any bargain in regard to this matter. I want to say that now most emphatically, in view of what I intend to say later. I repeat emphatically that there has been neither any deal nor any bargain with regard to either the question of the Committee or with regard to the question of this Amendment. Most of those with whom I am associated are very sorry to see that this Amendment has been accepted in the House of Lords. We much prefer the Bill as it left the Commons, and I believe that we shall be bound to take a Division upon this matter, because the thing is really of such a serious character that we feel we must, in order to safeguard the rights of those for whom we speak, take the opinion of the House of Commons upon the question whether this Amendment which has been made by the Lords should remain in the Bill or should not. In regard to the question of the Committee, let me say quite emphatically that if this Committee is proposed by the Government, the Government are proposing it entirely upon their own responsibility, and the onerous nature of the duties which would be thrown upon a Committee of that character might well make any Member of the Labour party—or any other party in this House—hesitate very much before accepting a position of that responsibility and of that

  2137
  character. There can be no doubt about it that there is a fear of what is called industrial conscription arising out of this Bill, especially if the Amendments which the House of Lords have introduced today are allowed to stand. Let me give one illustration. Only to-day I gather that there were ninety engineers discharged from railway works in Darlington, and immediately they were discharged the military were acquainted with the fact of their discharge, and there is a feeling that these men might be taken under this two weeks' Clause into the Army without being given proper opportunity, which we think they ought to have, in order that they can carry out their duties. At the very same time that the military are acquainted with the fact that the men are discharged, there is a fear that thousands of the men wanted will not go into munition works and various other occupations which are absolutely essential to the carrying on of this War, much more essential than that these men should go into the Army.
  What is the fear? It is not of the Army Council, although there may have been cases where the Army Council had made mistakes, and it is not the Government. It is the fact that while there are good employers in this country—and I am not going to say a word against them—there are other employers who, if they have the opportunity, will take advantage of holding over the head of a man the threat that if he does not do exactly what they want, then he will be discharged, and the only refuge—the only effect would be that he must go into the Army under the compulsion, not of the Army Council, but of the employer. That is the real point where the danger comes in. It may be said, why object to this Amendment, because you agree—and I say here so far as I am personally concerned I do agree and many of my Friends agree—that where men have gone into munition works and other certified occupations to escape military service there is not the slightest reason why those men, unless they are doing better work where they are, should not be transferred into the Army. When we come to the present position it only shows that if these men had been wanted in the Army and could be taken from industry, then they ought to have been given notice to cease working in their industry long ago, before the Act came into operation, and then a two weeks' Clause or a two months' Clause would not have been necessary at all. There has been plenty of time for the
  2138
  Army Council and the other people who carry out the Military Service Acts to have brought this about. We do not see any necessity for this Amendment. We do not believe you will get a single man a single day sooner in consequence of it. You allowed us a safeguard which many of the men concerned will still obtain, and for the reasons which I have given I feel bound to say that we must divide.
  Sir ALFRED MOND: It has always seemed to me that there has been a considerable amount of misunderstanding on this question amongst Labour representatives. As far as the practical working is concerned I would like to put the question from a practical point of view, as it bears on cases with which I am personally acquainted. Under the original Act a man has a munition certificate stating that he is working with, say, Messrs. Jones & Co. He leaves Messrs. Jones, very often without any certificate, and disappears for two months. If the man has given up munitions work he is possibly doing work of no earthly value to the country, and yet he is allowed to remain outside the Army, while every other citizen in a similar position is compelled to go into the Army. I cannot understand why Labour Members consider that a fair state of things. I will go further. We are continually being pressed to comb out the single men. The military authorities and the munition authorities come and say, "How many single men have you got, and can you not substitute married men and women?" What is the good of that if every single man who leaves your works to-day has two months in which you cannot use him at all. If he goes in the meantime and finds another week's work in a certified industry, he can get another two months, and if he has got any sense at all he can go on all his life getting exemption after exemption under the Act as it stands. That is not what is wanted, or what was intended, but that is exactly how the thing has worked out. It has worked out largely in that way because of the very bad way in which the matter has been worked. I have pointed out myself to the Ministry of Munitions that a man ought to be certified as carrying on some skilled trade, and not as working for any particular firm. Now, if a man is working for a particular firm he gets a badge, and in some cases a certificate, so that you

  2139
  really duplicate matters. No man seeing the certificate knows whether the person who has it is an engineer, or labourer, or whether he is of an occupation which is wanted or not. That is one of the difficulties that has arisen.
  I think, as things are to-day in the labour market, that a fortnight ought to be enough to enable a man to get fifty jobs. I do not believe myself it would be found difficult for any man of any value to find a job in a fortnight. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) is rather confusing two different points. If a man is necessary for national work he ought not to be taken into the Army, and if he is not necessary he has no right to exemption. It is not a question of compulsion by employers; the compulsion usually comes from outside of the employers. No employer is anxious to discharge men when he does not know where he is going to get any men to do his work. Hon. Members have been shouting that these single men should be combed out, and have told us that they had no wish to keep them in works where they had no right to be. Is a man to be given a prescriptive right to stop at a certain place and not go into the Army? The only standard, I think, should be to have the people where they can do the best work. I think, and I have always thought, that the original two months was a mistake, and that fourteen days is quite sufficient. It ought surely to be made impossible for the ninety engineers of whom the hon. Member for Stockport spoke, to be taken into the Army. I do not think this question is affected by the Amendment, but that it is one of administration. As far as I know, these men have the right to appeal. Obviously they are badged men, and cannot be taken into the Army. If they are not badged they have only got to go to any Labour Exchange and declare themselves munition workers and get an exemption ticket. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] Certainly they can. I saw that only the other day.
  Mr. THOMAS: That is from the employer.
  Sir A. MOND: A man wanted to go to munitions, went to the Labour Exchange and got a ticket as a munitions volunteer, and I think, so far as I know, that is still open. I think that some of the vague fears which have been expressed exist in people's minds, and that up to
  2140
  now those great fears have not been found to exist. Most industries to-day are controlled, and surely nobody is going to say that in the controlled works it should be possible to compel people to do something which was quite wrong. The hon. Member for Stockport spoke of men "taking refuge in the Army." That struck me as a very extraordinary expression when over three million men have already gone. To say, "Look at this poor workman, whose foreman says 'if you do not do some degrading thing you will have to go into the Army,'" surely, considering that millions of men have gone—
  Mr. WARDLE: The right hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood me. I did not mean to use the word "refuge" in the sense which he means, and I withdraw it at once.
  Mr. T. WILSON: He substituted another word for it.
  Sir A. MOND: The hardship seems to me to be an illusory one. I cannot understand any man of spirit, of military age, submitting to any kind of order because he has to join the Army. Why, one of the difficulties has been that men insisted on going into the Army, and some of them are still insisting on doing so. In a town of my own Constituency I know of a case in which colliers walked twelve miles to a recruiting office in order to join the Army, and they were very much disgusted on being told that it was a reserved occupation and that they were not allowed to join. It does not seem to me that there is much chance of any employer doing much wrong with the alternative that the man has to go into the Army unless he does a certain thing. In such a case the men would say in a body, "We will go, and you can carry on your works as best you may." I do not think myself the intention of the Amendment has ever been a very sound one. I am sorry that the Labour party are going to divide. After all, the Government met them handsomely against what was the opinion of some of us, and we did not divide against the Government, because the point was not a vital one. I should have thought that hon. Members might very well accept the alteration plus the offer of a Labour Committee, rather than put the House to the trouble of a Division.
  Mr. BARNES: A great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is true, provided something was not done

  2141
  long ago. The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget all about the Munitions Act. We did not ask for the Munitions Act.
  An HON. MEMBER: You voted for it.
  Mr. BARNES: I not only did not vote for it, but I was not here when it was passed, and I took the very earliest opportunity when I came back to say that I would not have voted for it if I had been here. Consequently the observation is entirely uncalled for. My right hon. Friend says we were asking for certain privileges. Let me assure him we have never asked for any privilege. The assumption underlying his remarks is that people engaged in munitions are simply asking and demanding that they should be specially dealt with. As a matter of fact, the Government specially dealt with them six months ago. They took away from them their industrial freedom and placed their industrial freedom in the hands of employers. That has given rise to the whole difficulty, because owing to the provision of handing over the industrial freedom of a man into the hands of his employer, the man was penalised in the way of not getting employment in a munitions factory for six weeks, or anywhere else. The munitions factories were not so numerous at that time. Practically the munitions factories cover the whole field now, and therefore that penalty is very real, as far as the operatives of munitions factories, or industries connected therewith, are concerned. It is that six weeks that has given rise to the whole difficulty. All the demand that we have put up is that things should be again equalised by this Bill, and that is the simple explanation on that point. Hence the eight weeks, now lessened to a fortnight. I have a good deal of sympathy with what was said by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) last week. I know there have been a good many men—I know personally of grocers' assistants and scene-shifters—who have gone to munition factories, and there are a great many more, whose fathers are town councillors or something of that kind, and happen to know the manager of a munitions factory, and therefore have been able to get into munition factories instead of going into the Army. There are a good many men of that sort in munition factories, and, for my part, I do not want to keep them there. I would rather have them out. Having gone so
  2142
  far, I might as well go farther and say that I do not know yet how I am going to vote if a Division is taken. A good deal might be said, but I think it best not to say it here, at all events, although I may have something to say elsewhere. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, I am awfully sorry that there has been so much clouding the issue about this Committee. As far as I understand, the Committee is to have nothing to do with industrial compulsion.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: What is it for?
  Mr. BARNES: If the hon. Baronet had listened when I spoke last week, and the week before he would have heard what I then said on the subject. I do not like repeating what I said, but I suppose I must. I have been employed by the Government in getting men from France, Canada, and elsewhere, and I know the terrible shortage of labour there is in engineering, shipbuilding, and kindred trades. Many places are now working their men from six in the morning till nine at night every day. These shops ought to be working night shifts, but they cannot get the men. We all know, too, what a terrible difficulty there is in regard to tonnage. Hence the desirability of getting more men for the shipbuilding yards. While that position has existed for the last few months to the extent of thousands of pounds having to be spent to get men out of the Army in France, all the time men have actually been taken from the workshops in this country. Exactly the same sort of men that we have been bringing from France have been taken into the Army and sent to France or Salonika or elsewhere. It is because of that that this small Committee is required. I did not ask for a small Committee. I have made representations, as I am doing now, as to what has been taking place and suggested that it should be stopped. The Committee is entirely the right hon. Gentleman's own suggestion. It comes from him, not from us. What is the Committee for? I feel sure that it is out of no disparagement to the hon. Baronet that it has been suggested it should consist of Labour men. It is simply because Labour men know the sort of man that is wanted. I do not want to set msyelf up as an authority on anything else, but there are certain matters of which I have had daily experience. I spent twenty-two years of my life in engineering and ship-

  2143
  building yards from one end of the country to the other. I know all the groups of workmen, all the divisions and sub-divisions in the engineering and shipbuilding yards. Therefore, I was of some service to an official of the Local Government Board the other day when he was drawing up a list of men whom the local tribunals will have no authority in the future to take from the workshops, no matter what their ages may be. Prior to that there had been a provision that certain men marked "M M" should not be disturbed. Then there was an alteration, and it was stipulated that the same type of men should not be disturbed if they were over twenty-five and then over thirty years of age, the assumption being, I suppose, that a man under twenty-five is more suitable for the Army. The right hon. Gentleman had at last recognised that even if men are under twenty-five years of age it is very impolitic to take them away from the workshops. Hence this new circular providing that certain types of men will be left in the workshops no matter what their age may be, and that no local tribunal will have any power to touch them. It will be the duty of this small Committee, as I understand, to determine what sort of men should be included in any subsequent circular or in any interpretation of the last circular. No principle is involved. It is simply a matter of ascertainment of fact.
  With regard to the Reserve, I am somewhat alarmed, and I venture to give the right hon. Gentleman a word of warning. I am afraid he has been misled. When the Bill was introduced the Prime Minister made a passing reference to a Reserve. Many hon. Members, including myself, were a little alarmed, but when it was explained, it appeared to be all right, and I believe it is all right. I do not believe there is the slightest fear of any man going into that Reserve and having done to him anything which may be said to be industrial compulsion. But what I am sorry to find is the new-born zeal and love of certain Members of my own party for this new Reserve. I only knew this from reading the OFFICIAL REPORT the other day. The suggestion was made, and apparently accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, that everybody should be lumped into this new Reserve. If you do anything of the kind you will have trouble. If you had had this Reserve at the beginning of the War it might have been done all right, and no other consideration except the free-
  2144
  dom of the workmen would have been involved. But you had not; you have only started it now. You have other Reserves in actual operation. You have—I do not know how many—probably tens of thousands of workmen up and down the country, working in another Reserve. What are you doing with them? You are giving them 17s. 6d. a week in addition to their wages. Immediately you lump these men into the new Reserve it means taking 17s. 6d.—
  Mr. LONG: I think my right hon. Friend misunderstands the position. The Army Council's intention at the present moment in regard to any men transferred to the Reserve is to transfer them without either financial loss or any other detriment to their present position.
  Mr. BARNES: Then I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I gathered that he was going to convert the other Reserves into this one. I need not say anything further on the point. I am not at all sorry that I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, because I know that the suggestion has been made from these benches. I am glad he has not accepted that suggestion, and I hope he will not, because if he does he will have plenty of trouble.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I do not think there ought to be much dissension on this Amendment, although I do not like the Clause relating to the Committee.
  Mr. LONG: There is no Clause.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I mean arrangement. I agree with every word said by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University as to the patriotic part played by the great majority of the Labour party during the War. But I think that too much importance has for years past been placed on the fact that a man labels himself "Labour." We sat on the benches opposite before the Labour party came into the House, and we permitted them to sit on the benches they now occupy although, being new Members, they ought to have gone on the benches behind. Because a man labels himself "Labour" he claims to be entitled to speak on all labour questions on behalf of labour, while we who represent labour just as much as the so-called Labour Members do are supposed to be not so entitled. Hon. Members are quite wrong in taking that view. I know far more about the conditions of labour than any member of the Labour party does, because I am in constant daily contact

  2145
  with the work carried out by my Constituents, whereas members of the Labour party only see the working men at meetings at night, when the differences between myself and other employers and the men are brought to their notice. Hon. Members know also that working men in industrial constituencies constantly reject these so-called Labour representatives and select others. They may be right, or they may be wrong. But I object to this preference being given in this House to men simply because they call themselves labour. I do not know what this Committee is for at all. The Leader of the Labour party says there has been no deal. I do not understand it. I do not know what the exact dictionary meaning of the word "deal" is, but, if this is not a deal, I do not know what is. Can Members who sit on the benches below me give any single case where a man has been industrially conscripted since the passing of the Act at the beginning of this year? I do not believe they can. I have a good deal to do with men who come under the operation of this Act, but I have never known a single case where a man was industrially conscripted. As to this bargain which the right hon. Gentleman has made with Members who claim to represent labour—
  Mr. LONG: There has been no bargain.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: I am simply substituting "bargain" for "deal."
  Mr. LONG: There has been none.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Or "conversations." I think that is the new Parliamentary word.
  Mr. LONG: I only repeated to-day what I said quite distinctly in the House during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, when I referred more than once to the Committee and the terms of reference, and the suggestion that they should advise the Government.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: Have there been no "conversations" at all outside the House?
  Mr. LONG: There have been plenty of conversations.
  Sir A. MARKHAM: The right hon. Gentleman is really playing with the House, if he wishes us to believe that all these conversations have taken place within the House itself. We should not have heard about the Committee of three
  2146
  unless he had had conversations with Gentlemen sitting below me, either at his own office or elsewhere. However, I do not want to press the point. I only protest against the arrangement under which Members representing industrial constituencies, who are just as well able to judge on these matters as hon. Members who label themselves "Labour," are shut out from this Committee which is going to advise the Government.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. PRINGLE: The discussion we have had this afternoon illustrates the unfortunate consequences of haste, for this Bill has been passed both through this House and the other place. Had this subject been discussed with the deliberation it deserves we would not now have been in the midst of the confusion and difficulties with which the House is faced. I have to complain in the first place of the obscurity, the deep obscurity, which still hangs over this Committee of the Labour party which has to deal with this particular Clause. We have heard that this Committee is to discharge certain functions with regard to this matter—at least, that was the impression made by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board when he proposed the Motion now before the House. We have been told, however, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars that this Committee has absolutely no relation to the Clause now under discussion. This is a matter which deserves to be cleared up. The House ought definitely to be told before we part with this Amendment whether this particular Committee is to act as a Court of Appeal for the tribunals or for the Government Departments. The matter is one which ought to be cleared up; it ought not to be left in the obscure position in which it is at present. We were told that there has been no deal, but it emerged, as a result of the dialogue between the hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) and the President of the Local Government Board, that there had been "conversations." Obviously the "conversations" have had some substantial result. Apparently the attitude of what is still called the Labour party is to be modified in some way by the concession of this precious Committee.
  The real point, however, is one of considerable substance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars said it was a simple matter. It is nothing of the kind. I do not believe that at the

  2147
  present time the majority of the Members of this House understand either the Clause as it stands in the Bill without the Amendment or the exact effect of the Lords Amendment. The majority of the members of the Labour party at the present moment think that under the Clause the position of every man who is engaged in munitions work or in work of national importance is safeguarded—that is to say, every man engaged in this work before 15th August, 1915. That is their impression. It is not so at all. It says that protection is only granted in respect of certificates which ceased to be in force after the date of the passing of the Act—that is, in respect of certificates granted under the original Act. Consequently it will not apply to the certificates referred to by the Amendment. Therefore, every single married men who becomes compulsorily enlisted under the Amendment Act is now subject to the two weeks' period, irrespective of whether he is or is not under the Munitions Act. I do not suppose the Labour party understood that. At least, the consideration of that point seems to have been absent altogether from the speeches of the Labour party, and from that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackfriars. There is also another effect. It applies also to every man who has received a certificate of exemption on the footing that he was to have two months.
  Everybody knows that it was only in the very early days of the tribunals that the tribunals did not take into account the two months beyond the term of postponement. As soon as it was discovered that there were two months additional under Section 6 of the original Act every tribunal in every part of the country, in granting an exemption, has always granted it on the footing that there was two months in addition to the time mentioned in the certificate. But as this is, no man -who has lost his certificate in the two months allowed for will be entitled to that. They will be compelled, every one of them, to go before the tribunal. You will, consequently, have every tribunal in the country having to take up every one of these cases, readjudicate upon it, and give a new term of exemption. Was ever anything more ridiculous done in the name of national organisation? We are mobilising and organising our resources! We are now placing the whole of our resources under scientific organisation,
  2148
  and the two Houses of Parliament and the Coalition Government decide to do this most ridiculous thing in the name of scientific mobilisation! Hardly ever has a more stupid thing been the result of the combined wisdom of the Government and of the two Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. BOOTH: And the conversations!
  Mr. PRINGLE: Yes, and the conversations—those that have taken place either in the room of the President of the Local Government Board, or in his office at Whitehall, or in the room of the Labour party. In spite of our Debates here, and of all the difficulties—it is true that we have sat into the small hours of the morning—we have perpetrated this extra ordinary legislative monstrosity. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea talked of the ridiculousness of giving two months to every man who is a munitions worker. The right hon. Baronet knows perfectly well that had it not been for Section 7 of the Munitions Act we would never have had this at all. The right hon. Baronet had the opportunity of getting rid of that ridiculous Clause when the Munitions of War (Amendment) Act was going through this House. At that time he got up and advised the Minister of Munitions to maintain it. He said that what was wanted was not less industrial compulsion, but more. This he said on the Second Reading of the Bill. Now he gets up and professes the greatest amazement that there should be any doubt or misgiving in any part of the country regarding industrial compulsion, when he himself, with the exception, perhaps, of one Minister on that bench, has done more than anybody else in the country to excite this misgiving. Obviously, if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to get rid of this provision of the two months, it is for them to agitate for the amendment of the Munitions Act. Let them get rid of this fetter upon industrial freedom, and upon a man's freedom to seek employment where he wishes. I do not believe that under existing conditions the supply of munitions is promoted in the slightest degree, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree—
  Sir A. MOND: The tribunals, I think, take no notice of the Clause.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think that the right hon. Baronet does not watch the proceedings that go on before the Munitions-Tribunals.
  Sir A. MOND: I know something of munitions workers, and of tribunals.
  Mr. PRINGLE: It is an unfortunate thing that it is before the Munitions Tribunals that these offences are prosecuted. It is quite true that the right hon. Baronet may not take the trouble to prosecute before these tribunals in respect of these workers, but undoubtedly anybody who looks at the reports of these proceedings in different parts of the country, in the West of Scotland, in the North of England, on the Tyne, or even in London, will see that there are constant prosecutions of men for evading this particular Statute. In many cases, it is true, the man cannot be traced, but at the same time there is a sufficient number of prosecutions to make the existence of this provision a very keenly felt grievance by large sections of workmen. I believe it is futile. I believe it is disastrous in its results. As the right hon. Gentleman now thinks it absolutely useless, I hope that he will use his great influence with the Minister of Munitions to secure a further Amendment of the Act, and the repeal of this mischievous and pernicious provision. I mention this provision as a justification for the insertion of the two months period.
  So long as you have this provision in the Munitions Act, namely, that if a man leaves his employment in a controlled establishment without his employer's assent, or the assent of the Munitions Tribunal, that he is to go idle for six weeks before he can get other employment—so long as you have that you must give a period of extra exemption in respect of military service beyond the six weeks' period, so that the man may have an opportunity of securing other employment. That is obvious. The members of the Labour party admit it. In respect to this particular Amendment of the House of Lords it is doubtful whether it is of any real value in limiting the application of the exemption. It will only apply, in the first place, to men who are exempt under the original Act. It will not have any application to any certificate of exemption granted under this Act. It only applies to men who have not been employed either in the same or similar occupations before August, 1915. The Amendment does not say "immediately before." There might be a considerable interval between the period before, or the earlier period of this employment, and the employment subsequent to that date. It is a point whether the
  2150
  Army Council are well-advised in introducing that position in view of the small number of men who will become available by reason of it. I think, however, that the whole Clause as it stands is a mistake. It is introducing difficulties and confusion, and as a protest against the alteration of the original Act I am going to vote against its insertion.
  Mr. THOMAS: We have listened to some interesting lectures this afternoon. The right hon. Baronet (Sir A. Markham) told the House very plainly that his grievance against the Labour party, since 1906, was that they had robbed him of a particular seat that he enjoyed, seeing the seat he now occupies probably prevents him often from catching the Speaker's eye. In any case I do not think any member of the Labour party claims to represent his constituency in any different sense to that of any other Member of the House. It is, however, true to say that the hon. Baronet does not employ a large number of men, and I believe, unlike many other Members of this House, he is satisfied that it is to his interest to give preference to trade unionists. It is also quite true to say that the miners do not usually go to the hon. Baronet for advice. They invariably go to the miners' leaders to seek advice in order to fight the hon. Baronet. That is where the differences and the close connection come in. It is quite true that though they cannot trust the hon. Baronet to weigh their coal for them, they are quite ready to allow him to make laws for them. Then the right hon. Baronet the Member for Swansea (Sir Alfred Mond) informed the Labour party that they are primarily responsible for what he calls the combing out of the single men. I do not know, but I have a distinct recollection of the right hon. Gentleman giving his blessing to the Labour men in that combing-out process. I think it was he who was pointing out how wise they were, and how unwise those other people were who did not see quite eye-to-eye on this matter.
  Sir A. MOND: Will the hon. Member refer to any statement I ever made on the combing-out process?
  Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman was lecturing everybody who did not support the single-men theory, and that was nothing else but the combing-out process.
  Sir A. MOND: I admit I have always advocated universal compulsion, but that the single men ought to go first.
  Mr. THOMAS: It is quite true that, whilst the right hon. Baronet did advocate universal compulsion, he was also specially anxious to get the single men first. But I want to come to this so-called bargain, because, for the first time I think, I was in it, and I think I had better clear the air straight away as to what actually happened. I do not know whether it is assumed that other Members of this House do not take part in Parliamentary negotiations. I have a very distinct recollection of being connected with many deputations and negotiations with other Members in this House, and I do not think it is any exception to the rule to find the Labour party being consulted. So far as I understand, what took place is this: When the Labour Members met the right hon. Gentleman they were faced with an Amendment that was contemplated in the other House, and that Amendment which would have had the effect of putting everybody under the military machine. It would have had the effect of nullifying all the efforts that were being made to prevent engineers being driven into the Army; in short, it was to give the Army Council absolute and complete control. Now we were told, at this conversation, that the Army Council did not desire industrial compulsion. We were told quite frankly that the Army Council was as anxious to safeguard industrial compulsion as we were, but they were anxious to obtain those thousands of people my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) was anxious about who had got into mines and other places, and I said immediately that if that was the object it could be obtained in another way than by the Clause that was then on the Paper. Curiously enough, I have since found myself in the position of being fathered with this proposal that the Lords are now asking us to accept. At all events, I want to make it perfectly clear that I thought then, and I still think, that this is the only way to deal exclusively with those who have gone into occupations for the purpose of escaping military service, but nevertheless this does, in the very nature of things, create industrial compulsion.
  Several people have asked for an illustration of how it operates. To-day a case was brought to my notice of a fireman who had been for fifteen years employed by one of our trunk companies. He met with a mishap. A fortnight ago he had an unfortunate slip on the railway. The rail-
  2152
  way company punished him by reducing him threepence a day. He is a married man with a family, and he says, "I cannot live on 24s. a week. I think the punishment of losing threepence per day is excessive, and therefore I will immediately tender my resignation and get, another job." Immediately he does that the railway company says, "No; so far as we are concerned, although we have exercised our right to punish you, we will not give you a leaving certificate." That is to say, having punished the man, he, not being satisfied with the punishment, decides to seek another job, and then the employer says, "We will prevent you getting a job." Under this Clause, although the employer has the right to prevent the man getting another job, he automatically, in a fortnight, goes into the Army. Now that is the crux of the whole question. I will give another case that happened on Monday. At Southampton there is a body of men who were subject hitherto to one day's notice—that is to say, if the railway company liked to say to them on Saturday night, "We do not require your services," on Monday morning they cease to be employed. These men have been under contract for a large number of years. Now the Government have opened a factory right across the river where they are paying 7d. per hour. One of these men says, "Seeing that I am only subject to a day's notice and I only get 5½d. an hour, I will get a job under the Government at 7d. an hour." He immediately goes across, and they say to him, "We are quite willing to employ you, as we are short of men, but we want a leaving certificate from you," and when he goes over to the South-Western Company and asks for this leaving certificate, they say, "Oh, no, we are not going to allow you to leave, and you are thereby penalised six weeks." What happens in that case? The Government, or the new employer, whoever he may be, refuses to employ the man. The late employer refuses to give him a leaving certificate. He is out of work for a fortnight, and within the fortnight he comes under the provision of that Clause.
  It is no good arguing that that is not industrial compulsion. It is no good comparing the position as being a privilege. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport did not speak of the Army in a disparaging sense. He did not mean that at all. None of us could suggest that it is any disgrace to be associated with men who have given their lives for eighteen

  2153
  months. That is not the sense in which it is understood at all, but what we say is that if these people up to now have been necessary in the country's interest, is it not putting an unfortunate and a dangerous power in the hands of an employer who may be unscrupulous and use it in the opposite direction? That is the danger of the position. The Minister of Munitions came down to this House and said, "I am being hampered by some trade unions who will not relax their rules." The First Lord of the Admiralty himself from that bench emphasised that the real need of the Navy was the dilution of labour. The Minister of Munitions intimated that, so far as he was concerned, he required 80,000 skilled and 200,000 unskilled workers, and, as I am reminded by an hon. Friend, they want 30,000 skilled workers yet. What is the meaning of dilution of labour? My right hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) says, "I know grocers' assistants and scene-shifters who have gone into munition factories." It may be true, but they have gone in at the invitation of the Minister of Munitions, and they have gone in because the trade unions have relaxed their rules. Dilution of labour can only mean a blending of unskilled with skilled men. It can only mean that some of those who hitherto were excluded from this kind of work have now been brought in and trained, and what I want to put to the House is this: If it s true, as we have been told, that our munition factories are not working and producing the output they ought to produce, if it is true that munition factories to-day cannot be opened because of the shortage of labour, is it not a waste of energy, and is it not bad organisation, that you should talk about bringing out of the factories the very people you invited in and have been training so long? It is because there is the danger felt by the working classes of the power of an unscrupulous employer—we are not dealing with the Government in this matter at all—
  AN HON. MEMBER: Or unscrupulous workmen!
  Mr. THOMAS: And equally an unscrupulous workman, because do not let it be assumed that any Labour man pretends that all the virtues are on the side of the working classes. They have the same vices as the other people. The only difference is that the other people have more friends to look after their interests and more
  2154
  power, and we, on the other hand, feel that it is our duty to look after the interests of the working classes. In this connection I think the Government ought to stand by the Clause as it is. Labour never asked for, and was not party to, the six weeks' Clause in the Munitions Act. Some of us opposed that Clause, and the original eight weeks was only inserted in the Bill because of the Munitions Act. Having regard to all those circumstances, having regard to the dangers, and having regard to the fact that there is a suspicion in the minds of the workers which we want to allay, I hope the Government will reconsider their position, and say that what the President of the Local Government Board said when he accepted the original Amendment of the Labour party is as true-to-day as it was then.
  Sir RYLAND ADKINS: Is it not possible for my right hon. Friend to ask the House to disagree with the Lords' Amendment? I, unlike the hon. Member for Mansfield, regret that there is no deal or bargain between my right hon. Friend and the Labour party. If the suggestion of a Committee really meets the objection of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), or if there is any other way on a point, on which they are rightly and naturally sensitive, by which they would be satisfied, that would probably satisfy other Members of this House. The House agreed to the Clause in the form in which it left the House without a Division, and without any opposition except from the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and the House agreed to that for the very obvious reason that the vast majority of this House are thoroughly opposed to industrial compulsion, and modifications put in at the instance of the Labour party, and in the form in which this left the House, were taken as a security against this industrial compulsion. I am confident that even the slightest tinge of industrial compulsion is far more deeply resented and more likely to be a serious difficulty in the country than all the military compulsion which is now possible under these various Acts of Parliament. It is quite clear to-day, from the speeches of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) and the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), that Labour does not agree with or accept this Amendment proposed in the Lords, and these adumbrations of the Committee, whatever be the subject-matter which they are to deal

  2155
  with, are not taken as adequate substitutes. Is it really in the public interest that my right hon. Friend should adhere to what he thought was his sound judgment, which he thought was the best solution? His experience of civilian feeling is far greater than that possessed by the Army Council, and is it not wise that he should adhere to his original view, and not at the last moment run the risk of doubt growing up in the Labour party and those they represent on this point to which they attach so much importance? I submit that it would conduce to the smooth working of this Act if the Clause was restored to the form in which it left this House. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as one who wants this Act to work and to avoid all kinds of social friction. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the dread of industrial compulsion is exaggerated, even the existence of that dread is a social danger. It is the opinion of those whose point of view on this subject is worth considering that the rejection of this Amendment would allay that fear and promote the smooth working of the Act. I say this as strongly as possible, and I shall retain my freedom as to what I shall do on this proposal, and my action will depend on what we hear further from the Front Bench on this question.
  Sir GEORGE CAVE: I hope the House will now be willing to come to a decision on this point. I think it is a pity that this Amendment should be made the subject of a Division. If it is accepted, the position will be that skilled men who were in those specal occupations before August last will have two months after their certificate comes to an end in which they can obtain a certificate of exemption. Those men will still be in that position. The men who have entered those occupations after the Registration Bill, and after compulsion was in the air, will come under the conditions that affect other occupations, and they will not have two months; they must apply for their certificates in fourteen days, and if they are really entitled to exemption, and they apply within the fourteen days, they will get their exemption easily within the two months. Therefore, in all genuine cases this will apply. It is only in cases where the men have entered a reserved occupation in the hope or expectation of avoiding military service that the period is limited to fourteen days. It is very far from the desire of the Government that any kind of victimisation should take
  2156
  place. We do not desire under the Military Service Act or the Munitions Act to victimise any workmen, but we want as many men as we can obtain, and we want to get them at the earliest moment at which they can reasonably be got. I think this suggestion, although it is not in any sense an agreed compromise, is a fair Parliamentary solution of the difficulty which the House might accept without going to a Division.
  Mr. BOOTH: I am not very much in love with this Parliamentary deal, which seems to me to shirk the real trouble, and I thought we had got away from Parliamentary deals in time of war. In times of peace I revel in them as much as anybody else, but to hear the right hon. Gentleman recommend this Amendment as a Parliamentary solution jars upon my nerves. For weeks I have been battling with the difficulties of this Clause. I have listened to the discussion, and particularly the contribution of the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir Ryland Adkins), and I could not see any familiarity with the problem in what he said. He spoke about doubts and fears in regard to something existing in somebody's mind. We ought to legislate because of what is in the hands of the Germans that is going to kill our people. There is a good deal too much consideration on the benches around me to ideas of that sort which have to be removed. It is said that we shall have more difficulty and complexity in working our various industries because of some imaginary grievances. I pay this compliment to the Labour party, that as a rule, when they raise a point, it is because of some concrete fact which has come under their notice. In battling with this Clause the principal difficulty arises from men taking advantage of it who were never meant to be benefited by this House. If this House passes legislation to protect some spoiled children invariably people not entitled to it immediately take advantage of it, just as was the case with the Clause dealing with conscientious objectors, which was taken advantage of by many who were simply cowards and shirkers.
  The people who are shielding themselves here are not the class of people whom good-meaning men like the hon. Baronet the Member for Salford (Sir W. Byles) have in mind. Who are taking advantage of this proposal? Such people as clerks and travellers who are totally unnecessary in their businesses, and they

  2157
  go on this two months' exemption. I would rather the House of Lords had gone a little further in this matter. The only cases I have found in practical experience of the introduction of this two months' period have been people whom all hon. Members would wish to go to the War. You dismiss a man because he is not required, and it may be because some employer has been showing a little favouritism, and then you come along with a better intention, or perhaps wake up and you get rid of this man, and then you are in trouble with your own Munitions Act, or the Military Service Act, which were not passed to protect those people. I speak somewhat feelingly, because I am standing the racket of law actions from skulkers and cowards whom I have turned out to go into the Army, and the work is going on better without them than when they were there. It is to please men with theories and ideas of this sort who will not come down into the works that Clauses of this kind are put into the Bill, and this causes all the trouble. I welcome the Government's action, because to a certain extent it clears up the position, and it will not make it difficult for trade unions. I have no trouble with the genuine trade unions, but it is the other kind that bothers us in the North of England, and this Amendment will help us to deal with it.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: This Amendment seems objectionable because it complicates in an additional degree a subject which is already pretty complicated. It introduces several other complications, and makes the question more difficult to understand. I wish the Government had adhered to their first thoughts in this matter, although I am prepared to support them as I have done all along when the Government think a course is necessary and that it is the best policy in the interests of the nation. When that is the case the Government are really in a position of trustees, and they ought to give more than usual consideration to these difficulties which are raised. I also want to refer to the criticisms which have been passed on the Government for what is supposed to be a deal or a conversation. I notice the objections to this course come from those who have been most in the habit in the past of indulging in those conversations and deals. I find it very hard to understand the difficulties raised by the right
  2158
  hon. Gentleman the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson). I listened to him with a sympathy that I did not entertain in the past, but in spite of that sympathy I found it difficult to understand his position. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech and an interjection, but it seemed to me that the difficulties he raised in his speech were all answered in anticipation by his interjection.
  What were the difficulties he raised in his speech which was made in support of the Amendment? It is rather curious that so critical and so censorious a speech should have been delivered in support of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman referred specially to this Committee of Members which has been appointed to act, as I understand, as an Advisory Committee in the administration of certain parts of the Act. He pointed out that there might be conflicts of jurisdiction, and he asked what was to happen when the Committee differed from the Army Council, and who was to decide between them. He said that there might be friction, all kinds of difficulties might arise, and there might be a deadlock. The answer to all that seems to be provided in the interjection which the right hon. Gentleman interpolated into the speech of the right hon. Gentleman when he was speaking about this Committee, for he asked whether the Committee was to be in the Bill, and therefore to have statutory powers, and the right hon. Gentleman said "No." That seems to dispose of all the difficulties which have been suggested. This Committee will have no statutory power, and it will be purely an Advisory Committee. Its advice will be there to be accepted or rejected, and no administrative or executive powers will be given to it, and therefore there can be no friction, no conflict of jurisdiction, no interlocking, and no deadlock, and it will not interfere with the smooth administration of the Act in any way. I have no doubt that the advice of such a Committee will receive due weight from the Army Council, and it will also carry weight in this House. I have no doubt whatever if it were found that in the case of this Committee the action of the Army Council was such as to establish anything approaching to industrial compulsion this House would be seised of the matter, and I have not the faintest doubt as to what the action of this House would be. That would very

  2159
  soon be put a stop to. I am not very apprehensive as to the possibility of industrial compulsion under this Act, but I think one must recognise that it is possible, if it were administered with an evil mind, or with a desire to establish industrial compulsion, for persons so disposed to introduce the thin end of the wedge, and
  for that reason I would urge the Government to consider whether they cannot adhere to their own first intentions is regard to this matter.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 69.

  Division No. 24.]

  AYES.

  [5 47 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fell, Arthur

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  Forster, Henry William

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Astor, Hon. Waldorf

  Goddard, Rt. Hon. Sir Daniel Ford

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Grant, James Augustus

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Pratt, J. W.

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Harris, Rt. Hon. Leverton (Wor'ter, E.)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Hayward, Evan

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Prothero, Rowland Edmund

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Herbert, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Bellairs, Commander C. W.

  Hill, James

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Horne, Edgar

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

  Bird, Alfred

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Blair, Reginald

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Bliss, Joseph

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

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

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Jessel, Colonel H. M.

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Boyton, James

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Brace, William

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Bull, Sir William James

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Stewart, Gershom

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Butcher, John George

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R.

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Sykes, Col. Alan John (Knutsford)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  Tickler, T. G.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Turton, Edmund R.

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin)

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Donald

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Macmaster, Donald

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Cochrane, Cecil Algernon

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. T. J.

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  Malcolm, Ian

  Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Wilson, Captain A. Stanley

  Currie, George W.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Winterton, Captain Earl

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Meux, Sir Hedworth

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

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

  Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Younger, Sir George

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Mr. Gulland and Mr. Bridgeman.

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  NOES.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon W.

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Adamson, William

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Hazleton, Richard

  Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Hinds, John

  Anderson, W. C.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Hogge, J. M.

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Holt, Richard Durning

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Hudson, Walter

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Gilbert, J. D.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Hancock, John George

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Chancellor, Henry George

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Toulmin, Sir George

  King, Joseph

  Robinson, Sidney

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Roch, Walter F.

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Rowlands, James

  Wardle, George J.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Whitty, Patrick Joseph

  Morrell, Philip

  Shortt, Edward

  Wiles, Thomas

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Snowden, Philip

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Nuttall, Harry

  Stanton, Charles Butt

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  O'Grady, James

  Sutton, John E.

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Thomas, James Henry

  Pringle, William M. R.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. J. Parker and Mr. Goldstone.

  Radford, George Heynes

  Tootill, Robert

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Lords Amendment:
  Leave out the word "or" ["work of national importance or whose conditions of employment"] and insert instead thereof the words, "and who were engaged in such an occupation before the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifteen, and in the case of men."—Agreed to.
  Lords Amendment:
  After the figures "1915" ["Munitions of War Act, 1915"] insert the words "as amended by any subsequent enactment, and who were in the same employment or engaged in the same or similar occupation before the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and fifteen."—Agreed to.
  Lords Amendment:
  At the end of Clause 6 insert the following new Clause:
  Provisions as to Exemption of Medical Practitioners.—Regulations made under the Second Schedule to the principal Act shall provide for the establishment of professional committees to deal with claims for exemption made by duly qualified medical practitioners; and any application made by such a medical practitioner on any ground, other than that of conscientious objection, for a certificate of exemption shall be referred by the tribunal to whom it is made to such a committee in accordance with those Regulations; and the recommendation of the committee on the application shall be binding on any tribunal constituted under the principal Act.
  Mr. LONG: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  This new Clause is the result of very patient examination by the War Office and representatives of the civil members of the medical profession who are in this country. The negotiations were not con-
  2162
  cluded at the time the subject was being dealt with in this House. The War Office have reason to be greatly anxious as to the provision of medical men at the front without at the same time depleting the supply of medical men for civil work here at home, and this arrangement has been arrived at between the War Office and the medical profession. I hope the House will be ready to adopt it.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I wish to support in every way this Amendment, and I gather that it is for the purpose of making exemptions to medical men rather more easy. I hope the Government will give the greatest attention to the question of the supply of doctors for civil work here at home.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. KING: I am afraid that I cannot agree in thinking that this is a good Clause, especially in view of the very inadequate explanation and the very few valid reasons, indeed, if there are any reasons at all, which have been offered to us by the President of the Local Government Board. Why have a special tribunal for doctors at all? If you want to make it easier for doctors to get exemption, why not accept the Amendments which were suggested in this House previously. There was one put forward by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) giving special exemption, or grounds of exemption, in the case of doctors. Why should doctors have a special tribunal of their own profession, any more than lawyers, or grocers, or undertakers, or farmers and farmers' sons and agricultural labourers? Surely out of every class of the community we only want to take those men who can be spared, and the true and just way is to lay down provision which will apply equally to all tribunals, and then throw yourselves upon the justice of the average citizen, and not set up a special tribunal to deal with any particular class of the community. This is an extraordinary proposal and certainly ought to have more

  2163
  justification than we have had offered to us by the right hon. Gentleman. It is an old question, and there are several Members, myself amongst them, who have tried to bring it up on the Army Estimates, on Votes of Credit, and other occasions, and we have never had any answer whatever from the Treasury Bench. All of a sudden they tell us that the case is serious, though our warnings have fallen on deaf, or, rather, contemptuous ears, and now they set up a special tribunal to deal with doctors. This is not treating the House fairly. It is dealing with a very grave national question in a spirit of panic and sudden alarm. I am going to tell the House one or two facts which I had the privilege on a previous occasion of stating when the benches were entirely empty. I intend on this occasion to state them more briefly than before, when I hoped something might be put into the Bill dealing with this question. We have about 30,000 medical men in this country, and ever since August last the War Office, through a Committee which was set up and which was called the War Central Medical Council, has been trying to obtain the control of the whole of these medical men. They have gone about their work attempting to make every medical man sign an undertaking that when called upon he will respond to whatever may be asked of him by the War Office—to enter the Royal Army Medical Corps or to otherwise engage in war work.
  It has been repeatedly shown to the House as a whole that the organisation of the medical men in our Army is most extravagant. Experienced men are put to work for which they are totally unfitted—work which is totally unnecessary, and by making the medical service dependent on the Army divisions, instead of such an organisation as the Army as a whole, or Armies which are in the field as against Armies behind the line, by making the whole medical service dependent upon divisional equipment in medical matters, you are wasting, as I believe, between 40 and 50 per cent. of the medical men in the Army. You have employed them on transport work and in clerical work, and you have specialists highly qualified put to all sorts of unsuitable work. The result is that you are wasting our medical resources in a way which is perfectly shameful. We were told yesterday by one who had been inside the War Council that we
  2164
  are wasting our fighting forces. Whether that be true or not I am not in a position to say, but having been in this matter on more than one occasion in consultation with eminent medical authorities I am absolutely convinced we are wasting our medical resources.
  Now we are going to set up a special medical authority to give exemptions. We are not told what it is going to be. We do not know who will constitute this medical tribunal which is going to give exemptions. I have very little doubt myself it is going to be either the Central Medical War Council or somebody proposed by, and in touch with, that council, and the result will be that a certain number of medical men who have been got into tow with the War Office, who are totally against, and have always been against, anything like reorganisation or economy of the medical forces of the country, will be put in complete command of all the medical men of military age who may be brought within this Act. I will give, if I may, one or two facts which will show that I am not speaking without reason. This council of which I am speaking is practically a branch of the British Medical Association, and that association, although it professes to represent the whole of the medical men of this country, does not represent them at all. It is doubtful if it speaks with authority for more than one-third of them. In the last issue of the "British Medical Journal" we had this extraordinary proposal put forward as part of the policy of the British Medical Association, in connection, of course, with the development and treatment of the medical service, which would have to be reconsidered in connection with this Bill. I think I had better read the resolution which was passed, and which has the support of the "British Medical Journal":
  "This society is of opinion that where medical men ineligible for war duties cannot be found for out-patients' departments of civil hospitals or for tuberculosis or school medical work, such departments should at once be closed for the duration of the War."
  This is one of the results of Conscription. We are to have our tuberculosis departments closed at once. We are to have our schools of medical work shut down. We are to have the out-patient departments of civil hospitals closed. Before the Bill is passed, the authors of this Clause are making proposals as to what they will do when the Bill has actually become law. If it is now beyond the power of this House

  2165
  to stop the Government in their wild course of militarism, what will they not want to do when the Bill has become an Act? I protest on behalf of the civil population, on behalf of the children, on behalf of tuberculous persons who might be saved and whom you are now going to condemn to a more or less certain early death. I protest on their behalf against this policy and against this Clause.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I fail to see how the hon. Member's speech has any relevance to this Clause, which is one to make special exemptions for medical practitioners, and which sets up a tribunal for that purpose.
  Mr. KING: I quite understand I am going a little wide of the mark. I was only endeavouring to show that the whole of the present policy must, of course, be reconsidered in the light of this Act. It has been practically decided upon by certain high medical authorities in a way which will seriously hamper the health, strength, and efficiency of this country. I will not pursue this matter much further. I will only appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench—and there are some of them who are very able advocates who will, I am sure, look into this matter seriously—I appeal to them for more defence of the proposal and for a more adequate explanation of the Government policy. What are we going to do with the medical resources of the country? Are we going to throw them entirely—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The only question is as to the appointment of this special tribunal to be set up to deal with these practitioners.
  Mr. HOLT: I think the House is entitled to complain of the way in which this proposal has been brought forward. It is not right that a matter of this great importance should be introduced into this House by an Amendment inserted in another place, thereby preventing us having an opportunity of properly discussing it. The right hon. Gentleman did not make it plain whether the object of this proposal was to protect doctors against being sent into the Army by local tribunals, or whether it was to enable the Army to lay their hands on doctors more freely than they have been permitted to do by the local tribunals. I am afraid it is the second of these alternatives which is really in the minds of the authors of this proposal, and therefore it ought to be scrutinised very carefully indeed from the point of view of the civil population. This matter becomes all the
  2166
  more important when we remember the way in which the medical students were taken away from their studies in the early days of the War, and if the War goes on another year or two the position will become very serious indeed. I object to a proposal by which the treatment of doctors with regard to their exemption or otherwise is to be placed entirely in the hands of a special committee of doctors. It seems to me, looking at the position of doctors in the State, that is a wholly wrong point of view to take. They exist for the benefit of the population—civil and military—and in considering whether they ought to be exempted or not, I do submit there ought to be a definite voice on the part of the non-professional section of the community. It is a matter on which the ordinary laymen of the community have the right to express an opinion, and in order to bring that about I shall, if I am permitted, move as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment—
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have already put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. HOLT: I am sorry I have lost my opportunity, but I should like, if I may, to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the point where I think this might have been amended, by leaving out the word "professional," and substituting the word "special," so that if a special committee were set up there could be on it some representative of the laity. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether there is not some means still open by which we can ensure that this question of the exemption or otherwise of doctors shall be decided with due regard to lay as well as professional opinion.
  Mr. BOYTON: While I do not share the opinions of the last two speakers, I take it, from what the hon. Member for North Somerset said, that the British Medical Medical Association have had the biggest voice in framing this Amendment. We know on previous occasions when we have been dealing with matters affecting the medical profession there has been a big difference of opinion between the British Medical Association and other members of the medical profession, and I am in very grave doubts whether the views of the medical profession, apart from the British Medical Association, have been taken upon this matter. I doubt whether the doctors and medical staffs attached to dispensaries and hospitals share altogether

  2167
  the views of the British Medical Association. You can get exemption, if you go before the local tribunals, for the medical staffs of hospitals, which are regarded as necessary for carrying on the medical work of the country, and when you suddenly say that, whether he likes it or not, a member of the medical profession shall submit himself to a medical committee, it seems to me we are going very much too far. I venture to think it would be better to negative the Amendment from the House of Lords rather than to agree without very clear and definite knowledge of the real opinions of the profession—opinions which, as I believe, have not yet been obtained.
  Mr. ASHLEY: There is one point in the speech of the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) which, I think, demands an answer. He made the allegation—I do not believe it can be true—that medical practitioners are being used for other duties than medical work. He said they were being employed on clerical and other work, and, if that is so, I say it is a grave waste of useful material. At any rate, we ought to have some answer to those statements.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how that is relevant to the question before the House. The hon. Member is now alluding to a matter of administration inside the Army.
  Sir F. LOWE: Although I do not agree with everything said by the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), I think there is a good deal of force in the suggestion about setting up a special tribunal for the medical profession, whose recommendations are to be binding on the general tribunal. I believe that committees are set up by other trades and professions—for instance, there are the Insurance Committees and the Committee of Lloyd's. Both these committees have the power of making recommendations to the tribunals, but their recommendations are not binding upon the tribunals. It is a very considerable distinction to make, to bind the tribunals to accept the recommendations of the Medical Committee. It seems to me to make the Medical Committee judge in their own case. It is the duty of the tribunal to consider a case from all aspects, and in the case of all other trades and professions the tribunals attach very great weight indeed to the
  2168
  recommendations made by the special committees dealing with those special trades. The same should apply to the Medical Committee. I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Clause might be amended by leaving out the words at the end,
  "and the recommendation of the committee on the application shall be binding on any tribunal constituted under the principal Act."
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: There is an additional difficulty which has not yet been mentioned in the course of the Debate that appears to be a substantial one. If the Clause passes in the form in which it appears on the Paper, it will limit the rights of medical men as compared with the rights of other men to go before the local tribunal.
  Mr. LONG: No!
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE: I am going to show the President of the Local Government Board how it does that. The man who goes before the local tribunal and is aggrieved by the decision of that tribunal can go to the Appeal Tribunal and, possibly, to the final Court of Appeal, but under this Clause as now drafted a doctor who is refused exemption by his professional committee has no right of appeal, because the Clause says,
  "the recommendation of a committee on the application shall be binding on any tribunal."
  Therefore you are putting those doctors who are refused exemption in a less favourable position than in that which you are putting the ordinary man. I respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that some Amendment is necessary, and that, if it is not possible to give the right of appeal at this stage of the proceedings, it may be possible to introduce such an Amendment in another place.
  Mr. LONG: It is quite true as the hon. Member (Mr. Whitehouse) has said, that there is no right of appeal. That is intentional, because it is quite obvious that if you set up a special tribunal which is appointed ad hoc you cannot give an appeal from that tribunal to another body which has general powers and is appointed to deal with general cases. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. King) did not think my introduction of the Clause was sufficient. I thought that all the House would want to know was that this Clause was the result of very

  2169
  careful negotiations between the Army Council and the representatives of the medical profession throughout the country. I can only answer according to the information which I have received, but I understand that these negotiations have keen going on for some time, and that the main reason for the Clause—I think this in answer to the criticism just made with regard to the power to refuse the application of an individual medical man—is that the supply of medical men for military purposes throughout the country has been unequal. In some districts as many medical men have been taken as could possibly be spared; indeed, we have, perhaps, got too near the margin. In other cases, where there is a redundancy, men can still be spared. There is a very strong desire, which does great honour to all concerned, that arrangements of various characters should be made; that there should be a definite plan worked by those who can survey the whole ground and look not only at the particular case and the particular district in which the application is made, but who can survey the whole ground, and who would endeavour, if possible, to maintain the supply for the R.A.M.C. and at the same time run no risk of depriving our civil population of the medical attendance to which they are entitled. It is to effect the identical result which the hon. Member for North Somerset appears to have in view, if I rightly understood his remarks, namely, that there shall be care not only for our sick and wounded in the Army, but for our suffering sick at home, that this Clause has been proposed in order to set up a special medical committee. That seems the most satisfactory way possible. It is impossible for me to say that here and there mistakes may not have been made. I cannot deal with a general statement of that kind now, but, if a particular statement is made, I will inquire into it. I hope I have answered all the criticisms, and that we may be allowed to add this Clause to the Bill.
  Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think me unreasonable if, after his statement, I make, not a criticism, but put a question to him with regard to the actual working of the Clause, which I do not quite understand. I gather that Regulations are to be made for establishing professional committees. We have not got the Regulations, and do not know what they are going to be. It is not unreasonable to ask that we
  2170
  should have some idea as to how it is proposed to work this by the Regulations. Are these professional committees to be local tribunals of doctors, and, if so, what is the unit to be? The difficulty that is in my mind is this: Are we to have a tribunal of doctors, say, for a whole county, or for a division of a county, and how are the professional men who are to man that tribunal to be got hold of? Who is to nominate them? In country districts it may be very difficult to obtain a tribunal of doctors without interfering very much with their work. I do not see how, as a practical scheme, this is going to work out. Nor do I quite understand, from the particular point of view which the Government, the Army, and the medical profession alike have in mind, what is the advantage of a committee of doctors to determine this matter over the ordinary local tribunal. One can imagine rather definite objections to a tribunal of professional rivals to determine whether one man is to be taken and another man is to be left in a certain locality. Probably we have all known of examples. I have known certainly more than one case where a comparatively young doctor of military age said long ago that he was only too anxious to go and serve in the Army, and would be very glad to do so, but that he could not do so for professional reasons, because, if he did, his work would immediately be taken by another man in the same district. In these circumstances he felt it his duty to himself, his wife and family—there being no compulsion at that time—to remain because he was prevented from going so long as his competitor and neighbour was not willing to go too.
  Under this Clause you are setting up, presumably, a tribunal of medical men in some undefined area of a country district. That tribunal, consisting of medical competitors, will have to decide, in such a case as I have put before the House, that one man is to remain and get the civil practice in the locality while his rival—perhaps they have both been struggling to get the practice in the neighbourhood—is taken away for Army purposes. If the medical tribunal's finding is to be absolutely binding in such cases, I should have thought that the ordinary local tribunal set up for the purpose of determining questions with regard to other professions is not only as well but rather better qualified than a number of professional men to decide such cases. My right hon. Friend has not

  2171
  explained to the House that there is any professional point upon which the medical man as such is a medical expert, and that he is any better qualified to determine these questions than the ordinary local tribunal. If some member of the Cabinet could tell us a little more as to the practical working of the thing, as to the unit, the area with regard to which medical men are going to be appointed, and why the professional man is better qualified than the ordinary tribunal, it will be satisfactory to the House before this Amendment is accepted.
  The COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Charles Roberts): I have been asked to reply to the point made by the last speaker. When the House comes to consider it, I think they will realise that we are dealing with a very exceptional profession, which is under special obligations to the civil population, especially that part of it which happens to be insured, and that we have to look at all the circumstances of the medical profession in the various areas. For that purpose a special committee of professional men with local committees in different parts of the country, is a much better authority to deal with the problem than the local tribunals. The local tribunal cannot really know the medical needs of the district as well as the Central Medical Committee, which, for a year past now, has been carefully watching the enlistment and enrolment of doctors for the needs both of the Army and of the civil population. This Central Medical War Committee, which represents and has been chosen by the medical profession—it does not represent only the British Medical Association; it has been carefully chosen to represent every section of the medical profession—has been engaged in the very careful study of this problem. It knows far better than a local tribunal cases of financial hardship. It can look into the case of each area, and it is bound to prevent a breakdown of the medical service; at all events, as far as the insured population is concerned. Under these circumstances, I submit to the House that it is a special case which is rightly dealt with by a special professional committee, and that is the reason why it is now proposed to deal with the matter by means of this special committee, which has its local committees all over the country, rather than to leave it to the local tribunals to be dealt with.
  Sir P. MAGNUS: Has the special committee which the hon. Gentleman mentioned had any opportunity of considering the Amendment introduced in another place, or was it consulted in regard to it?
  Mr. C. ROBERTS: The Committee was certainly consulted in regard to it, but I cannot say that it was actually before them.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: May I put this point? As I understand it, the actual work will have to be done by the local medical committees. The Central Committee can have no knowledge whatever of the conditions of things in the country districts.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a second speech.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I think the case which was made in the first instance by the hon. Member (Mr. King) has received no answer from the Front Bench. There is really no sound case for treating in a special way the medical profession as a class. There are many other professions and industries in this country which require special treatment, but in every one of these cases, while committees have been recognised, they have merely made recommendations which it was in the power of the tribunals either to accept or to reject. There is nothing in the case of the medical profession more than other professions which entitle a professional committee to have the absolute decision as to which man in a particular locality should go to the front and which man should be left. There is the further objection that you are allowing a man's professional rival to say whether his practice is to be left and to accrue to the benefit of the men who are deciding on his case. That obviously is a most unsatisfactory position. If there is to be special treatment, I think an exclusively professional body is totally unsuitable for the purpose. If there is to be a special committee, there should certainly be lay representation upon it. There might be, for example, representatives of local authorities who, after all, have charge of the health of the community and as administrators in respect of public health are bound to have official knowledge of the needs of the community. I shall certainly, if any Division is taken, vote against the constitution of an exclusively professional committee. I think the Government might quite well lay down a standard in respect of the further demand which is to be made in respect of

  2173
  doctors. We know already that doctors have been used with reckless extravagance, and if there is one department of the Army to which the expression so felicitously given by my right hon. Friend (Colonel Churchill) yesterday could be usefully applied of combing itself, it is the Medical Service of the Army. In all these circumstances I distrust a device which is the result of the united consultation of the Army Council, which has this bad record in the past, and of this professional committee, which I have good grounds for believing is distrusted by large sections of the profession to-day.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: My hon. Friend says there is no good grounds for making a committee for medical men any more than for lawyers or for any other profession or class.
  Mr. PRINGLE: I did not say that.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: As a matter of fact, the Army does not want lawyers as lawyers; it does not want shopkeepers as shopkeepers; but it wants doctors as doctors.
  Mr. PRINGLE: No. It takes many doctors as combatants.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: If there be waste in that respect, one of the best ways of rectifying it would be to bring the judgment of a committee of the profession to bear on it. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot argue that medical men are not to be specially considered or to have a special tribunal any more than any other profession, and then to admit the fact that you are in special straits as to the economising of the medical force. Surely the medical body itself, acting locally, and a central body with knowledge of the whole medical strength of the country, is best able to secure a total economy of the medical forces. On the other hand, the fact that you want doctors as doctors is clearly a reason for having a professional body. It is the best judge as to professionally fit men. When it is suggested that professional rivals in this case will try to get rid of each other, surely this is a rather unworthy charge against medical bodies. The rivalries of medical men and the rival claims of medical men will be perfectly appreciated in the local committees and in the central body, and I do not see in the least how an ordinary tribunal would be better qualified than a medical one to decide which of two rivals
  2174
  should go. The suggestion that one man will not go because his rival is left points to a very serious difficulty. If a medical man says, "I will not go because the other man will get my practice," who is to decide? There is value in the suggestion that members of a local authority might be consulted and might possibly have representation on the committee, but that is a very different thing from saying the ordinary tribunal would, in this case, be a better body than a special medical tribunal. The case for a special medical tribunal to say what persons shall go to the Army and who are wanted for professional purposes, and not for combatant purposes, is a very strong case indeed.
  Mr. PRINGLE: My right hon. Friend is in error, because this refers to conscientious objectors, which indicates that some might be taken for combatant purposes.
  Mr. CATHCART WASON: The whole country is starving for want of medical men. There are miles and miles in the North of Scotland, and also in places in the South, where medical men are at an enormous premium, and it is absolutely impossible to get them, and to bring forward a Clause of this sort at this period of the Bill seems to me most absolutely unnecessary and quite uncalled for, and I am sure right hon. Gentlemen would be very well advised, as this is creating a good deal of unnecessary feeling, to drop the Clause altogether. I am sure no one wishes to throw any slur upon the noblest profession we have in the world—men who sacrifice themselves continually—and I sincerely trust, in the interest not only of the doctors themselves, but of the country districts, which are crying out for medical men, that they will very seriously consider whether it would not be well to drop the Clause altogether.
  Mr. MACMASTER: In my view this Clause is quite unnecessary. Its object is to provide exemption for medical men. Who is better qualified to judge what medical men should be exempted than the local tribunal itself? It is said in its defence, how much better is the local tribunal, acting in combination with a central medical board, than an ordinary tribunal. But this Clause makes no provision for reference to a central medical board. It simply makes provision for reference to a local medical board, whose decision is to be final. The best judges in the circumstances are the

  2175
  ordinary local tribunals. It knows the wants of the community. It knows who should go and who should be left, and you would get from such a tribunal a far better decision, in my view, than from even any local medical board, because there may be rivalries and there may be differ-
  ences, but such could not apply to the local tribunals, and I believe for that reason this Clause is entirely unnecessary.
  Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The House divided: Ayes, 163; Noes, 42.

  Division No. 25.]

  AYES.

  [6.40 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Forster, Henry William

  Perkins, Waiter Frank

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Gilbert, J. D.

  Phillips, Sir Owen (Chester)

  Baird, John Lawrence

  Grant, James Augustus

  Pratt, J. W.

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir F. G.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-

  Griffith, Rt. Hon. Ellis Jones

  Prothero, Rowland Edmund

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. George N.

  Gulland, John William

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

  Hancock, John George

  Radford, George Heynes

  Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Bathurst, Capt. C. (Wilts, Wilton)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Beale, Sir William Phipson

  Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

  Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

  Beauchamp, Sir Edward

  Haslam, Lewis

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hayward, Evan

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Durham)

  Robertson, Rt. Hon. J. M.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Hon. H. (Berks.)

  Robinson, Sidney

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

  Henry, Sir Charles

  Rowlands, James

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hewins, William Albert Samuel

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Brace, William

  Higham, John Sharp

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

  Broughton, Urban Hanlon

  Hill, James

  Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Hinds, John

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Horne, Edgar

  Shortt, Edward

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hudson, Walter

  Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir F. E. (Walton)

  Butcher, John George

  Illingworth, Albert H.

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Buxton, Noel

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

  Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

  Jacobsen, Thomas Owen

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Jessel, Colonel H. M.

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

  Sykes, Col. Alan John (Knutsford)

  Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Sykes, Sir Mark (Hull, Central)

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Layland-Barrett, Sir F.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Tennant, Rt. Hon. Harold John

  Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

  Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  M'Callum, Sir John M.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

  Turton, Edmund Rusborough

  Cory, Sir Clifford John

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Walker, Colonel William Hall

  Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

  Maclean, Rt. Hon. Donald

  Wardle, George J.

  Cowan, W. H.

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

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Whiteley, Herbert J.

  Craig, Colonel James (Down, E.)

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wiles, Thomas

  Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N. W.)

  Currie, George W.

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wing, Thomas Edward

  Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

  Meux, Hon. Sir Hedworth

  Wood Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

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

  Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Yate, Colonel C. E.

  Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

  Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

  Yeo, Alfred William

  Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Young, William (Perthshire, East)

  Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Younger, Sir George

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Norton-Griffiths, J.

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Falle, Bertram Godfray

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Fell, Arthur

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Bridgeman and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  Pennefather, De Fonblanque

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  NOES.

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William

  Goldstone, Frank

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Anderson, W. C.

  Hogge, James Myles

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Ashley, Wilfrid W.

  John, Edward Thomas

  Morrell, Philip

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Needham, Christopher T.

  Bird, Alfred

  King, Joseph

  O'Grady, James

  Bowerman, Charles W.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Outhwaite, R. L.

  Boyton, James

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Macmaster, Donald

  Rowntree, Arnold

  Snowden, Philip

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Thomas, James Henry

  White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Holt and Mr. Pringle.

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Whitehouse, John Howard

  Tootill, Robert

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Proof of Offences in Connection with Deserters and Absentees.)
  During the continuance of the present War Section one hundred and fifty-three of the Army Act and Section seventeen of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882 (which relate to offences in connexion with deserters and absentees), shall have effect as though the following provision were inserted at the end of each of those Sections:—
  "For the purposes of this Section a person shall be deemed to have knowledge unless he proves that he had not knowledge."
  Lords Amendment:
  After the word "knowledge" ["that he had not knowledge"], insert the words, ("and it is hereby declared that, in the application of any provisions of either of those Acts to men who are deemed to have been enlisted and transferred to the Reserve in pursuance of the principal Act or this Act, the expression 'court of summary jurisdiction' as respects Scotland includes any magistrate or magistrates, by whatever name called, officiating under the provisions of any general or local Police Act.")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): The purpose of this Amendment is to remove a doubt which has arisen in regard to the competency of the police magistrates in Scotland to deal with offenders under this Act and the preceding Act. At the present moment, though the practice of trying such cases in police courts has been quite general, doubt has been raised, and it is thought to be a more expeditious and economical way of removing this doubt that this Amendment should be put in, rather than an appeal should be taken and time employed in litigation.
  Mr. KING: When we were in Committee on this Bill, the Secretary for Scotland had an Amendment which would have achieved this same object. He withdrew that Amendment, and we were led to understand that the change now pro-
  2178
  posed was quite unnecessary. If it was unnecessary then, why is it necessary now?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. McKinnon Wood): The point raised by my hon. Friend is capable of easy explanation. A question was raised in Committee whether the Clause which we had drafted was in order on the Bill. My hon. Friend raised one or two points on it. The wording of the Clause now meets the points raised by my hon. Friend, and makes it clear beyond doubt that the Clause is in order. The object of this Amendment and the other Amendment is the same, and the result is the same, but the form is different.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Duty to Produce Certificate of Exemption or to Give Particulars.)
  (1) Every man who holds a certificate of exemption granted under the principal Act shall, if required by a constable or by any person who has authority for the purpose from the Army Council, produce his certificate or give particulars as to the authority by which the certificate was granted and the grounds on which it was granted.
  If any man fails to comply with this provision or gives particulars which are false in any material respect, he shall in respect of each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
  (2) If any person alters or tampers with a certificate of exemption granted under the principal Act, or personates or falsely represents himself to be a person to whom such a certificate has been granted, or improperly allows any other person to have possession of any such certificate issued for his use alone, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, with or without hard labour.
  Lords Amendment:
  In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "with or without hard labour."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. KING: This is another of my Amendments which, when I brought it before the Committee of this House, was all wrong, but when it is brought up across the passage at the other end of this building it is all right. I do not congratulate the Lords, but I congratulate the House upon the result which is now achieved.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: My comment on this is that it is all wrong still. It is just as wrong when it comes from the other end of the corridor as it was when the suggestion was made by the hon. Member in this House. I think some member of the Government should explain why it is necessary to make this alteration. Is it the object to take it out of the power of the tribunal, to inflict hard labour in these cases? Why should that not be left to the discretion of the tribunals which have to try these cases?
  Sir G. CAVE: The Amendment is really only a drafting one. Without these words the effect is the same.

  SCHEDULE.

  Session and Chapter.

  Short Title.

  Extent of Repeal.

  5 & 6 Geo. 5, c. 104.

  The Military Service Act, 1916.

  Sub-section (4) of Section one; the words "before the appointed date" in Sub-section (5) of Section two; and the words "and, subject to any provision which may hereafter be made by Parliament, men who have been discharged from the naval or military service of the Crown on the termination of their period of service" in paragraph five of the First Schedule.

  Lords Amendment:
  After the word "Schedule," insert the words ("and the word 'local' wherever it occurs before the word 'tribunals' in paragraph (6) of the Second Schedule").—Agreed to.

SUPPLY [23rd May].—Report.

  SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1916–17.
  Resolution reported, "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £300,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, beyond the ordinary Grants of Parliament, towards defraying the Expenses which may be incurred during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1917, for General Navy and
  2180
  Army Services in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for the conduct of Naval and Military operations; for all measures which may be taken for the Security of the Country; for assisting the Food Supply, and promoting the Continuance of Trade, Industry, Business and Communications, whether by means of insurance or indemnity against risk, the financing of the purchase and resale of foodstuffs and materials, or otherwise; for Relief of Distress; and generally for all Expenses, beyond those provided for in the Ordinary Grant of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Mr. PONSONBY: It is rather to be regretted that the stage of the Military Service Act just concluded was put down in the middle of the Vote of Credit, because the Vote of Credit is the only opportunity that this House gets for taking a general survey of the War and all the attendant circumstances Yesterday the discussion ranged over the conduct of the War itself, and I desire to-day to draw the attention of the House to what I consider is an even more important field, namely, that of the diplomatic situation. It is the duty of this House to survey, control, and supervise the diplomatic activities just in the same way as it is their duty to superintend the actual measures necessary for the conduct of the War. I would say more than that — the War and its termination, whether it be decisive or indecisive, is not an end in itself; it is merely the signal for the commencement of diplomatic activities At the moment when the belligerents begin making declarations on both sides, it is only right that opinions should be expressed in this House as to whether the differences that

  2181
  exist between the Allies on the one part and the Central Powers on the other are sufficiently grave and unbridgable as to justify us and our Allies in continuing the gigantic sacrifices which we are called upon to make. Just as the military advisers have not inspired us with any great confidence, so we cannot look back to any diplomatic successes, either before the War or during the conduct of the War, which would justify us in allowing the same old rusty machine of diplomacy to be used in the same clumsy way. On the contrary, we have got to look back upon a very tragic diplomatic failure before this War commenced, and upon diplomatic weakness on our part during the course of the War. Therefore, it is necessary for us to scrutinise very carefully the method, the manner, and the policy which are being adopted in this highly complex problem which lies before us, and, more than that, to see exactly how matters are proceeding in the very critical events of the moment.
  The problems that confront our Government and our statesmen to-day are so overwhelming that they might well tremble before them. You have not only got to think of the schemes and the policy, but of the extraordinary variety of problems throughout Europe, and you have got to realise the particular peoples in all countries whom these problems and schemes and policies will affect. It is necessary in this great task to have a knowledge of Europe which is not derived simply from official dispatches and diplomatic reports. No more misleading idea of the present state of Europe, or the state of Europe during the past years, could be made than would be derived from such a source as that. It requires first-hand knowledge of the peoples, their temperament, their aspirations, and their social life in order that statesmen may be able to grapple with the very complex difficulties which will arise. These difficulties must not be approached in a party spirit—the sort of spirit which we necessarily become accustomed to in our domestic policy, the sort of spirit which means there must be all advantage on one side and humiliation for the opponent.
  7.0 P.M.
  The future peace of Europe will not depend on the supremacy and exclusive advantage of one nation over other nations. In fact, that is precisely what we are fighting about, and we must be careful to think of our own case as well as the case
  2182
  of others. But the peace of Europe will depend upon the capacity of statesmen for surveying these great problems in a broad spirit based on international knowledge, and the recognition of the legitimate aspirations of all the peoples in all the nations who have been affected by this great catastrophe. May I say one word about the machinery that we have at our disposal. Of course there is no question of reforming it at the present time. That will have to wait until later on. In connection with the Foreign Office I may say in passing that I welcome the return of Lord Hardinge to the Foreign Office because his abilities have been tested in very many different fields, and his judgment and knowledge and perspicacity will be of great value in time to come. But the expert in the Foreign Office is very impatient of the control of the politician. He is wrong, because ultimately it is the politician who is responsible, and it is the politician who should control. But the expert in the Foreign Office, with his wide knowledge of foreign countries and his intimate knowledge of the life of foreign countries, when he sees his advice set aside, and when he sees his knowledge disposed of, as being of no very great importance, is apt to be impatient when the policy by which he is overruled is evolved by men who have no first-hand knowledge whatever of European life.
  That is a rather sweeping assertion to make of the control of the present Cabinet, because obviously there are one or two exceptions. But I do feel very strongly that the diplomatic situation is open now, and we want to feel that we have confidence in men who are not regarding the whole of this great complex problem of the settlement of Europe simply from the point of view of officials, but who are able to grasp the situation from an intimate knowledge of the peoples concerned. The insularity which has been a characteristic of our policy in the past, constitutes something more than a disadvantage — it constitutes a real danger. I want now to come to the present situation as we find it. The War for some time past has amounted to a deadlock, and we want to examine that for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Colonel Churchill), in his speech yesterday, placed great confidence in men. I doubt very much whether in this modern warfare the bare and the individual service of men is really the decisive factor.

  2183
  Our modern warfare is a warfare of diabolical machines, and one sometimes wonders whether victory might not go to those who devise some more diabolical engine than has yet been applied, and I do not think that the victor then will pride himself on being the champion of civilisation. No, Sir; deadlock presents itself; loss and ruin to all the nations concerned. But in that deadlock I think that we ought to realise the relative superiority of the position of our own country. We have swept the seas, and hold an unrivalled position in that direction. We have taken over 750,000 square miles of territory of the enemy, and not a foot of British territory is occupied by them. That must be borne in mind in taking account of the whole position. I think that I am right in saying that our position is a strong one.
  The Prime Minister, on 2nd May, said:
  "The naval and military situation of the Allies as a whole was never as good as it is to-day."
  But may I say that if our position is strong, if we have been saved from disaster, it is not by the policy of the Government, it is not by the strategy of the military adviser, but by the unparalleled spirit, valour and endurance of our officers and men in the fighting line, and by the skill, persistence and heroism of those who man our Fleets. It is the people who have saved this country, and not the statesmen, and I sincerely hope that the statesmen are not going to imperil the future by indecision and ineptitude in the diplomatic field. If I call attention to the necessity of this House controlling our diplomacy, it is because what might be called pourparlers have been going on on both sides. May I remind the House of exactly how we stand in this matter. In February last, in the course of a Debate in this House, in answer to statements which had been made, the Prime Minister made a reply in which he repeated a phrase which he used very much earlier in the War. At that time, speaking after him, I ventured to say that the phrase which he used was capable of misconstruction, and that nothing assisted the enemy more than vague extremist phrases to help them to rally their forces together. There is no doubt—and many people have endorsed this view—that nothing will help Germany more in this War than the extremist utterances of responsible statesmen, because they have always enabled them to rally
  2184
  all their forces together. I thought that the Prime Minister's phrase would be misconstrued, and it was. The German Chancellor, in the April following, did misconstrue what the Prime Minister had said. Then, in May, the Prime Minister took the opportunity of defining more clearly what he meant, so as not to allow it to be capable of misconstruction. The words were:
  "Great Britain and France also entered the War not to strangle Germany, not to wipe her off the map of Europe, not to destroy or mutilate her national life, certainly not to interfere, to use the Chancellor's language, with the free exercise of her peaceful endeavour."
  That had a very far reaching effect, so far as we can judge by what has been written in German, because it was no longer possible for the extremists in Germany to turn to their fellow countrymen and say that it was the intention of Great Britain to destroy the German people. This has been followed by the interview in the "Chicago Daily News" of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary.
  There are many mysterious methods in diplomacy, but this new method of disregarding your Parliament or your prominent citizens in your own country, and adopting as your platform the American Press, is not only undesirable, but is wanting in respect to the people of this country. I see that the right hon. Gentleman's example has been followed, and we have got to go now to the American Press to get our information as to what the policy of this country is. It was difficult enough in ordinary times, to ascertain what our foreign policy was in this House. Now this House has been deprived of any such opportunity, and it is from the American Press that we have to gain what information we can. The right hon. Gentleman gave a very lengthy interview, and, apart from the necessity which statesmen feel in a matter of this sort of always exalting their own country to the very top of the scale, and blackening their opponents, which is, I suppose, necessary in a war, the right hon. Gentleman's interview, which was extremely interesting, marked a great advance when he said:
  "Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg affirms that Great Britain wants to destroy 'united and free Germany.' We never were smitten with any such madness. We want nothing of the sort and Herr von Bethmann-Hollweg knows we want nothing of the sort. We shall be glad to see the German people free as we ourselves want to be free, and as we want the other nationalities of Europe and of the world to be free."

  2185
  That was an endorsement of what the Prime Minister had already said, and left Germany absolutely no opportunity of raising the excuse that we were out for aggressive purposes. The Foreign Secretary also said:
  "We believe that the German people—when once the dreams of world empire cherished by Pan-Germanism are brought to naught—will insist upon the control of its Government; and in this lies the hope of secure freedom and national independence in Europe. For a German democracy will not plot and plan wars as Prussian militarism plotted wars to take place at a chosen date in the future."
  I entirely agree with that, but it seems almost to imply that we really had control over our Government, and that democracy exercises control in other countries. When he says that German democracy will not plot and plan wars, I should like to say that democracy when it is established—and it has not been established anywhere—will not allow war. But we have not reached that stage of development yet. We ourselves are very far from it, especially with regard to foreign affairs. But anyhow in this interview there is a great stride forward.
  "No one wants peace more than we want it,"
  said the right hon. Gentleman.
  "But we want a peace that does justice, and a peace that establishes respect for the public law of the world."
  I do not think that anybody will disagree with these sentiments. And now the German Chancellor also is using the American Press in answer, and he indulges in paragraphs of recrimination. The nations are getting impatient, and they do not want to see their statesmen standing up and recriminating in the American Press while this War continues, and they are being weighed down by great responsibilities. This War will go on for ever if we are to wait until the German Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary agree as to who was to blame for causing the War. Therefore we do not want to have these recriminations, the time for which is when the War is over, and each country sets to work to examine what is really at the back of it. We wade through these recriminations and we come to phrases which are wrapped up in the proper diplomatic manner, which are always rather vague, which are difficult to distinguish, but in which we eventually find what is meant. I see nothing in the interview with the German Chancellor which conflicts with what the Foreign Secretary has said. The German Chancellor said:
  "I stated openly that Germany was ready to negotiate on a basis which would protect her
  2186
  against future attacks by a coalition to secure the peace of Europe. Only when statesmen take the war situation as every war map shows it, and when they honourably desire to discuss peace proposals in a practical way, shall we approach peace."
  Speaking of the War map does not mean necessarily the particular parts of Europe which are at present in the possession of the German Army. The War map includes the seas and includes the African Possessions that have been captured by us, and that is not a proposal which would be likely to be rejected. In fact, we cannot say that there is any absolute barrier or obstacle which should prevent the two sides from gradually coming closer together. What is there now which is incompatible with the expressed desire of the leading statesmen on both sides? Has Germany refused to restore to Belgium her full rights, her sovereignty, her independence, with reparation? Has Germany refused to evacuate France; has she refused to evacuate Serbia; has she refused to establish a kingdom of Poland; has she refused the one safeguard against future war in the establishment of an international council to which differences between nations could be referred? We do not know that Germany has been asked. It is supposed that it would be a weakness to ask her. I think, on the contrary, that it is a great want of courage on our part not to ascertain, because those are the objects we are wanting to attain. What is the difference between Great Britain and Germany now? Is it the obligation we have undertaken with regard to our Allies which makes the continuance of war a necessity? If this War is being continued until Constantinople falls, if this War is being continued because of some obligations we have undertaken with Russia, with Italy, and with France, then I say emphatically that whatever they are our people ought to know in what they consist. We ought not to demand the sacrifice of our blood and of our treasure for objects which are hidden from our people.
  If that is not the case, if there is no obligation which is making the continuance of this War a necessity—an obligation to our Allies—then I say that as between the Foreign Secretary and the German Chancellor, when you take away all the trimmings of diplomacy, there is not any substantial difference which really necessitates a continuance of this struggle. I appeal to the House of Commons, as much as to the Government, to take the earliest opportunity to press for the termination of this fruitless and disastrous conflict by the

  2187
  initiation of negotiations at the earliest possible moment. We see as time goes on measures brought forward which are consequences of the War. Military service is now practically universal, and the Bill will pass the House of Lords. But I think if the War goes on Conscription will have to go further, and if men under certain age are made to sacrifice their lives, then I think people receiving over a certain income ought to be made to sacrifice their wealth. There would be some conscientious objectors then, and they would be listened to with the greatest attention, I have no doubt. When we see all these evils arising I say, to those of my Friends who are endeavouring to mitigate the arbitrary injustices of tribunals, the loss of liberty and the suppression of opinion, the rise of militarism, the economic dislocation, and the agricultural depression, all of which, as time goes on, will inevitably become worse and worse, that their efforts will be in vain. The only way to check finally this gradual descent of our whole national life into this abyss of disaster is to terminate hostilities by negotiations. I would impress upon the Foreign Secretary that although he may think that I and other Members of this House represent a very small body of people, I can assure him that he is mistaken. The opinion we hold is a growing opinion. I would not venture to get up in this House and express views of this kind if they were my own private opinions that I held, without anybody behind them. There is this body of opinion, which may not be articulate, which may not be heard, not because it does not exist, not because it does not want to speak, but because it is silenced; and that body of opinion is growing not only in this country, but in France and other belligerent countries. I should like to read a very remarkable manifesto which has lately been issued in France and has been signed by labour federations in six departments, and also signed by thirty Socialist deputies. The manifesto says:
  "After twenty months of victorious resistance, after twenty months of less glorious intrigues, nothing proves that the real significance of the War is to-day for France what it was at the beginning. A war remains a defensive war for a nation so long as the adversary persists on aiming at its territorial integrity and independence. But, inversely, the war ceases to be a defensive war even if the territory of a nation be still occupied by the enemy from the day that the enemy formally renounces all demands upon that nation, realising that it cannot be dominated. Therefore, from the day that Germany renounces all projects of domination over France, Belgium and other nations,
  2188
  the war ceases to be for those nations a war of national defence. The only reasons for continuing the war to the bitter end and to the death, à outrance—reasons more or less dissimulated—are or will be the desire to revenge oneself upon the enemy peoples, the desire to punish them by humiliation or shameful capitulation, or the hope of crushing or weakening their political or economic power in order to increase one's own."
  It is very significant that this should have been signed in France, where the censorship is stronger than in almost any other country. If we want a victory of reason over might, if we want the moral forces to overcome the forces of physical violence, then let us use the weapons of reason, and let us appeal to the moral consciousness that resides in the people of every nation, though it is conspicuously absent in their Governments. While Europe is bleeding, and the death roll continues to increase, and the pressure of ruin is heavier and heavier day by day, we must not allow the etiquette and formalities of stale diplomatic tradition to stand in the way of our taking the lead, definitely and boldly, in conducting the nations back to sanity, and through sanity to peace.
  Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: I desire to take the opportunity of supporting the point of view urged by my hon. Friend (Mr. Ponsonby). We listened yesterday with exceeding interest to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Churchill), as to how the Army ought to be raised, and as to how its supreme military position could be secured. It is a problem which at the present moment is supreme in this country. But what I would like the House to remember, and more particularly the Government, is that when you have raised your Army, when you have got your men, and when you have secured your victory, the problem of peace should be made a political and not a military problem at all. There is nothing that is more melancholy to look back over than the history of past wars. How often it is that we have had to pay our homage of pride to the magnificent spirit of the people when war broke out. We have always to pay our homage, with gratitude, to the men who have offered themselves and sacrificed themselves to our national security. But those feelings of ours, as a rule, hitherto have had to be mingled with sorrow that after our people have made the supreme sacrifice our statesmen have failed to carry out the moral purposes and the high ideals for which the War stands. That is what has happened over and over again. I want to say this afternoon, and that is

  2189
  why I rise in this House, that the Government must remember that national duty is not confined to the raising of Armies, is not confined to the voting of money wherewith to supply the Armies which you enrol, but to apply diplomatic skill and political capacity in such a way that the supreme sacrifice offered by our Armies shall achieve a permanent result in the establishment of a peace that has not been established hitherto.
  In order to enforce that point let us be clear as to what we are out for. The Prime Minister on various occasions has given his definition, but that definiton, as my hon. Frend has reminded the House, and as I shall show later on, has not always been successful from the point of view of showing precisely to the enemy what we are out for. There is no question about ourselves. This country has got its ideal. This country is absolutely convinced about the righteousness of its cause. So convinced is this country that it never feels the least moral qualm in carrying this military ideal in front of its altars and asking its God to specially bless its arms. It is absolutely honest. It is done with a spiritual enthusiasm that nobody but a blind man could doubt for a single moment. I hope nobody ever imagines that I do not take that view. But that is not enough. In fighting war, and such a colossal conflict as this is, when the best of men's lives are involved and the accumulated treasure of this country is flowing through your fingers, you have got to remember this, that part of the battle, and a very important part of the battle, is your ability to make it perfectly clear to your enemy what your purposes are, so that your enemy cannot misuse and misrepresent your statements for the purpose of increasing his internal strength. I would define our position first of all, and I believe that has not been done better by any man than by Lord Cromer, in a very remarkable letter which appeared in the "Times" of 11th April. I am perfectly certain that if it were clearly understood by the enemy a tremendous change would take place. He wrote:
  "We need not and should not continue the struggle for mere military glory or to humiliate Germany, or, in the German Chancellor's words, to obstruct the economic evolution of Germany, or even to avenge the cruel misdeeds perpetrated by the German army, with the consent and approbation of its commanders."
  I should put it stronger and I should say, "by order of its commanders." I think Lord Cromer is a little bit too mild in the
  2190
  condemnation he utters in that matter. What I want to point out to the House is this: First of all, for the purpose of making the German people and the Austrian people and the enemy generally clearly understand what we are out for, it is the imperative duty of those in authority to do as the Prime Minister has done, and state what our position negatively is, namely, that we are not out for this, that, and the other thing. It should be repeated again and again, for having it done once is not enough. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary, in his interview, whatever we may say, made it perfectly clear that his negative position was a good one. You must work on the psychology of your enemy as well as upon his armed forces. If you simply concentrate your attention on doing the one, you can vote your three hundred million of credit every three or four months, but you are not going to bring the War to an end whatever resources you command, either of men or of money. Therefore, my first appeal to the right hon. Gentleman is to use this opportunity to say once again, perhaps nothing new, but to put to the people the negative position this country takes up in regard to the War, and that we are not out to do this or that which the German Chancellor said we were out for in his appeal to his country in order to get it ranged in a solid mass behind him.
  Let us understand what we are out for. I say unhesitatingly—and my hon. Friend who preceded me put this point in a series of interrogations—I say perfectly definitely that this country, if it retains any shred of honour at all, cannot accept a peace unless peace is forced upon it which means the sacrifice of Belgian sovereignty to any extent. If Germany imagines that there is any section of this country that is prepared to accept peace at the sacrifice of any portion—and I emphasise this—not merely of Belgian sovereignty, but of any portion of it, then the sooner German public opinion is disabused of that delusion the better. The same is true regarding France, so far as France has been invaded. Let us be perfectly clear about that. But I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, if he does put supreme importance upon Belgium and invaded France, he ought to state equally specifically that if Germany states in such a way that nobody can doubt its genuineness — [An Hon. MEMBER: "Oh!"] Well, I quite understand; but let us put the case. We will have to put the case sooner or later. If it is stated in such

  2191
  a way, perfectly specifically, "We do not want Belgium, we do not want to interfere with Belgian sovereignty. The moment peace is declared, the moment the negotiations are open, we shall evacuate Belgium. We only went through it (using the German Chancellor's own words) as a piece of military necessity"—an argument which this country understands far better now than it did twenty months ago, an argument, not using very strong language in a rough way, but in an honest way, which when used sends every country to the devil which does it. Let us see if Germany, having used Belgium merely for the purpose of military necessity, and to defend herself, as she said, against the possibility of attack by France, stated when that military necessity is over Belgium will be restored to precisely the same position it was in—
  An HON. MEMBER: How can it?
  Mr. MACDONALD: I say all those points as to "how can it be done" are points for discussion afterwards. If hon. Members will allow me to go on, what I want to lay down is a general row of statements as to what will take place between the two countries, so that the people of the two countries will each understand what the other is out for, and that is all. I know perfectly well if a Power does to any country what Germany has done to Belgium, the question of "how," which my hon. Friend opposite puts, is a very important question. Before you are in a position to answer or discuss the question put by my hon. Friend you must, first of all, get down the general fundamental statement that it is not the intention of Germany to interfere in any way with the exercise of the fullest conception of sovereignty that has been attached to rule in Belgium hitherto. That is the first point. There should be no doubt about it, no mistake about it, and no qualification about it. The second point is this: There should be a settlement of the disturbing influences in Europe of nationalities which are unhappy and restive under foreign yokes. You can vote your three hundred millions as often as you like, and you can sacrifice the best lives you have got, and the highest and most noble-minded youth in this land, and you can send them out, but if you do not settle the problems of nationality in Europe, then you are going to come home empty-handed after your great sacrifices. What I want
  2192
  to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this. I want no answer which quite properly cannot be given from the point of view of national safety. I am not pressing at all, but I do ask him this: Is he in a position to contradict the rumours that are about, and that have received tremendous volume since the visit of Members of the Duma to this country, that we have, as a matter of fact, entered upon agreements with Russia which means that that principle cannot be carried out, and that there are sections of Europe and peoples of important districts of Europe that have been the subject of fixed bargains, and bargains which, if carried out, will transmit to the next generation, and the succeeding generation, unhappy and discontented nationalities, irritating and irritating to a deeper and deeper fever until at last Europe again turns to war.
  My second question is this: These national difficulties centre very largely in the Balkans, although not confined by any means to there. I hope that neither ourselves nor Germany are going to fight and fight until those national difficulties are settled. I venture to say that there is not a single Member of this House who has got the least command of Balkan history, and knows the story of those nationalities and those peoples, who would not shudder at the very thought of our wasting—for it would come to that in the end—our treasure and our blood in trying to solve that problem. It can only be done if the belligerents to-day on both sides would agree to refer these complicated political, historical, and ethnographical problems to a properly qualified commission, who will find its decisions supported by a union of the Great Powers of Europe. Those problems can only be solved, I was going to say, in an academic way, because they are very largely academic problems, although oddly enough they show themselves in the history of Europe as the most aggressive and the most brutal problems that any nation has had to solve. Therefore I say, in this respect, if you are going to remove, as the result of this War, this constant source of war in Europe you must settle these things in agreement. You cannot hope to settle them if you take this extraordinary miscellany of creeds and divisions, and nationalities and races, if there is a vanquished at one end and a conqueror at another, and if you merely distribute them according to political convenience, for in that way you will settle nothing at

  2193
  all, and before the signatures are dry on the Treaty of Peace there will be conflicts and troubles, and schemes, and conspiracies in the very places you have dealt with.
  The third proposition I make is this: This War ought to end in the destruction of militarism in Europe. How are you going to do it? Quite honestly, that is where some of us disagree. I agree again with the very remarkably bold statement made by Lord Oromer, where he said, in dealing with this very point, "There can be no prospect of a durable peace so long as uncontrolled Junkerdom reigns supreme in Germany." I only wish my Socialist friends in Germany had been wise enough to have settled that problem long ago, as they could have done. However, it is a political problem, and not a military one. If hon. Gentlemen agree with me in that, they must also agree with Lord Cromer in his deduction when he says, "Any change in the direction of bringing Junkerdom under Executive control must be the work of the Germans themselves." That is a hard statement to make, but those of us who know Germany—I mean who know the life of Germany, that is to say, who know personally practically every leading politician in Germany belonging to every party—know perfectly well that that is the only way to settle the problem. You cannot impose upon Germany any political rule to suit yourselves. It would not accept it. I had a letter—I do not know if it is an offence; I fancy technically it is an offence—I had a letter from a member of the Reichstag some time after the War broke out, a man who, if there is a pro-Englishman within the borders of Germany, deserves that epithet, and in that letter he said:
  "Tell your fellow countrymen not to imagine that they are going to help us by military victories to rid ourselves of the shackles of Junkerdom. What they are doing is, they are hammering those shackles much more firmly upon our wrists even than they were before."
  There is a great deal in that. It may be that in the extreme form it is wrong, but we have only got to ask ourselves: "Supposing Germany was to try to relieve us, would we accept it?" Not at all. In these days of war we have got to use more common-sense than usual in understanding our enemies. We can best understand our enemies by more clearly understanding ourselves. I only ask that this problem of how to end militarism should be dealt with and considered by ourselves with the
  2194
  knowledge of ourselves, and by assuming that Germany was trying to do the same thing to us.
  There is one other point. We ourselves must make our own offers. It is not enough for right hon. Gentlemen to say that we only want to crush Prussian militarism. Prussian militarism is the magnificent fruit and flower of this poisonous plant upon which there are less perfectly developed fruits and less perfectly developed flowers. You cannot go to a people and say, "We are going to ask you to disarm yourselves; we are going to ask you to destroy your power of self-defence, and we are going to do nothing ourselves." Therefore, do not let us change the phrase, do not let us abandon our goal, our intention, our declaration that if this War is going to be successful it must finish militarism in Europe. But let us supplement it and go and say that we are prepared to make our contribution to the finishing of militarism, whilst we demand that Germany shall make its contribution. The military situation must be dealt with as an European one and not as a national one. I am profoundly convinced that if something could be said on these lines the War would reach a new substantial phase. There is a great deal of false opinion abroad on that point, as there is about others. The impression is—and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech yesterday rather gave colour to it, although I do not believe he meant it—but the impression is that during the War the only thing that matters is the Army. That is not so. If you use your Army and your Navy only you will never get a peace at all. I am referred to sometimes by people who are extraordinarily misinformed, not to say ignorant, as being a peace-at-any-price man. I do not understand the expression. I do not know what it means. But what happens? The people who are always talking about the Army and the Navy only as an engine of peace are a peace-at-any-price people, because they never have secured a peace. No Army can—happily it never can—secure a peace in that way.
  Let us take a case. Suppose you put your men in the streets of Berlin; suppose your General Staff's Headquarters were at Potsdam—how much different would that be from what happened at the end of the Franco-German war? Germany took the whole of France. In no district of France could a soldier effectively lift his head. Germany put the face of France down in

  2195
  the dust and put its heel on the neck of France and made peace absolutely impossible in Europe. The only patched-up peace, to use a frequently used expression, that is likely to happen as a result of this war, is a peace which is the result of military events exclusively. I am in favour of a peace which would be a European peace, and one which would be accepted by the peoples of Europe. I am in favour of a peace which will express a new attitude of the international mind. Without that you can have no peace. You can have a military truce, you can have a peace of Amiens. That would be foolish, absolutely foolish. What is the use of sheathing the sword for six months. You do not even sheathe it, you only rub it on the grindstone. Hon. Members may all agree about that; but would hon. Members also agree about this, that a peace of forty years is very little better, because for the greater part of your forty years you are arming for your coming war, and if, after this enormous and unparalleled sacrifice of the lives of your people and of your treasure, you are going to go back to those men after peace is declared and tell them twelve months afterwards that you have settled nothing, that the enemies have not agreed, that force has been the predominating authority, what are those men entitled to say to you, and particularly to those of us who are Members of this House of Commons and who are supposed to be doing our political duty whilst they are doing their military duty? Merely talking patriotism, merely making perorations to speeches, and so on, about the magnificence of our intentions—that is all right for recruiting purposes, but it is no good for the hard political duty imposed upon a body like this, whilst millions of our fellow-beings are laying down their lives and are prepared to lay down their lives on the battlefields of Europe. That is shirking our duty, and it is only in so far as the right hon. Gentleman keeps his diplomacy active even when the noise of the battle is most deafening, only in so far as he takes care that no single opportunity which the Armies give him, and no single opportunity which the men in the field give him to produce and widen out the basis of his coming peace—only in so far as he does his duty in that respect, and in so far as we do our duty by seeing that he does his, are we worthy to look in the
  2196
  eyes of these men and say, that though we stayed at home we nevertheless did help them to do their work in the field.
  My final point is this. I intended to support this case by extracts from newspapers representing all schools of thought in Germany showing the effect of the speech that the Prime Minister delivered in reply to my hon. Friend's when a similar subject to this was raised in the House. But I shall not take up the time of the House in reading them. It is no good, everybody knows them. I myself have seen a manifesto issued to trade unionists by the Central Commission of the German Trade Unions when the Prime Minister's speech was joined with the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. Trade unionists were there told by their leaders, "Now, you see what England wants: she means to impoverish every German workman. Bally round to defend your country," and so on. The Prime Minister's speech, along with the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, was specially issued and circulated in the trenches so that the German soldiers might see what they were fighting for. That was actually pasted abroad throughout Germany and circulated in the official organ of the trade unions. I have seen it, and will leave the matter there.
  8.0 P.M.
  But this I would like to say: We want the neutrals to come in and help us to settle this War. The neutrals are very nearly as much involved in the War as ourselves. The accounts one gets of Holland and Sweden are perfectly appalling. The deprivation which these people have to undergo through no fault of their own, not being involved in the War at all, is worse in some respects than is suffered by some countries engaged in the War. Friends of mine tell me in regard to Holland, at all events, that no increase of wages has taken place or can take place. Their suffering is enormous and the people are entitled to have some say in the War. I will not say a predominating say, but they are entitled to be heard just as hon. Gentlemen opposite who are not members of a trade union, like myself, are entitled to have a say when there is an industrial struggle in this country. An European War, on a colossal scale such as this, is not a war between two enemies or between two camps of enemies, it is a war which affects Europe, and not only Europe, it

  2197
  affects the whole world, and the whole world has a perfect right to say to us, "End this thing as quickly as you possibly can." It has no right to say, "End it dishonourably"; none whatever. But it has a right to say to us: "Do not carry on this as so many of the other big wars have been carried on after it has produced its maximum good." One of the most extraordinary things, if you read the histories of any of the old big wars, is that every one of them was carried on after it had produced its maximum effect. The neutrals have a right to say to us, "You ought not to repeat that historical mistake. How is it to be obviated? By the Foreign Secretary making it clearer and clearer, first of all, what we do not want, and, secondly, what we shall insist upon having, so that everybody can understand where we are and what we are out for. Last of all, in regard to these two interviews, I dare say there is a great gulf between the two chief Government servants, people's servants, who took part in them. Does that gulf represent anything in the minds of the two nations? I venture to say it does not. What happens is that the real intentions of the people cannot eventuate; cannot affect public policy. We, the people, are in the middle of a tremendous storm, and are blown about by it. We poor private individuals huddle ourselves into a corner of the State, waiting for the storm to blow past, when the real intentions on both sides will have a chance of showing and expressing themselves. Therefore, from the point of view of neutrals, from the point of view of shortening the War, of minimising sacrifices, and of making peace, not only an honourable, but a lasting one, from the paint of view of the whole of Europe, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to go on with his diplomacy, with his statements—which are negotiations, whether he gives them that word or not—to go on remembering that this problem is not merely to lift up our hearts, but to enlighten the minds of our enemies. With our hearts uplifted and our enemies minds enlightened, I am perfectly certain that this War will eventuate in a demand for peace which will not be broken again—a demand for a peace which will be established upon the common agreements of the peoples, and which, therefore, will never be assailed in the history of mankind.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I did not come down to the House intending to make any statement. I have no prepared statement or speech to make. If I believed that the German Government, German opinion, and the War had arrived at a stage "when members of the Allied Governments could bring nearer the peace which is essential to their interests, and the interests of Europe, by making speeches about peace, I would prepare any number of them. I do not believe that that time has come. I see no sign of it. There are one or two points in the questions which have been addressed to me in the Debate to which I think I should reply, and personal criticism has been made upon me which I think I should like to answer. I am asked with regard to the conditions of peace—as to whether there are special points agreed upon with our Allies, and for which the Allies, and we, are bound to fight to the end, and until our enemies are beaten. The governing relations between the Allies, and the alliance between France, Russia, and ourselves have been published, and have since been adhered to by Italy and by Japan. In these we are bound—all of us—not to put forward any terms of peace except in common, and in common agreement, and I am not going to say anything about any special conditions of peace except this: That we can make no statement about conditions of peace which will be acceptable to ourselves and our Allies until we do it in consultation with them and in agreement with them. That precludes any separate discussion as far as we are concerned on particular conditions of peace. There we remain on that particular point.
  I come to the personal criticism made upon me because I gave an interview to a correspondent of a newspaper of the United States. I was told by the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Pon-sonby) that that was disrespectful to this House. That is not the first statement which has been made on the subject of the War since the War began. It was made after many months of war, after, I think, about a year and eight months of war; after many statements had been made in this House by the Prime Minister in particular, and, I think, one or two by myself. Are we never to give an interview? I fully admit that in due respect to the House disclosures of policy and important

  2199
  statements should be made first to Parliament, but there was no new statement of policy on this occasion. It was not as if I were stating something new which had not before been stated to the House of Commons. It had been done over and over again. The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs in this and some other parts of his speech seemed to me to be barely conscious of the fact that we were at war. He said in some other connection, "Do not let a point of etiquette stand in the way." Supposing I had said something in that interview which required to be said at that time, and which I had said for the first time without saying it in this House, would not the House have recognised that these were exceptional times, that these were times of war, that crises may arise in time of war in which you cannot allow to stand in the way that etiquette, or those higher considerations of etiquette with regard to what is due to the House of Commons, which you would observe most scrupulously in time of peace? Members of the German Government here, over and over again, from the beginning of the War, given interviews to correspondents of United States newspapers. Now, when one of us tries to defend his own country in a neutral country, against statements made by the German Government, the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs gets up and reproaches him for lack of respect to the House of Commons. Really, these are not the days for pedantry of that sort! I shall endeavour in time of war, as in time of peace, never to fail in respect to the House of Commons, and to make the statements I have to make to the House of Commons in preference to any other place. But the fact of my having given an interview, so many months after the beginning of the War, and after all which has passed, to the correspondent of a great United States newspaper, is not a matter, I think, which the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs should have made the subject of criticism.
  I have one more thing to say about the which the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs. He urged that the members of the belligerent Governments—I think he meant the German Chancellor and myself—ought not to indulge in recriminations about the causes of the War. He must not indulge in criticism of the diplomacy of his own country before the War. If we are not to go into the question as to who
  2200
  is to blame, he must not begin by talking about the diplomatic failures preceding the War. I care not how often I state that this War might have been avoided by the acceptance of a Conference which we proposed. Why was not that Conference accepted? Because there was no good will. It had been preceded only shortly before by a Conference on the Balkan question. I wish the German and the Austrian Governments would publish the report of their own Ambassadors, in regard to the part which Great Britain played in that Conference. I have never seen it. I am quite sure, however, that nobody went through that Conference without being prepared; to bear testimony to the fact that the attitude of the British Government was one of entire good faith all through. When the German Chancellor says that another Conference would only have been used against Germany, that advantage would have been taken to prepare for war, and so forth—things which he did not say at the time—I say that the attitude which we observed through the Conference which had then closed, entitles us to say what I do. The Conference, as it was proposed on the eve of this War, was one which those who had experience in a previous one ought to have accepted with confidence and good will. If there was diplomatic failure, that was how the failure came about. It was not our failure. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs that the published interview or speech of the German Chancellor last month shows that disposition for peace which the hon. Member seemed to find in it. If Germany is prepared to offer the-terms which the hon. Member for Stirling Burghs said, why does not she say so? The hon. Member reproaches us for allowing etiquette to stand in the way. Is it etiquette which stands in the way of the German Government making statements which the hon. Member suggests on their behalf? I really think that in time of war the Government of the enemy might be allowed to speak for itself! I find, I am bound to say, nothing new in the statement of the German Chancellor with regard to the terms of peace. I did find one thing that was new. That is the statement as to the attitude of the British Government in the time of diplomatic difficulty about Bosnia, That statement is untrue as far as we are concerned, but it has been made before. The charge that our attitude was bellicose about the negotiations about
  Bosnia is new, but it is a first-class lie! The idea that we attempted to urge Russia to war, and that we said that this country would be ready to go to war about the annexation of Bosnia—that that was our attitude—is directly contrary to the truth.
  When you talk about appealing to reason, about getting reason to "triumph over might," and so forth, and of getting reason into the German people, I say you cannot reason with the German people so long as they are fed with lies and know nothing of the truth, and so long as these lies are multiplied. I suppose this new one has been supplied to the German Chancellor out of that laboratory which is always at work in some diplomatic quarter in Germany producing these things. So long as you have that sort of thing going on, you cannot possibly reason with Germany, and your enemy does not want to be reasoned with. What do we find in the German Chancellor's speech in this interview of last week? As I read it, it means that those people are responsible for the War and for the continuance of it who will not accept Germany's terms, and that we have to look at a map of the military situation as it is to-day to see what those terms shall be. We have had the German Chancellor's preceding speech as to what those terms should be. They are terms of a victorious Germany, of safeguarding Germany's interest, and taking no account of other people's interests. If they were accepted they leave the other States of Europe at her mercy whenever she chooses to pursue an aggressive policy towards them again. It is childish to say that because Germany's enemies will not accept the terms of peace that suit Germany without regard to their own interests that, therefore, they are responsible for prolonging the War. The real thing which is responsible more than anything else for prolonging the War at this moment is that the German Government goes on telling its people that they have won the War, or, if they are not winning the War, they are going to win it next week, and that the Allies are beaten. The fact is the Allies are not beaten, and are not going to be. The first step towards peace will be when the German Government begins to recognise that fact.
  If any of the Allies have a special right at this moment to speak with regard to peace, it is the Government of France, on whom for some weeks past the concen-
  2202
  trated fury of the German attack has fallen. The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs spoke, and spoke very rightly, of the heroism of British soldiers and British sailors, and all of us who are members of the Government are upheld daily and hourly by the thought of the spirit and courage of the British Army and Navy. But if he was going to talk of the courage of armies and navies, he might have stopped to pay a little tribute to the French Army at this moment. The0 prowess of the French Army through the long battle of Verdun is saving France, and saving her Allies, too. Is this a moment for us to do anything but concentrate upon expressing our determination to give the fullest support in our power to those Allies? If anyone has a right to speak on behalf of peace at the moment, it is the Government of France. Well, the Prime Minister of France has spoken, and if the report in to-day's paper be accurate, as I believe it to be, he has said:—
  "What will the generations to come say if we let escape the occasion to establish firmly a durable peace? Peace must be based on international right."
  That is what we feel, too, and, with our Allies, deeply as we feel and desire to see the fruits of peace established, at the hon. Member for Leicester described them, in a peace which shall endure not for a few years, or not even for a generation or two, but shall save the world from such a catastrophe as this War ever again—deeply as we feel that, I believe the duty of diplomacy at the present moment is to maintain, as it is completely maintaining, the solidarity of the Allies, and to give the utmost support it can to the military and naval measures which are necessary, and taken by the Allies in common, to bring this War to a stage, which it has not reached yet, at which that prospect of securing a durable peace may be made a reality.
  Sir W. BYLES: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that the German people were constantly being encouraged to believe that they were winning, and that they would soon achieve a great victory. I have always thought that our people have been far too much upheld in their warlike propensity for the last two years by similar declarations and protestations by leading statesmen and leading journalists, who have always told them we are winning and we are sure to win. Looking back on the past two years, or nearly two years, it does not look as if those protestations have been justified.

  2203
  This Vote of Credit we are asked now to pass is an enormous sum. I sometimes wonder how long even British credit will last with these repeated demands upon it. But it is a time of stocktaking. It gives us an opportunity, as in this Debate, to look back and to look forward, and, I am bound to say, neither the retrospect nor the prospect shows me anything very bright. Looking back I see the liberties which we have been fighting for jettisoned one by one and the militarism which we are out to crush and destroy we are, indeed, adopting, imitating and assimilating. I never thought to live to see the day when the chains of Conscription would be fastened on this country, and especially by a Liberal Prime Minister, whom I have followed, I hope, with fidelity, and certainly with affection, for many years, and whom I hope still to follow and to trust in every policy except this one. But I believe he will live to regret that he has introduced Conscription into the British Constitution. I believe it will injure his political reputation, and I believe the nation will realise that it has been a mistaken policy.
  Hitherto there has been a difference between a British citizen and a citizen of Germany. Henceforth, I will not say there will be no difference, but there will be less difference, and we shall breathe the same vitiated air of restricted freedom which they do; further, a monarch in future, or his Minister, can embark the country upon any wild-cat enterprise of conquest, tyranny, or oppression, and can compel British citizens, however they disapprove it, to risk their lives and limbs in its accomplishment. An Englishman is no longer the lord of his conscience, no longer the captain of his soul. Day by day we are losing what we set out to defend, and building up what we set out to destroy. The Minister of Munitions, who has played a principal part in this policy now achieved said here in a recent speech that he would sacrifice no Liberal principle, and in another speech, in his own Constituency, that he had in this matter been fighting for the freedom which he had fought for all his life. Yet Conscription destroys the freedom of personal will and engrafts on the British Constitution what is nothing more nor less than the sheet anchor of Prussian militarism. Many of us are receiving in our daily letter bag tragic stories of the effects of Conscription upon conscientious objectors. I could give many instances here, but I do not think
  2204
  the moment suitable. There is however one poor fellow who has been very roughly treated, and he says that when he got into prison one of the officers told him with an oath to get his coat off. The man says, "I told him I was not a soldier and should not obey military orders." The colonel was standing near, and he thundered out and shouted, "What, you won't obey me?" The man quietly answered, "I must obey the commands of my God, sir." "Damn your God," said the colonel, "send him to the special room." That is what I regard as a moratorium of the Sermon on the Mount. There are men I know in this House who cannot appreciate these conscientious objectors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, I know, and the only argument they can appreciate is to batter a man's head with the butt end of a rifle or drive a steel bayonet into his bowels.
  It needs far more courage to resist this, law than to obey it. These men are not cowards. They are disbelievers in fighting. They are Tolstoyans, if you will, and there are thousands of them in this country. I am one myself. Fighting is no way of settling these differences. Force is no remedy. It only embitters relations and increases enmity. I said this here long before the War began, and I have not yet seen any reason to change my opinion. If we may believe the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who addressed us in so interesting a speech yesterday there was no-need whatever for this compulsory service, for he told us of five great reservoirs of men whom we might call upon to make up our battalions. Surely we have seen enough of the horrors of war already in this country. Cast your eyes over Europe and you will see 20,000,000 of men who have been engaged for two years in killing one another and destroying European civilisation. Let each hon. Member look at his own constituency, and if his experience agrees with mine he will read in his local paper a fresh list of widows and orphans and cripples every week, with its consequent privation and suffering and sorrow. It must be remembered that the same thing is going on in other countries besides our own. It is going on in the countries of our Allies: France, Italy, and Russia, and also in the countries of our enemies, Germany and Austria. Why goon with this slaughter? What good is it going to do to either side? Sir Walter Scott says that:
  "War is the only game from which both parties rise losers."

  2205
  I remember the saying of a German statesman six years ago, forecasting an Anglo-German war, in which he said:
  "In an Anglo-German war there will be no conqueror, but only conquered."
  I very much doubt whether there is any responsible person on either side now who expects a complete military victory. But if this terrible War is to end in a draw why not arrange it soon and save lives and suffering and sorrow? I think ft was Cicero who said:
  "All wars should be carried on with the supreme object of achieving peace."
  Everyone in this land, and every other land, is longing for peace. Is it really contended that the only way to get it is to go on exterminating one another? Why, Sir, if you sea two men fighting in the street, or even two dogs, you try and separate them, but here we have, not two nations, but ten nations fighting, comprising hundreds of millions of men, women, and children, including philosophers, poets, priests, and artists, as well as multitudes of creatures struggling with poverty. These millions are living thousands of miles from one another, knowing nothing of each other, and having no quarrel, and these millions hurl themselves at one another with death-dealing machines. And we see the First Minister of the Crown, who is, above all men, responsible for the welfare of his people, egging on the combatants on his own side, telling them to fight to a finish, and urging our soldiers to kill as many Germans as possible; men who are forced by Conscription to face our guns, and refusing to listen for one moment to counsels of peace such as have been uttered tonight; and yet the right hon. Gentleman uses his great powers of eloquent speech, and only too successfully, to promote a cause which can only inflame the passions of hatred and revenge in the people. The great mass of unthinking people applaud, and the Church stands by approving—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and the bishops, too, although I heard of one bishop who seemed to have some doubt whether the Almighty was blessing our arms; in fact, he said he thought that the Almighty was "sitting on the fence." [HON. MEMBERS: Name!"] It was the Bishop of Chelmsford. I would suppose, if God takes any side at all, he would be on the side of the handful of men in this country who are longing and striving after some effort to ring down the curtain on this terrible drama.
  2206
  Of course we are shouted down. Our meetings are often broken up; our newspapers are suppressed; and, if we are Members of Parliament, our seats are endangered. But we are a growing number both here and in Germany, especially if we count those who think but do not speak. There is a growing number of men and women who think it is time to stop this death and destruction and to initiate, as has been suggested in two or three speeches, some diplomatic approaches, with the object of finding out what each side wants and would accept. This quarrel will have to be decided ultimately by discussion, by diplomacy, and by reason, and not by force. Why, then, delay? Why not, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said in another speech yesterday, do it now? The speech of the German Chancellor, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member of the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Pon-sonby), and the reply of our own Prime Minister, addressed to the French deputation at Lancaster House, have certainly brought the country nearer to the course of reason. Instead of sending by Conscription all our male population to kill and to be killed, would it not be much wiser to continue this exchange of definitions and of sentiments until you change brute force into reason and argument. I will not quote now what the Foreign Secretary said in that interview which has been referred to over and over again, except a sentence or two. He said:
  "We believe in negotiation,"
  and he has just told us that he proposed a conference which, if it had been accepted, might have prevented this War.
  "I think that a conference would have settled it in a week, and all these calamities would have been averted."
  I want to know why he cannot propose that conference again now. Germany, depend upon it, would be far more likely to accept it now than they were then. The speech in yesterday's paper of M. Briand has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. In that speech M. Briand said:
  "To utter the word 'peace' now is sacrilege."
  I hope it will be with becoming diffidence if I contest that statement. It is never sacrilege to say "peace"; it is always sacrilege to say "war." I would implore the right hon. Gentleman if he were here, I would implore the Prime Minister or any Minister who is responsible or has to bear some of the responsibility of this fearful war, to keep his ear to the ground and to

  2207
  listen for the first fluttering of the wings of that blessed bird that brings an olive branch of peace.
  Mr. D. MASON: I should like, first, to say that I regret to see that the Foreign Secretary has seen fit to absent himself from this Debate so early after his own speech. I think I express the feelings of many here present when I say that it was a, gross act of discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman who followed him in the Debate. For a Minister who so seldom comes to this House to walk out of the Chamber immediately after making a speech, as was pointed out by the hon. Member who initiated this Debate, when he spoke of the right hon. Gentleman giving an interview to American newspapers, is certainly an act of the grossest discourtesy. The Foreign Secretary, referring to the recent interview of the German Chancellor, said that he demanded a victorious peace. I happen to have here a copy of the recent dispatch of the German Government to the United States Government, and I will quote it to the House so that we can see for ourselves what is in the mind of the German Government at the present moment. The German Government said that twice within the past few months she has announced before the world her readiness to make peace on a basis safeguarding German rights and interests, thus indicating that it is not Germany's fault if peace is still withheld from the nations of Europe. The Foreign Secretary read into the statement of the Imperial Chancellor, when he referred the British Government to the war map of Europe, a declaration for a victorious peace, but I do not think that is consistent with the actual statement which I have just quoted. They are the actual words of Germany herself. Twice she has been prepared within the past few months to make peace—providing her vital interests are preserved. My hon. Friend did a good service in his very able speech when he initiated this Debate, and I think he was justified in pointing to the elements which at present exist, as he said, for advancing negotiations. He considered the time was ripe for these negotiations, and this dispatch from the German Government certainly gives us very considerable ground for that assertion. If we pass on to the latest dispatch of the Imperial Chancellor, we find that he again refers to this statement to which I have just alluded, and says:
  "I have twice publicly stated that Germany has been and is prepared to discuss the termination of
  2208
  the War on a basis that offers her a guarantee against a future attack from a coalition of her enemies, and ensures peace to Europe."
  There again we have a very distinct and specific utterance from the Imperial German Chancellor, in which he very definitely states that Germany is prepared to enter into peace negotiations providing her interests are preserved. I do not know what words mean if that does not mean that she is in that position, and therefore I contend that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was certainly not borne out by the statement of the German Government itself. I very much regret and deprecate the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and I think that will be endorsed by others who heard it. I am not here to defend the German Government or the attitude they took up with regard to Bosnia, but a Minister who describes the statement of the Imperial Chancellor with regard to Bosnia as "a first-class lie" is certainly not likely to be the instrument that is going to advance that honourable and satisfactory conclusion to this War which is so very desirable. He was perfectly justified in pointing out the inaccuracy of the statement made by the German Imperial Chancellor, but such an expression as he made, of course, will be publicly quoted and sent far and wide throughout the length and breadth of the world, and is not the way to advance the cause of peace which he himself would have us believe he desires. What did he himself say? He said, in that famous interview in the "Chicago Daily News":
  "Nobody wants peace more than we want it, but we want peace that does justice. … Presumably Germany would like neutrals to think we are putting pressure to keep France, Russia and Italy in the War."
  That is a sentiment which I think will meet with support from every Member of this House. But when one reads a statement of that character in an interview purposely provided for the nourishment and consumption of the American public rather than of the British public, how can we reconcile it with the bellicose and very extraordinary method of expressing himself which the right hon. Gentleman has used this afternoon? It is impossible to believe in the assertions or attitude of His Majesty's Government, or to reconcile it with a statement of this character, which everyone will agree was temperate and moderate; which led me to believe, when I came down to the House, animated by the most conciliatory attitude

  2209
  towards the Government and looking forward to a great advance, as I believed, the Government and right hon. Gentleman were prepared to make. To find the right hon. Gentleman using language and tones such as he used just now, I am bound to Confess, was a very great disappointment to me.
  What, after all, are the primary objects for which we entered into this War? It may seem unnecessary to again go over the whole ground, and to reiterate them, but I would like briefly to state them, as they may help once again to direct our minds to the object for which we are struggling. The hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Ponsonby), in his able speech, and the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) both referred to these objects and showed that, as far as we believe, Germany is prepared to concede them. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs perhaps does not agree with that; indeed he denied that there was any evidence to show it. But I have endeavoured to show that there is abundant evidence. What are these objects? They are, first and foremost, to carry out our solemn treaty obligations with regard to Belgium, and to bring about an honourable settlement with reference to France. It is often forgotten that we are not alone in this treaty. The obligation for the preservation of the sovereignty of Belgium is equally shared by Russia, France, Austria, and Germany. They, severally and jointly, are responsible for the obligation. No one has suggested that we are anxious to make peace independently of Russia or France, because we recognise that they are, equally with ourselves, responsible for the carrying out of this obligation towards Belgium. Therefore, we feel, unless they have some other motive, some other axe to grind, they must be equally as anxious as ourselves to carry out the primary object with which we entered on the War.
  It has been suggested by other critics to those who, like ourselves, contend that the time is approaching, or even ripe, for trying to bring this War to an honourable close, that this is a sign of weakness. I cannot see how that can be justified. How is it a sign of weakness? We may point to our strong military position, our strong naval position, and our strong financial position. But, because we are equally as patriotic as others, because we are alive to the enormous liabilities which we are incurring, because we had taken a particular
  2210
  view on the whole situation, because we are alive to the immense cost both in life and treasure, because we are anxious to bring this War to a close, and because we seem to take more persuasive measures for bringing that about than those who cry "Peace" and then indulge in the purest invective, how can it be a sign of weakness on our part when we add that, whilst stating our minimum terms, we ought still to pursue the War with our utmost vigour. If Germany is prepared to concede—as I think she is—these very legitimate demands, I think we should be prepared to meet her either by arbitration or in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me (Sir W. Byles), by suggesting another conference at which the nations can come to terms. If, on the other hand, she refuses to have anything to say with regard to the complete evacuation of Belgium, then I do not believe there is a single man in this House or in the country who would support any giving away or weakness with regard to that fundamental principle which lies at the bedrock of our position. Knowing that fact, knowing full well that we will adhere to the primary object with which we entered and are carrying on the War, it cannot be suggested that it implies an element of weakness or is likely to discourage our Allies. If we can get those terms granted, we are prepared to give an honourable peace and to imply that that means weakness is not in accordance with common sense.
  Reference was made by one of the preceding speakers to the immense risks and liabilities that we are incurring, and I would like to allude to that once again, as it may perhaps press upon some who look at this question, not only from the point of view of human life, but from the point of view of the financial responsibilities and untold suffering which is bound to come to this country, and to all countries, whatever the settlement may be, as the result of this awful tragedy. I saw a statement the other day by a London financial expert estimating what would be the position of the belligerents if this War should continue until the 1st of August next. He estimated that the total debt of the German Empire would be £3,200,000,000, with interest charges amounting to £152,000,000; of the Russian Empire at £3,000,000,000, with interest charges of £145,000,000; of France of £2,920,000,000, with a fixed charge of £125,000,000; and of Great Britain at

  2211
  £2,610,000,000, with interest charges of £110,000,000. That, perhaps, is a rather modest estimate, because our own Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us we shall have interest charges of something like £145,000,000. Still, that latter figure may possibly include the loans we have made to our Dominions and our Allies. But if you take that as a summnry of the position, which we shall have to face sooner or later, and which is bound to entail an immense amount of suffering on people who are struggling to live, you will find the total debt charge will be £11,730,000,000, and the annual interest charge between £500,000,000 and £600,000,000. That fact is worth the consideration of all of us, and it is worth bringing to the notice of many hon. Members who perhaps, in the present state of artificial prosperity and the great boom in trade, are not alive to what is going on. They see immense prosperity, a great circulation of money and high wages, and, for the moment, they keep this fact in the background. It is not a very welcome fact to realise the enormous debt that you are incurring and the enormous bill you will have to meet some day very soon. Therefore it may serve a useful purpose if I draw the attention of the House to that factor in the situation.
  Many other critics say, again, that even if Germany was prepared to meet this country in granting, for example, those primary objects to which I have alluded, it is not sufficient. They say that they do not want this to occur again, that they do not want their children to suffer another such tragedy, and that there is only one solution, namely, to crush Germany to her knees. All I can say to those critics is that if they will honestly face the situation from a military point of view and consult military authorities, they will find many of them who will say that that is impossible. If they could consult the war map of Europe, to which the Imperial Chancellor referred, they will admit that the task is a superhuman one. It is no use deluding ourselves that it is within our powers, that it is an easy task, and that it is not going to cost us also an enormous sacrifice of blood and the probable bankruptcy of this country if we persist in the steps which this particular end involves. We cannot dismiss Germany by simply saying that we are going on until we have crushed her to her knees and, in the end, make her sue for peace. In the
  2212
  first place, I doubt our ability to do it, and, in the second place, if we were to persist in it, after having attained the primary objects with which we entered the War, it would not only be an impolitic but an immoral act. The Duke of Wellington once said that after a great army had obtained the primary object for which it entered the campaign, it was unquestionably an immoral act if it persisted in the campaign for military glory, or with a desire to trample upon and crush the enemy. Even if it were to remove the menace from our children and our children's children, it would leave you with a crushed and beaten Germany with a rankling spirit of revenge. If we study history, we find that Napoleon tried that with Prussia, but failed. He tried to limit her standing army to 40,000. He succeeded for the moment, but she again rose up, and eventually took her revenge in France in 1870. What policy did Prussia pursue then f Very foolishly she took from France Alsace and Lorraine, but she did not prevent a spirit of revenge arising in France, because we now see France, very rightly, trying to get back what she lost by that most unjust treatment of her by Germany in 1870. Therefore, if we study history, we see there is no evidence to show that such a policy—apart from its difficulty—is likely to achieve the result which those who support it would have us believe it is likely to bring about.
  9.0 P.M.
  I do not propose to go into all the details of a possible settlement. This is not the time for us to survey the whole field, or for stating what we are prepared to do in regard to Serbia, Poland, and the other parts of this enormous field of operations. We have specifically stated the objects for which we entered the War, and Germany has agreed, as I believe, to concede these primary objects. We have to remember that in the earlier stages of the War many German publicists were in favour of the annexation of Belgium. All that has disappeared. I contend that while we were a united country—rightly united—and are still united with regard to those particular objects, there will be, and necessarily must be, growing disunion in this country because of the suspicion, which may rapidly grow into a conviction, that we are not now pursuing the War for the objects for which we entered it, but for some ulterior objects not disclosed to the House or the country. If the belief centres in the minds of men and in Members of this House that

  2213
  the Government is not anxious to bring to a close this horrible tragedy but that they have ulterior motives in view, we are justified in pointing out to them that they are guilty of the worst of all crimes—the crime of blood-guiltiness. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the interview to which I have referred, spoke of the advantages of arbitration. He used one phrase in which he said that he was not in favour of war as a means of settling disputes and that he regarded it as a most undesirable method of settling disputes. That. interveiw may possibly have been drawn up for American consumption only, but I believe that is his honest conviction. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman speak in the most eloquent terms of the advantages of arbitration and conference, and in condemnation of war. Perhaps if he had not been irritated a little by the criticisms made upon his diplomacy this afternoon he might have spoken in that higher and nobler vein. On some occasions he has spoken in very eloquent terms of the terrible disadvantages of war. In conclusion, I would remind the House of an episode that occurred in South America. High up on the mountain side of the Andes is a statue of bronze. It is made of the cannon belonging to the two States of Chile and the Argentine. It is a statue of our Blessed Lord, and it is set up there to commemorate the fact that these two countries, rather than go to war, preferred to refer their differences to arbitration and to a conference such as we desire.
  Mr. KING: I am sure the House has listened to a very important and weighty speech from the hon. Member. I am glad to have listened to his remarks, especially to the very important financial considerations he put before us. He will not mind my saying that the two features of the two days' Debate we have had on the Vote of Credit have been the speech yesterday of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Colonel Churchill) and the speech this afternoon of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The speech of the Secretary of State was so weighty and important that I intend to read it over again and consider it afresh before I pass my final judgment upon it. One thing he said struck me as very remarkable. He insisted, towards the end of his remarks, upon the solidarity of the Allies. If he had listened the day before to my right hon. Friend (Colonel Churchill) he would have heard that one of the disadvantages
  2214
  we have as against our enemies is that they are solid and united, a Central Power, and we are not united in the same way at all. Day after day, until quite recently, the "Westminster Gazette," a very respectable and important organ of Liberal opinion, has been tolling us that one reason why we have got on so badly in the War is that we Allies are not solidly united as the Germans are, and, of course, there are many points in which it is quite absurd to say that the Allies are united, and knowing the candour and straightforwardness, the utter absence of guile which always mark the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it astounds me to hear him insisting upon the solidarity of the Allies.
  Take the case of Poland. What is the position of Poland? We have lately had from Russia repeated and authoritative statements that Russia will not cease this War until the whole of Poland—Prussian Poland, Austrian Poland, and Russian Poland, which at present Russia has completly lost—are united under the Czar's crown, and only after they have been united in the Russian Empire will the Russian State itself consider whether it will give it any measure of autonomy or not. That is the position that Russia takes up with regard to Poland. What happened only a few weeks ago in the Italian Parliament? A motion was put forward that Poland at the end of this War ought to have an autonomous, independent position, that she should not be under Russia, but should be an autonomous, united Power, and that Resolution was passed unanimously by the Italian Parliament. And then to talk of the solidarity of the Allies! We may be united and determined as Allies each to win in our own field of war, but solidly united in the aims; and objects of the War, we neither are now nor can I believe we ever shall be. These things, of course, make a great deal of difference in the feelings with which the different elements of this great Alliance view this War. And if one object is attained by one State of the Alliance, and another object by another State of the Alliance, we shall find, unless there is some power of authority, diplomacy, negotiation, or agreement stepping in which is not a military power, that the conclusion of the War will not be one which will be easily and smoothly attained, but will be one of confusion, as it is at the present time. I might, of course, pursue this question of the solidarity of the Allies a good

  2215
  deal further, but I may have an opportunity on another occasion of referring to the subject.
  I should like to refer to the very important speech yesterday of my right hon. Friend (Colonel Churchill). I listened to it with mingled admiration and, I think I may say, dismay also—admiration and approval first and foremost, because I felt that here at last we were going to have what I hoped was only the beginning of a movement in this House which will grow—well-informed, responsible criticism, directed by a Minister who has seen the inside and the outside of Government affairs, who is, with a high spirit of patriotism, and with great ability and sense of responsibility, directing his criticism to the Government of the day. In that sense I very gladly heard and approved his speech; but when I came to think it over, it struck me that it was a curious thing that he should have taken the line of military criticism, because, if there is one thing that has been at fault in this War, it has been the military authorities, in other States as well as here. They have been hopelessly at sea and wrong from beginning to end. The world now is suffering not so much from the sins of human nature as the sins, the follies, I will say the fooleries of the military authorities. How did this War begin? If you want to know the German view of how it began, read the last issue of that well-known periodical in Germany, "Die Zukunft" Maximilien Harden, not a Socialist by any means, not a Labour leader, not a pacifist, but a man who has spoken for what one may call the rollicking, well-to-do, bold, rather conceited German, has voiced that element—a very large element, unfortunately, in German society—for the past ten years, -and in the last issue of "Die Zukunft" he starts from this position. He says we were led into this War because we trusted the military power and authority, and because for the moment the military clique in Berlin got the better of the statesmen who ought to manage our affairs, and, starting from that point, he reads to his countrymen the lesson—which I am very glad to hear they are learning from so authorito-tive and eloquent a mouth—that they have been misled by military advice, by military authority, and by military promises, and that these have all proved false and will prove still further and more terribly f$lse in the future if they are still believed
  2216
  in. I am glad to see that doctrine preached in that way in Germany to-day. It is a sign of the times. But I shall not be content until the doctrine of the folly, the futility, and the fooleries of the military authorities in other countries, and here as well, I am sorry to say, are recognised equally.
  I might easily point to the way in which every one of our opponents has been fooled and deluded, and is still being misled by military authority. Let me point to the way in which this War began, and to the way in which the Secretary of State for War at the very opening of the War told us repeatedly—if hon. Members will look up the House of Lords Debates they will see that the Secretary of State for War in August, September, and again later made the statement—that Germany and her ally, Austria, had called to the Colours every available man, and that, therefore, the military power of Germany must inevitably decline while we, beginning with a small Army, and with the prospect of a larger and larger Army, must inevitably gain month after month a predominant position of superiority over our foes. It is humiliating for an Englishman to have to recall here such words by an eminent man, in whom we place so much of our trust, of whose services we are in many ways so proud, and whom we have recognised as a great support and stay of the State in these terrible times. It is humiliating that we have to recall the fact that the promises of Lord Kitchener, made in the first few months of the War, sound folly at the present moment. They have been proved to be utterly inadequate and absurd. I will cite two cases, quite well known, in which the military authorities have given words to the Prime Minister, which he used in all good faith, unfortunately to the humiliation of himself and greatly to the disappointment of the people. The Prime Minister, on 20th April of last year, went to Newcastle and made a speech. It was at the time when there was great anxiety and discussion about shortage of munitions, and he stated to his audience, on the highest mlitary authority, that there never was, nor would there be, any shortage of munitions. I frankly say, knowing what I do, knowing what everybody does of that episode, which was a painful and trying episode, that the Prime Minister was miserably deceived on that occasion by the military authorities. The military authorities, either through utter ignorance or utter recklessness, gave

  2217
  information to the Prime Minister, which he used in the most solemn way, and in such a way that we now can only regret. We can only feel that the military authorities, who, unfortunately, are being quoted again and again in this House and up and down the country as the one set of people we ought to follow, are befooling us, have befooled us, and, worst of all, have befooled the Prime Minister, and have humiliated and reduced his authority in the face of the nations of the world. I will quote another case in connection with the Prime Minister. On the 2nd November of last year he used these words in this House:
  "General Nixon's force is now within measurable distance of Bagdad. I do not think that in the whole course of the War there has been a series of operations more carefully contrived, more brilliantly conducted, and with a better prospect of final success.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1915, col. 509. Vol. LXXV.]
  No doubt the Prime Minister made those remarks upon the reports and the authority of the military advisers, and only a very few weeks afterwards we began to hear painful and alarming accounts, which culminated in that most deplorable reverse, the surrender of our Army at Kut. I am told that this is the first time for two hundred years that a General in Command and a General Staff have surrendered in such a way to the enemy. [HON. MEMBERS dissented.] I understand that that is so. It is a very painful subject, but are we not going to look facts in the face. "When the military authorities tell us one day that this is an expedition magnificently managed, with magnificent chances of success, and a few weeks later we find we are let down and humiliated by these military advisers in this way, is no protest to be made in this House or elsewhere against the Government coming forward and saying: "This is necessary because the military advisers say so. This legislation must be undertaken, not because we think it altogether right or advisable, but the military advisers think it so." I feel convinced that the main difficulty we have in this War is a difficulty which, to my mind, is greater than that difficulty which has been dealt with earlier in the Debate, the difficulty as to how diplomatic negotiations, conciliations, international and peaceful relations, are to be resumed, a question which was answered in one way by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Ponsonby), and in another way by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In my opinion that difficulty is at the present moment not so serious as this,
  2218
  that we are being misled by the military advisers of this country, and we are giving up ourselves far too exclusively, the Government is giving itself far too exclusively to the policy of drift—a policy not demanded by popular feeling, or by reasoned information, but one which is dictated by a set of men—I do not know who they are, and I do not know whether anybody else does—who, under the guide of possessing some peculiar powers of intelligence, information, possibly by spying, divination, or whatever it may be, tell us that this or that is going to happen in the War, and it does not happen; that this or that is necessary, and it is not necessary, that this or that is sufficient, and it is not sufficient. I will quote one more case which has been often quoted. When we were passing the Military Service Act four months ago, and the measure had reached an advanced stage, we were told by the Minister in charge of the Bill, the President of the Local Government Board, en the authority of Lord Kitchener, which he had received that very morning from him—of course, Lord Kitchener was then only the mouthpiece for these unknown military advisers—that the measure then proposed was sufficient to secure victory. What do we find to-day?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): The hon. Member is not entitled to review the Debates we have had on other occasions. That is an abuse of Debate.
  Mr. KING: I am not anxious to detain the House. I know that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) wishes to raise a very important subject, and I hope that the House will forgive me for having made a few remarks which I am sure are worth some consideration.
  Mr. HOGGE: One of the disadvantages of discussions on Votes of Credit is, as the House knows, that we have to wait until one subject is exhausted before we can raise another. The interposition today of the House of Lords Amendments to the Military Service Bill has deprived the House of three or four hours of its most valuable time for raising subjects which are more apposite to a Vote of Credit than to any other Vote. The subject to which I, and I think a great many others, wish to devote some attention now, even at the fag-end of the second day of the Vote of Credit, is one which touches the financial and domestic interests of a great many people. We have had issued

  2219
  a White Paper, dealing with the Regulations made by the Military Service Civil Liabilities Committee, with the concurrence of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury. We were informed to-day at Question Time that there would be in the post offices of the United Kingdom to-morrow application papers which men having those liabilities, and wishing to have some of them discharged at the hands of this committee, might secure and fill up. I wish to call attention to the fact that we are here having a repetition of what occurred when this House agreed, I think wrongly, to a Report by six Members of this House dealing with pensions which are now administered by the War Office, which involved this House in a large expenditure of public money, which the House never discussed and was never given an opportunity of discussing, before it became part and parcel of the law of this country, and to-morrow men may go to the post office and they may ask for application papers to fill in before they are called up before the tribunal which may involve the House of Commons in a large expenditure of public money of which they have had absolutely no estimate, for which expenditure the Government has no power, and as to which it never submitted a single word to this House since the day when the Prime Minister in Secret Session—1 can refer to this, because this part of the Secret Session appeared in the ordinary Report which was published—announced that as a result of the disaster which had overtaken the Compulsory Bill, which was afterwards embodied in the Military Service Bill that became law to-day, men on being called up were to be able to make certain applications to cover certain liabilities.
  I do not know whether the House cares at all about its powers. There was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) and some four or five others, including myself, in which we used the phrase that "in order to revive the public control of Parliament over the finances of this country," certain things ought to be done. I do not know whether or not the House is sufficiently interested to insist upon the revival of powers which we ought to have in our own hands. It is surely a thing of which we ought to have the knowledge and which we ought to give the Government power to do
  2220
  before we are given a scheme of this magnitude, of which no estimate has been laid before the House, and which deals with financial and domestic interests of the most intimate kind, affecting every married man and every single man who cares to make application who has enlisted in the Forces of the Crown since the outbreak of this War—that is to say, affecting practically between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 men—if those men care to make that application. I want to draw attention to the irregularity of this proceeding which has, by some mysterious backward way, committed the House to an expenditure of public money, and when we ask, as I myself asked the Prime Minister, to give us an opportunity of discussing this nearly a fortnight ago, we are put off and told that we can raise it on the Vote of Credit. Here is the Vote of Credit, and it is half-past nine o'clock. We have an hour and a half of Parliamentary time, and those forms committing us to all that can be got in any post office to-morrow!
  Is not that a farce, and is it not ludicrous for us, whose main function is to control the finances of the country and to grant no supplies of any kind to any Government without investigation and discussion and agreement, to allow ourselves to be hoodwinked in this way? The scheme itself, as I have pointed out, is a liability which may affect, though probably it will not affect, because everyone will not make application, from three to four million soldiers or sailors. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hayes Fisher), whose great abilities I recognise as a Minister who has had vast experience in local government and has spent the best part of his life in gaining the experience which he is now turning to account, has told us in this House, and it is true, because I notice that the Lord Advocate for Scotland (Mr. Munro) is sitting beside him at the moment, and he has told me that if I cared to ask for it in this Debate he is actually in a position to give me the names of those Commissioners in Scotland who have been appointed to do this work. You have those two Ministers present, and you have this fact that the Commissioners under this scheme are actually appointed before this House of Commons has even been asked whether they think that this is the kind of scheme that will suit the occasion or not. What is the House of Commons coming to? Its function is resolving

  2221
  itself into saying ditto, not only to the Cabinet, but to what any Under-Secretary in any Government Department cares to suggest to this House. I think it is ludicrous, for instance, that the Lord Advocate for Scotland should be sitting on the Front Bench to-night with the names in his pocket of men whom presumably he has recommended. I do not question the recommendations he has made, because I have absolute confidence in the ability of my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate—I am sure he understands that—but is it not ludicrous that we should have sitting on the Front Bench to-night two Ministers with the names of the men who are going to do the work in their pockets, when in the same breath we are told by the Prime Minister that we can discuss this on the Vote of Credit. Here is the Vote of Credit, and we have reached twenty-five minutes to ten o'clock, when we have to deal with what will involve this country in the expenditure of millions. I, for one, absolutely protest against this treatment of the House of Commons.
  This matter involves not only the payment of soldiers, but of sailors, and this is one of the two definite pieces of information we receive in the White Paper, namely, that between fifty and seventy men, advocates in Scotland, barristers in England and Wales, will receive a sum of £25,000 a year of public money, which has to be voted in a way which has been suggested by nobody, which has appeared nowhere, and which, we are told, we can discuss on the Vote of Credit, and which we have been prevented from reaching by the discussion of the Amendments on the Military Service Bill. I have some respect for the traditions of this House, but I think that every Member will agree with me that this is a foolish way in which to deal with a big question and with which to deal with the House of Commons. We ought to have been given an opportunity to debate this subject and make suggestions, which a number of Members are now willing to submit. Supposing, for a moment, we were able to succeed in breaking down the attitude which is taken up to this scheme by the Ministers in charge of it, what possible chance has any suggestion of any Member of this House of being incorporated in the scheme, when one can obtain a copy of the document which has been issued at any post office to-morrow? That is reducing to a
  2222
  farce the function of this Debating Assembly, where we are supposed to arrive at a conclusion after listening to the contributions in Debate of Members on all sides. I do protest against that. It is perfectly obvious that what I say is the fact, for this reason, that since a quarter-past eight o'clock, despite the fact that the Prime Minister assured this House that there will be always one Cabinet Minister on that bench to deal with any business that may arise, there has not been one present for the last two hours. All that the two Ministers sitting on the Front Bench can say in reply to us is that they will convey our opinions to their right hon. Friends. That is not good enough, it is not right, it is not respectful, and it is giving the Prime Minister away. The Prime Minister solemnly pledged himself that we should have the advantage on the Front Bench of a Cabinet Minister, and, as a matter of fact, as I have already pointed out, we have not had a Cabinet Minister for the last two hours.
  With regard to the system which is contained in this White Paper, it is one by which the contribution to meet the liabilities of married men who enlist is to be given by Commissioners who are to be appointed or revising barristers. I suppose the reason why revising barristers have been chosen is that they are hard up, or that the work which they usually perform in revising the register has not been done, and that this is compensation for them. I do not know whether the fact that they are employed on this work means that there is going to be no General Election, and that there is to be no work on the register, but I would point out that if the Government wanted to keep the revising barristers, and to pay them anything adequate to the work they previously did, why did they not continue them in keeping the existing register up to date, in at any rate keeping any register we have got in as perfect condition as possible? That not being the policy of the Government, they are given this work, and look what happens. A married man goes before his tribunal, and his liabilities may be of varying and different kinds. There may be a liability to rent, a liability to rates, a liability to insurance premium, to children's school fees, and soon. At the present moment, supposing this system of Commissioners did not exist, the man is able to appeal to the tribunal, and state the ground on which he ought to be exempted, and his

  2223
  financial or domestic liabilities. But it is because he has got financial liabilities that this Commission has been erected, and in future; from to-morrow onwards, after he can get his application form, it must be understood that, in addition to stating all his financial and domestic obligations to the tribunal, who are to determine whether or not he is to go into the Army, he will be ordered, or rather compelled, to address himself to the Commissioner or revising barrister, in order that he may determine how much the State is going to allow him, before the tribunal determines whether he shall go to the Army or not. If you want men quickly, is there a slower way in which you could do it? We have passed two Military Service Bills now, and when we have to get the men—and that was what all the squabble was about, namely, to get the men quickly—here you have the Government itself coming forward with a scheme by which the applicant before the tribunal has to do the same thing twice before that body can send him to the Army or Navy, or make up its mind whether he is to go or not.
  What my hon. Friend has got to prove is this, that the tribunals cannot do this work, and he will find that extremely difficult. He has frequently told us, and his chief has also told us, that the tribunals have done their work admirably. They have considered all over the country the claims of these men, and they have recognised their claims because of the local nature of the tribunals, and they have done so from the financial and domestic points of view. They have actually sent men into the Army as the result of considering whether those were good claims or otherwise. All that is to be taken out of the hands of those competent bodies and put into the hands of advocates in Scotland and barristers in England. The only possible reason that can be alleged is that as the men would be appearing before tribunals and people who might know their circumstances, that they might be influenced by outside prejudice to give the men more money than the revising barrister would. But would not the same argument apply as to whether or not those men would keep applicants out of the Army? The tribunal is composed frequently of a man's fellow tradesman, and he is known intimately to them. I have not any evidence, and do net believe, and do not put it forward, but
  2224
  conceivably the same influences might operate in putting men out of the Army because of local prejudices as would operate to give men more or less money in connection with their liabilities. I do not think, therefore, there is much in that point. Then there is a vital point with regard to this scheme to which I hope my right hon. Friend will address himself. There is no kind of recommendation in this report as to how barristers are to deal with the cases or as to what they are to grant. It is perfectly obvious that the first thing that would happen wlli be enormous evidence of lack of uniformity. You will have a revising barrister, say, in Newcastle determining the same kind of case as a revising barrister in Bristol and giving altogether different sums of money to the men in question. You will have men in the same profession, for instance, teachers in the same rank of promotion and professional men who are earning the same kind of salaries, and all classes of men in the same categories, getting different sums from different Commissioners in differing and different parts of the country.
  I think one of the weaknesses of this scheme is that the Local Government Board has not seen fit to incorporate any adequate direction to the Commissoners as to how they are to proceed. There is no guidance at all as to the importance of various factors. Let me take two of those—house rent and food. Is it to be the principle of the Commissioners that the home will be maintained and that the standard of living will also be maintained? Is it to be the principle that the roof is to be kept over the heads of these men and that the wife and children are not to have their standard of living—and by that I mean their physical efficiency at any rate—-reduced? That is a very simple inquiry that will occur to anyone who cares to read the report. My right hon. Friend must see that those are two points upon which there may be great variety of opinion amongst revising barristers all over the country. In addition to the fact that the revising barristers are to be paid, the only other definite information is that the maximum payment that can be made to applicants is £104 per year. I think my right hon. Friend ought to be able to give the House a little more information. That is all I have to say now on the question of the liabilities" of married men.
  I desire to ask one or two other questions upon matters about which many

  2225
  people outside this House are anxious to obtain information. I ask when the Statutory Committee set up under the Naval and Military War Pensions Act is really going to begin its work? Is it or has it paid any separation allowance, which it is entitled to pay, to the parent of any lad in the Army or Navy who, because of the fact that he did not apply for the allowance at the outset, has been unable to get it since? That Committee was set up to do that in particular. Take the case that occurred over and over again some time ago, and is doing so more frequently now. A young lad goes into the Army or Navy. His father is alive and everything is all right. The people are patriotic and say, "Do not bother about the allowance or allotment; we will get on all right without it." While the young lad is at war the father dies and the mother is left without the father's wages. The lad immediately goes to the paymaster and says, "Take my 6d. per day or 3s. 6d. per week," but although that lad in the Army, having lost his father and fighting for us, allots his 3s. 6d., the Government will not give the 9s. 6d. to the mother! This Statutory Committee was set up to deal with cases of that kind. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Military and Naval War Pensions Bill was introduced into this House, I believe, a year ago, and that we were asked to pass it through all its stages in one day because of the urgency of paying this money? To-day, towards the end of May, this Committee has not yet got its neck down to the collar. It is issuing circulars, but no money. It is holding Committee meetings, it is arranging for deputations to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask for more money, in spite of the fact that some of us told you that the £1,000,000 which was being given was no good for the liabilities that were being incurred, and that you would require many millions. We also told you that you would not get going until the end of June, and you are not going. The only thing you have done that I know of is that you have changed your address from one part of Whitehall to another.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman also tell me what is being done about the rent allowance at present being paid out of the Prince of Wales' Fund? Is the Statutory Committee going to take that over? Have they come to any decision with regard to that? There is another question to which possibly he himself would like an
  2226
  answer. Has he found out how much the War Office is going to refund to the Prince of Wales' Fund for money advanced to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association which he is now using or proposing to use for certain purposes to pay the rent allowance of wives of soldiers at the front? If the War Office is not going to pay back any of that money, who is going to meet that after the end of June? Is it going to come out of money supplied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or out of some other fund which exists somewhere but which nobody knows anything about? I am putting these questions shortly, although I might fairly elaborate them at great length, because this is an extremely important social point.
  10.0 P.M.
  My next question has reference to the work of the Chelsea Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Government decided that disabled men discharged from the Navy or Army on account of disease brought about by aggravation in naval or military service were to be entitled to four-fifths of the full pension. I have taken a great interest in this question from the beginning. I have been a bit of a nuisance to many of my right hon. Friends on account of the persistency with which I have hung on to it. In the course of my interest in this matter I have accumulated a large number of cases of men discharged from the Army for various reasons, and immediately the Government suggested that these men were to get a four-fifth's pension I tested the Chelsea Commissioners with four typical cases. I will not give those four cases, but I will summarise one in order to show the kind of thing that is happening. Here is the case of a Scotsman, a miner from Fifeshire, who joined the Royal Field Artillery. Eighteen months before he joined he had been subject to bronchitis. He was with the Colours for 158 days—I think he claims a little more, but I am taking the figure of the War Office. On the 19th March, 1915, he was discharged—I will give the War Office reason—on account of chronic bronchitis. This man, after leaving the Army, instead of developing other symptoms of chronic bronchitis, entered a consumption sanatorium. He was there as long as the sanatorium would keep him. He cannot be maintained there any longer, and he has had to go and live in a village in Scotland. Will the House credit the fact that that man is receiving the magnificent pension of 5d. a day? He is a widower with a

  2227
  little girl of eight years of age, and both he and she have no future prospects but the workhouse. If the medical authorities of the War Office accepted that man, kept Mm in the Army for 158 days, passed him through more than one medical examination, and used him as a medically fit man, it is poor patriotism, poor gratitude, and an ingratitude which this House of Commons certainly does not want to see carried out, that that man should be "scrapped" with 5d. a day, suffering from consumption which will take him to his grave inside the next twelve, if not six, months and force his little girl into the workhouse unless somebody adopts her. Who is responsible? The Chelsea Commissioners. Who are the Chelsea Commissioners? I do not know. They write me very polite and respectful letters, stating that all the circumstances have been laid before a medical board, and that the medical board have decided that the man has no case. This is only one of many cases that I could bring forward. I am not the only Member of the House who could bring dozens of similar cases.
  Those of us who have the good fortune to remain candidates or Members of this House will hear about this matter on our election platforms for many years to come. I have never made any other claim than that if the Navy or Army take a man as medically fit they are bound in honour to foot the bill if anything goes wrong with the man. We can all follow, in our imagination, the painful domestic incidents of experiences of that kind. We want the War Office—and, after all, we are bigger than the War Office: surely the House of Commons is a bigger thing than the War Office, and the nation is a bigger thing than any of us—we and the nation want elementary justice to be dealt out to men in these circumstances. So long as I have the opportunity in this House, and the vigour and energy to do it, I will persist in calling attention to cases of this kind until we get them nettled on a satisfactory basis, in the knowledge that, whichever of us happens to have the luck to bring the matter forward, we are all supporting each other in the demand for justice for these people. Supposing that man dies, who is left? One little orphan girl eight years of age. What does she get for the sacrifice of her father? Absolutely nothing—not a single farthing. If her father had been entitled, as I claim he
  2228
  ought to be, to the four-fifth's pension, she as a dependant ought to get a four-fifth's dependant's pension, and she would, at any rate, have an opportunity of getting on somewhat in life. It is that human side of the problem that we want to press upon my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. I know both of them well. I know the Lord Advocate better, perhaps, than my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board. I know that neither of them is lacking in sympathy for these people, and that neither of them personally would do anything that would hamper them from getting what we consider they ought to receive. I do impress this upon the Members on the Front Bench that throughout the country, and in this House, there is no question which appeals to all of us so keenly, strongly, and persistently as this one fact, that when this War is over and we have to deal with the victims of it is shall be said by every civilised nation in the world that the British peoples stood by the people, and the dependants of the people, who did their work in this great crisis in our nation's history.
  Mr. JACOBSEN: I shall be glad if the House will be so kind as to extend to me the indulgence that Parliament always so generously gives to Members who for the first time address it. I should like to say a few words on the subject introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh as to the new scheme of relief and Regulations. I am very glad the Government have at last introduced this scheme. I do not want any man to lose his home and his interests in defending mine. The scheme itself is very much overdue. Had it been introduced earlier you would have had a great many more men in the Army, and perhaps would not have needed universal compulsion. We are now coming to a very serious phase. You are calling up men who will be drawn, I believe, mainly from the middle class of this country. A great many of them have not joined on account of their very great financial and domestic responsibilities. I, myself, canvassed a very great number of them under the Derby scheme, and I know what are, their capabilities. It is a class which will make the greatest financial sacrifices. The matter is one most trying and difficult to decide, for the members of this class have neither the certainty nor the resources, nor the security of the rich, nor the power possessed by the poor of making their expenditure more nearly harmonise with what

  2229
  they will get from the Government. How-are you going to treat these men under this scheme if they want to appeal—and they have a legal right to appeal—to the tribunal on the ground of financial hardship? They are to go to the tribunal, which has no means whatever of knowing whether eventually their case will be one of financial hardship or not. If the tribunal says that a certain man is entitled to relief, the man has appealed without any assurance that that relief will be given. In other words, the tribunals are expected to gamble with the whole material welfare of a man and his family. The tribunals will not do it.
  If an appeal is justifiable a tribunal can do one of three things. It can exempt a man; it can adjourn the case until the result is known of the financial appeal; or the tribunal can send the man into the Army relying upon his obtaining relief from the Commissioners. If the tribunal sends the man into the Army relying upon his obtaining an adequate grant and the Commissioners should take a different view, that man will be deprived of his legal right to have his case decided by the tribunal, because the real arbiter of his case will be the body representing the Government, whose proceedings are not regulated by any Act of Parliament, and from whom there is no appeal. I begin to think that we are getting a little too much of Government by Regulation! I submit that this means that a set of Regulations drawn up without the advice or the knowledge of Parliament will cancel and supersede the intentions of a solemn Act of Parliament and destroy and deliberately inserted and most necessary safeguard in that Act. The Committee may be right or wrong. The fact remains that an independent body, expressly set up under Act of Parliament to see fair play between the Army Council and the nation, will be overridden in a manner that this House, I do not think, ever intended or contemplated. I hope the Government will try and understand the fear which is going through the country on this point.
  I do not believe, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh said, that you are acting in the best way to get men for the Army quickly. I myself am a member of one of the most important tribunals in the country. I am perfectly sure that if tribunals have any doubt at all they "will adjourn all these cases, and will not make a final and proper decision until they know exactly what the man's posi-
  2230
  tion will be if he goes into the Army. They will not, and ought not to, be required to take the responsibility of sending men who have just claims into the Army until they are quite satisfied that their interests and homes are fairly protected. I do not say for a moment that the financial representative of the Government will be deliberately unfair. But if a difference of opinion should arise between the applicant and the authorities, the man will be in the Army, and that seems to me a very bad place from which to open up an argument with one's superiors. I cannot see why a claim of this nature should not go direct to the Commissioners in the first instance. If the applicants are satisfied with what they are going to get, you will hear no more of the cases. If they are not satisfied, let them go back to the tribunal and exercise their right to have their cases decided by that tribunal, which then will be fully informed. In all cases up till now we have had the indispensable advantage of knowing exactly what a man would get if he went into the Army. All members here who belong to tribunals know that over and over again we have explained to men what they are going to get, and shown them that they will hot be in any financial hardship, and the men have been willing to go. It seems to me really that the only businesslike thing to do would be for the Commissioners to work in close harmony with the tribunals, the financial assessors to make all inquiries and to advise the tribunals. You would then have the cases settled subject only to the ordinary appeal if either the man or the Commissioners were not satisfied.
  It might be said to that, that if the man appeals to the tribunal in the first instance, the tribunals would know too much about his affairs. Those of us who have been on the tribunals know that we have done nothing else all the time but go into a man's private affairs. If a working man has come to us and asked for exemption, we have had to ask him: "How much have you been earning? How much will your wife or daughters be able to earn when you go? What rent have you been paying? How many rooms have you occupied? How many have you been able to let? Is there any reason why your old mother of sixty-eight should not go out and do a day's charing now and again? "We have asked all sorts of personal questions of the poor men who have come before us. These particulars, however, need not be made public. Applications

  2231
  may be heard in private if a man desires. I do hope that in this scheme, so far as it applies to men who are already serving, and beyond the jurisdiction of the tribunals, that the Government will act in a broad and generous spirit, more particularly to the approved cases of those who are ordinary weekly or monthly tenants. I am not quite sure, and I have never found anybody yet who was sure, whether the Government scheme is intended to apply to such cases. I have heard that argued on both sides. Prices have gone up a great deal, and what was a fair allowance in 1914 or 1915 is no longer so. Men serving are entitled to apply for relief in order to meet their financial obligations, and it is surely a financial obligation on every man to ensure, as far as he can, that those left behind shall be properly and decently housed, and at the same time be able to obtain such necessaries as it was intended they should have under the original allowance. In thousands of cases payment of all, or part of, the rent, in addition to the usual allowance, is absolutely essential to prevent serious financial hardship.
  Mr. CURRIE: We have had this afternoon BE much of striking the stars with sublime heads that I am almost inclined to be grateful to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) for bringing back the Debate to a more useful, if somewhat lower, level. It is many months since I pointed out myself that this provision for the needs of married men was really overdue, and I am only too glad that at last the thing has been done. When I hear criticisms of the way in which the Under-Secretary of State for War and those who work with him in this matter have dealt with cases of hardship, I must say I always feel bound to protest. The right hon. Gentleman can surely have few more persistent critics than myself, and at the end of the day I think in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he has dealt with them sympathetically, promptly and in a spirit of thorough reasonableness. I think it only fair to say that at the end of the day. I know that my hon. friend and neighbour in East Edinburgh is moved by a very genuine spirit of sympathy for hard cases. I do not propose to follow him in the individual instances he quoted to-night. With much of what he said I quite agree, but I do not propose to follow him in detail. His three main criticisms of the scheme now before us were
  2232
  really rather strained, and I think the cumulative effect is a little unfortunate in this respect. Surely it is of first importance that those who are to look to these new Referees should have every feeling of confidence that at the hands of those gentlemen appointed by the Government their cases will really receive full and responsible consideration. I think my hon. Friend must have overlooked that a little in some of his remarks. For instance, take his remark that he regarded it rather as a grievance—so I understood him—that the Lord Advocate had already appointed, or practically appointed, the men who will do the work in Scotland. If the hon. Member had complained that the Lord Advocate had not done it, I should have thought perhaps he had some reason on his side, but it appears to me that the House, and, at all events, those married men who require relief, should feel grateful to the Government and the Lord Advocate that the arrangements in Scotland have been practically made, and, if it is not asking too much of my right hon. Friend, I should be glad if he would give the names.
  The House was told some days ago that in Scotland the work was to be done substantially by the Sheriff-substitutes, and we know who they are. They have the confidence of all. The others to be appointed are members of the Scottish Bar, and I do not suppose there will be more than a dozen at the outside, so that I do not think there is any substance in the complaint that the Lord Advocate, and those working with him, have been withholding information from the House. Then my hon. Friend rather suggested that the arrangements were such that lack of uniformity would result. I may be wrong, but my impression is that the Government have taken care that lack of uniformity should not result, and that the Referees were to make careful notes of the evidence and report to the Government, or to the Central Authority in London, with the object of securing, what is very desirable, as complete uniformity of decision as is possible. I hope the Lord Advocate or the Financial Secretary, whoever replies, will make that point clear.
  The third point my hon. Friend made was that we in Scotland were badly treated by the Government because we were not dealt with by the Front Bench through the medium of a Cabinet Minister. If hon. Members dealing with a Scottish matter have the Chief Whip and the

  2233
  Lord Advocate, I think it is most unreasonable to complain that a Cabinet Minister is not there in view of the heavy work the Cabinet has before it. Two points I would like the Lord Advocate to deal with. Is it not possible to arrange at this date that soldiers with the Colours, perhaps for one year or one year and six months, should be able to forward their cases through their own officers? Many of those who joined at the beginning of the War would prefer to put their cases through what they recognise as the usual channels and not to be made to use the tribunals. It may be too late for that, but if he could do this it would be a good thing. My last question is this: Apart from the arrangement in which the Chelsea authorities and the new Statutory Committee are concerned, the system involves the demitting of their work by those who are carrying on the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association. That work comes to an end on the last day of June, and it would be convenient to all those engaged in that work to know whether their duties which they have done so well will be continued.
  Mr. SUTTON: I would like to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that the Government must at least look upon some of these questions more sympathetically in the future than in the past. I must say that I have myself had many cases like those which have been quoted, but I have not wanted to hamper the Government and I have written to the War Office over every case because I determined when this War commenced that I would give the Government all the support I possibly could and I have tried to do that up till now, although I must say that I, along with many other hon. Members, have had a difficult job in cases of this kind. However, I want to give at least one case which I have had recently, and which I wrote to the War Office about but I have not yet had a reply. This is the question of an old soldier who fought in the South African War, and his name is Sergeant Beck. He came to my house a few weeks ago for me as a magistrate to sign a pension paper. The Chelsea Commissioners had awarded him the magnificent sum of 4s. 8d. a week to keep himself, a wife, and four children upon. This man had got two medals and seven bars which he earned in the South African War. He came specially out of bed, which he ought not to have done, and although he is only thirty-seven;. years of age I concluded that he looked
  2234
  at least sixty. He enlisted when the War broke out, was sent to Southport, and had to be reduced because chronic rheumatism had set in owing to the fact that they were compelled to go and bathe at least several times in the week at Southport, and Lot being able to do his work as a sergeant he was reduced to a private. He is now being discharged, and the War Office and the Chelsea Commissioners have awarded him, as I say, the sum of 4s. 8d. a week to keep himself upon. In my opinion he will not be able to work again His wife has to look after a coal yard, and with this 4s. 8d. a week she has to support herself, her husband, and four children. Those of us who have been doing recruiting work have a difficult job in our different districts when we ask people to enlist. These cases are pointed out to us, and it is said, "This is what the War Office consider is the quota of these people who have made great sacrifices." Sergeant Beck, I might say, was the brother of Corporal Beck, who regained his speech and hearing at a picture palace in Liverpool some time ago. This is not a very great reward for a man who has fought like this man, and I contend something ought to be done in matters of this kind. I have the case of another man, a neigh-bour of mine, who had a stroke in Gallipoli. The Chelsea Commissioners awarded him 4s. 7d. per week to keep himself, his wife, and three children. He received that for six months, and then the Chelsea Commissioners sent for him to come to London. They found that he was unable to obtain work. No employer would take him on account of his having fits. They then awarded him the full pension of 25s. per week—
  Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members found pre sent—
  Mr. SUTTON(continuing): I was just on the point of concluding. I only got up to urge upon my right hon. Friend the necessity of doing something, and impressing upon the Chelesa Commissioners the necessity of being more sympathetic in these cases, because we have stated in this House from time to time that never again will our fighting heroes have to tramp the gutters sellng laces and matches.
  Mr. W. ROCH: Like my two hon. Friends who have spoken, I think it is a matter of regret that Parliament has had

  2235
  no opportunity, and will have no opportunity, to mould, or indeed to criticise effectively in any way, the most important subjects we have been discussing for the last hour. All that is really left to us now is to make suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman, and indeed to elicit further information as regards this scheme. I think the right hon. Gentleman must agree that this is an absolutely new departure on behalf of the Government. A great scheme of pensions and separation allowances was never before taken from the purview of the House of Commons. Generally such schemes have been considered by a representative Committee of the House of Commons chosen from all parts of the House. I hope he will assure us that this important matter of social reform shall not be taken again from the purview of Parliament. While we are all agreed there are certain matters connected with the conduct of the War which cannot really be controlled by the House of Commons, this matter is essentially one which could have been taken in hand by this House, which has repeatedly pressed on the Government the desirability of dealing with it. Now, at the eleventh hour almost, the Government have acceded to their wishes. I think also it is a fair matter of comment that, while the House of Commons has had opportunities of discussing the obligation to military service, it can offer no effective criticism and cannot express its opinions on the liability which this obligation to serve carries with it.
  I want to deal with one point only in connection with this matter. First, there is the scheme itself, and then there is the machinery by which the scheme is to be carried out. Take first the scheme. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why officers are excluded from it? If a Territorial officer is able to satisfy the Commissioners that his case is one of financial domestic hardship, why should he be left out of the scheme? We have been accused in this House of being rather in search of votes and thereby creating a kind of class distinction, but the exclusion of officers from this scheme seems to me to be the worst form of class distinction. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what this scheme exactly amounts to? While its genera] idea is plain, I think, when this obligation of service is imposed by Statute on a man, he should know with reasonable certainty where he stands. Will the right
  2236
  hon. Gentleman tell us quite specifically what a man is to get under this scheme? What is the standard which the Government is prepared to lay down? Are these men who are called up to be maintained in their present standard of life within the limits, of course, of the £104 per annum? That is a perfectly plain and simple principle, and I think some statement should be made so that every man can understand when he joins the Army that if his pay and separation allowances do not enable him to maintain his existing standard of life he can take it for granted that, within those limits and for the specific purpose laid down by the Regulations, he can definitely count on getting this money. It is of the very essence of the scheme that we should know precisely where the man stands. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us not only what a man will get by that standard, but when he will get it, because he must realise that in these cases time is the real essence of the contract?
  I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman of a case which came under my notice this morning. It was that of an architect in South London who, up to now, has been able to earn an income of £400 or £500 a year. He has a sick wife, who is undergoing treatment in a home. He has also three children, one of whom is eight years of age, and is. just about to enter a school. The man has not been able to save anything, because he has effected an endowment policy. He is going before the tribunal this week. From the moment that that man is called up his income ceases, and what is more, once he is called up for service his credit ceases from that moment—his credit at the bank and with his tradesmen. That man is to go before the-tribunal this week. Suppose he is not exempted. It is of the very essence of the contract with that man that he should know, not months hence, but almost immediately, whether he will have any allowance to enable him to keep his home together. Will he be placed in such a position that he can maintain his wife in this nursing home? All these questions turn on the precise amount that this man will get, and on the fact that he will get it at once. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reassure us on these two points: first, as to the basis of what is to be-awarded to the men, and as to the fact that there will be absolutely no delay in their getting it. It is not unfair to say

  2237
  to the right hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for any delay in this matter will rest entirely upon the shoulders of the Government. This scheme has been pressed upon them for months. They could have had these Commissioners appointed three months ago, and they might have had the whole machinery, as far as possible, working by now. The precedent of the Statutory Committee for Pensions is not a reassuring one. That Bill passed its Third Reading on 20th July last year, and while salaries have been paid—I do not say that as a sneer, because salaries must be paid—while a great organisation has been created, while the urgency of the cases with which that Committee was formed to deal has grown from day to day, the right hon. Gentleman cannot get up and say that, while that scheme and that Bill were passed nearly a year ago, one single person has yet received a shilling as a result of it. In the light of that experience, the right hon. Gentleman should not only assure us but be able to satisfy us that without undue delay the urgent cases which this scheme is designed to meet will not meet the fate of those cases which are being dealt with by the Statutory Committee. So much for the scheme itself.
  I will say a few words about the machinery to carry out this scheme. First, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us who are the Central Committee, for, as I understand the scheme, the power of these Commissioners or revising barristers is purely that of recommendation. They will spend, I am sure, many days, if not many weeks, investigating, and then their power is purely that of recommending. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us particulars to-night of the names of the members of this important Committee. We do not know their names, the nature of the area, where it is going to exist, its chairman, its secretary, or whether there are to be any paid officials. I really do not know whether it is any good making any suggestion at all to the right hon. Gentleman. The scheme is done. Roma locuta est. Here is the scheme which cannot be modified. I would, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can consider, even now, if he cannot place this power in the hands of the tribunals, whether he cannot weld these Commissioners into the tribunals? I cannot put the case for placing the matter in the hands of the tribunals better than it was put in an extremely
  2238
  interesting article by Colonel Repington, the Military Correspondent of the "Times," in the issue of that paper of 11th May. He there advocated that the tribunals should be the people to administer this scheme. He speaks of the-revising barristers in these terms:
  "They would have the duty of examining: hundreds of thousands of claims from men serving: and to serve. They will rarely have local knowledge. They will be without the experience gained, by the tribunals and it will take months for them to get through the cases which will come before them. During this period the tribunals must hang up the cases and the Army will not get its men."
  When you examine really what the tribunals have to do the striking thing is-that they have to consider exactly the position which these Commissioners will. have to consider, for the duty which is placed by Statute on the tribunals is this. They have power to—
  "Exempt those men who are unable by reason of their undertaking military service to meet their-financial obligations as hereafter described and are-thereby exposed to serious hardship."
  That is the provision of the Regulations which the Commissioners have to decider and this is what the tribunals have to decide, whether they can give exemption—
  "On the ground that serious hardship will ensue where a ma is called up for Army service owing to his exceptional financial or business obligations or domestic position."
  So that really the Regulation is drafted from the first Military Service Act, and here we have what seems an almost ridiculous position. A man will give all the details of his financial position as a reason for exemption from service. Notice the dilemma the tribunals will be placed in. They will say to these men, "We agree with you. We agree that your domestic position is such that it would be a serious hardship if you were called to the Colours, but then," they may say, "what will you get from the Commissioners? and until, the Commissioners have decided what the man is to get, the tribunals will either adjourn the case or give him exemption. Surely, in the name of practical administration, is there the smallest reason why the tribunals really should not exercise this function, because already the machinery of the right hon. Gentleman has broken down? If you look at the number of those Commissioners, there are only seven, for instance, for the whole of London. There are thirty-eight English counties. There are eighteen for Scotland and three for Wales, and yesterday the right hon. Gentleman had almost to commit himself to doubling the number, so that really

  2239
  already the existing machinery admittedly will have to be multiplied and increased, and if the right hon. Gentleman is really going to deal promptly with these cases, if he is not going to expose the tribunal to the impossible task of adjudicating on these cases, and if he is not going to place these men under untold anxiety as to what their position is, he will have to multiply these Commissioners all over the country. It takes weeks for these revising barristers—I think there are more of them than there are Commissioners—to decide "whether a man is to have a vote, and they have a much more intricate question to go into than whether a man should be given a vote. After all, why should not the tribunal have this power? You have given these tribunals the greatest power that has been given by law to any body -of men in this country in our history. These men can decide whether a man may possibly be sent to Mesopotamia, to Egypt, to France, or, indeed, to any part of the globe, for there is no statutory limitation, and is the right hon. Gentleman going to say that the tribunal which he has defended as capable of fulfilling that onerous duty is not in the same way able to decide whether these men shall not have that assistance to the extent of £2 a week which is given them by those [Regulations? These are the short points—the points in connection with the scheme and the points in connection with the machinery. I cannot help feeling that any words one says here now are really of no value at all. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can promise another opportunity of discussing this scheme, but there we are. We can only make such remarks as occur to us. We can only make such futile suggestions as one may think fit, and I hope this experiment of pure Governmental action will not be repeated on these lines. It was said by a very witty American that the constitution of the United States was an inglorious contrivance for enabling America to talk herself hoarse. I cannot help feeling that if this procedure is adopted, the legitimate function of the House of Commons will be absolutely done away with, and that we shall relapse into that inglorious contrivance which the American writer described.
  Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOW: I must express my regret that I had not the pleasure of hearing the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr.
  2240
  Hogge). So far as I did hear it, it did not seem to me that the indictment which he brought against the scheme was as weighty or as cogent as the indictments which he brings usually are. The complaint—I think, perhaps, not an unreasonable complaint if we were not at war—was that the House had not had an opportunity of discussing the full provisions of the scheme. Let the House consider what the position is. We are at this very moment placing compulsion upon the Statute Book, and an entirely new set 01 things is set up. We are forcing men, as in the cases mentioned by the last two speakers, to go to the Colours unless they are released by the tribunals. Under these circumstances, no Government, certainly no British Government, can delay. It must put the scheme which we are now contemplating into operation as rapidly as possible. Hon. Members may say it is unfortunate that the scheme was not introduced before—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and to a certain extent I am disposed to agree, but the position at the moment being what it is—-and that is what they are criticising—and compulsion being now enacted by this House and the other House, no Government, certainly no British Government, can endure delay for a moment. I do not believe it would have been possible in the circumstances to have contemplated a lengthy discussion in this House of details, thrashed backwards and forwards, as to the methods by which the scheme should be brought in—the policy as between the tribunals and the Commissioners, and the scale, and so on.
  I am sure that the mind of the authorities of the Local Government Board is open to the lessons of experience, and if it is found that the scheme is not working well it can be adjusted. It is quite clear that urgent action is required. I believe that will be secured by the scheme now put forward, and I do not believe that it would have been secured if an elaborate discussion had first taken place in this House. Curiously enough for the critics of this scheme, one argument they put forward in favour of the tribunals as against the scheme of Commissioners proposed by the Local Government Board is that they are afraid uniformity will not be secured. I have listened to various speeches, some of them rather bitter speeches, and one of the main indictments brought against the tribunals is that their decisions secure no uniformity It is useless, if that is the

  2241
  ground of criticism against the tribunals, to urge it also against the Commissioners. It certainly cannot be a reason for setting down the Commissioners and setting up the tribunals in order to administer this new scheme. I do not think hon. Gentlemen have differentiated enough between the functions of the Commissioners as proposed and the functions of the existing tribunals. I do not wish to say one word of anything but praise for the work of the tribunals. They were appointed under circumstances of great difficulty and they have discharged most onerous duties on the whole to the satisfaction of the country at large. But they have been set up to decide a certain set of questions—questions as to the policy of a man's life, and is work for the nation, whether it shall be military or non-military. That does not mean that they have got any very great competency to deal with purely business details as to a man's business commitments. The tribunals were set up primâ facie to deal with a class of man who is refusing to serve. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no!] That is so. My hon. Friend says "No," but it is a fact. A man refuses to serve—it may be for perfectly good reasons—and that is why he has to go before a tribunal. It does not seem to me reasonable in the case of men who have volunteered, and have never raised any issue as to whether they should go later or go immediately, to ask them to go before the same authorities and be dealt with by the same machinery as was set up in the case of men who, for perfectly good reasons it may be, say they are not prepared to serve at the moment. In other words, if the suggestion is accepted you are putting the volunteer through the same machine as the man who was not in a position, for good or not, reasons to go at once. That does not seem to be quite fair to the volunteers. Some doubt has been thrown on whether the Commissioners will work rapidly. It has been suggested that it takes months to get one vote through the revising barristers.
  Mr. ROCH: I never said that. I said that it takes many weeks in some cases for the revising barrister to adjust all the claims.
  Mr. BARLOW: You said "one claim." I very carefully noted the words. Let that pass. It may be a slip. The real question is, are we going to get this matter done more speedily by the Commissioners or by the tribunals working at present.
  2242
  For the particular kind of work required to be done the machinery suggested by the Local Government Board is the most effective and satisfactory. I thought it might be suggested that treatment might not be so generous on the part of the Commissioners as on the part of the local tribunals, but I have not heard that argument urged. I was glad to notice that the Secretary to the Local Government Board, in the address which I understand he gave to the Commissioners, with regard to their duties, was careful to impress upon them that it was their business in the recommendations they made which, after all, are to be settled by the Central Committee, to treat all applications not only with full consideration but with generosity. That advice, or rather instruction, will, I am sure, be well received all over the country. It does away with the suggestion that the barrister Commissioners are to be unduly parsimonious. The Commissioners will sit on Monday, which is something to the good. I would like to join in the appeal that we might know the constitution of the Central Board as soon as possible. I also join in the appeal that when the Commissioners have sorted out a few cases the general lines of policy may be laid down as rapidly as possible and that those lines of policy may be public, so that the married men even before their cases are decided will know that if they come within certain categories they may safely count on certain allowances. I believe that that would go very far to ease the burden of a large number of men, a burden which is not easily to be borne, even when all allowances have been made.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): My hon. Friend who-opened this Debate opened it by a speech more lugubrious in tone than any which I ever heard him deliver. He began by saying that this House was altogether ineffective and that we could not do anything here. He was joined by the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Roch). who spoke in much the same spirit of lamentation, that the whole of this matter had been taken away from the House, that the House had not got it within its purview, and could exercise no control, and could not in any way mould the scheme, and had, in fact, nothing whatever to do- with it.
  Mr. HOGGE: Quite true.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: From a long experience in this House, and a long experience in connection with the payment of pensions to our soldiers, I can say that I do not know a single subject in which this House has exercised a greater control and a more effective and a more beneficial control than in the matter of pensions and allowances made to our soldiers and sailors. From the beginning of this War the House has made constant efforts to increase those allowances. Whether they were separation allowances, pensions to widows, or to the disabled, or given by Chelsea, or the War Office, or by Greenwich, or the Admiralty, this House has made one constant prolonged effort to raise those pensions and place them on the scale to which I confess—and I think that I have done something towards it—I think those pensions ought to have been raised many years ago. Therefore, do not let us lament over this question any more than over any other branch of this great subject. I agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge), if he likes, that this House, particularly in war time, has not that control over financial matters which I should like to see the House have. That was a bitter complaint of mine when I sat opposite, and I was not in those days supported by the hon. Member's friends. I confess that in the period of war there is not that control over money that there is over policy. My hon. Friend says that we have had no opportunity of debating this question, or of expressing our views in this House. Is that really so? This House, knowing the policy as stated by the Prime Minister in the speech in which he gave the scheme with a great deal of detail in the Secret Session, and having had the opportunity of debating the subject for two days. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]
  Mr. HOGGE: I rose every time in that two days, and I got my call a little after eleven o'clock, on the Adjournment.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am submitting that the House had an opportunity of debate on that occasion, and they had another opportunity on the Military Service Bill to deal with the subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Certainly. An Amendment was moved by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellis Griffith) for the purpose of raising this specific question. Again, an hon. Member has put down a Motion, not to establish a scheme of this sort, but to establish a moratorium. Its discussion has not been pressed for.
  Mr. ROCH: Yes; I have asked the Prime Minister twice.
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I have not observed any great pressure in this House to obtain a day for the discussion of this scheme; at all events, I am confident of this, from reading the Press, from reading speeches, and reading the Debates in this House, that there has never been a man in this House who had any opposition whatever to offer to this scheme — I have never seen any objection whatever in the speeches made inside and outside this House or anything approaching to objection. After the Debate to-night, anyone would really think that our country was very shameful and very niggardly towards our soldiers and sailors in the matters of pay and pensions. It is not so. I am convinced of that, although I think there may be many improvements, and I hope to see many improvements still in the matter of pensions, and certainly in the matter of pay. For all that, in the matter of pensions, grants, and allowances to soldiers' and sailors' wives and dependants, we stand in front of any other country in the world, and at least somebody ought to impress that upon the minds of others and say that so far as this country is concerned it does not compare badly, and that the tendency is to treat the men even better. The impression left by this Debate on any stranger who read it would be that this country was singularly behindhand in the way it looked after the interests of its soldiers and sailors. The hon. Member may think this House is ineffective, but there will be tens of thousands of soldiers going to the front presently who will not think this scheme ineffective, because they will go before those Commissioners, and in a very few weeks' time after going before those Commissioners they will find payments made to meet their premiums on policies, to meet their extra rents, to meet their rates, to meet their taxes, to meet their school fees, wherever they can show to the Commissioners that serious hardship will ensue to them if funds are not provided to enable them to meet those obligations. I have been asked to say, "What is your scheme?" I think I can best do so by giving a typical instance. I have many, but here is one. Here is the type of man whose case this scheme is really devised to meet. He is a man earning £3 10s. per week, a thrifty man with a tidy little

  2245
  home and a tidy little wife and children, and a man who is doing something for them. He has taken out an endowment policy, he is buying his house, and has other obligations of that kind. What is his pay when he is called up He was earning £3 10s. per week. His pay will be the pay of a private soldier—7s. per week. His wife and three children will get separation allowance of £l 3s., so that the income will be £1 10s. instead of £3 10s. Out of that it would be quite impossible for him to go on paying the instalments on his house, which he is buying at rather a rapid rate, or to meet the premiums on his policy or to meet the school fees for one of his children at a secondary school and matters of that kind. He will put those facts down on the form he is asked to fill up and go before the Commissioners. The Commissioners will be sitting on next Monday. The Commissioner will use his discretion as to whether he is perfectly satisfied that the man's statements are true, and if they are true he can recommend a sum of money which will enable that man to meet his premiums, his extra rent, instalments, school fees, and payments of that kind which cannot be met by him without serious hardship. That is a typical case. In addressing the Commissioners, who were kind enough to come to the Local Government Board yesterday to hear some observations which I desired to make to them, that was the typical case I put before them. I ventured to say that their duties were: 'You must have one eye on the Treasury—it is right that the Treasury should be protected against anything like fraud or imposition—but you must have a kindly eye and a very friendly eye on the applicant who comes before you. You must be a friend to him. You must help him to fill up the form and to elucidate the facts." I went so fa ras to say this: "You ought on the whole to give him the benefit of the doubt." That is the spirit in which we all desire, the Committee desire, that this body of Commissioners should act.
  Most of the speakers, with the exception of my two hon. Friends opposite, for whose attempt in advance to rescue me from my position I am very grateful, have rather taken exception to the barrister Commissioners, and have desired that the present local tribunals should do the work. Let me say why I think that that is an impossible scheme. There are over 2,000 of these local tribunals. What would happen? A man comes in. He does not wish
  2246
  to escape fighting, but he wants some-financial aid to meet premiums, rent, rates, mortgage interest, etc. He makes an open statement before men who are his neighbours. The natural tendency of the tribunal must be to get through its work. The tendency would be to say, "If we force you to go and fight, at all events you shall have £2 a week without any proof except your own statement." Think of the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Could he really be expected to allow 2,000 tribunals to pay out public money at that rate? It might cost him £50,000,000. It is quite impossible. I discussed the question with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said, "Really, I must have some protection." I think the House, on consideration, will agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to some protection against fraud and imposuture.
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Is that £50,000,000 in addition to separation allowances?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: That is a fancy figure. I have already said that no estimate can be formed. We cannot tell how many thousands of men have been and are going to be called up who will have obligations of this sort which ought to be met. Perhaps we shall not be able to say in a month's time. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has really taken a very generous view of the matter. I do not mind saying that I was rather surprised, when I suggested as high a limit as £2 a week, that my right hon Friend said, "Yes, you can have it." Because £2, after all, will meet certainly 95 per cent. of the hard cases. There is another reason why I think the local tribunals unfit for the task. I have had many letters from men saying, "I do not desire to go before a tribunal of that kind and disclose all my private affairs to my neighbours. I would rather go before a single Commissioner, a gentleman to whom I am not known, who has no concern in my affairs, and to whom I can disclose, in a private room, all my little savings, expenditures, and domestic concerns." There is also another reason. After all, the applications will come not only from those who are going to be called up, but in thousands of cases from those who are already serving. The local tribunals could not deal with those cases. Those men would not come before them at all. Therefore we should have to set up some kind of machinery to deal with tens of thousands of cases that will come from

  2247
  men already serving, either abroad or in this country. I believe this machinery is going to work as well as any machinery could. The forms will be at the post office to-morrow. They can be filled up either by the man himself or by his friends. As to the men serving abroad, "all applications for assistance shall be made by the man himself, unless he is serving outside the United Kingdom, in which case application may be made by any person authorised by the man to act on his behalf, or who, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is a proper person so to act." We do not debar anybody from sending a friend to represent him before the Commissioners. I have been asked about solicitors representing a man. Well, a solicitor may sometimes be a friend; if so, there is no bar to him. Some people have found fault because we are employing barristers, and have suggested that it is because they were done out of a job a year ago as revising barristers. They were deprived almost on the eve of their undertaking work by which they could earn £250. I am bound to confess that, as an old member of the Bar, I may have been influenced by the feeling that, if it were possible, some of this work might be given to some of these gentlemen; so thirty out of the sixty are revising barristers. As to the remuneration, I do not think anyone could complain that it is excessive when I say that it is 25 guineas for a month's services four days a week. Really, it is almost patriotism diluted with pay. We are trying to keep the expenses down as much as possible. My hon. Friend says, "Oh, but there is going to be a lot of delay! "There would have been infinitely more delay if the local tribunals had done the work. We should have had to standardise their decisions in some form or other, and I do not know how we would have done it. We are issuing instructions as to which is required in relation to the many questions that arise. We are attempting to bring about a standardisation of decisions. We want, however, first to see how the Commissioners work. One may take a rather severe or niggardly view of the duties entrusted to him; another may take too loose a view. We propose to set up a Central Committee, which will be an Advisory Committee to us, in order to help with our very difficult duties. The Central Committee consists of the Solicitor-General, the Lord Advocate, a representa-
  2248
  tive of the Local Government Board, and a representative of the Treasury. The Committee consists of five individuals, and up to the present such work as we have done in framing all these forms, regulations, and instructions, appointing the Commissioners, and obtaining this accommodation for the Commissioners—all that has been done by the five gentlemen whose names I have given just now.
  An HON. MEMBER: You have only given four names!
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: And myself. I think it is only natural that we should look to devolve some of our labour possibly upon some other Members of the House. I will not say more about that now. As regards delay, if any of these Commissioners are at all snowed under by the number of applications, it is perfectly easy to appoint other Commissioners. Take the county of Glamorgan, for instance, a very big county, where we sent one Commissioner down, but all the Commissioners are instructed to write and say if they feel the pressure of work is so. great that they cannot get though it, and to advise us that another Commissioner should be appointed, or two, if necessary. The great object is to avoid delay. I quite agree that those men who are being called up now, or will be very soon, want to know as soon as possible what they are to get, and we are all anxious that they should know. We all know the difficult situation in which they are placed, and if they are compelled to fight for us, and leave their homes and children and risk the little provision they have made, we all want to clear away their anxieties as quickly as we possibly can.
  There was one very important point raised by an hon. Member, who asked' why officers were excluded. Officers have been excluded at present because, as my hon. Friend knows, in the matter of pay and allowances they are put on an altogether different scale from the men,, and, as a rule, with many exceptions now, I admit, are able to meet their civil obligations in a way which such men as I have named making £3 10s. or £4 a week cannot meet. Up to the present the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not thought fit to include them in the scheme, but my own sympathies are very much with letters I have received here during the last few days which show me that the junior officers, at all events, are when

  2249
  married placed in a position of very great difficulty, where some such scheme as this might be of inestimable value to them. There again I do not think hon. Members should underrate the influence they have in debate and elsewhere, and they will find, at all events, my sympathy is in the direction of formulating some such scheme as this for the benefit particularly of junior officers, or those who have undertaken obligations of this kind. However, that is a matter, after all, for presentation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if the officers can make out a case similar to that in strength that has been made out by non-commissioned officers and men, I cannot help thinking we may possibly be able to induce my right hon. Friend, who, I think, has been very generous indeed in this matter, to extend the scheme to officers. I should like to say how much, as an old Member of the House, I welcome to our ranks the hon. Member (Mr. Jacobsen), who I can quite see, from the interesting and well-argued speech he made, is likely to prove a source of strength to that group of men who are so anxious to do everything they can for the soldiers and sailors. There is much in his speech with which I thoroughly sympathise, and I shall hope to meet him on some of the points he has raised.
  In conclusion, I may say I do not consider that this House has in any way less control over the general policy of what ought to be adequate pay, adequate pensions, adequate grants, and adequate allowances for our soldiers and sailors. I think in the working of the scheme we are likely to get a great deal of experience in the next few weeks, and, having obtained that experience, it will be perfectly possible for this House to bring about some modification or some extension of the scheme, if the scheme is not considered altogether suitable or altogether adequate-to meet the great difficulties in which many of these splendid men are placed who are only too willing to fight for their country, if we can save them their homes and the provision which they have made by savings in one form or another.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question about the Statutory Committee?
  Mr. CURRIE: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the names of the extra Scottish Commissioners who have been appointed?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I think the Lord Advocate had better deal with that. I cannot answer questions as to the inadequacy of the pensions given by Chelsea Hospital. This kind of work has fallen upon me, not because I am Under-Secretary to the Local Government Board, but because for years past I have been connected with social and patriotic work, and because I am only too glad to do anything I possibly can to promote the welfare of those who are so dear to all our hearts. With reference to the Statutory Committee, I am responsible. My hon. Friend asked, When is the Statutory Committee going to begin its work? I wish he were a member of that Committee, for then he would find that it begins its work on Monday morning and does not finish until Saturday night. I know my hon. Friend thinks it is going very slowly, but we cannot possibly begin to pay out until the local committees are set up, until the Regulations have been framed, and until we obtain an assurance from the Treasury that if we are going to offer the widows permanent supplementary pensions the Chancellor of the Exchequer will finance those schemes, and we shall be able, not to give them for a year or two, but that they will be permanent pensions granted to the widows, the disabled, and others. The work is going on at a very great pace. Most of the Regulations go up to the Statutory Committee for official sanction. Directly the Regulations for emergency grants are passed it will be perfectly possible for the different pension committees to begin to give out the money within the rules and regulations. All large bodies are bound in these matters by precedents, and if we had started giving out money without Regulations we should have been faced with all sorts of precedents and cases which would have made it difficult for us to establish proper rules and regulations. I believe that we are laying our foundations well and truly. We are laying them deeply, and by the autumn of the year we shall be in full working order. All over Great Britain the money will be there and will be given out wisely and judiciously according to Regulations well thought out by the Statutory Committee.
  Mr. FELL: Can the wives of the men at the front fill up the forms themselves?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: Yes.
  Mr. MUNRO: I desire to intervene, in response to the invitation of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs (Mr. Currie), to indicate the arrangements which have been made in Scotland in connection with the appointment of Commissioners and their names. We have taken as the unit the Appeal Tribunals area, in other words, we have taken the sheriffdoms of Scotland as the unit. With very few exceptions, we have appointed Commissioners in each of those areas. The special feature of the Scottish scheme is that I have been fortunate in securing the services of a large number of Sheriff-substitutes in Scotland, who, through the Sheriffs, have agreed to give their services in ten sheriffdoms, thereby rendering it necessary to appoint only ten Commissioners who are members of the Bar. My right hon. Friend has dealt with the remuneration of the Commissioners, and I think it right to mention that these Sheriff-substitutes have been good enough to consent to do this work for a remuneration of ten guineas per month, so that, I think, our reputation in Scotland for economy has been fully maintained. In this connection I should like, if I might, to recognise the kindness and courtesy with which these gentlemen have agreed to do the work, and also the kindness and courtesy of the Sheriffs of Scotland, who, in practically every case, have placed at the disposal of the Commissioner a room or rooms in the Sheriff Court building. It only remains for me to mention, in answer to the request of my hon. Friend (Mr. Currie), the names of the Commissioners. There are twenty in all. There are ten Sheriff-substitutes and ten advocates. The Sheriff-substitutes who are to act will act in the following counties: Argyllshire, Caithness-shire, Orkney, Shetland, Dumfries and Galloway, Inverness-shire (Mainland), Elgin and Nairn, Inverness (Islands) and Lewis, Perthshire, Ross and Cromarty, and Roxburgh, Selkirk, and Berwick.
  In these various counties the Sheriff-substitutes are to act as Commissioners, and in the remaining areas the Commissioners are to be members of the Bar. Those areas are: Aberdeen, Mr. W. A. Ramsay; Ayrshire, Mr. J. B. Young; Fife and Kinross, Mr. G. Crurie Steuart; Forf arshire, Mr. Alex. Steedman; Lanarkshire (in which there are two Commissioners sitting in Glasgow), Mr. J.
  2252
  Edward Graham and Mr. Hepburn Millar; Lothians and Peebles (in which, two Commissioners are to sit in Edinburgh), Mr. Henry Aitken and Mr. C. R. A. Howden; Renfrew and Bute, Mr. W. G. Skinner; Stirling, Dumbarton, and Clackmannan, Mr. Charles Milne. I consider that I have been very fortunate in securing, at the request of the Committee, the services of these gentlemen, all of whom I can claim to know personally.
  Mr. CURRIE: I am sure all of us think so.
  Mr. MUNRO: I am sure everyone who does know them will agree with me, and, having regard to what I know of their competency, I know that the work will be expeditiously and efficiently done.

WAYS AND MEANS [23RD. MAY.]
Resolution reported,
"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1917, the sum of £300,000,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
Resolution agreed to; Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Montagu.

WAYS AND MEANS [23RD. MAY.]
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 3) BILL,—
  "to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow (Thursday), and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL,
Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

FINANCE (EXCHANGE OF SECURITIES).
Resolved, "That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to provide during the continuance of the present war, and six months thereafter, for the issue of new securities for the purpose of the exchange of securities issued under any War Loan Act passed during the continuance of the War and for the cancellation of the securities received in exchange, in pursuance, of any Act of the present Session dealing with Finance."—[Mr. Montagu.]
Resolution to be reported to-morrow (Thursday).
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Wednesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-eight minutes before Twelve o'clock.

ERRATUM.
In col. 2199, line 26 (May 24), the sentence in Sir Edward Grey's speech beginning "Members of the German Government here " should read, "Members of the German Government have, over and over again, from the beginning of the War, given interviews to correspondents of United States newspapers.",