Commons Sitting of 2 November 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Coatbridge Gas Order Confirmation Bill,
Considered; to be read the third time upon Tuesday next.

COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Colonial Report, No. 907 (Falkland Islands, Report for 1916) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1915–16.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 1st November; Mr. McKinnon Wood]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 133.]
ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
Copies presented of Schemes made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of Associations for the counties of Haddington and Nairn [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    PROFESSOR ETHE.
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Secretary of State for India what is the nature of the work undertaken by Professor Ethé, an unnaturalised German subject, in connection with his Department; and what is the basis of his remuneration?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA Mr. Chamberlain): Professor Ethé has been engaged since 1872 in compiling a Catalogue of the Persian MSS. in the
    1790
    Library of the India Office. The first volume of this Catalogue was completed in 1901, since which date no payment has been made to him. The honorarium for the second volume is to stand over until its completion, and has not been fixed.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment to-day.

    COMMANDING ROYAL ENGINEER AT LUCKNOW.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he can say if the colonel commanding at Lucknow is the same officer who was adjudged responsible for the overcrowding of the troop train from Karachi to Peshawar which resulted in the death of many soldiers; whether he will explain why this officer has been transferred from Simla to Lucknow at a higher rate of pay, in view of the undertaking that the Indian Government might be relied upon not to employ this officer again in a responsible position; and will he say what posts have been given to the other officers implicated in the occurrence referred to?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On removal from his appointment as Deputy Quartermaster-General in consequence of his share in the responsibility for the incident referred to Brigadier-General Roe reverted to his permanent rank as colonel and to the Military Works Services, for which as a Royal Engineer he is specially fitted. He has now been appointed Commanding Royal Engineer at Lucknow, not Colonel-Commanding at Lucknow, as stated in the hon. Member's question. The duties of this post are those of an engineer and consist in the building of barracks, etc., and his responsibility is of an entirely different character from that attaching to his previous staff appointment at Army Headquarters. He has lost the rank of Brigadier-General and the prestige and better prospects of his staff appointment at Army Headquarters, which are considerably greater than those accompanying the position of Commanding Royal Engineer. His pay is very considerably less than that which he drew as Acting-Quartermaster-General. I may add that there is a shortage of Engineer officers in India, and a great demand for them in Mesopotamia. It was, therefore, in the public interest that Colonel Roe's services should be utilised in this capacity, and it

    1791
    was for this reason that the appointment was made. I believe that neither of the other two officers who were removed from their posts at the same time as Colonel Roe is now employed.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Did not the right hon. Gentleman inform the House that we might rest assured that the Government of India would not again place this gentleman in a position of responsibility. Does he mean to infer from his answers that this gentleman is not now in a position of responsibility?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. My hon. Friend does not quite correctly give the sense of the answer which I gave on a recent occasion. I said that he might rely on the Government of India not placing these men in a position for which they had shown themselves unfit, and in which repetition of the same faults might lead to similar disaster. Colonel Roe is now employed in a totally different position for which I have no reason to doubt his fitness. We are short of officers who are capable of doing the work, and as I say he is appointed for reasons of public policy, and not out of compassion for him. I think that the punishment which has been administered has been sufficient for the grave error of judgment which he committed.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT and see if my interpretation of his answer is not correct? Will he also endeavour to make inquiries and see in what position the other officers are placed?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will invite my hon. Friend to refer to the answer which perhaps I have more present in my mind than he has.

    INDIA (HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION).
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the fact that in July last urgent appeals for help were sent to Calcutta from individuals at Wellington and other smaller stations at Nilgiri Hills on behalf of the wounded and sick soldiers arriving there in large numbers, and for whom no provision had been made; is he aware of the hardships and privations undergone by the wounded and sick from Mesopotamia at that date, that the early arrivals found no mattresses or
    1792
    pillows on their iron beds, that all they had to lie on was coir, that although it was cold the men had very few blankets between them, that they were drinking out of empty, cigarette tins and empty condensed milk tins, that the supply of drugs was hopelessly inadequate, causing much suffering among the patients; will he say what is the situation to-day; and whether the officers and officials responsible for this condition of affairs last July are still in the employ of the Indian Government?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A report reached me from a private source in August last that the provision made for soldiers at Wellington had been inadequate, and I at once telegraphed to the Viceroy a request that he would make full inquiry. The Viceroy was satisfied by an exhaustive inspection carried out by the G.O.C., in company with the Governor of Madras, that there were nothing more than inconveniences of a temporary character, which were quickly dealt with. The Viceroy added that there was no dearth of comforts or stores, and that private relief was merely supplementing official resources. In particular, I am informed that, with some 1,500 patients arriving at short notice, the deficiency of beds was limited to three men for one night each; that the shortage of crockery affected only twenty men for a few days, and that there was no lack of medicines at any time. All articles of clothing, bedding, or other equipment of which the patients were found to be in need, were at once drawn from the reserves, hired or purchased locally, or ordered by telegram from the nearest source of supply. The House is aware that I have not sought to conceal or excuse faults of administration where I believed them to exist, but I do earnestly deprecate uncritical condemnation of the Indian Government and of officers serving under it, who feel deeply the unjust aspersions cast upon them, to which it is not open to them to make any reply.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean the House to infer that the statements which I have made and which I have asked him to verify are not common knowledge in India?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They are common gossip and rumour, but I mean to imply that they are not facts. They are grossly exaggerated. Of course, it appeared in print. I know where my hon.

    1793
    Friend has got it from. It came to me from a private source which I thought | ought to be well informed. The moment I get information of the kind I communicate it to the Government of India and ask for inquiry. Inquiry has been made. The hospital has been visited and inspected on several occasions by the General Officer Commanding, and also by his Excellency the Governor of Madras. His Excellency authorised the Government to inform me that he was satisfied that the shortage was purely temporary, that the position is now satisfactory, and that the complaint made was grossly exaggerated.

    SOUTH AFRICAN NATIVES (EMPLOYMENT IN FRANCE).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the terms of the arrangement under which 10,000 South African natives are to be recruited for employment in France by the French Government as a labour force?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): No arrangement has been made for the employment of South African natives by the French Government.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: Is this force being employed by the British Government in furtherance of the scheme for the substitution of black labour for white?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A certain number of natives in South Africa have been recruited to serve in the Army Service Corps.
    Mr. WATT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say the number of men so employed?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would rather have notice of that.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Will these men be used in discharging ships in French ports?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: They are to be used in the way the Army commanders in France think most useful.

    CHINESE (EMPLOYMENT IN FRANCE).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEhad given notice of the following question: To ask the Under-Secretary of Stats for Foreign
    1794
    Affairs whether he can state on what class of work the Chinese being recruited by the French Government for employment in France are to be engaged?
    Mr. McNEILL: Before this question is put, may I ask whether the terms upon which the French Government offer employment are a matter of concern for this country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I was about to say that the question is not one in which it seems that any statement is required from His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: What objection is there to asking a question on matters which have appeared in the public Press and which, apparently, have passed the Censor?
    Lord R. CECIL: Hon. Members of this House must exercise some discretion as to the questions which should be asked.

    GREECE.
    Commander BELLAIRShad given notice of the following question: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the relations of the Allies with the Government established by M. Venizelos?
    Commander BELLAIRS: This question is postponed. Meantime I would ask my right hon. Friend to inquire into the allegations made that the followers of Venizelos in the Army and the Civil Service are being punished?
    Lord R. CECIL: I will certainly make inquiry, but I do not believe that there is any truth in the allegation.

    CHRISTIAN BROTHERS SCHOOLS, MIDDLETON, COUNTY CORK.
    Mr. MULDOONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that recently at Youghal, county Cork, the juvenile members of a religious sodality and the boys of the Christian Brothers Schools, Middleton, were forbidden by the police authorities to march from the Market Square to a hurling match in a field near the town; whether he is aware

    1795
    that the hurling match was a challenge match between the boys of the former two schools, and that the age of the boys who proposed so to march to the field ranged from eight to fourteen; whether the authorities were informed of this intention on the part of the boys; and whether he will take any steps to prevent action of this character on the part of the police?
    The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I am informed that application for a permit for a procession was made at the local police barracks a few minutes before it was intended to take place. The police officer in charge had no authority to grant a permit for a procession, and offered to telegraph to the county inspector, but was told it was not worth while.
    Captain DONELAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this district 1,400 men have joined the Colours, and that many of these men who are fighting now at the front are the fathers and brothers of these young lads? Does he consider that this conduct is calculated to encourage recruiting?
    Mr. DUKE: I do not for a moment see the connection between the 1,400 men to whom my hon. and gallant Friend has referred and the inability of the local police officer to grant a permit for a procession. Where a permit for a procession is granted everybody who thinks fit may take part in it, but when they take part in it there is no guarantee that it is a procession of schoolboys.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the application of martial law in Ireland in this odious form is calculated to give the best results for recruiting and for every other purpose in which we are all interested?
    Mr. DUKE: That certainly does not arise out of the question.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    RECRUITS (IRELAND).
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what proportion of the total number of recruits obtained from Ireland were drawn from areas reckoned as rural areas in the Census of 1911; and what proportion from those reckoned as civic areas?
    Mr. DUKE: Materials are not available for supplying the desired information.

    COURTS OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND).
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in certain cases referring to the Military Service Act police magistrates in Ireland exclude the local justices of the peace from the hearing; whether there is authority vested in the magistrate for so acting; and, if not, whether cases in which justices of the peace, though present on the bench, were not allowed to intervene will be retried?
    Mr. DUKE: The cases to which I assume reference is made in the hon. Member's question arose under the provisions of Section 154 of the Army Act, 1881. It has recently been decided in this country that the jurisdiction conferred under this Section can be exercised by a single justice sitting alone. I am informed that in this matter the law and practice in Ireland are the same as in England. In certain cases in Ireland where the complaint under the Section was made in the first instance to a resident magistrate sitting alone he has claimed and exercised the right to adjudicate alone. If need be the matter can be decided by appeal to the High Court in Ireland, but I think it is not one in which the Executive Government should interfere administratively.
    Mr. LYNCH: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that the magistrate should adjudicate a question if there are local justices sitting side by side with him on the bench? Has he the right to exclude the justices from a voice in the case at all?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not concerned with the law now, but I have been told that in peace time if one Court of Summary Jurisdiction was seised of a case, new members, who were eligible to sit in the first instance in that Court, could not come in and upset the jurisdiction of the Court which is already seised of the particulars of the case.
    Mr. LYNCH: If I submit a case to the right hon. Gentleman will he look into it?
    Mr. DUKE: As this subject has caused a great deal of uneasiness in Ireland, I should be very loth, indeed, as long as I am responsible, that there should be any Executive interference with the adminis-

    1797
    tration of justice in the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, and if it is possible to avoid that course it will be avoided. The more convenient course would be to bring an appeal to the High Court of Justice to decide this matter definitely one way or the other for the whole of Ireland.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House of his own knowledge that there has been no Executive interference in a recent case in the -county of Limerick on the part of the Attorney-General for Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: I should be surprised to learn that there has been interference.

    LAND REGISTRY, DUBLIN.
    Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSONasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that an official employed in the Land Registry, Four Courts, Dublin, Charles J. Kenny by name, was handed a form which stated that, subject to the approval of the bead of his Department, he undertook to enlist when called upon to do so for the duration of the War; that Kenny refused to sign this undertaking; that he was then informed that, being of military age and not having undertaken to enlist, his services would be dispensed with; and whether this form of Conscription has the sanction of the Irish Government?
    Mr. DUKE: The form referred to in the question as having been given to Mr. C. J. Kenny, employed as temporary boy clerk in the central office of the Land Registry, was the form issued by the Lord Lieutenant as Director of Recruiting in Ireland, which was handed to all and signed by the majority of the few remaining eligible members of the staff of the Land Registry who had not already left for military service. As Mr. Kenny was not prepared to sign the form his services, as well as those of some other temporary clerks of military age in the Land Registry, were dispensed with; and the duties performed by them are now being discharged by men of over military age and by female clerks.

    NATIVE LABOUR.
    Captain Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary for the Colonies whether native labourers have been brought from British South Africa to work at military and naval ports in France; and, if so, will they be brought to ports in this country
    1798
    under the same conditions under which they work in France and thus release for the Army a considerable body of male white workers?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: A contingent of native labourers is being recruited in South Africa for non-combatant duties behind the British lines in France. The whole subject is being carefully considered by the Government.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I take it that the subject of the employment of blacks in this country is under the consideration of the Government?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.
    Mr. W. THORNE: If all whites did their duty, there would be no need for blacks.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMITTEE (DELAY).
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of complaints as to delay in dealing with hard cases by the Civil Liabilities Commissioners; whether he is aware that such matters as mortgage interest and insurance premiums, if they are to be satisfactorily arranged, must be capable of almost immediate adjustment; whether he will state how many cases have still to be dealt with and when decisions are likely to be reached; and whether he has considered the advisability of increasing the number of Commissioners?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): Additional Commissioners have been appointed, as the increasing numbers of applications have shown this to be necessary, and since the commencement of the scheme twenty-six new Commissioners have been appointed, making a total number of Commissioners of ninety-nine. As I stated on the 17th October, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for the Mile End Division, in the few areas in which delay has arisen, owing to the exceptionally large numbers of applications, the arrears are being rapidly overtaken. The Commissioners had received 107,000 applications up to the 21st October; they have already dealt with over 86,500.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to announce whether Reservists can apply?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: That matter is still under consideration by the Treasury.
    Sir G. YOUNGER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great delay in obtaining Grants which the Committee actually do make?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: A few cases in which there has been delay have been brought to my notice, but I do not think there is delay generally. I will inquire.

    PARLIAMENTARY PLEDGES.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the discontent caused by the fact that the pledges and promises given at the time of the passing of the Military Service Act are in many cases not being observed; that as between one tribunal and another there is divergence and inequality in the treatment of men with small businesses; whether he has received letters and resolutions on this matter; and whether it is proposed to take any action?
    Mr. HAYES FISHER: A war of the present magnitude cannot be carried on without much hardship, and my right hon. Friend appreciates the hardship suffered in many oases by the owners of small businesses. But he would strongly impress on all who sincerely desire the successful prosecution of the War the necessity of concentrating the man-power of the country on military service and work of essential importance. A general decision by the Central Tribunal on the cases of the sole proprietors of businesses was recently circulated; further directions are not at present contemplated. If proper use is made by the military representatives and by applicants of the right of appeal, there is no reason to think that a reasonable measure of uniformity, consistent with the necessity of getting the work done with celerity, will not be attained.

    RELEASING BADGED MEN (DIVISIONAL OFFICERS EMPLOYED).
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, under a new arrangement between the War Office, the Ministry of Munitions, and the Board of Trade, divisional officers of the last-named service are entrusted with the duties of inspecting men at present in the Army with a view to their suitability to the releasing for active service of men badged or in certified occupations and of
    1800
    arranging for their employment with employers who have men available for substitution; and will he say how many of these divisional officers are in his employment and their qualifications for this new duty?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Prety-man): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement made on 25th October by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions, of which I am sending him a copy. The duties referred to will be undertaken by officers of the Employment Exchanges, working under the supervision of the nine divisional officers of the Employment Department. These officers have now for a long period been engaged in similar work as part of their normal duties, and they are, therefore, well qualified to undertake the task of selecting men from the Army and making arrangements with employers for the release of men for whom substitutes can be provided.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this system of substitution as it has been tried up to now has proved a failure? Is it worth while going on with it much longer?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: It is worth while giving this a trial at any rate.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is it not wasting more time instead of dealing drastically with the problem?

    MAN-POWER.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that General Sir William Pit-cairn Campbell, representing the War Office, addressed a meeting at Cardiff on 26th October, composed of the chairmen of tribunals and recruiting officers of South Wales on the question of man-power and to the fact that the question of man-power is related to the questions of finance, food supply, munitions, and the Navy, he will direct the Treasury, the Board of Agriculture, the Ministry of Munitions, and the Admiralty to arrange similar meetings to be addressed by representatives of those Departments in order that the tribunals may be put in possession of every aspect of this national problem?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I am not aware of the nature of the speech made by General Campbell. The various

    1801
    interests enumerated by my hon. Friend are all represented in His Majesty's Government, and I do not think it necessary to take the steps suggested in the last part of the question.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister if an opportunity will be given during the Debate on man-power to discuss the question of the utilisation of the civilian industrial native race man-power of the Empire?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I presume it would be in order to raise this topic in such a discussion.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOUR (EMPLOYMENT OF SCHOOL BOYS).
    Captain C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that it is now proposed to deplete the farms of all labour of military age, including apparently skilled and indispensable labour during the next five months, the Government will' definitely approve the employment upon the farms for the period of the War only, and under proper supervision, of suitable boys from elementary -and secondary schools who have reached .the age of twelve, without depriving local education authorities in rural areas of the Government grant payable in respect of such boys, and thus causing them financial embarrassment and a consequent reluctance to act in what they deem to be the highest national interests?
    The PRIME MINISTER: With regard to the first part of the question I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on 10th October. If he will refer to the circular therein mentioned he will, I think, see that the assumption contained in the first part of this question is not accurate. The second part therefore does not arise.
    Captain BATHURST: Is the right hon.? Gentleman aware that in some parts of the country a large number of boys are being released for agricultural work, and in other parts none at all? It operates most unequally.
    The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be glad to consider any facts brought to my notice.

    DEFERRED MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
    Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware
    1802
    that Mr. Ernest Robinson, of 20, Florence Street, Grimsby, who was brought before the stipendiary magistrate at Grimsby, on 25th October, on the charge of being an absentee, and remanded for twenty-eight days pending a deferred medical examination, has been dismissed from his post as collector of Customs and Excise on the ground that he has been convicted of being an absentee, and whether, in view of the fact that he has not been convicted, but remanded at the instance of the medical board, who after an examination on 21st October deferred his case for a month for a further medical examination, he will direct that his dismissal shall be suspended until the result of further examination is known and the magistrate has given his decision?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Mr. Robinson, who is an assistant clerk, and not the collector of Customs and Excise at Grimsby, has not been dismissed. As the charge against him has been adjourned on medical grounds, his employment is being continued pending the decision of the magistrates.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Colonel GRIFFITHSasked the Secretary of State for War whether instructions have been recently issued to stop conscientious objectors digging graves in France-within five miles of the trench line; if so, whether this was a Government instruction to the War Office; and if he can state whether genuine conscientious objectors object to digging the graves of British soldiers whose deaths are caused by the enemy?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): The only instruction issued to the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in France limiting the work on which the Non-Combatant Corps may be employed is that they may not be employed in the firing line; the second part of the question, therefore, does not arise. I have no information as to the third part.

    MEDICALLY UNFIT MEN.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a watchmaker named John Ladd, now Private No. 9732, 2/4th York Regiment, Hipswell Camp, Catterick, appeared before the medical board at Cardiff on 1st June and was placed in B 1 Class; that he was thoroughly examined by

    1803
    the same board on 24th August, when he was placed in C 3; that on 8th September he was called up, nevertheless, for service on his first medical ticket, namely, B 1; that the military representative caused it to be written on Private Ladd's notice paper that his second medical ticket was not recognised; that he was taken ill on his way to camp and had to remain in billet at Northallerton; that during the eight days he was in camp he was for four days on light duty, being unfit for parade and drill; and that he has been at home on leave for close on two weeks, during which time he has been medically attended by Dr. W. E. Thomas; and whether, in the circumstances, Private Ladd will be placed in Class O 3, where he could be of some service to the country, instead of in B 1?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Inquiries are being made.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that numbers of men who were rejected subsequently to 14th August, 1915, and to whom notice to present themselves again for medical examination was not sent before 1st September, 1916, have now received notice requiring them to present themselves for service with the Colours; whether these notices have been sent out in error; and what steps ought to be taken by men who hold certificates of rejection in order to secure that the military authorities, where they do not dispute the facts, shall cancel the calling-up notice?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Men who have offered themselves for enlistment since 14th August, 1915, and who have been rejected and hold a certificate to that effect should see the recruiting officer concerned, and should show him the certificate in question. The date of dispatch of the notice requiring men to present themselves again for medical examination is of importance only in the case of men who on offering themselves were not attested. A man who was attested, but was at the time of attestation not accepted on medical grounds, may be called up for reexamination at any time.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a man who was rejected at the Woodford Recruiting Office on 11th December, 1915, and who received Army Form B 2512a, endorsed M. 0. does not
    1804
    approve, signed W. L. Gadsdon, Captain, Recruiting Offices, Woodford, and to whom no notice was sent before 1st September,. 1916, requiring him to present himself again for medical examination, has now on 18th October received a notice calling him up for re-examination; whether he is aware that, on his attention being called to these facts, the recruiting officer replied that the form held did not cover the man in question under present circumstances; and if he will state whether this form so endorsed has no validity under the Military Service Act?
    Mr. FORSTER: The facts of this case are not quite clear, and I will have inquiries made.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Has the hon. Member seen a Copy of the correspondence between this man and the recruiting officer which I forwarded to the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: No, I have not seen it.

    SERVICE ABROAD.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked whether the men in Category B 3 are likely to be called up?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Some men in Category B 3 will certainly be called up,, but I am not in a position to give any definite details.

    "CRUCIFIXION" PUNISHMENT.
    Mr. BARNESasked if a punishment known as "crucifixion" is inflicted on our soldiers in the field; if so, for what offences is it inflicted; whether a man has died under such punishment; and will he have an inquiry made with a view to putting an end to the infliction of such a punishment upon the soldiers?
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked whether a British soldier was recently sentenced to what is known as "crucifixion"; whether he was with five others tied by the neck, waist, hands, and feet to cartwheels for an hour, and when released was dead; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the case, with a view to preventing the possibility of such treatment of our soldiers and the dismissal of the officers concerned if such a sentence was. inflicted?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer my hon. Friend the Member for the Eifion Division of Carnarvonshire to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Hanley, which was to the

    1805
    effect that the particular case mentioned cannot be investigated until information has been obtained as to the name, number, and regiment of the soldier who is alleged to have died under the circumstances suggested. In reply to the right hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division, I would say that he will find the conditions under which field punishment should be carried out by referring to page 721 of the "Manual of Military Law." He will find the offences for which it might be awarded set out under Section 44 (5) of the Army Act.
    Mr. E. HARVEY: Could not field punishment No. 2 be modified by regulation instead of by legislation?

    FAMILIES IN IRELAND.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if lie can state for last year the total number of families in Ireland outside of the rural areas; and whether there has been an increase or a decrease as compared with the 295,633 given in the Census Returns of 1911 as the total number of families in Ireland in that year, exclusive of those in the rural areas?
    Mr. DUKE: There is no record of the number of families in Ireland subsequent to that of the 1911 Census. Perhaps I may add that there would have to be a long course of inquiry by the constabulary to obtain the particulars, and I would ask my hon. Friend to consider whether it is desirable at the present time to incur the expense and trouble of compiling particulars in that way.
    Mr. HAZLETON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state the figure is correct, that there are less than 300,000 families outside the rural areas in all Ireland?
    Mr. DUKE: My attention was not directed to that underlying assumption. If my hon. Friend will repeat the question one day next week, I will have an answer ready.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    DEPENDANTS OF PERSONS KILLED.
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what instructions have been given to the Rebellion (Victims) Committee, in reference to the question as
    1806
    to whom they are to regard as dependants of persons who, without misconduct or default on their part, were killed in the recent Dublin disturbances; whether directions have been given to the Committee that the term "dependants" is to include persons who are regarded as such under the Workmen's Compensation Act; and if the Committee will be given directions, where a claimant is proved to have been wholly dependent on a person killed under the conditions stated, that the claim shall not be prejudiced by the fact that the relationship was not that of husband or parent?
    Mr. DUKE: The interpretation of the reference to the Committee, which has already been published, is a matter for determination by the Committee itself, and instructions on the points mentioned in the question are not deemed necessary.

    CIVILIAN VICTIMS.
    Mr. DILLONasked the Prime Minister whether he will direct that the evidence taken by the Commission of Inquiry into the Portobello murders shall be printed and circulated?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I have con-suited the Chairman of the Royal Commission and he is of opinion that, in view of the full character of the Report, the publication of the evidence taken would be a needless expense; but if there is a general desire that it should be published, I will consider the question again.

    POTATO CROP.
    Captain DONELANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he has received further information concerning the condition of the Irish potato crop; whether he proposes to take steps for the purpose of safeguarding the Irish people from a scarcity of potatoes during the winter and spring; and if he proposes to take action with a view to the provision of sound seed potatoes for next year's planting
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department of Agriculture is being supplied with regular and frequent reports from every district in the country on the subject, and is also in consultation with the Government, in order that, if

    1807
    action becomes necessary, it may be promptly taken. Owing to the recent bad weather, much of the potato crop remains in the ground. According to the best judgment the Department can form, the crop will be about two-thirds of normal, or perhaps a little less. After careful inquiry, the Department believes that the danger is not of such a serious nature as is apprehended by the hon. Member. When the crop has been lifted, and the full facts are known, any necessary action will be taken, and can, if the facts require it, include action with regard to the provision of sound seed potatoes.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is the estimated shortage of potatoes for the present year greater than the quantity of potatoes exported from Ireland in a normal year?
    Mr. RUSSELL: The exports in the year 1915 amounted to about 250,000 tons, but 1915 was rather an abnormal year. I am not quite sure what the figures were for 1914.
    Mr. SCANLAN: Is that greater or less than the two-thirds estimated yield this year?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I should like notice of that.
    Mr. LOUGH: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it will be necessary to interfere with exports to Great Britain?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I do not think that question should be pressed. It is quite certain that with a large quantity of potatoes in the ground, which cannot be lifted in this weather, it would be extremely hazardous for the Department to give an answer to the question.
    Mr. CRUMLEY: Is it not the fact that large quantities of potatoes are exported from the North of Ireland to America and some other places?
    Mr. RUSSELL: There are no potatoes exported to America, for the simple reason that the American Government stopped the export trade, but there is always export trade elsewhere.
    Mr. SCANLAN: In view of the imperfect state of the knowledge of the Department as to whether or not the crop will be sufficient for the needs of the people, will the right
    1808
    hon. Gentleman recommend the Government to stop at once any exportation of potatoes from Ireland?
    Mr. RUSSELL: I am not prepared to do that. The "imperfect knowledge of the Department" arises from the simple reason that the crop is largely underground, and it is impossible to say yet what it will be.
    Captain DONELANrose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot spend all our time discussing potatoes.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether attention is being given to the increase in the price of potatoes; whether he is aware that the price has gone up 100 per cent, in many cases within a week, and that growers are holding up their stocks; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the farmers in Lancashire and other parts of the country are holding back potatoes for higher prices despite the prices they are offered; and will his Department put an end to this conduct by compelling such sales at fair prices, and prosecute those responsible for concealing stocks of potatoes or other foodstuff?
    Mr. GEORGE THORNE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether, in view of' the interview my Wolverhampton colleague and I had with him yesterday with regard to the present high prices prevailing in the Wolverhampton district, he is prepared to make a statement on the general position and as to what course he intends to take?
    Mr. BIRD: Will the right hon. Gentleman also make a statement as to the powers possessed by the Government to prevent stocks of potatoes being unduly withheld from sale?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am informed that the harvesting of the main crop potatoes has been delayed, so that the actual quantities available for us are not large, while fears that serious injury from disease will reduce the size of the crop and prevent the free marketing of these supplies. Until the quantity and quality of the crop are known with greater certainty, it is impossible to decide whether such holding back is beneficial or injurious to the community.

    1809
    The present high price of potatoes is due partly to shortage of crop, but more particularly to shortage of labour and unsuitable weather for raising the main crop and putting it on the market. Farmers have, I believe, in the last few weeks been using every effort to get as much wheat sown as possible, and the raising of potatoes is behindhand in consequence. When main crop potatoes come on the market in greater abundance, as they should do within a few weeks, I expect to see prices steadying, and I am watching the question very closely in connection with the Board of Agriculture to see that no avoidable scarcity is produced. If there are farmers or merchants who are in a position to put potatoes on the market but who are unreasonably withholding them the Government have power to take action under existing statute, and will not hesitate to Use it if cases are brought to their notice.
    I would appeal to all those who, as so many do, consume potatoes twice daily, more as a matter of habit than anything else, to economise in the use of potatoes and to substitute other foods for them, so that there may be a better supply for those who are not so well off and for whom a sufficient supply of potatoes at a reasonable price is a very important part of their daily food.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop so many potatoes going to some of the large hotels?
    Colonel BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the railways running north of London have been declining recently to carry potatoes to the London markets?
    Mr. MOLTENO: Have not very large quantities of potatoes been exported front this country this year to our Allies?
    Mr. SUTTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the same crop of potatoes has increased 100 per cent, in price in the course of a week?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have had to use a certain amount of potatoes grown in this country for supplying the forces abroad. We have also been making every effort to obtain potatoes from other parts of the world in order to keep the Armies well fed. What we have here, of course, we are using to the best advantage; but I need hardly say that we do not regard the present price-of potatoes as the price that is likely to rule throughout this winter.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Is it not a fact that large quantities of potatoes are used for the purpose of producing alcohol for the Minister of Munitions?
    Mr. LOUGHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Midland and Great Northern Railways Joint Committee have refused transit facilities for truck No. 39,705, containing four tons of potatoes for human food, consigned to Acton Station from Long Sutton (Lincs), and whether he is also aware that the London and Northwestern Railway Company's goods agent stated that Acton was at that time open to receive such traffic; and whether, owing to the scarcity of potatoes in London, he will take the necessary steps to prevent such obstruction of traffic being repeated?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board of Trade have received a complaint to the effect stated in my right hon Friend's question, and I am sending him a copy of the reply which has been addressed to the complainants.
    Captain C. BATHURSTasked whether, in view of the ravages of potato disease this season and the tendency consequent upon resulting high prices to rush the potato crop on to the market during the autumn and winter with the possible effect of rendering potatoes unobtainable next spring, the Board proposes to take steps, either to regulate their distribution during the next few months or, following the example of the Irish Department of Agriculture, to issue a public warning to farmers against feeding sound tubers to their stock?
    Sir J. SPEARasked if, in view of the shortage of potatoes in this country through disease, he will take steps to secure all available outside supplies for consumption and also of healthy seed from. Scotland and America for spring planting?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I can only say that questions connected with this year's shortage of the potato crop are at present receiving the most earnest attention of the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture. I hardly think that farmers, if they have a chance of marketing their potatoes at anything like present prices, are likely to feed them to stock. The importance of securing a proper supply of seed is fully appreciated.

    WEST AFRICA (GERMAN PROPERTIES).
    Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary, for the Colonies if he is aware that the proposal to allow neutrals to bid for German properties in West Africa is fraught with danger and is viewed with dissatisfaction by those best qualified to judge; and if he would hold the sale over in the meantime?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The subject has been very fully considered, and I am not prepared to direct that the sale should be postponed.
    Mr. WASONasked a question which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not my view. Arrangements will be made for a discussion on the subject next week.

    MALTA LABOUR SUPPLY.
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Secretary for the Colonies if any steps have been taken to utilise the labour supply of Malta for use at docks or munition works in England?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; but this labour has been utilised in other directions.

    SOUTHERN IRISH MAIL.
    Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Postmaster-General if he will state why the morning mail to the south should not be dispatched from Amiens Street and the delay in backing into Kingsbridge thus avoided?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I am informed that, apart from other considerations, there is not adequate platform accommodation at Amiens Street for the whole of the vehicles of the Great Southern and Western Company's Kings-bridge train.
    Mr. HEALY: Does the hon. Gentleman make any attempt to investigate this question himself, or does he accept what is supplied to him?
    Mr. PEASE: The Post Office is taking steps to find out from the railway company what their position is in regard to this matter. As far as the control of the com-
    1812
    pany is concerned, it is not in the hands, of the Post Office, but in the hands of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. HEALY: Am I not right in thinking that it was the Post Office that gave this company permission to delay the Southern mail fifty-five minutes?
    Mr. PEASE: I am under the impression that the railway company do the best they can for the service.
    Mr. HEALYasked the Postmaster-General whether he has in any way represented to the railway company that it is not reasonable that an express, mail train should take thirty-one minutes to run six and a half miles between West-land Row and Kingsbridge; and whether, if the railway company refuse to make some improvement, he will consider the advisability of reverting to the former-practice of transferring the mails between these two points in horse vans, which was much more expeditious?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: The transfer of the-mails by horse vans between Westland Row and Kingsbridge would take much longer than the present conveyance by railway. I will communicate with the-railway company in order to ascertain whether any improvement can be made in the general arrangements between Kingstown Pier and Kingsbridge.

    TELEGRAPHIC ADDRESSES.
    Mr. DENNISSasked the Postmaster-General whether, in the mutual interest of the public and the Post Office, he will consider the advisability of permitting subscribers' numbers and exchange in the telephone directories to be used as their registered telegraphic-addresses?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: Subscribers are not only permitted but invited to use their telephonic addresses for their telegrams. Owing, however, to the risk of error inseparable from the telegraphic transmission of figures, it is essential that the name form part of the address. Public notices calling attention to the facility, which is too little known, are about to be issued.

    MESOPOTAMIA CAMPAIGN (MAILS).
    Mr. JACOBSENasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that many complaints are being made about the?

    1813
    difficulty of getting post parcels, letters, and newspapers delivered to the forces in Mesopotamia; that parcels not delivered are seldom returned to the senders; and if he will take steps to put this service upon a satisfactory footing?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked by the Secretary of State, who had to leave, to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow on the 26th of last month. Efforts are being made to put the service on a satisfactory footing.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if evidence is being taken of released prisoners as to their experiences; and, if so, are all the persons engaged on this work of British nationality?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Yes, Sir. This is one of the duties of the Government Committee on the Treatment by the Enemy of British Prisoners of War, which was appointed by my predecessor, and over which Mr. Justice Younger presides. I am informed that all persons employed by the Committee for this purpose are of British nationality.
    Sir R. COOPER: Is it not the fact that the hon. secretary, Mrs. Livingstone, is an American lady?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have given the information which has been supplied to me but I will inquire.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister what Government machinery and organisation will be set up for the new Department which it is proposed should in future deal with matters connected with British prisoners in enemy countries; whether any officials who have special knowledge of the subject will be transferred from the Foreign Office and the War Office; and, if so, will he state how many there will be and give their names and positions?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Treasurer of the Household): It is proposed that the existing staff of the Prisoners and Aliens' Department of the Foreign Office should
    1814
    be transferred to the new Department; this will involve the transfer of about eleven officials of various classes. It is not proposed to transfer any officials from the War Office to the new Department.
    Mr. MALCOLM: Will Lord Newton, who is Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, remain head of that Department?
    Mr. HOPE: I think my Noble Friend is quite capable of serving in a dual capacity.

    COCAINE SUPPLY.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Committee to be set up by him to consider the question of selling cocaine to unregistered dentists is to consist of Members of this House or is simply to be a Departmental Committee of the Home Office?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I propose that the Committee should be a Departmental Committee, consisting partly of Members of this House and partly of other persons with special qualifications, but with no bias either on the one side or the other. A Member of the House would be chairman. I hope to be able to complete and announce the appointment of the Committee this week.
    Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that those "other persons" will not be men from his Department, who have been persistently advising him how to deal with-the cocaine supply?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am not contemplating, putting any member of the Home Office-on the Committee.

    WIRELESS NEWS SERVICES.
    Sir E. CORNWALLasked (1) whether the wireless messages from Switzerland, passed by the British, Censor and printed in the British papers, have any official or semi-official character; and (2) how many of the various wireless services issued by the Allies are regarded as official or semi-official; and what is the principle actuating the authorities in. dealing with the news matter intended for distribution?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I am afraid the hon. Member's Question 34 is not one to which .a definite reply can be given. The messages sent from the wireless stations consist partly of official communiqués and partly of semi-official or unofficial messages. As regards the second part of the question, all wireless messages are referred to the Press Bureau, and are dealt with by the Bureau in accordance with the general principles which have been explained on previous occasions. With reference to Switzerland, the Press Bureau state that they know of no wireless messages from Switzerland. There is an agency, with the title of the "Wireless Press," which receives messages by telegraph from Switzerland and other places.

    CATTLE ON PUBLIC ROADS AFTER SUNSET.
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that difficulty will be caused to farmers during the coming winter owing to the shortage of labour by the Order which he has made under the Defence of the Realm Regulations requiring cattle which are being driven on the public roads half an hour after sunset to be attended by one person carrying a lamp in front and a second person carrying a lamp in the rear; and whether, in the circumstances, he will give instructions for the Order to be withdrawn?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The general shortage of labour was fully considered in framing the Order. The Order requires a lamp to be carried in all cases by the person driving the animals, but a second lamp, carried at the front, is required only when a large herd or flock (twenty head of cattle or 100 head of sheep) is being driven. The Order was made on urgent representations received from the military authorities and county councils and other local authorities as to the danger arising from cattle being driven at night without any visible indication of their presence on the roads, and I am satisfied that the Order is necessary to secure the safety of the cattle and sheep as well as of traffic generally.

    INDUSTRIAL DISEASES.
    Mr. FINNEYasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the names of all
    1816
    the industrial diseases scheduled up to date under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, Section 8, Sub-section (6)?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace): The list is too long for me to read out in the House, but I will furnish my hon. Friend with a copy of it and with the Orders by which the diseases were scheduled.

    SHOPS EARLIER CLOSING ORDER (AUTOMATIC MACHINES).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Home Secretary whether it is with his authority and approval that automatic machines are being placed in the vicinity of the small shops closed after eight o'clock under his recent Order for the purpose of supplying cigars, cigarettes, and confectionery; and whether he proposes taking any steps in the matter?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have no information that automatic machines are being placed in the vicinity of shops as suggested, but if my right Hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of the cases brought to his notice I will make inquiry.

    SALE OF PAMPHLETS IN LONDON PARKS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the sale of all pamphlets at meetings held under strict regulations at certain prescribed places in the parks and certain open spaces in London has been prohibited; whether he has been notified of the protest raised by the trade unionists of London; and whether he can state the ground on which this wholesale suppression of opinion has been taken?
    Mr. SAMUEL: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The matter is not one which has been previously brought to my notice, but I understand that the hon. Member refers to action taken by the London County Council under the by-laws relating to their parks and open spaces, which was the subject of discussion at the council's meeting yesterday. I have no authority to
    intervene.

    CONTROLLERS OF ENEMY FIRMS (REMUNERATION).
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the basis of remuneration on which the controllers and liquidators of enemy firms and companies are employed; are they all employed on the same conditions; and will he lay a copy of the agreements upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Supervisors and controllers of enemy businesses are remunerated on the basis of the time actually occupied in the work at the rate of £5 5s. a day for principals, £1 11s. 6d. a day for chief clerks, and 16s. a day for other clerks. An increased rate has been allowed in a few exceptional cases, and in some other cases a special fee may be paid. No formal agreements have been entered into, but the controllers are informed by letter of the scale of remuneration. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was under the impression that these payments were made out of public money?
    Sir H. DALZIEL: Not at all.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: They are paid at the expense of the firms controlled.
    Mr. BOOTH: That is not the point. These men are remunerated according to the time they take.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: According to the time they take in actually doing the work. The work is measured by the hour, not according to the number of weeks or months that elapse before the work is completed—which is quite a different thing.
    Mr. BOOTH: The longer they take the higher the remuneration.

    MANUFACTURE OF INDIGO.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the names of the scientific expert referees who advised the Board of Trade that only Messrs. Levinsteins were in a position to make indigo at the Ellesmere Port works?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The scientific experts who advised the Board of Trade on the evidence of ability to manufacture synthetic indigo at the Port Ellesmere Works submitted by British Dyes, Limited, and Messrs. Levinsteins, were Sir William A. Tilden, F.R.S., and Professor W. J. Pope, F.R.S.
    Sir W. PEARCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the verdict was based on the possibility of manufacture or on the possibility of the supply of raw materials for manufacture?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question on the Paper does not cover that point, and I cannot answer the further question without notice.

    FOOD PRICES.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now prepared to make a statement as to the recommendation of the Minority Report of the Departmental Committee on Prices in, regard to the regulation of prices of the milk industry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I can only say at present that the whole of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, together with the Memorandum to which my hon. Friend doubtless refers, are receiving very careful consideration from the Board of Trade. Any further statement will be made when I introduce the Bill which, as already intimated, is being prepared.
    Mr. SUTTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the farmers of the country have already raised their prices? Will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to adopt Recommendation 3 of the Departmental Committee on Prices; and, if so, which are the less necessary commodities which will be excluded?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: A very considerable number of commodities is already included in the list of articles, the importation of which is restricted with a view to saving tonnage. The Board of Trade are constantly considering the possibility of extending the list, but I fear that I cannot hold out much hope of any substantial further saving of tonnage by this method, in view of the necessity of maintaining industries essential to the conduct of the War or engaged in the export trade.

    WHEAT SUPPLIES.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that wheat has been sold on the Baltic

    1819
    Exchange at 80s. per quarter; and, in view of the fact that he has secured wheat from Australian farmers at 40s. per quarter, will he take steps to take over all wheat in possession of farmers in this country at or about this price?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The data on which this question is based cannot be accepted by me, and I do not think that the step proposed by the hon. Member is at present necessary or advisable.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask what price has been paid to American farmers for wheat, and why the same price should not be paid to English farmers?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is quite open to the hon. Gentleman to ask the question, but it would be most injudicious for me to answer it.
    Mr. HOUSTON: Can my right hon. Friend explain why, when the freight on wheat goes down the price of flour goes up?
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the delay in announcing that the Wheat Commission will be provided with tonnage at the same cost as the Sugar Commission is due to the efforts of the Board to provide cheaper tonnage; and, if not, to what is it due?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The question as to what arrangements for the transportation of wheat purchased by the Wheat Commission would be most in the national interest has been a very difficult one, and has been under careful examination by the Departments concerned. It has now been decided that for the present, the Commission's wheat shall, a3 far as possible, be carried in requisitioned vessels under the same terms and conditions as those now in force for the transportation of sugar. The tonnage problems of the Wheat Commission are, however, much more complicated and difficult than those of the Sugar Commission.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason as to how it is since he made his statement to the House that wheat has gone up 9s. per quarter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Well, Sir, that is only another proof of what has often been said in this House: that the price of wheat is not made in England, it is made by all the sources of supply.

    CANALS AND WATERWAYS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have been taken to fulfil the promise given by him to a deputation introduced by the hon. Member for Hanley after the outbreak of war, that consideration would be given to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I fear I cannot, for the moment, add to the reply on this subject which my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works gave to the hon. Member on the 10th July.

    BRITISH COMPANIES (ENEMY-OWNED SHARES).
    Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can furnish a list of the enemy-owned shares in British companies which are now vested in the Public Trustee for sale?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I will lay a list on the Table of the House.
    Mr. TERRELLasked whether the enemy-owned shares in the Enfield Electric Cable Manufacturing Company, Limited, have yet been sold by the Public Trustee; and, if so, to whom and for what price?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: The Public Trustee informs me that he is carrying on negotiations for a sale of the enemy-owned shares in the Enfield Electrical Cable Manufacturing Company, Limited, but he has not yet effected a sale.
    Mr. TERRELL: With whom are these negotiations being carried on, and is it not proposed to offer these shares for sale on the public market?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I must have notice of that question. I am afraid I cannot answer off-hand.
    An HON. MEMBER: Why not?

    CONSIGNMENTS OF FISH (HOLLAND).
    Mr. STANTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the fact that large con-

    1821
    signments of fish from Holland were destroyed upon, arrival in this country; that at Liverpool on the 20th October last 1,000 boxes were destroyed, on the 21st 800, and on the 22nd 600; if he will institute an inquiry to discover if this wastage was due to any action on the part of those people concerned in keeping up the price of fish in this country; and, if so, what steps he will take to punish such people?
    Lord R. CECIL: Certain quantities of fish recently landed from Holland have been destroyed owing to unavoidable delays in transport. No information is at present available as to the transactions referred to, but inquiries are being made. There is no evidence that any attempt has been made to withhold fish from the market for the purpose of keeping up prices.

    LIFEBUOYS ON SHIPS.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that at an inquest on Charles Williams, of the Brixham ketch "Girl Edith," wrecked on Friday last, one of the witnesses stated that there was only one lifebuoy on the ship, and that he had been to sea thirteen years, shipwrecked three times, and had only seen one lifebuoy on the ships; if he is aware that on the coroner expressing surprise he added that the Board of Trade passed this; and will he consider the desirability of ordering that a lifebuoy shall be provided for each man on similar ships?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not yet received a Report of the proceedings at the inquest in the case referred to, but as soon as I receive it I will consider what action should be taken.

    DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (IRELAND).
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he is now in a position to state what arrangements have been made by the Statutory Committee with regard to the treatment of discharged and disabled soldiers and sailors in Ireland; and if he will see that any arrangements that are come to will be administered on similar lines to those proposed in the case of
    1822
    Great Britain, namely, by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, who have all the machinery necessary to administer medical benefit if sufficient money is provided, and thereby avoid the necessity of these soldiers having to look for treatment under the Poor Law medical system administered by the Local Government Board, Ireland?
    Mr. C. ROBERTS: I am not in a position to make an announcement at the present moment, as the matter is still under consideration.
    Mr. HOGGE: Does this class of men come under the Committee announced by the Secretary of State for War two days ago?
    Mr. ROBERTS: As the matter is not definitely settled, I do not think I can reply to a definite question and until further details are given in reference to the announcement made here.
    Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the men are not put under two bodies?

    ZEPPELIN RAIDS.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he is now in a position to publish, for the help and encouragement of inventors outside the War Office and in the hope of more adequate protection of our towns and homes, details of the vulnerable structures of Zeppelins in order to assist the inventive genius of the Anglo-Saxon race in the discovery of an incendiary missile capable of being fired from a gun mounted on an aeroplane, and having the property of bursting within the envelope of a Zeppelin and setting fire to it?
    Major BAIRD(replying for the Air Board): I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on 23rd August to which I can add nothing.

  MUNITIONS.

    GLASGOW DEPORTEES.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Munitions if he has yet considered the question of the men deported from Glasgow, with special reference to David Kirkwood; if he will say whether Kirk-

    1823
    wood has agreed that, if allowed to return to Glasgow, he will remain at work and submit any question arising to his trade union; if he has given the assurance which was asked of him, will he explain why he is not allowed to return to Glasgow; and if Sir William Beardmore has signed a request asking for the return of David Kirkwood and agreeing to employ him if allowed to return to Glasgow?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Dr. Addison): The case of Kirkwood has been considered in conjunction with that of the other three men who have not been allowed to return to Glasgow, and I can add nothing in this respect to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 17th October last. So far as can be ascertained, Kirkwood has not entered into an agreement of the kind spoken of, and I am informed that Sir "William Beardmore has not asked for his return.

    INVENTORS AND OWNERS OF SECRET PROCESSES (RIGHTS).
    Sir WILLIAM PEARCEasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has received any communication from the Association of British Chemical Manufacturers regarding the Order in Council dated 7th September; and if he is able to give assurances as to proper safeguards for the rights of inventors and owners of secret chemical processes?
    Dr. ADDISON: My right hon. Friend has received the communication in question. He has been in consultation with the Admiralty and the War Office, and the three Departments are making suitable arrangements to safeguard the rights of inventors and owners of secret processes.
    Sir W. PEARCE: As the Order provides for complete disclosure to any person nominated by the Ministry of Munitions of any invention or process, may I ask whether great care will be taken in the selection of the persons who are to be so employed?
    Dr. ADDISON: I can assure my hon. Friend that the greatest possible care is taken; all considerations are taken into account.

    FAIRS AND WAKES.
    Sir R. COOPERasked the Minister of Munitions whether he has official information showing that the holding of fairs
    1824
    and wakes for limited hours in the evening interferes with the production of munitions any more than the opening of cinemas and theatres; and, if so, does he intend to compensate firms engaged in catering for amusement who can prove that they are suffering from the prohibition of fairs and wakes or unable to meet their financial obligations?
    Dr. ADDISON: My information is that the holding of local fairs or wakes is more likely to interfere with the production of war material than more permanent forms of amusement, such as cinemas and theatres. Claims for compensation in respect of direct loss or damage should be submitted to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission.
    Sir R. COOPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Government are prepared to pay compensation where it can be shown that a man has suffered very severely from closing?
    Dr. ADDISON: I do not know anything about that. I simply said that claims should be presented to the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission; I know nothing of what the decision may be.

    UNSKILLED EMPLOYES (BADGED FIRMS).
    Major NEWMANasked the Minister of Munitions whether the military authorities will be given opportunities of checking and challenging the returns of unskilled employés under thirty years of age which he is asking for from all badged firms under his control; and will the placing of a workman in the skilled or unskilled category be left solely to the discretion of the manager or foremen of the firms in question?
    Dr. ADDISON: It is part of the procedure of the Substitution Scheme recently inaugurated that one copy of the return furnished by the firms shall be forwarded by the Divisional officer of the Board of Trade Employment Department to the military authority interested. Further, the register of employés which firms were required by Statute in April last to prepare and maintain, is open to inspection by the military authorities on demand. It is obvious that the register of employés referred to must be compiled by the firm, and, therefore, the firm is responsible for the correctness of the entries. A false entry in the register, however, is an. offence against the Defence of the Realm Regulations.
    Major NEWMAN: Do I understand that there is no power to allow an inspection on the firm's premises?
    Dr. ADDISON: I said the exact opposite. I said that the register of employés is open to inspection by the military authorities on demand.
    Major NEWMAN: On the premises?
    Dr. ADDISON: That is where it is kept.

    LOW TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION OF COAL.
    Mr. FELLasked the Minister of Munitions if his attention has been directed to the question of carbonising high volatile coal at low temperature and the benefits to be derived from it for the production of explosives, and the great saving of coal effected by the process; and if the Government engineers are following up the recent discoveries in this direction?
    Dr. ADDISON: My attention has frequently been directed to the question of low temperature carbonisation of coal, and the subject is receiving close consideration. Its advantages from the explosives point of view are still problematical. My technical advisers are following up all the recent developments in this matter most carefully.
    Mr. FELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great increase in the use of this process in Germany, and unless we are up and awake we shall find we are left, as in some other things?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am quite aware of all that, but I am also aware of the fact that the coke produced is of very little use to us.

    BADGED WORKERS.
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that a contractor named F. W. Plaxton, of Scarborough, who is making ammunition boxes, has employed on this work a slater and a gardener; that he has secured badges and exemption for these two men, for himself, and two foremen; and whether, in view of the fact that there are skilled men over military age in this district, he will take steps to debadge the men referred to?
    Dr. ADDISON: I understand that the question refers to Mr. F. W. Plaxton, of Scarborough, to whom six War Service
    1826
    badges have been issued in respect of contracts for ammnuition boxes. The firm stated that they had been unable to obtain men over military age, but five out of the six men badged were reported as having been rejected by the military authorities on medical grounds. I am inquiring as to the sixth.

    BRITISH DYES, LIMITED (OVERTIME RATE OF PAY).
    Mr. T. WILSONasked the Minister of Munitions if he is aware that British Dyes, Limited, which is manufacturing explosives for the Government, refuses to pay the proper rate of overtime for Saturday and Sunday to the joiners employed by the firm; and whether, seeing that this firm is to a large extent financed by the Government, he will give instructions that the provisions of the Fair-Wages Clause must be complied with?
    Dr. ADDISON: I am inquiring into the facts of this case, and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYÉS' WAGES.

    ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL.
    Mr. J. RICHARDSONasked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to reply to the request for arbitration in connection with the wage claim submitted to him by the National Joint Committee of Postal Associations on 5th October?
    Mr. TICKLERasked the Prime Minister if he will allow the demands of the Post Office employés for increase of remuneration owing to the increased cost of living to be submitted to arbitration, which course would be acceptable to them?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will, if I may, answer also a question of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport has given me private notice. His Majesty's Government have decided to set up a standing arbitration tribunal to decide during the War questions of wages arising between the Government and its civil employés. The claim referred to in the questions will be submitted to this body.
    Mr. WARDLE: When is it proposed to set up this body?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is proposed to set it up at once.

    REMITTANCES TO NEUTRAL COUNTRIES.
    Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that naturalised subjects of enemy birth residing in neutral countries can take advantage of having been naturalised here and withdraw money made by the trading in this country of concerns in which they are interested, including profits on Government war contracts, and to use such money to the advantage of the enemy; and whether the Government will take prompt steps to prevent enemy-born persons who are resident abroad from withdrawing money to this country's detriment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The naturalized British subject in a neutral country has the same position as the British-born subject in a neutral country; but if it is shown that any money is destined for the use of the enemy, the remittance of any money to a person resident in a neutral country could, and would, be stopped.

    CONTRACTORS (SOLICITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT).
    Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the Report of the Solicitor-General upon the question of the introduction of legislation to define the position of contractors under conditions brought about by the Defence of the Realm Act and other exceptional legislation necessitated by the War; and, in view of the urgency of the case, whether he is prepared to introduce a Government Bill to deal with the matter at an early date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir; I have had an opportunity of giving some consideration to this Report; but the subject is a complicated one and will require further deliberation. I hope to announce the Government's decision at an early date.

    DEFECTIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Report of Sir George Newman, chief medical officer to the Board of Education, and to his statement that out? of the six million children in our elemen-
    1828
    tary schools not less than one million are so physically or mentally defective or diseased as to be unable to derive reasonable benefit from the education which the State provides; whether he is aware that this state of things is largely due to years of bad housing, insufficient nourishment, and poverty; and whether the Government, in considering after-the-war schemes and policies for the improvement of trade, will also consider schemes of improved social organisation with a view to ridding the country of slums and destitution and placing within reach of all the basis for strong, healthy life?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, these matters are being carefully considered.

    CHANNEL TUNNEL.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in regard to the proposed Channel Tunnnel, the Government will take into account its political importance as affecting the whole character of the Entente between this country and France, the military and naval aspects of the question, not only as affecting facility of transport, but as involving complex considerations of the defence of the tunnel itself, and the financial and domestic side of the subject, having regard to the questions of monopolies and of the control by capitalists of great State functions essential to the safety of the nation; and whether, in view of these considerations, he will refuse to give encouragement and support to any scheme other than an entirely national undertaking carried out completely by the Government or a project into which the French Government entered on equal terms?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the last part, as I have already stated, the matter will be reviewed by the War Committee or the Committee of Imperial Defence, and the considerations mentioned by the hon. Member will not be lost sight of.

    POSTHUMOUS HONOURS (NAVAL).
    Mr. PETOasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to issue an order with regard to posthumous

    1829
    honours being publicly presented to the next-of-kin as in the case of the Army Order issued on the 28th October?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I think my hon Friend is under a slight misapprehension as to the precise application of the Army Order referred to. It does not apply to the award of posthumous honours, but to the mode of presentation of honours awarded but not presented prior to the death of the recipient. In this connection, though it is not proposed to issue a general order on this subject, it is certainly the intention of the Admiralty to follow the same practice as is indicated in the Army Order to which my hon. Friend refers as closely as possible under naval conditions. Public presentations on these lines to the next-of-kin have already been made.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is it a fact that the posthumous honours, properly so called, are under consideration of the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No, but I think, arising out of this question, it might very well—I will make a note of it.

    MID-SCOTLAND CANAL.
    Major CHAPPLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the strategic advantages that would have resulted from a mid-Scotland canal have been sufficiently demonstrated by naval engagements in the North Sea to justify him in getting an expert report with a view to the employment of prisoners of -war on a commercial and strategic enterprise that can have no relation to the present conflict?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid I can only repeat the opinion already expressed to my hon. and gallant Friend that it is not practicable to enter upon a discussion on this matter at the present time.
    Mr. WATT: May we now take it that the Department of the right hon. Gentleman see the great advantages that would accrue from such a canal during the War?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid cannot answer that. All I can say is we cannot Consider it now.

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the propriety of securing that in all cases the separation allowance issued to the wives of sailors should be raised to the level of that issued in the case of soldiers, regard being had to the higher rate of pay of sailors in fixing the amount of the compulsory allotment from pay?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the White Paper issued on the 22nd September, 1914, which describes fully the reasons why it has been deemed equitable that the scale of separation allowances for the wife and children of the seaman should differ from that adopted for the wife and children of the soldier.
    Mr. SCOTT: Does that White Paper offer any consolation to the wives of sailors when their allowance is less?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It explains fully why it is fixed at a lower rate, because the pay is higher and the opportunity for promotion greater than in the case of a soldier. When my hon. Friend has read it, perhaps he will put a further question
    Mr. SCOTT: Is there any reason why the maintenance of the wives and children of sailors should not be safeguarded to the same extent as those of soldiers?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I certainly trust that with the allotment, plus the allowance, it adequately safeguards them.

    SHEEP STOCK (BREADALBANE ESTATES.)
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that on the Breadalbane estates of Auchalladder, Bendorran, and Glenfalloch, clearances of sheep have recently taken place, and that in one instance some 10,000 sheep were cleared and that the sheep are to be replaced by deer; and, in view of the importance of this question of food supplies, whether he proposes taking any action?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): I understand that any reductions in sheep stock that have taken

    1831
    place have been due to a failure, after repeated efforts, to let the farms or grazings concerned. The farm of Auchalladder has been relet at a much reduced rental to a new tenant, who purchased and replaced on the farm a considerable portion of the stock. The former tenant of Auchalladder also held the grazing on Bendorran, which is part of an existing deer forest, under a special arrangement which came to an end with his tenancy. Glenfalloch is falling out of lease at Martinmas. So far as I am aware no tenant has been found, and the sheep have been sold off. I believe the owner is as anxious as my hon. Friend that new tenants should be found for his unlet grazings.
    I have since received the following telegram:
    "Breadalbane factor now writes that Glenfalloch has been cleared of sheep by proprietor after extensively advertising farm, as no tenant could be found. Proprietor has no intention of converting ground into deer forest. Regarding Auchalladder, there never was question of clearing it for deer, and it has been now let to the tenant as sheep farm."
    Captain BATHURST: Could any farm tenants be found if the rents were reduced?
    Mr. TENNANT: My hon. Friend will realise that these rents have been enormously reduced. In the case in point I believe Lord Breadalbane has been forced to accept something like £200 where previously he got £380.
    Captain BATHURST: Rather than the country should lose the food, would it not be better to charge a merely nominal rent for this land?
    Mr. TENNANT: I quite agree, and I have no doubt the owners of some of these grazing farms would be delighted to do so. The difficulty is that sheep are so expensive nowadays that no one could afford to embark upon a new tenancy.
    Sir GEORGE YOUNGER: That is really the point. If they got the land for nothing, they could not afford it.

    MECHANICAL AND HAND-MILKING.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the alleged advantages of substituting the mechanical milking of cows for
    1832
    hand-milking; if so, whether the Board have considered the practicability of the proposal; and whether he is aware of the effect of the adoption of mechanical milking in removing many difficulties with which railway companies have to contend and in facilitating the carriage of milk by earlier morning trains?
    Mr. ACLAND: The Board have for years given close attention to this subject, and are well aware of the advantages to be-derived through the use of milking machines under suitable conditions. Farmers generally are also pretty well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the machine compared to hand-milking, though there is a good deal of difference of opinion as to what is the best machine. Trials of different machines have been conducted under the Board's auspices at farms attached to agricultural colleges, and wide inquiry has been made as to the results of the use of machines in practice. Many farmers having large and medium sized herds are finding it an advantage to install machines at the present time, but generally there is not much saving of time effected by their use, and therefore the point as to catching earlier trains which the hon. Member raises does not arise.
    Sir P. MAGNUS: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of issuing a circular, such as the Board of Agriculture sometimes do, with regard to the relative advantages and disadvantages of milking machines, rather than hand-milking?
    Mr. ACLAND: We have issued a circular regarding the relative advantages and disadvantages of different types of machines.
    Sir J. SPEAR: Is it not a fact that where machines are used the completion of taking all the milk has to be done by hand, or else it results in the drying up of the cow?
    Mr. ACLAND: That is generally so, and that is one of the reasons why you do not save much time.

    LAND RECLAMATION.
    Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked what steps the Board of Agriculture and Development Commission are taking to bring into immediate cultivation either the 12,000 acres now lying fallow or the many thousands of acres still unre-

    1833
    claimed; and whether any progress has been made in utilising the services of the German prisoners in the production of food?
    Mr. ACLAND: A Committee recently appointed by the War Office is now, I believe, actively at work upon the consideration of proposals for the employment of German prisoners of war, including such proposals as my Noble Friend makes, and I will, at the earliest possible moment, see that he is informed of the result of their work.
    Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if his Department will consider the advisability of preparing a scheme for using, if necessary, all land in this country which is suitable for the growing of wheat and vegetables, whether private lands, public parks, or any such lands, not at present being used in the best public interest; and to make more secure the food supplies of the nation?
    Mr. ACLAND: No such scheme appears to be practicable, owing to the shortage of labour that exists for all agricultural work, but if my hon. Friend will be kind enough to make any practical suggestions, I shall be most grateful to him.
    Mr. RAFFAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many districts there has been a considerable addition to the food supply by working men utilising the land in their spare time, while in other districts nothing has been done?
    Mr. ACLAND: The action that has been taken is largely due to the fact that we have brought the matter to the notice of the local authorities, and encouraged them to do everything that is possible in this direction. If hon. Members know where it is possible to do more in the way of allotments than is now being done, I should be glad to hear from them.

    NATIONAL WAR SAVINGS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. ARNOLDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to issue any Report of the work of the National War Savings Committee; and, if so, when?
    Mr. CECIL BECK (Vice-Chamberlain Of the Household): The National War Savings Committee propose to make a
    1834
    first Report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the progress of their work as soon as statistics based on the result of the first audit of Associations as at 30th September, 1916, are available. The Report will, it is hoped, be completed by Christmas at latest. I will consult my right hon. Friend on the question of making the Report public, and hope that this will be arranged.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: May we know how much the Government have wasted in printing this Report?
    Mr. BECK: I do not think that arises out of this question.
    Mr. ARNOLDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any facilities are being given to soldiers and sailors, including officers, to invest their savings in War Stock or War Savings Certificates?
    Mr. BECK: Yes, Sir. The main appeal of the National War Savings Committee is to the civilian population of all classes. But, with the assistance of the authorities of the Navy and Army, facilities are provided for investment in Exchequer Bonds and War Savings Certificates by both officers and men of both Services. A poster, entitled "Make an Allotment," and special leaflets have been issued to the Fleet, and facilities are given for allotments from pay for investment purposes. As regards the Army, an Order was issued in April, 1916, explaining the facilities offered to both officers and men in this matter, including soldiers abroad. Investments can be made through the regimental paymasters. A further Army Order, offering improved facilities, is about to be issued, and there have been placed at the disposal of the National War Savings Committee the services of an officer who is personally making arrangements—with very encouraging success—for forming War Savings Associations among the units at home.

    INCOME TAX (ABATEMENT).
    Mr. CROOKSasked whether a man assessed for Income Tax can claim a reduction in respect of an artificial hand which enables him to earn his taxable income and which costs him £14 a year for upkeep; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of securing the power to allow such abatement?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts allowance is only made for expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the employment.

    CLOTHING AND ACCOUTREMENTS (ISSUES).
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the issues of clothing and accoutrements on repayment to officers of the British Expeditionary Force in France at a fixed scale at Government rates; and whether the same privilege will be given to officers at home and on first appointment, more especially in view of their being as yet no Government factory for uniform for officers corresponding to Pimlico for the rank and file, and to the saving which would accrue to the Government by a possible reduction of outfit allowances to officers, and to the officers themselves compared with the prices charged to them by private outfitters, amounting in many cases to at least 50 per cent.?
    Mr. FORSTER: So far as uniform is concerned, only small stocks are provided for supply in France to meet the urgent requirements of officers in the field. To deal with officers' uniform in the manner suggested by the hon. Member would involve the establishment of a large clothing depot, which is not contemplated. All articles of equipment as laid down for officers in the field service manuals are issuable on repayment from the Army Ordnance Department.

    DECEASED OFFICERS' KITS (LOSSES IN TRANSIT).
    Major Sir CHARLES HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to the increasing number of complaints from relatives of officers killed that their kits have been looted in transit and anything of value abstracted; if he is aware that a large number of parcels now being sent to the troops never reach their destination; and if he will have a searching inquiry made into these matters?
    Mr. FORSTER: The experience of the War Office is that the kits of deceased officers as received in England usually agree with any inventories furnished by
    1836
    units. There is no evidence of looting in transit, and I would remind the hon. Member that units in the firing line and advanced dressing stations have very heavy work to do in the heat of the battle apart from the safeguarding of effects. I fear that some liability to loss under the circumstances cannot be avoided, but the matter is being taken up. The second part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.
    Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread feeling in the Army that these articles are stolen?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes; I know that there is a widespread feeling, and we all greatly regret that there should be any cause for it. The matter is being taken up with the-authorities in France.
    Sir C. KINLOOH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of the articles are most valuable, and are by no means articles of no account?
    Sir C. HUNTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great number of relatives are writing, saying that articles of value are extracted?
    Mr. FORSTER: Yes; I have already told my hon. Friend that the matter is being taken up with the authorities in France.

    GREAT BRITAIN AND SWEDEN.
    Mr.SHIRLEY BENN(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement respecting the Swedish delegation which is to visit this country?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Swedish Government having proposed to His Majesty's Government that an official Swedish mission should proceed to this country for the purpose of arriving at an agreement respecting questions connected with the blockade, His Majesty's Government have informed them of their entire readiness to receive such a mission, which it is hoped will strengthen the friendly relations between the two countries. The mission is expected to arrive shortly.

    Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there has been any alteration or extension of the:

    1837
    powers attached to the office of Lord Lieutenant since the reappointment of its present holder?
    Mr. DUKE: I would refer to the Prime Minister's reply of the 10th August last to the question on this subject of the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal.

    Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will secure that the claim to an old age pension of Thomas Donelan, Shantallow, Clonberne, county Galway, is reconsidered, in view of the fact that, while the pension officer reported against the case and appealed on the ground of age against the decision of the sub-committee, the Local Government Board have since accepted the claimant's age as being over 70, but have refused the pension on the new ground that they are not satisfied that his means were under the statutory limit; what evidence is there of this; and whether it has now become the practice of the Local Government Board, when unable to sustain the case made by a pension officer on the ground on which he has appealed from the decision of a local pension sub-committee, to refuse pensions on grounds concerning which no appeal at all was entered by the pension officer?
    Mr. DUKE: I am informed that the Local Government Board has no authority to review its decisions upon claims to old-age pensions, and that the claim of Thomas Donelan, of Shantallow, Clonberne, county Galway, therefore cannot be reopened upon the facts as they now stand. The pension officer appealed to the Board on the ground of age, and the Board had thereupon to consider the application anew. They were satisfied on the report of their inspector that the applicant's means were such as to disentitle him.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was no evidence brought before the sub-committee with regard to the question of means, and that they had a right to review the subject, but got no opportunity of doing so from the Local Government Board?
    Mr. DUKE: I tried to point out that the statutory powers of the Local Government Board require the hearing of the whole application. As a matter of fact, it comes before them on appeal in two branches. They found on the first that the
    1838
    applicant failed, and they proceeded to consider the second, and were not satisfied.
    Mr. HAZLETON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case if another application is put in?

    Land Purchase (Ireland).
    Mr. COSGRAVEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that, with eight exceptions, all the planters on the Clanricarde estate in the Portumna district have been compensated for their interest in their holdings by the Congested Districts Board; if he will state the cause of the delay in dealing with the cases of those eight, namely, Messrs. A. G. Elliott, J. Clarke, H. Nesbitt, Edward Horseman, Michael Fitzgerald, P. Shaughnessy, the representatives of F. B. Drury, and Mrs. John Horseman; and whether, in the interest of the peace of the district, he will consider the desirability of the Board not making exceptions in dealing with such cases?
    Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board inform me that they have arranged terms of voluntary surrender of forty-one holdings on the Clanricarde estate, and failed to come to terms for the surrender of nine holdings. Some of these nine tenants hold under judicial tenancies. The Board have no power to resume possession of land for the purpose of reinstating evicted tenants. As regards the persons named in the question, the Board have recently come to terms with the representatives of F. B. Drury, and have served notice to quit on the tenant of one holding whose land they require for the relief of congestion, and they have still hopes that they may be able to come to a voluntary settlement with some of the others.
    Mr. COSGRAVEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have taken any steps to take over possession of the grazing (non-resident) holdings on the Clanricarde estate, county Galway, situate in the parishes of Portumna, Killimore, Eyrecourt., Meelick, Lawrence-town, Clontuskert, and Quansboro; whether he is aware that the holdings referred to are held on bogus leases which were given at the time the Act was being passed to compulsorily acquire the estate mentioned in order that the graziers, who up to that time held these farms on the eleven months' system, could evade the Act; and whether, in the event of nothing

    1839
    being done, he will state the reasons, if any, why the Board have not put into operation an Act of Parliament which has been specially passed to deal with congestion on this estate?
    Mr. DUKE: The Congested Districts Board inform me that they do not understand what the hon. Member means by "the grazing (non-resident) holdings." The Board have obtained possession of all lands on the Clanricarde estate which were held under grazing lettings, but there are many holdings on the estate on which the tenants do not reside, and which are held under judicial and other forms of tenure, and used solely or mainly for grazing. The Board have decided to exercise such powers as they possess for the purpose of obtaining possession of all or any of thes3 holdings required for the relief of congestion, and accordingly have served notices to quit on some of the tenants who appear to hold under future tenancies. They propose to take proceedings to resume possession of such of the holdings as they have power to resume, and have expressed their willingness to come to terms with any of the tenants of these holdings. They have no power to resume possession of lands held under lease, and have no information as to whether there are any bogus leases on the estate. The Board are not aware of any special Act of Parliament having been passed in connection with the Clanricarde estate, and are dealing with the estate as promptly as they can, having regard to their commitments in respect of other estates.

    Ex-National School Teachers (Ireland).
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has received a copy of the statement which has been forwarded to the Chancellor of the Exchequer setting out the grievances under which ex-national school teachers in Ireland are placed owing to the inadequacy of their pensions to meet present demands arising from the War; and whether he will obtain for them the same concessions of monthly payments and a war bonus as were granted to the national teachers?
    Mr. NUGENTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the Government, in considering the claim of the national teachers of Ireland for a war bonus, will also take into consideration the case of
    1840
    retired national teachers, many of whom have to maintain themselves on pensions ranging from £13 to £60 a year?
    Mr. DUKE: I have seen the statement referred to. The proposal to pay teachers' pensions monthly is not at present deemed to be practicable, and I am informed that under the Irish Teachers' Pension Rules there is no power to pay a war bonus out of the Teachers' Pension Fund.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps with the Treasury to try and get the grant of a war bonus for these poor people, who have been very hardly hit?
    Mr. DUKE: I am afraid that matter depends on legislation. I doubt very much whether it is in the discretion of the Treasury to recommend a Grant to the House, or that any Grant can be made without statutory authority. But I will not close the door to the consideration of what may be a hard case with regard to these people.
    Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter further consideration?
    Mr. DUKE: Certainly.

    Mountrath (Queen's County) Mail Delivery.
    Mr. FITZPATRICKasked the Postmaster-General if he has considered the memorial received from the people of Castletown and Mountrath postal districts asking to have the mails delivered at Mountrath as heretofore; and, seeing that the alteration in the delivery of the night mail has caused inconvenience and loss to the people of these districts, if he will restore the old mail service?
    Mr. PIKE PEASE: I am having inquiry made, and will write to the hon. Member shortly.

OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION—No. 2) BILL.
"to amend the Output of Beer (Restriction) Act, 1916," presented by Mr. PRETYMAN;; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 119.]
RHODES ESTATE BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendements; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. R. McNEILL: I have been requested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now fix a day for the promised discussion on the sale of enemy properties in Nigeria?
  The PRIME MINISTER: On Tuesday we shall take the Second Reading of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Bill, and the Output of Beer (Restriction—No. 2) Bill, and the Committee stage of the Anzac Bill.
  On Wednesday we shall take some stages of the small Bills on the Paper, and on that day time will be found for a discussion with regard to the conditions of sale of enemy properties in Nigeria.
  Thursday's business I shall announce next week.
  Mr. McNEILL: May I ask, as the time appears to be very short on Wednesday, whether the right hon. Gentleman will provide for that by proposing the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule? It is a matter of very great importance.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that is necessary, because the Bills which will precede the discussion are of minor importance.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday next."—[The Prime Minister.]
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Now that the House has accepted the practice of sitting three days a week, I would like to make an appeal to the Prime Minister whether he could not revise the Schedule and the order in which Questions are now answered. We are at present working under a five-day Schedule with regard to the priority of Ministers and the manner in which Questions are answered. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might revise that Schedule and give us one for three days, so that both Ministers and Members may know the order in
  1862
  which Questions will be addressed to Ministers of the different Departments and so that answers may be given?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that matter.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. H. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of Maximum Penalty in Certain Cases. 6 Edw. 7, c. 34. 52 and 53 Vict., c. 69.)
  A person convicted on indictment of a misdemeanour under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, or the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, shall, where the matter or transaction in relation to which the offence was committed was a contract or a proposal for a contract with His Majesty or any Government Department or any public body or a sub-contract to execute any work comprised in such a contract, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven nor less than three years:
  Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent the infliction in addition to penal servitude of such punishment as under the last-mentioned Act may be inflicted in addition to imprisonment.
  Sir A. SPICER: I beg to move to leave out the word "nor" ["for a term not exceeding seven nor less than three years."]
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): There is some misapprehension as to this Clause. It is thought that we are proposing not only that a maximum penalty of seven years should be imposed for these offences, but that there should be a minimum penalty of three years, and that the Court will not be able to impose less than that sentence if a conviction is entered. That is not so. Of course, it would be very wrong to attempt to lay down a minimum sentence in a case such as this, and, indeed, I think Parliament almost invariably in modern legislation has not attempted to enact minimum penalties. The Clause as it stands simply adds to the powers conferred upon Courts by previous Acts a new power to impose

  1863
  certain sentences of penal servitude. It does not repeal powers previously conferred. Therefore, the Court can exercise its powers under previous Acts and impose a penalty, say, of two years' imprisonment or less than three years, or a fine of £100 or a fine of less than £100. It may be asked why we insert the words "a minimum of three years." The Penal Servitude Act of 1891 lays down the rule where penal servitude can be afflicted that the minimum term is for three years, but this rule does not apply to enactments passed since that date. I hope that I have made that clear. The Act which establishes our present system of penal servitude says that three years shall be the minimum. If the Court were to inflict a penalty of two years' penal servitude it would upset the symmetry of our present system of penal servitude, and unless these words were put in the Bill the terms of the Act of 1891 would not apply, with the result that the Courts would have power to impose sentences of one or two years' penal servitude. That is not desired by the House, and certainly is not intended by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That is why the Bill is drafted in this way, and I hope that the Committee will accept it in its existing form on the clear understanding and assurance that the three years' penal servitude is not a minimum penalty, but only the minimum penalty of penal servitude. Any Court can impose imprisonment or a fine. As a matter of fact, the Penal Servitude Act of 1891 specifically provides, where any Statute allows penal servitude to be imposed, that the Court can alternatively impose imprisonment with hard labour.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman intends that there shall not be any sentence less than three years?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Less than three years' penal servitude.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Yes, penal servitude. That is obviously the intention of the Bill, and that is why it is put in. There are two considerations I should like to put before the right hon. Gentleman. Is there any precedent for having that minimum in a matter of this kind, because I have no recollection of it? It occurs to me that a jury, under the impression that no sentence less than three years' penal servitude can be imposed, may hesitate to
  1864
  convict a person who is obviously guilty, and that the Section therefore may work very much in favour of the guilty man.
  Mr. SAMUEL: That is not the minimum sentence.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: It is the minimum sentence of penal servitude.
  Mr. SAMUEL: It always has been so. There is no one now in penal servitude who has got less than three years.
  Sir J. SIMON: I am hot surprised that my right hon. Friend (Sir H. Dalziel) should have raised that point, because as the Section is now drafted many persons might suppose that the minimum punishment which could be inflicted under it is three years' penal servitude. I feel quite certain that a good many people reading the Act of Parliament in the newspapers would think that is the effect. My right hon. Friend has explained that is not so for the reason, as he has pointed out, that there is a general provision of our law that when an Act of Parliament says penal servitude may be the punishment, then, unless the Act of Parliament makes an express provision to the contrary, the alternative of imprisonment with hard labour or the imposition of a fine is always open to the Court. No doubt, therefore, the way in which it will work out will be that these smaller punishments will always remain in proper cases, but I wish it could be made a little plainer in the actual Section, because I share the fear of my right hon. Friend. If it gets into the heads of a jury that anybody who is convicted under this Act can never get less than three years' penal servitude, there will be the same sort of impression made upon them as every practising barrister knows is sometimes made upon a jury who feel that if a person is convicted of murder he must be hanged. It would be quite a mistake to suppose that is the real effect of this Section, but I would invite the Home Secretary between now and the Report stage to consider whether he could not pass his Clause in a form which would show to everybody, and not only to lawyers who happen to know the Penal Servitude Act of 1891, that is not the effect of it. It is not that anyone is in the least unwilling to see severe penalties provided for what is a dreadful offence, but it is contrary to all notions of good jurisprudence to say that once a man is convicted there is a minimum sentence

  1865
  below which the Court cannot go. We do that now in the single case of murder in order to relieve what otherwise would be a most terrible responsibility upon the judge or the jury, but we have never done it in any other case.
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am disposed to agree with my right hon. Friend that the Clause as drafted is open to misunderstanding by the lay mind, although the lawyer no doubt will fully understand that the three years' penal servitude is not the minimum punishment. No doubt in any case which came into Court that would be made quite plain to the jury. Between now and the Report stage, however, I shall be glad to consider whether I cannot put on the face of the Bill the fact that the penalties under the earlier Acts are preserved and maintained in this Act, and I shall be pleased, too, to consider the alternative form of Amendment which my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Spicer) adumbrated in his remarks just now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I beg to move to leave out the word "Section'' ["Provided that nothing in this Section"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Sub-section."
  I have an Amendment further down on the Paper adding a second Sub-section to the first Clause, and hence the necessity for this alteration. At the present time offences can be summarily dealt with under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1891, and there seems to be no such difference between the classes of offences as would justify a distinction being drawn in connection with those coming under this Act. The Court of Summary Jurisdiction has certain powers, which are dealt with under Sub-sections (a) and (b) of my proposed Sub-section, and it does seem to me that offences of this sort might wisely and rightly be dealt with in a Summary Court of Jurisdiction under this Bill. The object of my proposal is to make this Act more operative and more easily brought into use in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith): The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was considered in connection with these offences, and there is a power to proceed in this matter summarily Under the earlier Acts. It was thought, not unreasonably, that that power which exists of dealing with these matters summarily under the earlier Acts really
  1866
  afforded all the conveniences of summary procedure in ordinary cases when it was desirable it should be adopted. I should have thought it was not necessary in the case of this Bill to deal with that particular matter. If my hon. and gallant Friend will agree not to press this matter at present, I will have the point further considered.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: In view of that promise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir F. SMITH: I beg to move to leave out the words "last-mentioned Act," and to insert instead thereof the words "above-mentioned Acts."
  This is purely a drafting Amendment, the object- of which will, I think, be apparent to the House at once. If the Committee will look at the Clause it will find the words:
  "Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent the infliction in addition to penal servitude of such punishment as under the last-mentioned Act may be inflicted in addition to imprisonment."
  But it has been pointed out there might be some confusion, in consequence of the way in which Section 1 was drafted, whether it would be possible under this Bill to do what was possible under earlier Acts, namely, in cases where it might seem reasonable and desirable to impose a fine in addition to imprisonment. I think, on the whole, that apprehension was well founded. It is, the Committee will see, quite reasonable to maintain that power, as there may be cases where the accused may actually have in his pocket at the time thousands of pounds as the result of his corruption. Hence this proposal.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
  Words proposed there added.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the following Sub-section:
  (2) A person may be summarily convicted of an offence under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, and if so convicted shall be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine.
  Provided that nothing in this Subsection,—

  (a) shall authorise a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to deal with an offender under paragraphs (b), (c), (d), or (e) of Section 2 of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889; or

  (b) shall be construed as taking away or diminishing any liability which would have been incurred if this Sub-section had not been enacted, so however that no person be twice punished for the same offence.

  Clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end, insert,
  (2) In Sub-section (]) of Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, for the words "four months" and for the words "fifty pounds" there shall be .substituted the words "six months" and the words "one hundred pounds," respectively.
  I am anxious to increase the penalty which it is possible to inflict in cases such as these in a Court of summary jurisdiction. At present the maximum term of imprisonment is four months, and the maximum fine £50, and it does seem to me it might be practicable to give the Court of summary jurisdiction slightly extended powers. I see no reason whatever why the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction should not be six months, and the maximum fine £100, and, therefore, I beg to move this new Sub-section.
  Sir F. SMITH: My hon. and gallant Friend has struck a point which engaged the attention of those who were concerned in the drafting of this Bill, and I can assure him that the matter was very carefully considered. Among other matters, we discussed whether the period of imprisonment, or the amount of the pecuniary penalty, should be increased. On the whole, we came to the conclusion, which I think is well founded, to adhere to the provisions embodied in this Bill, and in this, I think, we shall carry the Committee with us. These offences are in all cases, of course, morally very grave offences, and the number of cases dealt with in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction is not likely to be very large. Indeed, I feel sure the general sense of the moral element being present in these cases will have a good effect, and that being so, I think the Committee, on the whole, will see that where the offence is serious enough to justify a
  1868
  fine of £100, or imprisonment for six months, it should not be dealt with in a Court of summary jurisdiction.
  Mr. LOUGH: I hope the Government will stick to their decision and not alter-the penalties contained in the Bill. We-may err on the side of being too severe, and thereby defeat the ends we have in view.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: We have a maximum penalty. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."—[Sir F. Smith.]
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I desire to ask the-Attorney-General as to a point which was raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, and that is in regard to the use of the Attorney General's fiat in these cases.
  Sir F. SMITH: There is an Amendment down on the Paper later dealing with that very point.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Resumption of Corruption in Certain Gases.)
  Where in any proceedings against a person for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, or the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, it is proved that any money or other consideration has been paid to or received by a person in the employment of His Majesty or any Government Department or a public body by or from a contractor, or agent of a contractor, holding a contract from His Majesty or any Government Department or public body, the money or consideration shall be deemed to have been paid or given and received corruptly as such inducement or reward as is mentioned in such Act unless the contrary is proved.
  Amendments made: After the word "money" ["proved that any money"] insert the word "gift."
  After the word "paid" ["consideration has been paid"] insert the words "or given."—[Commander Wedgwood.]
  Captain Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: I beg to move, after the words " public body" ["Government Department or a public body"] to insert the words "or public company."

  1869
  This is a very excellent Bill, but I think that the protection which it gives to Government Departments and public bodies it is very desirable to extend to public companies. If the Attorney-General cannot see his way to agree to this Amendment to-day, perhaps between now and the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether it is not possible to make this extension.
  Mr. BOOTH: On a point of Order. Are we to understand that in a Bill of this kind—a war emergency measure—we can introduce a large amendment of company law? I would venture to ask whether this Amendment does not extend the Bill quite beyond its title, and beyond the scope mentioned on the Second Reading? I am not averse to amendments of the company law, but I would like to point out that if this Amendment is agreed to there are many other matters which will also require amending under this Bill.
  Sir C. HENRY: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if this is really a War Emergency Bill? Perhaps he will state that when he is answering the question of my hon. Friend.
  The CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General cannot answer a point of Order. That is a matter for the Chair. But on the point of Order I confess I do not appreciate the point of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). This is a Bill for the prevention of corruption, and it does not appear to be limited in its title or scope. I do not read that the Amendment handed in by the hon. Gentleman is an amendment of the Companies Act. It deals with a particular crime.
  Mr. BOOTH: I wish to ask whether this Amendment can be admitted without also admitting a number of consequential Amendments. If we are going .to bring in private bodies in this manner, I submit we should want a much more comprehensive Clause dealing with the whole question; otherwise these words as proposed to be inserted will really not be effective. We shall want, in fact, a new Clause dealing with the whole question.
  The CHAIRMAN: That may be sound argument, but it does not affect the point of Order.
  Sir F. SMITH: The ruling from the Chair upon the point of Order is, if I may respectfully say so, unanswerable. This is a Bill to amend the law relating to the
  1870
  prevention of corruption. The hon. Member below the Gangway was no doubt on firm ground when he pointed out the difficulty of asking the House to accept this Amendment at such short notice and with such rapidity. In answer to the question whether this is a War Emergency Bill, I have to say the justification for the Bill at this moment is the fact that immense contracts are being made on all sides in Government matters, and it was thought right the Government should ask the House to support it in giving effect to a suggestion made by the learned judge who tried a recent case involving charges of corruption. In that respect, therefore, the Bill is a war Bill. But when I approach the Amendment I must point out that it is not a very convenient practice thus to bring forward an Amendment of such very considerable importance which does not appear on the Paper and which was handed in in manuscript form under such circumstances, that neither I nor my right hon. Friend near me knew what the hon. Gentleman opposite was going to propose when he rose. I quite understand why he has not been able to give more adequate notice of the Amendment and has not had an opportunity of putting it upon the Paper. The objection to accepting the Amendment, which I am sure he will see as readily as anyone else, is that, although this is not in a strict sense a War measure, it is emergency legislation, and has to be justified by the conditions of the emergency which have eivpn rise to it. It may well be that it would be an advantage if the law of corruption were strengthened in its application to public companies. I could not consider that' point without further examination of the relevant circumstances. But another hon. Member might easily rise in. his place and say "Include private companies." It may be that that is right, but the Government could not ask the Committee, and the Committee could not expect the Government to legislate on that scale with only this degree of preparation. I am quite sure I am not asking the Committee to do an unreasonable thing in assenting to these proposals, but it would certainly require much more consideration and a wider survey of the whole field before we could ask the Committee to go further.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Sir ALBERT SPICER: I beg to move to leave out the word "contractor" ["by

  1871
  or from a contractor"], and to insert instead thereof the word "person." This is to make the Clause apply to a person before he has got a contract, and is necessary because he is not then a contractor.
  Sir F. SMITH: I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: Leave out the word "contractor" ["or agent of a contractor"], and insert instead thereof the word "person."
  Sir A. SPICER: I beg to move after the word "holding" ["or agent of a contractor holding a contract"], to insert the words "or seeking to obtain."
  Sir F. SMITH: We accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, the object of which is to provide that the Bill shall apply not only to a person who actually holds a contract, but to a person who practises corruption in the process of obtaining it.
  Mr. BOOTH: I think that these words are an improvement on the Bill, but I would ask the Attorney-General whether he would not include a man who is seeking to obtain an interest in a contract. It very often happens that a man is not merely seeking to hold either nominally or first hand, but is seeking himself to get an interest in it before the contract is through. It may be of far more importance to that man that he should bribe than it would be to the man who actually holds the contract. Any man seeking to hold a contract, or seeking to obtain an interest in the execution of the contract who practises corruption should be liable to the penalty.
  Sir F. SMITH: I am not at all sure that such a case would not amount to a subcontract I am sure my hon. Friend will not think me unreasonable when I say that I would rather not accept that without consideration.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Will you consider it before the Report stage?
  Sir F. SMITH: Certainly.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: After the word "money" ["the money or consideration shall be deemed"], to insert the word "gift. "— [Commander Wedgwood.]
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Short Title and Interpretation.)
  (1) This Act may be cited as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, and the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, and this Act may be cited together as the Prevention of Corruption Acts, 1906 and 1916.
  (2) In this Act the expression "public body" has the same meaning as in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889.
  Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after "1889," insert the word "the." In Sub-section (2), after the word "Act" ["in this Act"], insert the following words: "(a) the expression 'consideration ' has the same meaning as in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906; and (b) ".—[Commander Wedgwood.]
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2) to add the following new Sub-section:
  (3) Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, shall in its application to Scotland be read and construed as if a town council, a parish council, a school board, and a district committee were specified in addition to the councils named therein.
  Apparently in the Act of 1906 the councils which were specified in that Sub-section were not translated in their application to Scotland. That was an oversight in regard to that Act, and I think it ought to be remedied now. I would apologise to the Committee for not having put this Amendment on the Paper, but the House rose early last night and I was unable to do so. It is a purely drafting Amendment.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: I do not oppose this Amendment now, but I wish to enter my protest against its not being upon the Paper, although I heard what the Lord Advocate said about that. This is a very important Bill, and now that it is going to be applied to Scotland it is really, due to the Committee that we ought not to pass this Bill until we see the Amendments on the Paper and have time to consider them. I hope, therefore, that there will be an interval between the Committee and the Report stages, so that we may see what the Amendments of the right hon.

  1873
  Gentleman really mean. I should like to ask him is it intended that in Scotland only the Lord Advocate can authorise a prosecution?
  Mr. MUNRO: Certainly.
  Amendment agreed to:
  Question, " That the Clause, as Amended, stand part of the Bill " put, and agreed to.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Application of 6 Edw. 7, c. 34, s. 2 (1).)
  When proceedings are taken against -any person for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, other than the offences referred to in Section one, the provisions contained in Subsection (1) of Section two of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, shall not apply.—[Sir A. Spicer.]
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Sir A. SPICER: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I am sure that the House the day before yesterday heard with interest the statement which the Attorney-General made with regard to the obligation to obtain the fiat of the Law Officers of the Crown before a prosecution can be instituted. We may well believe that the duty imposed upon the Attorney-General involves no inconsiderable addition to his labours, especially at such a time as this. The labour would be still greater if the prediction of Lord Halsbury, in another place, had been fulfilled, namely, that he did not suppose that any Attorney-General would give his fiat for a prosecution without seeing the parties. The right hon. Gentleman remarked that
  "in many similar cases the law has said the fiat should be necessary."
  In reply to that Sir Edward Fry, formerly Lord Justice, who drafted the original Prevention of Corruption Bill, in stating objections to the fiat, said:
  "The provision is one which is, I believe, previously entirely unknown to our law, with the single exception of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, but there the condition may possibly be justified on the ground that in the case of public bodies the representative of the Crown, i.e., of the public, is the proper authority to intervene, whereas under the Act of 1906 private as well as public wrongs are dealt with."
  This, I am informed, is substantially correct. There may have been some point, when bribery was first made a crime, in having the fiat as a check, but the Prevention of Corruption Act is now ten years
  1874
  old, and the law is well known if it is not well observed. That Act has done an immense deal of good in commercial circles, and it is a warning note to which a great many have listened. At first the bankers were in favour of the fiat, as a preventive against blackmail—though why there should be more blackmail in this connection than in any other it is difficult to imagine—but afterwards the bankers' spokesman, the late Lord Avebury, said they were anxious that the fiat should be removed. He said:
  "Experience has shown that the fiat is quite unnecessary. The real supporters of the Act have always been of this opinion."
  On this matter of blackmail, Lord James of Hereford said the fiat would be one of the greatest instruments in the hands of the blackmailer, while Lord Loreburn, when a Member of this House, said that his objection to the fiat being required was that, having held the office of Attorney-General, he knew how slight was the opportunity of the Attorney-General to inquire himself into these matters. He objected to the fiat because, he said, it was
  "an ineffective bar against the hideous crime of blackmail."
  Lord Alverstone, who introduced the Prevention of Corruption Bill after Lord Russells death, was always as strong an opponent of the fiat as Lord Russell himself. Only a few days ago, Sir Walter Phillimore, speaking in the City, as an old King's Bench judge, said:
  "They should get rid of the fiat by all means. It was, after all, a preliminary trial, which made three or four trials altogether—the trial before the Attorney-General's fiat could be obtained, then before the magistrate, then before the grand jury, and finally before the judge and jury—which all meant unnecessary delay and expense and increased chances of escaping from justice."
  If the Committee accepts this Clause, it will not affect cases in which the Government or public bodies are concerned, and for the rest it may be pointed out that a summons could still only be granted by a magistrate on a sworn information. There is no doubt that at present when an application is made for a summons the magistrate often does not take any responsibility in view of the fact that the Attorney-General's fiat has been granted In the case of a serious offence, the matter comes before the magistrate on a sworn information; then if he commits, before a grand jury and a petty jury; then an appeal may lie to the Court of Criminal Appeal; and lastly, proceedings may be instituted for malicious prosecution under the Vexatious Indictments Act. That is ample

  1875
  protection. The Attorney-General has said that he submits himself entirely to the judgment of the House. It is not necessary for me to say that there is nothing personal in this matter. It is purely a question of principle. This very point has twice been considered by Committees of this House, and on both occassions the Committees passed resolutions against the retention of the fiat. I ask the Committee to agree to my proposal, which has been most carefully considered by those who have had large experience of the crime of bribery, so that the law may be made more operative.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the Attorney-General tell us how many times he has used this prerogative during the time the Bill has been in force?
  Sir F. E. SMITH: I cannot say at the moment, but I can give the information later.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I think the new Clause is a very good one, and I hope the Attorney-General will accept it. I am not a lawyer, but I do not know that the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend (Commander Wedgwood) is necessary, as I gather that this new Clause ' would apply to the Bill. I gather that the Amendment was put down under the impression that the new Clause would only operate under the Act of 1906, but, as I understand it, this Bill is merely an extension of the Act of 1906, and therefore any alteration of that Act applies to this Bill. It is a legal point. If the Government is going to accept the new Clause, perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us whether that is so or not.
  Mr. BOOTH: I entirely sympathise with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench, but I am afraid he has a great deal too much faith in Acts of Parliament and the bits of paper we pass here.
  Sir F. BANBURY: No, I have not.
  Mr. BOOTH: I meant the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Spicer). You will never put down this corruption unless by a united spirit amongst business people. It cannot be done by passing Clauses. That would only drive it underground. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the passing of the previous Bill had effected a great reform—a great change. It has only been a change of method. You
  1876
  cannot, unless there is a willing spirit amongst business people, profit very much by mere legislation. I do not say that because I want the Bill to be defeated. I should like it to have its chance, but I have pointed out again and again, and I challenge anyone to say that facts and experience are not behind it, we have-passed things here time after time and think we have effected a reform, but we have done nothing of the kind. I do not know how many Bills of this kind there are. This will be one more. You want a different spirit. I will give a case by way of illustration. I bring a thing up before the House where a large commission is. being given for, let us say, a timber contract. I do not get any support. Hon. Members who are loyal supporters of the Government say, " Why do you raise this thing? Let it be raised by the Conservatives. There is a Liberal Government in power." They come to me by the dozen. They do not want to annoy their own leaders, and when that is the disposition of so many Members I have no faith at all in the legislation that is passed. I do not think it makes any difference really whether this is in or not with regard to the amount of good it will do. I do not understand why, if anyone has a good case, he should fear to go before the Attorney-General. Why are they afraid to go before the Attorney-General? I have always thought that if a man had a really good, glaring case he would be glad to take it before the Department, and the more people you put him before the better, if he really thinks it is a genuine case of corruption. That was my feeling when I was exposing a thing or two here. The more members of Departments you send me to, as long as I am sure of the facts, the more vigorous will be my action. I cannot quite see why people should shirk going before the Attorney-General. I can understand his saying, "I am already overworked and underpaid," or something of that kind, but unless the Attorney-General assures the House that he has not time to attend to these matters and would prefer to be relieved of them, I really cannot see why anyone with a genuine case cannot take the trouble to go before the Department.
  Sir F. SMITH: I hope I made it clear in the Second Beading of the Bill that this-was not a case in which the Attorney-General was anxious to figure before the House as one who wanted to maintain any privilege, but equally I am anxious that

  1877
  the few observations I made then should not be misconstrued as meaning that I was not perfectly willing, if it was the desire of the Committee, to continue to discharge the functions which my predecessors up to the present in this matter have discharged. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Spicer) spoke of the opinion of numbers of distinguished and more or less experienced persons as to the fiat of the Attorney-General. He quoted Lord Halsbury to the effect that he could not conceive of any Attorney-General ever being inspired without seeing the parties. No one has a more profound respect for my Noble Friend and for his thoroughness than I have, but I doubt whether Lord Halsbury would ever have made this observation if he had not been elevated straight from the position of Solicitor-General to the Woolsack. If he had ever had the fortune to discharge the duties of Attorney-General I doubt whether he would have indicated this view with so much confidence. If it was worth while taking up the time of the Committee I could certainly show that while it is no doubt true that there are many persons who have not had experience of the work of the Law Officers Department, and a few who have, who have taken the view that the fiat of the Attorney-General is not on the whole worth retaining, at least an equal number of persons with just as much experience of the working of the Law Officers' Department have taken quite a different view. The matter really is in a very small compass. Neither the Government nor myself hold particularly strong views upon the matter, and if there were a general feeling on the part of the Committee that practical advantage would follow from an alteration in the law of this kind I do not think the Government would resist that view. But I am bound to point out that I cannot myself take the responsibility of giving the Committee that advice. I do not feel strongly, but I should not advise the Committee to take this course, and certainly I should not advise them to do it when we are admittedly passing legislation of the character of this measure. That of itself furnishes very considerable objection to modifying the existing law.
  But on the merits of the proposal, as I understand the effect of it—the drafting is a little obscure—it would be that in places where corruption takes place, or is alleged to take place, in relation to a public contract the fiat of the Attorney-General shall still survive, but that in ordinary private
  1878
  contracts the fiat of the. Attorney-General shall disappear. I do not really think my right hon. Friend has-fully thought out the consequences, of this new Clause, because the view which I should press upon the Committee would be quite the contrary. If it were wise in any case to interfere with the fiat of the Attorney-General the case in which it will be safer to curtail its exercise would be the case of public contracts. In the case of public contracts you have at least this guarantee, that the head of some Department, or some responsible official in the Department, has considered the matter, and if it be an important matter the Attorney-General has already advised upon it, and either the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, as representing him, have sanctioned a prosecution. Therefore 'there would be something to be said in the case-of a prosecution for corruption in reference to a public contract, fordoing away with the fiat of the Attorney-General. There is nothing at all to be said in the case of a private prosecution for doing away with the fiat. I will give the Committee a little experience I had. It might interest them, especially having-regard to the expression of opinion attributed to Lord Halsbury, if I tell them exactly how a fiat comes into-force. I do not pretend to read it or to-examine into the facts with the same care that a magistrate would do if he were trying the issue. What I do is this: I read very carefully indeed the statement of the evidence upon which it is desired to found a prosecution, and in every case where a matter is presented to me for my fiat it is necessary that a short statement should be made of the facts of the case and a complete and accurate summary of the evidence relying upon which it is proposed to-establish those facts. If, after reading a matter which is put before me, I come to-the conclusion that there is there a case which demands inquiry and which may reasonably toe made the subject of investigation, I grant my fiat. I think in two cases—I speak from memory—I was convinced that even on the materials put before me at the instance of those who-desired to prosecute there was not material, upon which it would be fair to expose any person to the inconvenience and the stigma. of being brought before a Police Court. That, I suppose, would be true out of, I dare say, many hundreds of cases. In no others, so far as I know, have I inter

  1879
  vened. I have said I do not feel very strongly about it, but I think the Committee would wish me to point out that both the Director and the Assistant-Director of Public Prosecutions, two gentlemen of immense experience of criminal matters, are far more strongly averse than I am from any alteration in the law. Of course, Attorney-Generals come and go, "but these permanent gentlemen last for very much longer and accumulate in a matter of this kind very much larger stores of experience than any individual bolder of the office of Law Officer, and the Committee ought to be in possession of their views before it comes to a decision.
  5.0.P.M.
  Further, this is a class of offence in regard to which I do not think the Committee would reasonably say any additional security ought lightly to be waived aside. Let me give an illustration of how these matters generally arise in practice. If a man wants to give an irregular or corrupt inducement to a contractor, the Committee will not be surprised to discover that he very seldom reduces the matter into writing. He thinks very often it might be made a possible subject of documentary evidence against him, and the way these things happen is very remarkable. In the first place, the offer— the Bill deals with an offer—is almost invariably, for the reason I have indicated, made verbally. In the second place, as the Committee will infer from their knowledge of human nature, if not from their? experience, the person who makes this offer is very seldom ambitious of an audience, and it usually therefore happens that an offer of this kind is made by a person who comes into a shop or an office and, selecting the moment when there is no one there at all, says to the person whom he desires to corrupt, " This will be £10 for you, or £1,000 for you," and the matter generally comes forward as being a case simply of one statement against another. Observe the serious consequences which may follow in a case, for instance, where one discovers from another source, or has established, that there has been some? quarrel between these two persons. You can go to a magistrate and obtain a summons without any sworn statement at all, and the result is that in a case which really may not be a proper subject of prosecution at all, because there is no evidence on which any jury or magistrate would reasonably convict, where it is merely a case of statement against state-
  1880
  ment, a man may be compelled to go before a magistrate. He makes his first appearance; there is a remand; it is reported in the Press, possibly in the London Press, very probably in the local Press if it is a provincial case, and it may take many days before the matter is disposed of, and even when a matter of that kind is disposed of some degreee of unpleasantness is not unlikely to survive. I do not pretend—and I should be very sorry to be misunderstood—to be able to say that there are a very 5.0 P.M. great number of cases in which this fiat is likely to be used. I do not say that it is likely to prevent the kind of hardship I have indicated, but I do say this, that I am aware of no single case in which anyone has ever been able to show that the existence of the fiat has in any way interfered with the course of justice, and I am quite sure that there are some, perhaps not many, cases in which the fiat has served to protect an innocent man from an undeserved stigma. Under these circumstances, and having now held the office of Chief Law Officer of the Crown for fifteen months, I would respectfully offer my advice to the Committee, that it would be inadvisable to introduce an Amendment of this kind in this 'Bill, which is an emergency Bill and does not pretend to examine into the whole situation.
  Sir A. SPICER:I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Application.)
  This Act shall not apply where proceedings have been instituted before the passing of this Act.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The object of this new Clause is that a man who is now being prosecuted should not, under this Act, have put upon him the risk of penalties which he did not incur when the prosecution was started. It is a small matter, but I think it is in the interests of justice that a man who has been indicted should not during the process of the trial find that the penalties are largely increased against him.
  Sir F. SMITH: I am unable to follow the reasoning of my hon. and gallant Friend which has led him to put down this new

  1881
  Clause. I can quite understand that it would be perfectly easy to say that you must not make a man liable to a penal offence which was not a penal offence before the prosecution was instituted, but I really cannot see by what process of reasoning my hon. and gallant Friend is led to the conclusion that where there is a criminal offence, and the man has been guilty of that criminal offence, the Legislature may not modify the punishment. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I beg leave to withdraw.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 6 Edw. 7, c. 34, s. 2 (5).)
  The words "In England" shall be inserted at the beginning of Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Ireland has her own separate law as to the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions. Unless the Government are prepared to accept this New Clause, I do not propose to press it.
  Sir F. SMITHmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Then I do not press it.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Time for Taking Proceedings.)
  Notwithstanding anything in the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, instituted with a view to obtaining a summary conviction for an offence thereunder, may be commenced at any time before the expiration of six months after the first discovery of the offence by the prosecutor.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Sir A. SPICER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  I believe the Government will accept this new Clause. The justification for it is that it often happens that offences do
  1882
  not come to light for a long time after they have been committed, and consequently there has been inevitable delay in setting the law in motion, and six months or so have elapsed between making the application for the fiat and any decision being arrived at. Under these circumstances, the magistrate has no option but to dismiss the summons or commit the man for trial, however trivial the offence. This involves trial at the Assizes, and expense both to the prisoner and the country.
  Sir F. SMITH: I accept.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: I could scarcely hear the Clause read, and I should like to know what it means. From what date is the six months to run?
  Sir A. SPICER: After the first discovery of the offence.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: By whom?
  Sir A. SPICER: By the prosecutor.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: The Clause does not say so.
  Sir F. SMITH: Yes, it does. I may perhaps reassure my hon. and learned Friend if I say that the Clause in its present form is an adaptation of a suggested Amendment of my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Spicer), and of a similar Amendment suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend Commander Wedgwood). We did not feel disposed to accept the words of either Amendment as it stood, but we are prepared to accept the Clause in its present form. The change which is brought about by this new Clause is necessary.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I was much impressed with the speech of the Attorney-General with regard to the fiat, but I am rather upset with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Spicer) that six months have elapsed between an application to the Attorney-General for his fiat and the granting of the fiat. If the Committee had known that, they might have taken a different view of the Attorney-General's speech. Does it take six months to get the Attorney-General's fiat?
  Sir F. SMITH: I am unaware of that. During the time I have been a Law Officer I am unaware of any case in which it has taken more than a few days.
  Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY AND EXPORT OF PROHIBITED GOODS BILL.
Considered in Committee.

CLAUSE 1.—(Penalties for False Statements, etc.)
Mr. LOUGH: I do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in my name, to insert the word "knowingly" in regard to any person who makes a false statement, etc. I understand from my right hon. Friend (Lord R. Cecil) that the Government do not think that it is necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2 (Removal of Doubts as to 5 and 6 Geo. 5, c. 52, S. 2, and 39 and 40 Vict, c. 36, s. 286) and Clause 3 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Mr. BOOTH: Do we understand that this Bill is now quite effective for dealing with statements that are partially false? Statements are made very often which, if the man took more trouble, he would know they were wrong, but he turns a blind eye to them. I want to be sure that we get at these men. A manufacturer, for instance, may be sending two kinds of goods, and he does not wish to be informed whether these particular goods are of one category or another or going to one destination or another. He could find out, but he does not do so if he thinks it would lead to a good deal of trouble. I am anxious that we should get at the people who are liable, and I want to be sure that this Bill will get at the man who, while not actually making a false declaration, is wilfully closing his eyes -or ears to information and not satisfying himself.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): The statement is either true or false. There is no third category. That is to say, if it is not true then a penalty is imposed
"unless he proves that he had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the truth of the statements made or contained in any document so presented or
1884
produced or to satisfy himself of the genuineness of the guarantee certificate or undertaking."
Therefore, the moment the authorities have proved that the statement is false, it is for the person who made it to show that he has taken every possible and reasonable steps to ascertain the truth of the statements made.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

REGISTRATION OF BUSINESS NAMES [REMUNERATION].
Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the payment of remuneration in respect of duties performed under any Act of the present Session to provide for the registration of firms and persons carrying on business under business names."
Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

PROFESSOR ETHE.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Sir H. DALZIEL: I intimated at Question Time this afternoon that I would refer to a question which I put to-day in reference to the employment at the India Office of an unnaturalised German. I gave notice to the representative of the India Office that I intended to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. I want to enter my protest against any German having the facility of consulting the library at the India Office at the present time, more especially an unnaturalised German, a man who has lived many years in this country, but who has liked his own country so much that he has never thought it worth while to become a British subject, and such a man as Professor Ethé, who was in Germany on the very eve of the War. I think it is a very strong action for the Government to take

1885
to employ a person of this character and to pay him public money for the work he has to perform. Professor Ethé was employed at Aberstwyth and lived there for many years, but so strong was the public? opinion in regard to him that he was compelled to leave. I believe there has been a controversy as to whether he should be paid a pension or not, and I believe he is in the enjoyment of a British pension at the present time.
The Government are departing from the spirit of the legislation which we have passed in employing any German in any Government Department. Further, the Work which this man is doing is work that is by no means necessary during the War. He has already completed one volume of the catalogue. He has access to every book in connection with Persia that is at the India Office. I can quite understand that a German, who was in Germany on the eve of the War, and who, before he was there, had access to the India Office, and had been working for years on important Persian manuscripts, might, if inclined, be able to give very important information to the German Government. That in itself should be enough to prevent the Government from employing this unnaturalised German after he was compelled by public opinion to give up his position in Abersytwith. Further, the work which he is doing is of a secret character. He is getting facilities which ought not to be given to every Englishman. Is there no Britisher who could perform this task? This is not the time to pay British public money to a German in the heart of London, more especially having regard to the manner in which our people have been treated in Germany.
How many Britishers are employed in Government offices in Berlin? Why, within a few hours of the outbreak of the War, all Britishers, naturalised and unnaturalised, were put under control. We know the way they have treated our men in the camps, allowing them to die of disease, while some of the German doctors were such cowards that they would not even attend them, but kept a considerable distance from them. We know how our men have been starved in their prisons, and would have died but for the parcels which we have been able to send them. These are the statements of representatives of neutral countries. Yet at this time, when our men are giving up their lives to fight the Germans, the Government take in this
1886
unnaturalised German, and give him the cushions and easy chairs at the India Office. I do not suggest that he is there all the time, but he is paid public money which ought not to be paid, because the work which he is doing is not pressing at all, and there is no reason for the extreme cordiality which exists between the Government and this German professor. They trust each other so much that they have never discussed terms. He is working there under the India Government, and they are to give him an honorarium after his work is finished. I understand that he has already been paid for his first catalogue of Persian manuscripts in the India Office. I do not know whether my hon. Friend (Mr. C. Boberts), who is going to reply, can say how much he was paid for it, nor whether he can indicate what he is to be paid for the second catalogue. I say that every German in this country is a potential spy.
This man has been here very many years. The Government have repeated that often, so often that they seem to think the longer he is here the more virtuous he ought to be considered. He is a German at this moment, and if he is a man of any worth at all his sympathies will be with Germany. Is there any Britisher in Berlin who is not naturalised in Germany who would not do everything he could to help this country? Of course he would, and it is very base patriotism indeed if that is not the case with this professor. The result of all this—I use a phrase employed by Lord Courtenay last night—supreme human tenderness towards the Germans is that we have, what the people of this country cannot understand in a time of war with Germany, whole Departments honey-combed with German influence. Even after two years we cannot get one single German company wound up to completion. They are all going on. Somebody is drawing salaries, and German influence is still there. It is the same with the banks, and the same with everything else. Nothing is done. It is all talk. In my opinion the Government are driving our people almost to despair. They are beginning to distrust them The questions we have been asking them day after day, and the information which has been given, shows that there is no reality in the determination to kill German influence in this country. Sooner or later the country will make known their opinion.

1887
We are taking too great a risk in having any German employed in a Government Department at the present time. I say it not only with regard to this case, but with regard to others. I say, as a test of sincerity, that what the Prime Minister or anybody else would have done at the beginning of the War, if there was any reality in the desire to kill German influence, would have been to issue an order to every Department that every German, naturalised and unnaturalised, should be taken from that Department. I believe that the Government would never have done anything against German influence in this country but for the protests of public opinion. They were never going to intern Germans at all. A long time passed without anything being done, and it was only when windows were broken in the suburbs of London that they began to take notice. The temper of the people is rising against the Government. I cannot understand men standing by and seeing the youth of the country giving up their lives and the politicians sitting in Downing Street promoting Germans who are spying upon us. It is pure and sheer hypocrisy on the part of the Government to allow cases of this kind. I do not rest my case on this particular matter. There are many others quite as bad. I take this one as a sample, and I ask the Government, if they mean business, at once to dismiss this gentleman from the work on which he is employed at the present time. It is no good for my hon. Friend on behalf of the Government to get up and say that this is a perfectly innocent old gentleman, and therefore we must be kind to him. That will not do. I set my case on this. I object to paying public money to this dismissed professor because he is a German. I say further that the work which he is doing is no use, so far as winning the War is concerned, and that if it was of use there are any number of Britishers who would gladly do it. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to give me an assurance that this gentleman's connection with the India Office will be severed at once. If he is unable to do that, I ask him to be good enough to lay the whole facts before the Government with a view to a complete inquiry and prompt action.
Sir R. COOPER: After what the right hon. Member has said with regard to this particular case, I do not think that there
1888
is any need for me to enlarge upon it. I merely want to support him wholeheartedly and to express my firm conviction in reference to the manner in which the Government are dealing in the various Departments with the Germans and people of German sympathy who are here for the express purpose of helping the enemy and that if the Government will not change their policy at once the people of this country are not going to stand this sort of thing much longer. We are passing Acts through this House, and actions are taking place throughout the country, to punish people for trading with the enemy, and yet the Government are daily trading with the enemy in every one of their Departments. On many occasions I have expressed the conviction before the public that there are too many of these spies and enemies in Government Departments, and very often I have been ridiculed for making that statement. The public of this country for a very long time have felt inclined to retain confidence in the Coalition Government, and believed that it was utterly impossible for any Department of the State, and for any Minister responsible to any Department, to allow any shadow of doubt as to the character of the officials paid by that Department. But there has been already so many exposures that that is passing away. For my part—and I know that others are in the same position—I have got many more cases, and we are going to bring them out. We have got to bombard the Government with these cases until they take action. Meantime, I have great pleasure in supporting my right hon. Friend in the excellent service which he is rendering to the country at the present time, and in expressing the fervent hope that the Government will take this matter into consideration at once, and will take steps to find out who is and who is not in these Departments, and I trust that they will not strain the patience of the public for long so as to cause the necessity for serious action to be taken outside.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household): I must explain to the House that I only reply in the absence of the Secretary of State for India. He is engaged in very important work, and is unable to be here this evening, and he has asked me to give his explanation in regard to this particular set of circumstances. The House knows

1889
well that, although I occasionally assist his convenience by taking questions for him, I have no connection with the India Office now and no responsibility for its policy, and I can only therefore be the channel of communication on this occasion between the Secretary of State for India and the House. The Secretary of State regrets very sincerely that he cannot be here. He is engaged on very important work, and he asks me to express his apology. I need not say that I will represent to him, and he will no doubt read in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the statements which have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel) and the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper), but I have very little indeed to add to the facts which he gave in answer to a question this afternoon. It has been said that this case is not merely an individual case, but is a sample of the Government treatment of the Germans in this country. There again I am not responsible. That is a matter for which the Home Office ought to speak, and I am only, therefore, limited to giving, on behalf of the Secretary of State for India, the facts of this particular case. Personally, I am with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member that the Government are bound to do everything which will prevent any danger to the State from the presence of alien enemies in our midst. The whole question with which we have got to deal is whether this particular Gentleman is such a danger to the State that the existing transaction with the India Office should be at once cut, destroyed, and on that point I am quite ready to give the explanation which the India Office has to offer. This is the case of an old scholar who is over seventy years of age; I am not certain, but I think he is nearly seventy-five years of age. Since the year 1872 he has been engaged in compiling a catalogue of these Persian manuscripts, which are in the library of the India Office. Of course, it has not been full-time work.
Earl WINTERTON: What did he do prior to 1872 in the German War?
Mr. ROBERTS: I have no information on that matter.
Earl WINTERTON: Can you not find out?
Mr. ROBERTS: Very likely he was of an age when he had no option in the
1890
matter. He has been engaged in this work on the catalogues for a number of years, and he completed the first volume in 1901, and for that he has received payment. Since 1901 he has been engaged at intervals in completing the second volume. My right hon. Friend is under a misconception as to this work. It is not done at the India Office.
Sir H. DALZIEL: At the library.
Mr. ROBERTS: I am informed that he does not work in the India Office library; these manuscrips are sent to him at his home to deal with. Therefore, if it be alleged that by the study of Persian manuscripts he could in some way gather information, which he would be in a position to communicate to the enemy, on the modern politics of Persia, I think it will be seen there must be some misconception on the matter.
Sir R. COOPER: He is brought into connection with officials.
Mr. BOOTH: He meets more officials than we do.
Mr. ROBERTS: The Secretary of State instructs me to say that, of course, if this had been a new piece of work, he would not think of employing a German at this moment. But here is a piece of work which has been going on since the year 1901, and this old scholar has the threads of the catalogue in his hands.
Earl WINTERTON: And other threads!
Sir H. DALZIEL: What is a German brought in for?
Mr. ROBERTS: That is a matter not for the India Office, but for the Foreign Office or the Home Office. It is true that he has been obliged to give up his professorship at the college in this country, and if he had retained that position perhaps hon. Members would have had a case. Here, however, is a piece of work which has been going on since 1901, and he is not being paid for it.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What is he doing it for then?
Mr. ROBERTS: I suppose when his work is completed he will be paid. The Home Office is perfectly aware that this work is being done. Their attention has been called to Professor Ethé more than once, and the only real question I have

1891
got to answer is as to this contract, supposing it is a contract. He will be eventually paid. [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman said he had been paid !"] I said he had not been paid yet. His first volume was paid for after thirty years of work. His second catalogue has gone on now for fifteen years, and he has not yet been paid. His case has been before the Home Secretary and the Home Office, and they are perfectly aware of his residence here, and if they thought it was a case which required further precautions, those precautions would be taken. It is for them to take the precautions.
Sir H. DALZIEL: And the India Office.
Mr. ROBERTS: The India Office sees no reason for altering this contract, and I do not think that I can add anything further at present. That is the explanation I have to give on behalf of the Secretary of State, except this, that the India Office will certainly be sorry to lose the result of this scholar's patient and laborious work for fifteen years. It is, of course, for Members to consider whether the circumstances of this transaction are felt to be such a danger to the State that the Secretary of State for India should be called upon instantly to intervene.
Sir F. BANBURY: I must confess that I never heard a lamer speech put forward by any Minister on that bench. The hon. Gentleman has really evaded the point at issue. The point is not whether this gentleman, seventy, or seventy-two, or seventy-five years of age, is or is not a danger to the country, but the point is that here is a German, not naturalised— I do not myself attach very much importance to naturalisation—
Mr. ROBERTS: It was the right lion. Member for Kirkcaldy who deliberately said that he was a danger, and it was on that basis he put the case to me.
Sir F. BANBURY: I did not understand that was the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy. What the right hon. Gentleman said was that he would be a poor man being a German if he did not sympathise with Germany, and that in all probability this man's sympathies were with Germany. The right hon. Gentleman went further, and stated the very simple fact that he is a German unnaturalised, and that it is not our duty to employ a German. Why on
1892
earth should we employ a German even if the work were necessary? There is no case of an Englishman in Germany being employed by the Germans, or certainly not by any German government department. Here is a Government Department defending the employment of a German, and giving money to a German at the present moment. I do not wish to be unkind, and I am sure in this country we do not wish to treat the Germans in the way that Germans treat the English in their country. Yet here we have a Minister on the Crown who gets up to say, "Here is a nice old German, we will give him work that has nothing to do with war, but merely to catalogue certain books." It is work which ought to be deferred in the interests of economy, whether it is done by a German or anyone else. In this instance it is a perfect waste of money We are always being told it is wrong to dress ourselves extravagantly, or to do this, that or the other, but here you are-wasting money in preparing a book, and what is more you are paying a German to do it.
I confess that I have taken a line somewhat different from this when people have said to me, "You do not attack the Government upon the question of their consideration for the Germans."—I have always rather taken the line that perhaps the Government were a little hardly used, and that statements were a little exaggerated, as to my mind they were occasionally; but when I hear a statement like this of a German actually being employed in the India Office, and that he is being defended—never mind where he is employed, whether at the library or at his own house—then I say that no German should be employed in any way. This German is not going to be paid until after the work is completed, but I for one say that he ought not to be paid at all, that the work ought not to be given to him, and he ought to be told not to come any more. I am sure the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. Leif Jones) does not defend this, and I really hope that this will be a warning to the Government, and that the next time the right hon. Gentleman is asked this question, as I hope he will be asked, whether this gentleman is still employed by the Government, the answer will be "No." If that should not be the answer, then I trust hon. Members behind me and opposite will again get up and say that this man ought no longer to be employed.
Sir J. D. REES: I do not defend the employment of a German, and I would rather a German was not employed upon this cataloguing of Persian manuscripts. Notwithstanding, I think the House should realise that this work is not being done in the India Office at all. The records of the India Office are not kept in the Library at the India Office.
Mr. ROBERTS: This work is not done in the Library at all. The manuscripts which are catalogued are sent to him. He does not go into the India Office or the Library.
Sir J. D. REES: That is a further step in defence of the case, and, while I say that it would have been better if a German had not been employed, the fact is that though he is employed in this way, his work is not, as has been represented, done in the India Office, and he has no access whatever to the India Office records.
Mr. BOOTH: As I understand the defence of this case, it is that he is harmless and incapable of anything, and, secondly, that he is doing work that a Britisher could not do. You will not wait until the War is over. You are paying this man, and saying that he is the only man who can do the work. People naturally ask, "Why does the Government employ him?" I warned the late Liberal Government when the question of contracts was under discussion that if they did not take determined action with regard to those contracts, and the loose way in which the business of the country was being conducted, there would be a downfall, and we should have a coalition or a united Government. Several months after I told them that a change came about. Similarly, in regard to this matter, I warn the Government that, unless action is taken, there will be another appeal to them on this question, about which there is a great deal of feeling. Some of us who travel the country know how deep that feeling is. We hear this matter spoken of in railway trains; we hear it spoken of among commercial men, and among working men by the hundreds and thousands. The majority of the people are convinced that there are a number of pro-Germans in the Government. Every day of my life I hear this talked about, and some think that there are sitting on that Bench those who are really traitors to their country. And this is not a view held by ignorant people, but even by intelligent people.
1894
They deal with the Home Office, and with officials by name, and ask my personal assurance that they are not in the pay of Germany. In fact, this feeling is growing, and the Government have only themselves to blame for it.
There is no doubt as to this, that they are far too tender with the Germans in every Government Department. What happens? Directly you try to oust a bit of German influence in this country, and come in touch with the Government Department, that Government Department is against you. Whether it is a private firm, whether it is a question of policy, or whether it is a class of people, directly you seek to rid the country of German influence your adversary is the Government Department. Why should that be? I really pity my hon. Friend having to come here to defend such a ridiculous case as this. What is the use of telling me that Persian manuscripts are sent to this man? If anything, it is a great deal more generous to go to his house privately, because the German spy would like German officials working in their private houses instead of having to go to the Government Department. This is a simple case which concerns one individual, but it is one of those things for which the Government have no excuse. I want to appeal to the Government on this subject. This is no time for such questions as these. Every one of us are affected by this War. I have a relative, I believe left for dead, or whom I may never see again. Nearly all of us have members of our families who are fighting for their country. Is it to be thought that the Government should come forward and say that we are employing one of these hateful Germans? This man is unnaturalised, he is of German nationality, and his sympathies must be with his country. On the ground that he is a man of historical learning, he has been kept at this work before the War and since the War, and up to the present time. What does that mean? The thing is abominable. If the man is a sincere lover of Germany one can respect him, misplaced as he is, more than if he is hypocritical enough to deceive people on the Treasury Bench. Surely we would respect him all the more if he said he was a born German, a German citizen, and that nothing would change him and that he wanted his country to win, and not to have the Government pretending that they were pals of his. The hon. Member was once at the

1895
India Office; I do not know whether he accepted this man. He may have come into touch with him.
Mr. ROBERTS: I never heard this man's name until this evening, when the Secretary of State for India asked me to convey this information to the House
Mr. BOOTH: The whole thing has been so secret that it has actually been kept a secret from the hon. Member. If that is the way Government Departments are conducted, and if those we rely on do not know the Germans who are going in and out, what are we coming to? Possibly the present Under-Secretary for India does not know anything either of this man or his work. I do appeal to the Government to end all this kind of contemptible arid farcical treatment of the alien question. What is there disgraceful in the Government after two years of war, and after all these terrible events on the part of the Germans, in saying that at any rate from this time forward there will be no German employed in any Government Department? Why can they not say it? Take ordinary Members of Parliament, what chance should we have of a re-election if we had to go back and say that two years after the War began we had got Germans, even of seventy-five, coming in and out and looking after our manuscripts and calling in our Library? I venture to say Ave must apply the same rule to the Government that would be applied to us. What is the meaning of it all? I notice in a newspaper to-day, which is supposed to be a faithful, loyal organ of the Government, writing in reference to this question of the treatment of enemy aliens, says surely no Member of the House thinks there is some subtle influence acting on behalf of the Germans !
An HON. MEMBER: I do!
Mr. BOOTH: I do too. I not only believe it, but I know it. Let the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Leif Jones) devote a little of those energies which he devotes to abolishing the beer barrel to abolishing the Germans.
Mr. L. JONESmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
Mr. BOOTH: Let the hon. Gentleman devote some of his great enthusiasm which he applies to the drink question to the question of aliens, and if he does he will find that what I am telling him is
1896
correct, and that there is some secret influence in the Government ranks somewhere which paralyses the Government in dealing with this question. Whether you are abolishing enemy firms, or dealing with internment, or with the employment of Germans, or people under German influence, the Government is not satisfactory and has not got a clean record. I was very glad to hear what the hon. Baronet opposite said. It we want a small measure of reform of any kind it takes two years to move the Government, and then they come down and say, "The thing is really essential; we cannot win the War without it, and we want it passed in a few hours." That is the record of the Government; but I say that they must hurry up in these matters, and particularly in this matter of dealing with the Germans. The public is disgusted on the-question, and the commercial community in the City of London shows much resentment. It will not do to say that a man is aged seventy-five, or that he is very busy upon manuscripts. The demand is made upon them, "Have you cleared out of every Government Department every alien who is belonging to those who are murdering our own kith and kin in this terrible War? Have you got rid of them? If not, we will get rid of you."

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, IRELAND.

  EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE.
  Mr. BOLAND: I desire to bring to the notice of the House the action of an irresponsible Board in Ireland, the Intermediate Education Board, which has-control of what in this country is called secondary education. This Board a few months ago tried to effect a complete change in the system of dealing with experimental science. For the past fifteen years, in our secondary schools in Ireland, a system of inspection has been carried on by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland with excellent results. Now the Intermediate Education Board has brought in a rule superimposing on the system of inspection a system of written examination. The actual rule in its amended form now reads as follows:
  "To pass in experimental science, a student must obtain not less than 3D per cent, on the pass paper, or 25 per cent, on the honour paper, in the course or courses of instruction in which he presents himself, and must be certified by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland to have; fulfilled the following conditions."

  1897
  The conditions are then set out. I wish to lay stress upon the fact that for fifteen years a system of inspection has been in operation, while the Intermediate Board has now introduced the rule I have quoted without taking the advice, or entering into consultation with a single educational body in Ireland. It neither consulted the headmasters of the secondary schools nor did it consult the teachers who have carried out the system of science instruction, nor did it consult the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction which has hitherto carried on the inspection and which has the granting of the money for carrying out this system of science instruction. Here we have an example of one irresponsible Board in Ireland suddenly bringing in a rule, and not consulting another Department of the Government in Ireland, namely, the Department of Agriculture, which has the system of inspection, and which is paying, all the fees. I ask, therefore, the Chief Secretary, who has not had many months experience of Irish Government, but who yet has to answer in this House for the actions of the Intermediate Board, in the first place, to publish the correspondence which has passed between the Intermediate Board and the Department of Agriculture on the subject of this new rule.
  There is a more important aspect of this question to which I wish to call attention. When, fifteen years ago, the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction was founded, and when the system of inspection for experimental science in secondary schools was instituted, an arrangement was made between these two bodies, the Intermediate Board and the Department of Agriculture, that before any change was put into operation by the Intermediate Board it was bound to give a year's notice to the Department before such a change could be brought about. I ask the Chief Secretary, was that year's notice ever given to the Department? If so, what was the date on which it was given? As far as I am aware, no notice of any kind was given to the Department of Agriculture, and, what to my mind is more important still, no consultation of any kind took place with the educational bodies in Ireland, with the science teachers, or with the Boards of Technical Instruction. In order to make the matter still more clear, I will read a few extracts from the published protests of these various bodies. I may say that the rule was introduced
  1898
  early last year, but was not publicly published until early in July in this year. Protests were immediately drawn up, and have been published by the Board of Technical Instruction, the Schoolmasters' Association representing all the secondary schools in Ireland, Catholic as well as Protestant, by the Christian Brothers, who carry on a most successful scheme of secondary education, and by the science teachers themselves. The Schoolmasters' Association say:
  "The Intermediate Board deliberately abandoned a written examination in experimental science in 1901 in favour of inspection by the Department, and bound itself not to hold an examination in the subject until a year's notice had been given by the Board."
  I ask again, when was that year's notice given to the Department? The Christian Brothers say:
  "If the present rule is maintained, the examination paper will undoubtedly make the text book unduly important. The department inspectors will continue to aim at securing the educational advantages of scientific investigation. The teachers will be forced to obtain as many passes as possible. There will be a conflict of ideals, principles and practice, and disagreement between teachers and inspectors will inevitably result."
  Those protests, published and known to the people of Ireland, have naturally had the result of concentrating opinion, not merely of educational experts in Ireland, of the secondary schools who are effected by this rule. In this connection I think it is only fair to bring to the notice of the Chief Secretary that for years and years we have had occasion to complain of the action not merely of the Intermediate Education Board, but also of the National Board of Education of Ireland, which deals with primary education in that country. As a result of the Vice-Regal Commission which inquired into the National Board, that Board has bowed to public opinion in this respect, that in its Report, issued only a few days ago, they announce that in future, before any important educational change is made, they will consult the educational bodies in the country. I ask the Intermediate Board to do precisely the same thing now which the National Board, bowing to public opinion, has found it necessary to do. Let me pass to the underlying considerations in this matter. This rule is going to deal with experimental science in our secondary schools. Hero in this country, and wisely so, in view of the War conditions, and of the knowledge which has come to this country of the failure of technical methods in the past, science is being pushed by many people in this country, and we are being told that it

  1899
  should have a far better position not merely in the primary but as well in the secondary schools and in the University courses of this country.
  6.0.P.M.
  I think everyone will agree that, to a certain extent, it is necessary, owing to changed conditions, that in this country more attention should be given to science in our schools than has been the case hitherto. I do not wish to press the matter too far. I do not wish to say that the classicists should be entirely removed and that science education should take entirely the place now occupied by classical studies. But I do say that when in Ireland we also have the same difficulties to contend with, it is not fair that a backward stroke should be given to science such as undoubtedly given by this new rule. I was reading only a couple of days ago a very interesting book, recently published in this country, called "Eclipse or Empire." It is a book which deals with the shortcomings of this country. I may say indeed that it struck me that there was too much depreciation of the Britisher. But there is undoubtedly this truth in it—that science requires to be given a fairer chance than has been the case up till now. When has this action been taken by the Intermediate Board? Precisely at a time when steps are being taken by science teachers to effect a useful change in the outlook of our educational bodies. Up till now, I regret to say, to a great extent the Intermediate rules and the system of Intermediate instruction in our country have sought to direct the minds of the pupil and his parents rather towards the career of a second-class clerk in a Government office instead of fitting the student for a useful business or commercial career in his own country. That has been a great drawback in the system of secondary education in Ireland. Now, throughout our country, I am glad to say, particularly in the South and West, where engineering business has not been developed of late through our actions with the Munitions and the War Departments we have succeeded in establishing national factories. We hope that at the end of the War those national factories, equipped with the best machinery, will be turned into engineering workshops, turning out material valuable for peace time. These workshops
  1900
  will require a steady stream of boys growing up to young men who will have had a groundwork of science. This action of the Intermediate Board will, kill the possibility of there coming from, our schools a stream of young fellows ready to take part in the new national factories. I wish to put this before the Chief Secretary, as time is short: To superimpose a written examination is bound to be disastrous to experimental science in its early stages in the schools. The system of inspection has worked well up till now. All our educational experts approve of that system. It is an absolutely backward step-of the Intermediate Board in the face of all education opinion, and it will be disastrous to our country if this rule is proceeded with. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Intermediate Board to have this rule withdrawn, so that the existing system of inspection by the Department may be allowed to continue.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I sincerely hope that the fears of the hon. Member as to the-possibility that a written examination should be the deathblow to any possible-industry in Ireland are not so seriously founded as he apprehends. It is a very important matter, as my hon. Friend will agree, that every encouragement should be given to the study of science, and especially of applied science, in Ireland with a view to the development of industries which the country so much require. The real question here is not whether there should be science teaching or Grants for science teaching in Ireland; it is whether a semi-independent Board is to be overruled in the conclusion at which it has deliberately arrived; whether, when you are ascertaining whether the best value is-being obtained for the money given in respect of science teaching, you should renounce or forego the possibility of having a written examination. All of us, I suppose, have some recollection of the sort of tests that are applied during school life and afterwards for the purpose of ascertaining whether there has been efficient instruction. To renounce the application of tests by written questions is certainly a very bold and extreme course.
  Mr. BOLAND: It is not a question of asking the Intermediate Board to renounce the system. For the last fifteen years it has deliberately renounced the system of

  1901
  written examinations. It now proposes to go back to the system which it deliberately gave up fifteen years ago.
  Mr. DUKE: What the hon. Member desires is that the Irish administration should use some indirect means of coercion, I think it is usually called, to compel a semi-independent Board to do what it thinks it ought not to do with regard to this matter—that is, to renounce the right which it has by Statute to require answers to written questions as a preliminary showing efficient science teaching.
  I am not surprised that there are differences between teachers and examiners in this matter. Educational bodies and bodies representing the teachers are at variance with the body appointed by the Legislature to be responsible for seeing that the Grants have been earned. The position very shortly is this: There is an Act of Parliament by which Grants for proficiency are given, and the test of proficiency is a preliminary to the obtaining of the Grants. I am not sure of the exact words of the Act of Parliament, but it is the Act of 1878, which founded the Board of Intermediate Education, and it makes the payment of the Grant dependent upon the result of public examination. For a long time the Board was content to accept the certificates of results of the Department of Agriculture. But it was found upon examination of those certificates that there was an almost uniform return of passes of 100 per cent, in these classes. In the other subjects—I think there were six in all—in respect of which the Intermediate Board distributes the Grants on behalf of the State, the test of individual examination was applied, and 70 per cent, was a reasonable proportion of the pupils to get proficiency certificates. In regard to science alone, it has been the case that written examination has been dispensed with, and there has been no ascertainment of the efficient education in science of the individual pupil, but there has been the view of the inspector as to the position of the class. It may be right or wrong, but the position is not what the Statute contemplated or what past practice contemplated. The Board of Intermediate Education was communicated with upon the subject. The Chairman, and some other members of the Board, did me the honour to come and see me and explain what they had done. They said that they had not done it without consultation with people experienced in science teaching.
  1902
  They also said that as a matter of general principle their view was that a written paper was a useful and ordinary examination test. On the first matter, as to their consultation with scientific educational experts, I am bound to accept their assurance, even if I had control of the Board, which I have not. On the second matter, that written examinations are an almost universal means of ascertaining proficiency, common experience bears them out. That is the position. The Board have come deliberately to the conclusion that a written examination is necessary in order to fulfil the conditions upon which alone they are entitled to distribute grants.
  Mr. HAZLETON: Why did they not do that fifteen years ago?
  Mr. DUKE: If the hon Member is going to put me under an examination as to the shortcomings of all the public Departments in Ireland, one Chief Secretary will not be sufficient for the task.
  Mr. HAZLETON: If they were wrong then they may very well be wrong now.
  Mr. DUKE: That is a matter as to which the responsibility is put upon them by Statute. The conclusion at which they have arrived is that you will get better certainty as to proficient education by the means they propose to apply. It is a matter which the Legislature has left to their discretion, and I cannot see any means, except an Act of Parliament, which can control them. Something was said as to the method by which this has been done—as to lack of communication with the teaching authorities and with the Board of Agriculture. It was said that there was a promise of a year's notice.
  Mr. FIELD: Is there any idea of the co-ordination of the different Departments, so as to put the whole system of education in Ireland on a proper basis?
  Mr. DUKE: I can only say that if hon. Members in Ireland would combine to ease the way of government in Ireland it would be much easier for attention, which is distracted at the present time, to be given to-these grave matters. With regard to the matter immediately under consideration, as to the mode of procedure, I find among the papers evidence that in April of this year there was an order of the House for the publication of notice, which has long

  1903
  since been published, with regard to the coining into operation of the system of written examination, and the system comes into operation in June of next year. That is a very substantial notice. There may be matters of difference between the two bodies, but this certainly is not a time at which you can introduce a general scheme of reform which will reconcile these matters. So far as I am concerned, I think there is reason on the part of the Intermediate Board; that is, they have seriously considered the matter and desire to administer their office in the way in which they ought to administer it. That being so, I cannot prmise that His Majesty's Government will take any legislative or coercive action to divert them from the course which they think they ought to follow.
  Mr. BOLAND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
  It being one hour after the conclusion of Government Business, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER. (Mr. Maclean) adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February,
  Adjourned at Fourteen minutes after Six o'clock till Tuesday next, 7th November, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.

PETITIONS PRESENTED.
The following Petitions were presented and ordered to lie upon the Table:

WEDNESDAY.
National Food Stuffs (Control),—Petition from Aberystwyth, for legislation.
Summer Time Act, 1916,—Petition from Wallasey, for legislation in a permanent form.