Commons Sitting of 7 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, Read the third time, and passed.
COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copies presented of Colonial Reports Nos. 908 (Bermuda, Report for 1915), and 909 (Jamaica, Report for 1915–16) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

SHOPS ACT, 1912.
Copies presented of Orders made by the Councils of the undermentioned local authorities, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—
County of London (Metropolitan boroughs of Chelsea, Fulham, and Hammersmith);
County of Buckingham (parishes of Penn and Tylers Green);
County borough of Southport;
Urban district of Penarth
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
Copy presented of Order made by the Council of the undermentioned local authority, and confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland:—
Burgh of Clydebank
[by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1915. Vol. L., Part III. Prices and Supplies of Corn, Live Stock, and other Agricultural Produce in England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS AND PESTS ACTS.
Copies presented of Orders numbered D.I.P. 383, 384, 387, and 388, declaring the respective areas described in the Schedules thereto to be infected with Wart Disease and to be infected areas for the purposes of the Wart Disease of Potatoes (Infected Areas) Order of 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

RECRUITING (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Statement giving particulars regarding men of military age

3
(19 and under 41 years) in Ireland, with an estimate of the number of men available for military service, based on the National Register, 1915, and the number of men who have joined His Majesty's Forces since the outbreak of War [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

FISHERIES (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland on the Sea and Inland Fisheries of Ireland for the year 1915 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ARMY (TERRITORIAL FORCE).
Copies presented of Schemes made by the Army Council for the establishment and constitution of associations for the counties of Anglesey, Argyll, Banff, Cambridge and Isle of Ely, Cardigan, Carmarthen, Chester, Cornwall, Dorset, Dumfries, Fife, Glamorgan, Hertford, Leicester, Middlesex, Midlothian, Norfolk, Northampton, Northumberland, Orkney, York (North Riding) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD.
Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:—Copy of Accounts of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board for the year ending 1st July, 1916 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    ENEMY EMBASSIES.
    Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ascertain if last spring the Bulgarian Premier formally took possession of the Serbian Legation; and, if so, whether he will consider if it would be reasonable if the enemy Embassies were taken over here, especially in view of the great demands for suitable pre-
    4
    mises for public purposes and the special requirements of the Young Men's Christian Association?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): I understand that the Bulgarian Government not only seized the Serbian Legation house at Sofia, but sold the furniture, confiscated the archives, and arrested and detained as a prisoner of war the former archivist of the Legation who had been left in charge of the premises.
    Although His Majesty's Government share the indignation of the Serbian Government at this gross offence against the comity of nations, they nevertheless consider that the treatment of the houses formerly occupied by enemy diplomatic missions in London should rather depend upon that accorded to the British Embassy and Legation houses in the enemy capitals. The Bulgarian Government have not so far interfered with the British Legation house at Sofia, though at one time they threatened to requisition it. They subsequently withdrew the threat.

  PRISONERS IN GERMANY.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many inspectors are now employed by the American Ambassador in Germany to visit and report on the condition of camps in which British prisoners of war or British civilians are now interned, and how often they go; and if he can state whether representations have been made to the American Government begging them to be good enough to allow additional inspectors to be appointed and more frequent visits to be made?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE (Treasurer of the Household): His Majesty's Government are not in a position to state the precise number of officials at the disposal of the United States Ambassador at Berlin for the purpose of visiting camps in Germany where British prisoners of war are interned, which is a question entirely within the discretion of the Ambassador. The approximate number of official reports on visits of inspection by United States representatives to internment camps in Germany received during the current year amounts to 200. This number includes

  5
  parent camps, working camps, and hospitals. There is, therefore, no cause to consider that additional inspectors are required.
  I should like to take this opportunity of repeating what was said by my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary lately: that we feel a deep debt of gratitude to Mr. Gerard and his staff for the admirable work they have done in this connection.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British prisoners of war in Germany are now made to work to the very utmost of their capacity; if he can state whether German prisoners of war in England are made to work; what is the kind of work they do, and for how many hours they are on an average employed per diem; and whether English and German prisoners, respectively, are called upon to work on Sundays?
  Mr. HOPE: Many British prisoners of war are undoubtedly kept hard at work in Germany, as are many Germans in this country. The ordinary number of working hours here is eight. As to the nature of the work, I would refer my hon. Friend to the full statement made by my Noble Friend Lord Newton in another place. No work is done here by the prisoners on Sunday, and we understand that one day of rest in the week, usually Sunday, is allowed in Germany.
  Mr. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is it the fact that the class of work the prisoners in Germany have to do is the reason why they have to receive more parcels?
  Mr. HOPE: I entirely sympathise with my hon. Friend's suggestion, and, if it be practicable, I will do my best to bring the matter before the authorities concerned.
  Major HUNTasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the sentence of twelve years' imprisonment on a Canadian soldier of twenty years of age and to the fact that no parcels are to be allowed to be sent to him; whether, as under the German system he will probably be starved, he can see his way to giving a German soldier in a like case similar punishment without the starvation; and if he will let the German Government know through the American Embassy?
  Mr. HOPE: The American Ambassador at Berlin has reported that several Canadian soldiers have been sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment. Endeavours have been made to induce the German Government—on promise of reciprocity—to allow British prisoners of war under sentence to receive parcels of food, but so far without success. Some German prisoners of war are now undergoing prolonged terms of imprisonment or penal servitude in this country.

  DEPORTATION OF BELGIANS.
  Mr. GILBERTasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has any official information of the deportation of Belgians from certain Belgian towns to Germany; if he will state how many people have been so deported; if the Belgian Government has made any protest to neutral Governments as regards this matter; and if any support has been given to such protest by the British Government?
  Lord R. CECIL: His Majesty's Government have received certain unofficial information on the subject. They have no knowledge of any protest having been made, at least recently, by the Belgian Government.

  FOOD SHIPS FOR BELGIUM TORPEDOED.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a Greek steamer carrying food to Belgium on behalf of the American Commission for the Relief of Belgians was torpedoed in British waters recently by a U boat, after the German commander had been shown the ship's papers and told that the cargo was for the Belgians; whether the German Government agreed, in consideration of the relief given to Belgians and other civilians in Belgium, that such relief ships should not be attacked or destroyed by their forces; whether, seeing that twelve of the crew perished, the Foreign Office will communicate with the American Government on the matter, with a view of some protest being made to the German Government; and can he state how many ships chartered by the American Commission for the Relief of Belgians have been mined, torpedoed, or missing?
  Lord R. CECIL: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I have addressed a Note on the subject to the United States and Spanish Ambassadors as patrons of the Relief Commission. Since the beginning of the Commission's work twelve relief ships have been lost, of which two, and perhaps three, were torpedoed, and the rest mined.

  GREECE.

    VENIZELOS GOVERNMENT.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now ascertained if any civil or military supporters of the constitutional movement in Greece or of the Government Of M. Venizelos are being punished or court-martialled by the Government in Athens because of their opinions or actions?
    Lord R. CECIL: I understand that certain civil, military, and naval officers who had joined M. Venizelos have been dismissed from the service of King Constantine and deprived of their pension rights. The French and British Governments have meanwhile informed M. Venizelos that the Allies will not lose sight of the interests of those Greek officials and officers who may desire to offer their services to the Provisional Government at Salonika, and that care will be taken that the interests of these officials and officers do not suffer in the future.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Has the Noble Lord seen the telegram in the "Morning Post" giving specific cases of officers imprisoned in the common prison in the Piraeus, and of other officers who have been in prison?
    Lord R. CECIL: I have heard of the telegram to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. If M. Venizelos brings any such cases before the notice of the Government, we shall be glad to take any action in our power.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: Has there been communication with King Constantine's Government as well as with M. Venizelos' Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not understand my hon. Friend's question at all. If M.
    8
    Venizelos' Government will bring any of these questions to our notice we will take any action in our power.
    Mr. GWYNNE: My question was whether the Government has communicated with King Constantine's Government in regard to this matter?
    Lord R. CECIL: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the Government not act on the principle that prevention is better than cure?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not know to what prevention my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. PRINGLE: To prevent King Constantine's Government from doing this.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Will the Noble Lord consider the desirability of having nothing more to do with King Constantine's Government?
    Lord R. CECIL: I can assure my hon. Friend that we desire to take the strongest possible action to prevent any proceedings of this kind.
    Sir HENRY DALZIEL: Will it be taken before the War is over?

    ALLIED COMMUNICATIONS.
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the pledges given in regard to safeguarding the Allied communications by the Government in Athens have now all been completely fulfilled?
    Lord R. CECIL: The Allied Governments have no reason as yet to be dissatisfied with the manner in which the Greek authorities are carrying out, in conjunction with the French and British officers designated for the purpose, the pledges to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. If there should be any reasonable apprehension on the point, I presume the Allied Governments will not hesitate to take effective action, but the House will realize that we cannot make definite statements as regards the future except in consultation and agreement with the Allies.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    REFUSAL OF LEAVE.
    Mr. RENDALLasked the Secretary of State for War whether Trooper England, No. 2405, Royal Gloucestershire

    9
    Hussars Yeomanry, has been refused leave for fifteen months in spite of repeated applications for the same; whether the reason given is that he has been required for duty to allow of leave being given to men about to proceed overseas; whether during the last thirteen months very few, if any, of his regiment have proceeded overseas; whether the man has been given to understand that as long as he remains uninoculated he will not be allowed leave; and whether anything will be done to remove the pressure being put on this soldier, contrary to the promise of the late Secretary of State for War that no pressure was to be brought to bear on soldiers who objected to vaccination or inoculation?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): Fresh instructions have been issued recently, which it is hoped may remove greivances in these cases. In these circumstances I am sure my hon. Friend will not expect me to call for a report on the details of the particular case he mentions.

    ARMY UNIT TRANSFERS.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can say if a draft of 200 men from the Connaught Rangers have been taken from Kinsale, county Cork, and sent, not to the Con-naught Rangers, but to the Seaforth Highlanders and compelled against their will to don the kilt; whether he can say who is responsible; whether the men will now be restored to their own regiment; and, seeing that a number of similar instances have occurred, whether he can state how the War Office proposes to keep the Irish regiments up to strength if men are withdrawn from them to fill up gaps in English and Scottish regiments?
    Mr. HAZLETONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will publish a Return of the number and strength of all drafts from Irish regiments sent to other than Irish units?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Lloyd George): Inquiry has been made, and the Officer Commanding the Reserve Battalion of the Connaught Rangers states that none of his men have been transferred to the Seaforth Highlanders. The Officer in Charge of Records concerned also states that he has no information regarding such a transfer. I am afraid I cannot publish the return
    10
    asked for, as I am advised that it would be undesirable to do so on military grounds.
    Mr. MacVEAGHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Gunner M. Cowan, now serving with the 32nd Battery of the Royal Field Artillery, at Maryhill Barracks, Glasgow, was arrested in Rathfriland, county Down, on 16th August, whilst working on his mother's farm, and forced into the Army; whether he has ascertained that Cowan was only a few months in Scotland in his life, was not ordinarily resident there, and had returned permanently to Ireland a year before his arrest; and whether, as he is therefore illegally detained and has, moreover, been found to be physically unfit for drill, he will now be released?
    Mr. FORSTER: To the answer I have already given on the first part of this question, I can now add that Cowan is reported to be physically fit for general service.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Is my hon. Friend aware that this man is at present in hospital, and how can he be fit for general service?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is quite possible that he has been passed and reported fit for general service, and it may be that he is suffering from some purely temporary illness.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Has the hon. Gentleman received any report from the doctor? As a matter of fact the doctor has not seen him at all. May I ask will the hon. Gentleman communicate with this doctor and see if he is gifted with second sight?
    Mr. FORSTER: We have communicated and that is the report I have received that he has been passed for general service.
    Mr. MacVEAGH: Does it state that he has seen him—can I have an answer to that question?
    Mr. FORSTER: I have given all the information I have.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that in many cases the doctors do not see them at all?
    Mr. MacVEAGH: I beg to give notice that I shall put this question down again, because the answer I have received is most misleading.

    REJECTIONS.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of a single man who was rejected previous to the first Military Service Act, i.e., since August, 1915, and who did not receive a notice to report himself for re-examination by 1st September of this year, as stated in the present Act, he can consider himself exempt from military service?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow on 2nd November.

    MALTA, GIBRALTAR, AND CYPRUS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War if there is any military reason why the Military Service Act should not be made applicable to Malta, Gibraltar, and Cyprus?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which was given on 26th October by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    Colonel YATE: Are men of forty-one to be called up here while young men under twenty-five in Malta are to do nothing whatever?

  MAN-POWER.

    STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
    Major NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the percentage of men fit for general service obtained at the primary medical examination of employés of military age in Government offices has been "brought to his notice; whether in some batches of those examined 90 per cent. were passed as fit for general service; and whether the War Office will spare no effort in obtaining for the Army this material?
    Mr. O'SHAUGH-NESSYasked (1) the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of, officials at present employed by the Government at the Foreign Office; how many of them are men of military age; the number of these fit for active service in connection with the War; whether the military authorities are calling them up; (2) the First Commissioner of Works the number of officials at present employed by the Government in his Department; how many of them are men of military age; the number of these fit for active service in
    12
    connection with the War; whether the military authorities are calling them up; (3) the President of the Local Government Board the number of officials at present employed by the Government at the offices of the Local Government Board; how many of them are men of military age; the number of these fit for active service in connection with the War; whether the military authorities are calling them up; (4) the President of the Board of Trade the number of officials at present employed by, the Government at the offices of the Board of Trade; how many of them are men of military age; the number of these fit for active service; whether the military authorities are calling these men up for active service in connection with the War; and (5) the Secretary to the Treasury the number of officials at present employed by the Government at the Treasury offices at Whitehall; how many of them are men of military age; the number of these who are fit for active service; and whether the military authorities are calling these men up for active service in connection with the War?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): As has already been stated to the House, the question of the employment of men of military age in Government Departments is engaging the attention of the Man-Power Distribution Board. The Board are procuring Returns from Government Departments, and hope to present their recommendations to the Government in the course of a few days. These recommendations will at once be taken into consideration by the Government, and, when their decision is announced to the House, the Returns made to the Man-Power Board will also be laid before it. In the meantime, I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to give information relating to separate Departments.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will Returns also be made of men of military age engaged in Government Departments in Ireland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will certainly consider the point.
    Mr. R. McNEILLasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the Man-Power Distribution Board published on 4th October a statement that it had been proved that fresh supplies of men are urgently needed for the Armies and munition factories; and if he will

    13
    say what steps have been taken in the month that has now elapsed to make good this urgent need?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand an announcement from the Man-Power Board is expected shortly. Any such statement as that which is invited by the last part of the question would, I think, more properly be made in the Debate on Man-Power which is expected to take place shortly.
    Sir E. CARSON: Will the Debate take place this week?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Until we get the Report from the Man-Power Committee and have had time to consider it, it would be impossible to name a date. I can assure my right hon. Friend there is no time being lost.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Will we see the Report of the Man-Power Board or a sufficient portion of it to discuss it fully in this House before the Debate takes place?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no doubt when the statement is made about the Report of the Man-Power Board it will be discussed.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Will the Report be presented fully to the House?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to commit myself upon that until we have seen the Report. It is conceivable there may be facts in it which it would be most undesirable to publish. If there is a debate in Secret Session we could state the facts more fully. Therefore, there are two questions to be decided before I could answer my right hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Will both the fact of a Secret Session and the fullness of the Report of the Man-Power Board be considered before the Debate takes place?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly. The moment the Government receive the Report of the Man-Power Board they will first of all consider it, and then there will be a discussion in the House of Commons. Whether a public one or a secret one, I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take the House into council on that question.
    Colonel CRAIG: Are the Man-Power Board considering the question of extending the Military Service Acts to Ireland?

    MEDICALLY UNFIT MEN.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case which came before the Bermondsey Tribunal in which an applicant passed by a medical board produced three medical certificates stating that he was unfit; whether he is aware that, although this applicant had five soldier brothers, one being killed and two wounded, and had a father in the asylum and a widowed mother, and a wife and two children, the military representative stated that he was instructed to oppose and appeal against any proposal for temporary, exemption as suggested by the tribunal; whether he is aware that the Mayor protested that the tribunal had no power left and had better disbtnd, and that Councillor Shearring protested that the tribunal was under the iron hand of the military; and whether the action of this military representative reflects the present policy of the War Office in, such cases?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend presumably refers to the case of H. G. Spong. As this man was thirty years of age, and has been passed for general service, the military representative considered that he would have no alternative but to appeal if the exemption of six months proposed by the tribunal were granted. He suggested, however, to the tribunal that the man should go before the Special Medical Board, and this suggestion was adopted by the tribunal by 11 votes to 4. There the matter rests.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are a number of unfit men in the Army, including volunteers and conscripts, wounded and invalided soldiers; that the majority of these men never can be made fit for any category of military service; that their maintenance is costing the country a very large sum of money; and can he see his way to alleviate the position by granting discharges in as many cases as possible?
    Mr. FORSTER: All men who are unfit for military employment are discharged as soon as possible. The question as to how far men who have been disabled are to be kept in the Service for further treatment, and, if necessary, instruction in some trade, is under consideration.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand then that the hon. Gentleman denies on behalf of the Government that there are thousands of unfit men in the Army paid by the State, and doing no work at all?
    Mr. ANDERSON: Is it not the case that large numbers of unfit men are being recruited, not directly for military purposes, but for industrial purposes, under the substitution scheme, and will the hon. Gentleman tell us what power there is under the Military Service Acts to do this?
    Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that arises out of the question.
    An HON. MEMBER: It is true.

    NON-COMBATANT CORPS.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private C. Keen, No. 20212, 23rd Middlesex Regiment, was awarded non-combatant service by the Middlesex Appeal Tribunal at the Guildhall, Westminster, that this decision has been ignored by the military authorities, and that the man is now in France expecting to be ordered to do the work of a combatant soldier; and what action he proposes to take to insist that the certificate of the tribunal is acted upon?
    Mr. FORSTER: Instructions have already been issued for this man to be transferred to the Non-Combatant Corps.

    SUBSTITUTION SCHEME.
    Mr. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the statement made by Major Passingham, at the Montgomery shire Appeal Tribunal, on Friday, 20th October, that in respect of a man returned to industry or agriculture under the substitution scheme he continued to be an Army man, and would be called back to the Army if he misbehaved; whether the judge as to the man's behaviour would be the employer or the military authorities; whether an expression of dissatisfaction with his conditions would be construed as misbehaviour; and whether in this connection he will bear in mind the pledge given by the Prime Minister that the Military Service Bill should not be used, and should not be capable of being used, for any form of industrial compulsion?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Major Passing-ham reports that he did not in any way
    16
    suggest industrial compulsion. He was asked what would happen if a man in Class W, Army Reserve, placed as a substitute, misbehaved himself, and he stated that the matter would be impartially inquired into. If it was shown that the man had failed to comply with the conditions under which he had been placed in Section W, he would revert to the Army; but if the employer was found to be in the wrong, he would lose the services of the man, who would be placed with another employer.
    Mr. ANDERSON: Has any action been taken against the newspapers, which reported that Major Passingham used the words exactly as I have stated them?

    SKILLED ARCHITECTS IN RANKS.
    Mr. KEATINGasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that skilled architects in some regiments are performing the varied duties of coal-heavers, flour-carriers, waiters, scavengers, etc.; and will he take steps to utilise brainpower in the ranks in other directions?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have no information in regard to the duties which are being performed by skilled architects serving in the ranks, but I am, of course, aware that there are in the ranks a considerable number of highly educated men. Many of these have, owing to their attainments, already qualified for promotion, and have reached positions where they can exercise their higher attainments; but it is not possible to give any pledge or undertaking that all such men who are serving in the ranks will be specially treated.

    VOLUNTEER TRAINING CORPS.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that public appeals for funds are being made in order to provide local Volunteer Corps with uniforms and rifles; and, seeing that the War Office has now taken over the control of Volunteers, whether he will consider the possibility of providing all the men who join such corps with the necessary military equipment free?
    Mr. FORSTER: It is known that such appeals are being made, and Volunteer Corps, designed as they are for Home and local defence, seem not inappropiate objects for assistance by local effort. The whole question of Government assistance

    17
    to Volunteers is under consideration, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement on this subject very shortly.
    Mr. O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that large numbers of uniforms are now sold to contractors, and that the Volunteers have to buy these back from the contractors at a profit? That being so, would it not be wise on the part of the War Office to allow Volunteer Corps to have the use of this equipment and clothing now being sold to the contractors?
    Mr. FORSTER: All these things are being considered.

    DEATH OF SOLDIER (DISCIPLINARY MEASURES.
    Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that intimation of the death of a soldier abroad to his nearest relative at home, where such death has taken place owing to disciplinary measures, is made in harsh and unfeeling terms, calculated to inflict needless pain and humiliation upon relatives; and whether he will take steps to secure that in future such intimation shall be made in a more humane manner?
    Mr. FORSTER: I am making inquiries into this matter, and any directions shown to be necessary will be given.

    TRADE STOCKS.
    Mr. SNOWDENasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the hardship that is being suffered by business men being called up to the Colours and having to dispose of their trade stocks at ruinous prices, he will consider the possibility of the Government purchasing such stocks at their proper value where such commodities can be used for the purposes of the Army?
    Mr. FORSTER: The War Office would be prepared to consider sympathetically offers made by business men, in the circumstances contemplated by the hon. Member, of goods suitable for Army purposes, but the possibility of accepting such offers would, of course, depend on the circumstances of the particular case and, in particular, on the feasibility of making suitable arrangements for inspection.
    Mr. A. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the immediate review of the position of the Civil Liabili-
    18
    ties Committee on the point; the people who have to deal with this matter find it very difficult?

    HORSE-GRAZING (NORWICH).
    Major HUNTasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office why Lieutenant A. D. Stewart, War Department land agent, E.G., Norwich area, refuses to pay 2s. 2d. a week per horse for grazing in the summer last year as agreed to by the War Office?
    Mr. FORSTER: My hon. and gallant Friend recently wrote me about this case. I am having careful inquiries made and will let him know the result as soon as possible.

    CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Prime Minister whether, in consideration of the fact that the Government of Canada has closed the Civil Service against men of military age and fitness, he will give orders for the adoption of a similar course in the United Kingdom, and put a stop during the continuance of the War to the competitive examinations among young men who are approaching or who have attained military age?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Steps were taken as soon as possible after the outbreak of the War to suspend all Home Civil Service examinations open to men of military age for the duration of the War; and the last examination from which any appointments were made was held in March, 1915. The only examinations for males now held are for boys under seventeen years of age, with the exception of the assistant clerks examination, for which the candidates are boy clerks of seventeen years of age. These boys are entitled by the terms of their engagement to compete for assistant clerkships on reaching the age of seventeen, and their success at an examination in no way prevents them joining the Army when they reach military age.
    Sir E. CARSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the same rule applies to the Civil Service in Ireland?
    Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware that there is any separate arrangement for Ireland. I think it must apply to Ireland.

    RESERVES.
    Captain WRIGHTasked when the House will be given an opportunity for discussing the Government's proposals, if any, for providing adequate Reserves for His Majesty's Forces, and particularly for the Irish divisions and regiments?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at present name a date.

    FARM WORKERS.
    Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received representations from the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and affiliated societies' that any requirements of the military authorities in the matter of men to be drawn from the ranks of those working on the land should, in the interests of food production, only be enforced at the recognised term, and that none be called up between terms; and whether he proposes to take any action?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Tennant): I have received through the Board of Agriculture for Scotland a representation to this effect, I would remind my hon. Friend that from the point of view of training there are great difficulties in accepting a proposal of this kind, and I am assured that hitherto farm workers have not been taken off the land at unduly short notice. The whole position, however, is under review, and it is proposed to take a census of agricultural labour.
    Mr. PRATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Board of Agriculture for Scotland has held a conference of persons interested in the question of food production to consider the recent Memorandum regarding the calling up of men by the War Office; whether any agreement was reached as to the best manner of dealing with this problem in the national interest; and whether it is proposed to take any action?
    Mr. TENNANT: A conference convened by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland was held last week, and certain resolutions were adopted. The Government will give careful consideration to these suggestions.

    CONDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS.
    Mr. COWANasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he would state if, when exemption from mili-
    20
    tary service is granted for national or personal reasons, a tribunal has the power to-make it a condition that the exempted person shall do part-time service with the local public fire brigade in the same-manner as it has power to make it a condition that he shall do service with a local Volunteer Training Corps; whether chief officers of public fire brigades are entitled, to communicate to tribunals their requirements for the filling of vacancies in their fire brigades; and whether he can see his-way to urge upon tribunals the advisability of making such a condition in the case of able-bodied married men conditionally exempted who reside near their local fire station and have a reasonable-amount of leisure available for public-service?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Long): I have informed tribunals that in suitable cases it is reasonable to require a man who is exempted to undertake duties in connection with a public fire brigade. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the circulars dealing with this point. I think that chief officers of public fire brigades would do well to communicate their requirements to-tribunals. No condition should, of course, be imposed by a tribunal which is not reasonable in the particular circumstances of the man.

    CIVIL LIABILITIES.
    Mr. ASHLEYasked the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether Reservists who were mobilised in 1914 are to be brought within the scope of the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Scheme?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): This matter is still under consideration.

  ARMY FIELD PUNISHMENT.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a punishment known to soldiers as "crucifixion" is being inflicted on British soldiers as a penalty for losing their gas helmets; whether he is aware that the punishment in question has resulted in the death of at least one soldier, a man of forty years who gave up a good professional position to join the Army; and will he take steps to prevent the infliction of this punishment?
  Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in connection with the field punishments of our men at the front, he will say if men are or ever have been during this War in the British Army punished by being tied, neck, waist, hands, and feet, to cartwheels; whether a man has died while fastened thus; and whether he will issue instructions that degrading or painful forms of punishment are absolutely forbidden and will result in future in the court-martialling of the officer concerned?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the right hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division and to the hon. Member for South Carnarvonshire on the 2nd instant. The Army Council are waiting to be furnished with the name, number, and regiment of the soldier who is alleged to have died under the circumstances suggested.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: Is it not possible by departmental action to prevent this form of punishment, field punishment No. 2, being used in any case, and so avoid the scandal of these cases altogether?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am still awaiting information with regard to this particular case. I am not aware that there has been a case of this kind.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the publication by Mr. Blatchford in one of the Sunday papers of this case has caused a great deal of unrest throughout the country, and will he undertake to have the paper prosecuted if the statement is not true?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Or is it only a certain section who are now prosecuted for prejudicing recruiting?
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Can I have an answer to that question?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not quite sure—
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I sent it to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I agree that the publication of a matter of this kind is very damaging, and we have asked that particulars should be given, but up to the present we have not had them. When the facts are known we shall have to consider what steps we should take.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Why has not the case been denied before now? It is scandalous.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    BEHAVIOUR OF TROOPS.
    Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the incidents of very gallant behaviour on the part of the troops employed in quelling the Irish rebellion, referred to in General Sir John Maxwell's general order of thanks to the troops of 1st May, 1916, have been reported to and considered by the War Office; and when the names of those mentioned and the honours to be conferred upon them will be published?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answers I have already given to my hon. and gallant Friend himself, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Bassetlaw Division.
    Colonel YATE: Are we to understand that no notice is to be taken whatsoever of the gallant action of the troops employed in Ireland?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No.
    Colonel YATE: What are we to understand?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I can repeat to my hon. Friend the answer which was already given:
    "The names of those who are considered worthy of reward have not been overlooked, and the hon. Member will be aware that the majority of the honours given so far have been given in connection with services rendered in France and other theatres of war."
    Colonel YATE: Have any honours what soever been given for services in Ireland; any rewards or notice?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As a matter of fact, I think the general has been rewarded.
    Colonel YATE: But nothing for the privates?
    Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extremely severe losses suffered by these troops, especially the Sherwood Foresters, and nothing whatever has been done for them?

    JOHN M'NEILL.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will submit to Members of this House the evidence on

    23
    which John M Neill was sentenced to imprisonment for life in connection with the late rising in Dublin; and whether, in view of the fact that John M Neill used his influence to dissuade his followers from illegal acts, he will advise his immediate liberation?
    Mr. FORSTER: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already announced that the proceedings of the Irish courts-martial will be published. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Committee now sitting to inquire into the question of utilising the labour of prisoners of war on works of national importance will take into consideration the importance to the nation of the speedy construction of the Forth and Clyde Ship Canal, and allot as many prisoners of war as possible to that work?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In view of the reply of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty on 2nd November to the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire, the question does not appear to arise.
  Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware this question is agitating the country a great deal at the present time and will he take any measures to carry out this most important work?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: This question is one for the Admiralty to decide. As far as the War Office is concerned, we are utilising the services of prisoners of war, and we are seeking new methods of doing so in such a way as not to infringe the conventions of war.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it not more important that prisoners of war should cultivate the land?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, I am in agreement with the Noble Lord.

  POST OFFICE (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for War whether Army Council
  24
  Instruction 1901, of 1916, states in paragraph (c) that to female employés under the Post Office and to persons below eighteen years of age war bonus will be paid to the extent of only one-half of that amount allowed to males above eighteen years; and, if so, what is the reason for this discrimination unfavourable to women workers?
  Mr. FORSTER: I presume the question refers to War Office employés. The instruction follows a decision of the Government which applies to Government Departments generally, and I am not in a position to give the reasons for it.
  Mr. KING: In view of the cost of food, is the war bonus going to allow the men to have more food and the young women not so much?

  BOY SOLDIER.
  Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will state what action should be taken by the parents of a boy of nineteen who after a few months' training has been sent to France and, it is believed, direct to the firing line?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware of any action that can or should be taken. Men are not sent overseas until actually fit in all respects and until they have attained the age of nineteen.

  TREATMENT OF DISABLED SOLDIERS.
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the treatment of the disabled soldier?
  Mr. CROOKSasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any consideration has been given to the possibility of teaching disabled soldiers to operate power-driven sewing machines in the making of military uniforms; whether he is aware that by the present system of division of labour a man, provided he has the use of both arms, can soon be taught to do the work; and whether he will favourably consider the idea of teaching disabled soldiers at the Pimlico factory, and thus possibly extending the policy of direct labour?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am having further special inquiries made into this question, and hope to announce a decision as soon as these inquiries are completed. The special proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich is one of many which have been put forward for consideration, but I cannot say to-day whether it is feasible.
  Mr. HOGGE: When the right hon. Gentleman answers that further question will he be in a position to state exactly what is going to be done by the War Office as to the Statutory Committee and national health insurance?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is what I hope to be able to do. We have not yet got the report in. There is a very competent person examining the whole of this matter with a view to practical suggestions being put forward. As soon as he makes his report, I hope to be in a position to make a statement.

  WOUNDED OFFICERS (GRANTS).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will say how it happens that whereas some officers who are wounded and invalided home receive no grant, other officers, whose financial circumstances would enable them to do without grants, receive them; and will he explain what authority is responsible for the selection?
  Mr. FORSTER: Entitlement to a wound gratuity depends entirely upon the character and severity of the wound as determined by medical authority.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: It does not depend on the man's pecuniary circumstances?
  Mr. FORSTER: No.

  ROYAL MARINE LIGHT INFANTRY (IMPRISONMENT OF SOLDIERS).
  Sir H. DALZIELasked the Secretary of State for War whether Private A. Crombie, C Company, 1st Battalion, Royal Marine Light Infantry, and four other of his comrades now on active service, have been sentenced to one year's imprisonment for refusing to obey an
  26
  order issued by an officer who it is alleged was intoxicated; and whether he will order an inquiry into the truth of the allegation?
  Mr. FORSTER: If it be a fact that these men were sentenced to one year's imprisonment it is obvious that that sentence-was inflicted by a court-martial. The question, therefore, as to whether refusal to obey the order was or was not justified is a matter which the finding of the Court has decided. Under these circumstances I am sure my right hon. Friend will not press me to order an inquiry into the finding and sentence of a Court of Law.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: If there is any new evidence?
  Mr. FORSTERwas understood to say "Yes."

  DUNFERMLINE CAMP.
  Mr. C. WASONasked the Secretary of State for War if he will call for a report upon the conditions of the Seaforth camp or base at Dunfermline, namely, as to the sanitary arrangements, the cooking arrangements, and the provision of hot water for washing?
  Mr. FORSTER: A report has been received from the General Officer Commanding at Dunfermline within the last few days, and the accommodation is excellent in all the respects mentioned. No complaints have been received by the commanding officer of the battalion.

  ALLIES' FORCES IN FIELD.
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the proportionate contribution of each of the Allies to the total of the forces in the field?
  Sir E. CARSON: Before this question is answered may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this question is not calculated and intended to create friction between the Allies?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That may well be, but I am not entrusted with those powers of censorship. What I have to see is that questions comply with the ordinary Parliamentary rules.
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should certainly consider myself very ill-advised if I gave this information.
  Mr. OUTHWAITErose to ask a supplementary question.
  Several HON. MEMBERS: "Order!" "Sit down."
  Colonel CRAIG: We want no pro-Germans here.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
  Several HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Whether at a recent meeting—
  Several HON. MEMBERS: Sit down!
  Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Gentlemen to remain silent.
  Colonel CRAIG: Is there no way in which we can prevent this hon. Member from asking questions which are obviously intended to embarrass this country and her Allies?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If there was any Standing Order to that effect I should be happy to carry it out.
  Colonel CRAIG: Have you not already ruled that if there was a desire expressed by hon. Members on this side of the House—
  Several HON. MEMBERS: Oh!
  Colonel CRAIG: That if hon. Members on either side of the House expressed a desire not to hear an hon. Member, that would be in order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have no recollection of any such ruling.
  Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that from time immemorial Members of this House have been entitled to show their feelings?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have no objection whatever to their showing their feelings; the objection is to their interrupting the business of the House.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether at a recent meeting in London the figures were disclosed of the British forces in the field and proportional estimates given of the Russian
  28
  forces? Can he say whether these figures were divulged by the War Office to Lord Northcliffe?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is obviously a question of which notice should be given.

  MILITARY HOSPITALS (IRELAND).
  Mr. COOTEasked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he can give reasons why the military hospitals at Omagh, Enniskillen, Armagh, and Dundalk were closed and the military patients at those depots sent to the civil infirmaries in each locality; if these military hospitals are fully equipped for all their needs; and what is the relative cost of military patients per day in the military and civil hospitals, respectively; and (2) if the Assistant Deputy of Military Services, Belfast, district, is the authority on all military matters connected with his district; was he consulted before the military hospitals at Omagh, Enniskillen, Armagh, and Dundalk were closed; were they closed with his approval; who is the present Deputy of Military Services in Ireland; and what other posts has he held during the last twelve months?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The small military hospitals at Omagh, Enniskillen, Armagh and Dunkalk are unsuitable for the reception of sick and wounded from overseas, as they are not equipped for the purpose. They are only used therefore for cases which do not require serious medical or surgical treatment. On the other hand the County Hospitals have experienced surgeons and suitable staff, and have expressed a desire to receive sick and wounded from overseas. All parties have much appreciated the new arrangements and the scheme is working very satisfactorily at a lessened annual cost to the State. Detailed figures of the relative cost are not available. The authority to decide questions of opening or closing hospitals is the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Irish Command.

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  Sir H. DALZIELasked whether it is intended to demand from the contractors to the War Office a declaration similar to that now imposed by Lord Rothermere in reference to contracts with the Army Clothing Department?
  Mr. FORSTER: The reply is in the affirmative.

  INOCULATION AND VACCINATION.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to exercise his authority over officers in France in any cases brought to his notice where such officers unfairly refuse leave by way of punishing men for declining to be inoculated or vaccinated; and whether in such cases he will bring to the notice of the officers concerned the statement of the late Secretary of State for War that no pressure was to be brought to bear on objectors?
  Mr. FORSTER: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on 19th October.

  STRENSALL CAMP.
  Mr. TICKLERasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that troops are still under canvas at Strensall, near York; that the camp is deep in mud; that several men are suffering; and will he take steps for their removal into huts?
  Mr. FORSTER: The troops at Strensall are no longer under canvas. They were moved to Ripon and to Catterick on the 4th instant, and would have been moved earlier but for the probability of their being moved altogether from the command. The General Officer Commanding the brigade reports that no increase in sickness was caused by the men having been kept under canvas longer than otherwise would have been the case.

  HOME SERVICE (PENSIONERS).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked whether, in the case of pensioners who rejoined the Army after the commencement of the War and have since been marked P.B. (permanent base), any order has been issued that all such men are to be sent back to the United Kingdom for Home service; and whether, in special cases where owing to great length of service it is desirable that such men should be sent back for Home service, it is possible or proper for them to make a special application for that purpose?
  Mr. FORSTER: As a rule, only men who are not required at the base are sent home, and no special provision has been made as to pensioners. It is understood that consideration is given in France to the cases of men who have been at the front for a long time or who are of certain age.
  Mr. BUTCHER: In cases of that sort, to whom should application be made to have them sent home?
  Mr. FORSTER:-To the authorities in France.
  Mr. BUTCHER: The commanding officers?
  Mr. FORSTER'Sreply was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.

  MILITARY HONOURS (POSTHUMOUS AWARDS).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for War whether the recent Army Order authorises the posthumous award of military honours such as the D.S.O., D.C.M., Military Cross, and others to officers and soldiers who performed acts of gallantry but died in the performance of such acts, or whether such Order merely relates to cases where an officer or a man has been actually awarded such an honour but dies before he has received the insignia of that honour; and whether he will shortly be in a position to announce the decision of the War Office on the general question of awarding honours posthumously?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The second of the two alternative interpretations of the recent Army Order referred to by my hon. and learned Friend is correct, and not the first. I cannot yet say when the decision referred to in the second part of the question will be announced.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is there any Committee sitting now on this question of giving posthumous honours?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is a Committee sitting on, at any rate, one part of this question, and I hope to be able to make an announcement as soon as they report.

  CONSCRIPTION IN AUSTRALIA (REFERENDUM).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked whether the arrangements for taking the referendum

  31
  on conscription amongst the Australian soldiers stationed in this country were in the hands of officials of His Majesty's Government or of representatives appointed by the Australian Commonwealth Government?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In the hands of officials appointed by the Commonwealth Government.

  ROYAL FUSILIERS (MAN UNDER DETENTION).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked for what offence William G. H. Miller, on the strength of the depot Royal Fusiliers, is at present undergoing a sentence of detention; by what tribunal he was tried; and what sentence was passed upon him?
  Mr. FORSTER: I am making inquiries.

  MUNITIONS.

    MEN OF MILITARY AGE DEBADGED.
    Major NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in conjunction with the Board of Trade and the Minister of Munitions, arrangements have been made making it an offence for a man of military age who has been debadged or who has had his certificate of exemption withdrawn seeking employment without leave in a firm engaged on Government work, and imposing a penalty on the employer who takes such a man into employment?
    Mr. FORSTER: No such arrangements or instructions are necessary, and none have been made. My hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that it is an offence under the Army Act and Reserve Forces Act knowingly to employ a man who is an absentee.

  EAST AFRICA OPERATIONS.
  Colonel YATEasked the Secretary of State for War whether the time has now-arrived when the dispatches relating to the operations in East Africa from the commencement of hostilities in 1914 can be published?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I have nothing to add to the answer which the late Under-Secretary gave the hon. Member on 27th June.
  Colonel YATE: Are these dispatches to-be published or not?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is the very question that was put to the late Under-Secretary, and he answered two or three supplementary questions which gave full information upon the whole subject.
  Colonel YATE: Has the right hon. Gentleman found any information at all in the replies? There was no information. I asked for information?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I beg pardon. I will give my hon. and gallant Friend a copy. I have just repeated it. It is full of information.
  Colonel YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some more?

  OFFENDING PUBLICATIONS.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the name of the competent military authority who was set to judge Mr. Miles Malleson's plays and found that the book was a deliberate calumny on the British soldier, and then ordered a raid on the publisher's premises and the confiscation of all the stock; and will he say what are this officer's qualifications for judging delicate literary work?
  Mr. FORSTER: My hon. Friend treats this matter as one raising the question of the literary qualifications of the officers referred to. On questions of what constitutes delicate literary work, there is, of course, room for different opinions. But the question involved in this case was not one of literary taste, but of contravention of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and I do not feel called upon to go into the question of the literary qualifications of the officers concerned in the matter.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Would the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the officer to the article by Mr. Blatchford in the "Sunday Chronicle"?
  Mr. FORSTER: I do not think that is necessary.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But it arises!

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in determining supplementary separation allowances and separation allowances to dependants other than wives on the basis of pre-enlistment income and dependence, consideration is given to the different range of prices and wages in 1914 as compared with the present, or whether those who enlisted in 1914 and early in 1915, when the general level of money wages was lower than now, are penalised by comparison with those who have recently joined the Colours; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to bring up the dependants of the 1914 men to the present standard?
  Mr. FORSTER: The War Office separation allowances are based on pre-enlistment figures in accordance with the findings of the Select Committee. Questions relating to supplementary separation allowances, which are administered by the Statutory Committee, should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board.
  Mr. ANDERSON: That is not an answer to my question. Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that is on the Paper?
  Mr. FORSTER: I think I have. The hon. Member asked me "whether, in determining supplementary separation allowances and separation allowances to dependants other than wives on the basis of pre-enlistment income and dependence, consideration is given to the different range of prices and wages in 1914 as compared with the present," and I pointed out to him that we do not determine the supplementary allowances.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the inquest at Sunderland on the death of the fourteen weeks old child of Private William Renton, of the Durham Light Infantry; whether he is aware that it was stated in evidence that the wife had not heard from her husband for six weeks and that her separation allowance had been stopped for nearly a month, leaving her to maintain three children and herself without income; whether he is aware that, on a post-mortem examination, starvation was declared to be the cause of death and that the coroner
  34
  stated that there was no evidence of any intentional withholding of food; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made?
  Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir, I have seen a newspaper report. The separation allowance ceased because the man deserted from the Army.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the uncertainty and con fusion caused by the constant issue of new regulations or the modification or extension of existing regulations by the Statutory Committee and other bodies dealing with the question of pensions and separation allowances; whether he is aware that it is impossible on the part of the average applicant to follow and comprehend all these changes; and whether he will arrange to issue a clear, up-to-date, and classified statement as to the position of soldiers and their dependants in respect of payments and supplementary payments, and as to the rights of disabled and partially-disabled men, and of men discharged on account of illness or unfitness, and of the widows and fatherless children of men who have been killed?
  Mr. FORSTER: I appreciate the value of such a publication as is suggested. It is just one of the improvements to which the coming unification of pension administration will naturally lend itself.

  HAND-SEWN BOOTS.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked whether there is any intention to abandon the ordering from contractors of hand-sewn boots for use in the British Army?
  Mr. FORSTER: There is no present intention of ordering further supplies of hand-sewn boots for the use of the British Army; but hand-sewn boot firms in this country have been included in the list of firms requisitioned to supply Italian boots, to which hand-sewn labour can be applied.
  Mr. O'GRADY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Honourable Company of Cordwainers are at present teaching injured and maimed soldiers the art of hand-sewn bootmaking; having regard to that fact, is it not incongruous that these men should be taught that trade and yet hand-sewn boots should be discarded for use by British troops?
  Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir, that does not at all follow, because there may be greater openings for hand-sewn operatives in civilian trade.

  EXCESS PROFITS (ADVERTISING EXPENSES).
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as advertising expenses are allowed to be deducted before assessing firms for excess profits, he has considered the advisability of putting a limit on such expenditure; and whether he is aware that a certain newspaper recently spent a sum equal to 75 per cent. of its total capital in advertising the contributions of a certain Member of this House?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. McKenna): Provision already exists for restricting the amount which can be deducted for expenses of advertisement where they represent an expenditure of a capital nature rather than a normal working expense.
  Mr. BILLING: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly state what percentage is allowed?
  Mr. McKENNA: It depends upon the circumstances of each case.
  Mr. BILLING: Could the right hon. Gentleman state the case of a newspaper being allowed to spend 75 per cent. of its total capital in ten days in advertising one feature?
  Mr. McKENNA: If it were the normal practice of newspapers to spend 75 per cent. in advertising one feature, I have no doubt it would be allowed to do so again; but I can hardly believe that it is the normal practice.
  Mr. BILLING: If I give the right hon. Gentleman the name of the newspaper and the feature, will he be good enough to get some of the money back?
  Mr. McKENNA: I shall be very glad.

  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  Mr. RICHARD LAMBERTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the total amount of 15s. 6d. War Savings Certificates sold; and (2) what effect upon the sale of War Savings Certificates has been caused by the provision
  36
  which permits the holding, free of Income Tax and irrespective of total income, of War Savings Certificates to the amount of £387 10s. per person?
  Mr. BECK (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): The total number of War Savings Certificates up to the end of October, 1916, is approximately 44,500,000 £1 certificates. It is, of course, not possible to say to what extent the sales of War Savings Certificates have been increased by their freedom from Income Tax or by purchases made by persons with incomes exceeding £300 per annum. The following figures may, however, be of interest: From 22nd February, 1916, when the issue began, to 10th June, 1916, when the income limit was removed, the total sales were approximately 4,275,000 £1 certificates (denominations of £1, £12, and £25). From that date to 31st October inclusive, the total sales were approximately 40,225,000. Of this latter total there were sold in denominations of £500, 15,224,500 £1 certificates; in denominations of from £26 to £409, 9,771,000 £1 certificates; in denominations of from £1 to £25, 15,229,500 £1 certificates.
  Mr. ARNOLD: Will the hon. Member say what effect this has had on the Savings Bank?
  Mr. BECK: I would refer my hon. Friend to an answer given to the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Mackinder) on 22nd August, 1916, but the result is something like this: Whereas in 1913, from January to September, the deposits in the Savings Bank went down by £472,000, in the same period of this year they have gone up by £5,500,000.

  SUGAR (RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS).
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that sugar and sugared goods to the value of nearly £600,000 were exported from this country to the United States, Sweden, Norway, and the Netherlands in the first nine months of this year, he will prohibit or restrict such exports, and thereby release sugar which is urgently needed for domestic consumption?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not in contemplation to prohibit or restrict the export of articles of food containing sugar. The

  37
  total quantity of sugar contained in such goods is relatively insignificant, and any advantage resulting to consumers in this country from its retention would be so small that it would in no way compensate for the difficulties of various kinds that would arise from restrictive regulations, which would necessarily have to be applied to import as well as to export.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is it not a fact that in the first nine months of this year the exports of sugared goods amounted to nearly £600,000?
  Mr. McKENNA: The amount of sugar would not be much; it is not worth the trouble.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the serious shortage of sugar for purposes of domestic consumption, he will give directions to the Sugar Commission to restrict the amount of sugar supplied to manufacturers in this country of sugared goods which are not necessaries of life?
  Sir R. COOPERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he contemplates the restriction of the use of sugar in the manufacture of the more expensive qualities of sweets, with a view to the relief of the scarcity of sugar for legitimate household requirements?
  Mr. McKENNA: The answer to both questions is in the negative, and for much the same reasons as I have just given for not interfering with the export of articles of food containing sugar.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether it is not advisable to give people a sense of justice as well as sugar? Although the amount of sugar used in these sweets is small, yet as long as this goes on people whose children are stinted of sugar for necessary purposes will feel they are being treated most unjustly?
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that, owing to the right hon. Gentleman's decision, the masses of the people of this country have to suffer for those who indulge in unnecessary luxuries?
  Mr. McKENNA: It is not an easy question, but I am quite sure, if the sense of the House were in favour of stopping the manufacture of sweets, the manufacturers
  38
  of sweets would willingly accept the decision. The problem is one that is constantly engaging the attention of the Committee, and we will certainly go further into it.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman really not aware of the most serious hardship suffered by the people of the country owing to the shortness of the supply of sugar for domestic purposes, and cannot he devise some method of relieving that hardship?
  Mr. McKENNA: I can only say, I believe at the present time, even with the restricted supply of sugar, the consumption in this country is at least equal to that of any other country in Europe—probably very much greater. I admit the hardship is severe compared with the ordinary practice, but we have to submit to these hardships because of the War.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But will not the right hon. Gentleman restrict the luxurious use of sugar? That is the point.
  Sir STEPHEN COLLINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the restriction of sugar in the manufacture of alcoholic liquors?
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of sugar is higher in America than here?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe that is the case, and I believe that is owing to the management by the Sugar Commission.

  INCOME TAX (MINERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that miners (workmen) travelling to their work from Leeds to Micklefield, a distance of nine miles each way, at a cost of 2s. a week, or a total of £5 4s. a year, are charged Income Tax upon that sum; and, if so, will instructions be given to surveyors of taxes in the district that moneys thus expended are not to be subjected to Income Tax?
  Mr. McKENNA: Inquiry is being made into this matter, and I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (TAXATION).
  Captain WRIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the members of industrial and provident societies are now liable to the payment of Income Tax?
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not in a position to furnish exact figures, but it is probable that, on an outside computation, not more than one-tenth of the members of industrial and provident societies would be effectively liable to Income Tax The hon. and gallant Member will bear in mind that, although the Income Tax exemption limit stands at £130, the average practical limit of non-liability is much higher, by reason, principally, of the reduction allowed in respect of children (£25 for each child).
  Captain WRIGHTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of the surpluses accumulated out of excess profits by the industrial and provident societies for the financial year 1914–15; and whether, having regard to the financial burdens imposed by the War on all other corporations and persons, he will set up his promised Committee for the reconsideration of the exemption from taxation granted to these societies now before the War is ended?
  Mr. McKENNA: No information is available which would enable me to supply the particulars desired by the hon. and gallant Member. I may remind him, however, that these societies are chargeable to the Excess Profits Duty. As has been repeatedly explained in this House the Committee to which he refers will be appointed to investigate Income Tax matters generally and the inquiry cannot be entered upon until after the War.
  Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: Is it not the case that if Income Tax were levied upon co-operative societies in the same way as upon limited liability companies Income Tax would be improperly levied upon millions of poor people who would have the greatest difficulty in getting back the tax wrongly collected, thus in effect robbing them?
  Mr. McKENNA: I believe that is the fact, but that is one of the matters which will be inquired into by the Committee.

  GERMAN-OWNED BUSINESSES (ADVERTISEMENTS IN NEWSPAPERS).
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation for bidding newspapers from accepting any advertisements of any German-owned business, whether situated in this country or abroad?
  The PRIME MINISTER: As at present advised, I doubt whether such legislation would be practicable, but the question of requiring the disclosure of the identity of the partners of the advertising firm in all business advertisements is under consideration.

  WOMAN-POWER.
  Mr. JACOBSENasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the calling up of further large numbers of men for Army service, he will consider setting up a Woman-Power Board to advise as to the national organisation and utilisation of the woman-power of this country?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I do not think it necessary to adopt this suggestion. The terms of reference to the Man-Power Board include the utilisation of woman-power, and the Board are taking active steps to carry out this part of their duties. A Central Advisory Committee on women's war employment has already been at work for some time under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for South Bedfordshire, and steps are being taken locally throughout the country to promote and organise the employment of women.

  LAND PURCHASE BY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister how many Government Departments or sections of Departments have, since the outbreak of war, been purchasing land or recommending the purchase of land; and whether he will consider the advisability of Government requirements in this direction being dealt with through one purchasing authority only?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Several Departments are concerned with the purchase of land for their own requirements as in peace time. My hon. Friend will

  41
  understand that land required for war purposes is not purchased outright unless there are special reasons in particular cases for preferring purchase to requisitioning. As regards the suggestion in the last part of the question, I am advised that the establishment of a single purchasing authority for all Departments is not practicable.

  SOUTHERN RHODESIA.
  Sir WALTER ESSEXasked (1) the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has accepted any responsibility for the alleged administrative deficits of the British South Africa Company, or any other financial obligations connected with the administration of Southern Rhodesia beyond those contained in Article 33 of the Royal Charter; and whether he is prepared to give an assurance that no such financial obligations will be entertained beyond those referred to in the Royal Charter without first providing adequate facilities for Parliamentary discussion; and (2) the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government still attaches great importance to the principle that no new administration of Rhodesia shall be burdened with a debt-charge greater than the proportion of the corresponding asset, as set forth in Sir John Anderson's letter of 14th October, 1914; and whether he can give an assurance that there will be no departure from this principle by placing upon the future Government of Rhodesia or upon the Imperial Exchequer debt-charges arising out of the alleged administrative deficits of Rhodesia without first providing for adequate Parliamentary discussion?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): The views and policy of His Majesty's Government in these matters remain as hitherto, and no change is in contemplation. The letter referred to still holds good. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's questions it would be impossible to give such assurances without knowledge of the conditions that may prevail when these matters are ripe for settlement.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Can we receive an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that we shall not be committed to buying out the Chartered Company's land in Southern Rhodesia without previous consultation with this House?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only say I have no reason to believe that the proposal is contemplated. I cannot give any assurance as to what may be done by future Governments.

  FOREIGN POLICY.
  Mr. R. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether it is the considered policy of the Cabinet that in future the House of Commons is not to share the responsibility with regard to foreign policy?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is not contemplated to make any change in the future with regard to the responsibility for foreign policy.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Do I understand the Prime Minister to repudiate the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on Tuesday last that the Government cannot share responsibility with the House of Commons or anybody else?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not repudiate it in the least. The Government is responsible for the foreign policy of the country, and the House of Commons can censure them if they like if that policy is not in accordance with their views.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

  ADMIRALTY ADMINISTRATION.
  Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether, if he is satisfied that there is a general desire in the House on the subject, he will grant a day for the discussion of the administration of the First Lord of the Admiralty?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware that there is a general desire at present for such a discussion, nor am I satisfied that under existing conditions it would be expedient in the public interest. The First Lord would raise no objection of any kind.
  Sir E. CARSON: What is the object of the First Lord of the Admiralty summoning together the members of the Press?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that that has been the regular practice. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It has been done several times before.
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House

  43
  that the House will be put in possession of the information which the First Lord of the Admiralty is giving in secret to a large number of pressmen?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I should not like to answer that question off-hand, because the information, if it is of a secret character, ought only to be given to the House in a Secret Session.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the House shall meet in Secret Session to receive the information which has been given to the Press?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that they are being warned that they are not to make use of it. I will consider that.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will that apply not only to the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty but also to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, and other Ministers?
  Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no statement shall be made in another place with regard to the naval situation that is not made simultaneously here?
  The PRIME MINISTERSshould not like to give a general undertaking of that kind. As the House knows, I am as jealous as anybody in that matter.

  FARM LABOUR (SHORTAGE).
  Captain C. BATHURSTasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present, and still more of the prospective, shortage of labour on the farms and of the fact that thousands of acres of land have consequently been left unsown this autumn which would otherwise have been sown with wheat, the Government will now authorise the employment, under proper safeguards, of suitable boys over twelve years of age from elementary and secondary schools without the loss to the local education authorities of the Government Grant payable in respect of boys released from school for this purpose?
  Sir S. COLLINS: Will the Government take into consideration the advisability of making use of the labour of some of the tens of thousands of soldiers up and down the country? Some of them are doing very little and some of them would be glad to be at work.
  The PRIME MINISTER: That is being taken into consideration. I cannot accept without reserve the statements contained in the hon. and gallant Member's question, and I do not think his suggestion would be practicable.

  DUCHESS MARIE OF SAXE-COBURG AND GOTHA (ALLOWANCE).
  Mr. LYNCHasked whether an annual allowance is paid out of the British Treasury to the Duchess Marie of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor to the hon. Baronet the Member for Roxburghshire on 18th November, 1914.
  Mr. LYNCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the tenour of that answer? If an allowance is being given to this lady would it not be better to terminate it and distribute the money among the widows whose husbands have fallen in the War?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is not a matter for my decision.
  Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the rule of this House that an hon. Member cannot be referred back to a previous Session if he wants the information during the present Session?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I have never heard of such a rule.

  REGISTRATION BILL.
  Captain BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Prime Minister if he will now consider the desirability of presenting a new Registration Bill which will deal justly with the claim to vote at Parliamentary elections of all soldiers and sailors of eighteen years of age and upwards who have served or are serving in the present War; and, if it should be considered impracticable to give the vote to soldiers and sailors without extending the franchise to women, if he will consider the advisability of including, in addition to the soldiers and sailors above-mentioned, all sailors of the mercantile marine, and all bona fide munition and war workers of both sexes of twenty-one years of age and upwards, as well as of all women now empowered by the existing law to vote in municipal elections?
  The PRIME MINISTER: These questions can be raised in the discussion which I have promised.

  AIR SERVICES.
  Sir E. CORNWALLasked whether the War Council have given full and special consideration to the question of the best means of coordinating, organising, and developing the Air Services, or whether the matter is left to the War Office, Admiralty, and Munitions Department to adopt whatever policy they individually may prefer?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The functions of the existing Air Board were explained to the House in May last by the then Under-Secretary of State for War and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and included the task of organising and coordinating the supply of material for the two Air Services. His Majesty's Government have just received the first Report of the President of the Air Board, and it is receiving their most careful consideration.
  Mr. ASHLEY: When will the decision of the Government be announced, as there is great feeling in the country about this matter?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Very soon.

  SURVEYORS OF TAXES, (DIRECTIONS).
  Sir ERNEST LAMBasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the following directions to surveyors of taxes are in operation, namely, that where the Commissioners are willing that clerks, travellers, warehousemen, and other persons employed in a similar sub ordinate capacity by limited liability companies should be assessed on an average of the three preceding years no objection should be offered by the surveyor, whether he will also arrange for such average to be allowed to persons in receipt of pay from public funds who are employed in a similar subordinate capacity?
  Mr. McKENNA: I see no reason for any alteration in the law under which persons in receipt of emoluments from public funds are now assessed.

  GERMAN BANKS.
  Colonel GRETTONasked if the usual reports and accounts are submitted at the regular periods by the controllers and liquidators of the German banks in
  46
  this country; if he will state what form the supervision of the controllers and liquidators of these banks by the Treasury takes; and, if such reports have not yet been furnished, will he state the reason?
  Mr. McKENNA: The controller of the German banks is under no obligation to furnish reports except when called for; and no formal reports have been found necessary in this the controller has been acting in close touch with the officers of the Treasury. The supervision of the controller takes the form of seeing that the objects of his control, namely, the realisation of assets, the payment of debts to non-enemy creditors, and the disposal of securities, etc are properly carried out; and that no banking business is transacted. The controller has been asked quite recently to furnish a comprehensive report of all that has been done in connection with these banks; and he is preparing his report.
  Colonel GRETTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the usual practice in winding-up companies under the ordinary law that periodical and regular reports should be submitted; that these operations are under the constant supervision of the Board of Trade; and why is that not done in the case of German banks?
  Mr. McKENNA: I do not think that there is any real analogy between the two cases. In the present case these businesses cannot be conducted, and they are not allowed to go on.
  Colonel YATE: Will the report be communicated to this House?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly, if the House wishes it.

  POTATO PRICES.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the profits that potato growers are making; if he is aware that one potato grower in South Lincolnshire has just cleared a profit of £63,000 from his potato crop from 1,000 acres; if he can say if such a profit will be subject to Excess Profits Tax; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any steps to secure for the National Exchequer a much larger share of the profits now being made by farmers of all classes?
  Mr. McKENNA: Potato growers, like other occupiers of land for the purpose of husbandry, are charged to Income Tax.

  47
  in the ordinary course under the rules of Schedule B, and no returns of the actual amount of profits realised are required in these cases. The profit of husbandry in the United Kingdom are not within the scope of the charge to Excess Profits Duty. As regards Income Tax, I would remind the hon. Member that under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, the statutory measure of the Schedule B assessments in respect of the occupation of lands was increased from one-third of the annual value of the lands to the full amount of that value.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: In view of the fact that the profits of farmers to-day bear no relation at all to the amount of rent they are paying but are enormously in excess, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take into consideration and deal with in his next Budget these enormous profits which are being made by the exploitation of the food of the people?
  Mr. McKENNA: Certainly that will be considered, but I cannot make any statement now as to what will be in the next Budget.
  An HON. MEMBER: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept these figures as correct?
  Mr. PRINGLE: They are inadequate.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman not introduce immediate legislation so that farmers can be brought within the Excess Profits Tax?
  Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; I have no such intention.
  Mr. HOUSTON: It is because they cannot keep books, I suppose.
  Mr. FINNEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the price per cwt. paid by the Government to Shropshire farmers for potatoes for the use of soldiers; whether soldiers are employed in removing the potatoes from the farms to the camps; whether this is one of the conditions of the bargain between the Government and the farmers; whether he is aware that farmers in Shropshire and elsewhere are holding up potatoes for higher prices, the effects being an artificial scarcity of potatoes and the civil population rendered unable to obtain necessary supplies; and, if so, will he say what steps he will take to protect the Government and the people against such cornering of food supplies?
  Mr. FORSTER: So far as I am aware, the Government has bought no potatoes in Shropshire for the use of soldiers in camps at home. I am, however, informed that the Agricultural Produce Supplies, Limited, has bought potatoes for supply through canteens at various prices ranging as high as £11 10s. per ton; but in no case has there been any condition or arrangement that the potatoes should be removed by soldiers. For the last two parts of my hon. Friend's question I would refer to the replies on this subject which were given last Thursday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Is the War Office aware that statements are being very generally made that the War Office buyers are very largely responsible for the increase in the price of potatoes by going about the country offering much higher figures than the current market prices, and, if so, will steps be taken to stop that by commandeering supplies at fixed prices?
  Mr. FORSTER: I have not heard that War Office agents have put up the price of potatoes, but I am seriously considering whether or not something in the nature of commandeering may not have to be resorted to.

  SCOTTISH TEACHERS (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that throughout Scotland teachers have been presenting memorials to the school boards petitioning for an increase of salary or war bonus in view of the present cost of living; and if he can state whether any of the boards have taken any action with regard thereto or have consulted the Department?
  Mr. TENNANT: I am aware that throughout Scotland teachers have been presenting memorials to school boards in the sense stated in the question. I have received a representation from certain school boards in Lanarkshire in favour of a contribution being made by the Scottish Education Department towards the expense of any bonus which may be granted. This matter is at present under consideration.

  TUBERCULOSIS (SCOTLAND).
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether any steps are being taken to secure throughout Scotland greater progress in combating tuberculosis by any of the following methods, namely: by securing more careful diagnosis of cases in which there is any possibility of tuberculosis disease and, consequently, more general notification in the earlier stages, an improvement of housing conditions, and the establishment and development of after-care committees for the supervision of cases after institutional treatment and for assisting patients to qualify for a suitable change of employment?
  Mr. TENNANT: I recognise the importance of the subject raised by my hon. Friend and have consulted with the Local Government Board for Scotland, who will lose no opportunity of encouraging local authorities, so far as practicable under existing conditions, to deal with the problem of tuberculosis by any available method. I cannot go into greater detail within the limits of a Parliamentary question and answer.

  FERTILISERS COMMITTEE.
  Mr. PRATTasked whether any action has been taken to secure the addition of a representative of the Scottish Board of Agriculture to the Fertilisers Committee?
  Sir JOHN JARDINEasked whether any member of the Scottish Board of Agriculture will be appointed to the Fertilisers Committee, so as to give Scotland representation similar to that of England and Ireland?
  Mr. TENNANT: The interests of Scotland on the Fertilisers Committee are admirably served by my hon. Friend the Member for the Tradeston Division, who is in close touch with the Board of Agriculture for Scotland on this matter.

  MILK SUPPLIES.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered the advisability of prohibiting the sale of milk until it has been cooled or refrigerated; whether such a measure would enable towns to get their supplies
  50
  once daily instead of two or three times, thus obviating the necessity for excessively early hours and leading to economy in working expenses; and whether he proposes to take any action?
  Mr. TENNANT: Under the provisions of the Milk and Dairies (Scotland) Act, 1914, the Local Government Board have power, with the concurrence of the Board of Agriculture, to make Orders regulating the cooling of milk. The operation of the Act has been suspended in consequence of the War. The Boards are not satisfied that the exercise of these powers would be sufficient to produce the result aimed at in the last part of my hon. Friend's question.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to seek adequate powers?
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it possible to provide this machinery just now?
  Mr. TENNANT: Of course, that is a question for consideration, but the actual conditions under which we are at present living make it very difficult.

  TIMBER PRICES.
  Mr. COWANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture what steps, if any, have been taken by the Home-Grown Timber Committee or other authority under his Department to protect the State against the exaction by timber owners of excessive prices for pit-wood and timber of similar class required for purposes essential to the country?
  The PARLIAMENTARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): I do not think that timber owners have been in a position to exact excessive prices. The question of protecting the State-against such exaction has, therefore, not arisen, but I may say that there is power under the Defence of the Realm Regulations to requisition timber in certain circumstances; compensation for timber so requisitioned would be fixed by the Defence of the Realm Losses Royal Commission.
  Mr. COWAN: If I send the right hon. Gentleman particulars of prices recently-paid, will he give further consideration to the subject?
  Mr. ACLAND: I will be very glad to do so.
  Mr. COWANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the many complaints in Scotland of the wholesale clearances in certain districts of young thriving timber for pit-wood and military purposes while there is still available suitable timber which might be taken without serious detriment to the future timber crop of the country; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. ACLAND: I understand that neither the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries nor the Scottish Office has received any substantiated complaints of the character indicated; and although I know that certain representations have appeared in the Press on the subject, I am of opinion that they have been made without sufficient information or inquiry, and I cannot, therefore, see my, way to recommend any change of practice in the matter.
  Mr. E. HARVEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether simultaneously with the clearing of these timber woods arrangements have been made for the planting of timber?
  Mr. ACLAND: No, Sir; there is no labour.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a large number of German prisoners in this country who are trained in afforestation?
  Mr. ACLAND: Yes, Sir; we are getting all that we can to cut down timber, which is urgently needed.
  Mr. COWANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that, as fixed by his award for the current year, the present prices of pit-wood are four to five times those ruling immediately before the War; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the increase in the price of pit-wood during the War has resulted in a rise of over 2s. a ton in the cost of coal at Scottish collieries; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. ACLAND: There has been a considerable rise in the cost of pit-wood during the War owing to restricted supplies and increased cost of production and carriage. In isolated instances, thongh not generally, the increase may have been as great as my hon. Friend states, but his
  52
  suggestion that the rise of pit-wood prices has in Scotland caused a rise of 2s. a ton in coal is entirely unjustified by any facts known to me, and I think unjustifiable. The general position with, regard to pit-wood supplies is receiving the constant attention of the Departments concerned, but it is not proposed at present to limit the price of pit-wood.

  NIGERIA (ENEMY PROPERTIES).
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received information from Lagos that Britsh authorities there introduced to the British resident at Kano two men of German birth, Herr Muller and Herr Schoffer, and that these men, representing hyphenated American firms, are interested in the purchase of, or proposals to purchase, Nigerian enemy properties to be offered for sale by the Government in the middle of this month?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no such information.
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the sale of Nigerian enemy properties advertised to take place in the middle of this month, it is to be a condition that the purchaser must be a natural-born British subject; if he is aware that in the selling of enemy properties in this country the Government have regularly inserted this condition; and, if that practice is not being followed, on what grounds the change is being made?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. The rest of the points raised by the hon. Member can, I think, be more conveniently dealt with in the Debate tomorrow.
  Mr. HIGHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that two men of German birth, Herr Muller and Herr Schoffer, have been received and entertained at Kano, in Nigeria, by the British representative there, and were introduced by him to all the native traders who were likely to have goat skins, etc., for sale, which goods the Germans wished to buy for hyphenated American firms; and whether he will issue instructions to British representatives as to their duty in such cases, especially when British trade interests are prejudiced?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that Mr. Muller is a Swiss citizen and Mr. Shoffer a citizen of the United States. They went to Nigeria about a year ago as representatives of two American firms, both of which are approved by His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington as importers of hides and skins from British Colonies to the United States. I have no information as to the action of the resident at Kano.

  CROWN COLONIES (WAR CONTRIBUTIONS).
  Commander WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance, if any, has been rendered to the Mother Country in the War as regards raising troops, a loan, direct financial help, or the freeing of white officials by each of the following Crown Colonies: British East Africa, Uganda, Nigeria, Gold Coast, West Indies, Rhodesia, Ceylon, Straits Settlement, and Malay States?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Generous and valuable assistance has been given in these directions by the Colonies and Protectorates referred to by the hon. Member, as well as by others not mentioned in his question It would be impossible to state what has been and is being done within the limits of an answer in this House, but at a later date I will cause a comprehensive memorandum to be prepared and laid on the Table. In the meantime the hon. Member will find some information on the subject in the Papers recently laid before Parliament, namely, Cd. 7608, 7646 And 7875.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Is it not a fact that in spite of that answer only one of those Colonies has raised any coloured troops at all, and not one has raised any money for the Mother Country?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe not, so far as I know.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Why is not the question on the Paper answered? Why give a general answer like that? I will put it down again.

  SOUTH AFRICA (NATIVE WAGES).
  Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the rate of
  54
  wage to be paid to the South African natives who have been recruited to work in France?
  Mr. FORSTER: The Kaffir private will receive 8d. a day in cash, and 1s. 4d. a day reserved until discharge, less any payment allotted to the man's family.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: That is to say, they are paid double the rate at which our own men in the trenches are paid?
  Mr. FORSTER: Oh, no; that is not at all a fair statement.
  Mr. OUTHWAITE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to raise the pay of the British soldier to 2s. per day?
  Mr. FORSTER: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  POST OFFICE (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. WINGasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the disappointment at the award of 1s. per week as war bonus to postmen in the North of England; and if he will cause an inquiry with a view to its increase or submit the same to arbitration?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. A. Pease): The position of the men in question will, no doubt, be considered by the arbitration tribunal to which the Prime Minister referred on the 2nd instant in his reply to a question by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
  Mr. WING: May I take it that the whole question has been referred to arbitration?
  Mr. PEASE: The Prime Minister stated last week that any question connected with disputes arising out of wages would be referred to the tribunal as soon as it was set up.

  NERVE-SHATTERED SOLDIERS.
  Colonel YATEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether, in view of the number of men who have been discharged from the Army owing to the effects of un-certifiable nerve strain, any steps have been taken by local committees, acting under the instructions of the Central Statutory Committee, to provide convalescent homes, free from detention or suspicion of

  55
  connection with lunacy, to which ex-soldiers of this class may go temporarily, with a view to the promotion of recovery and to linking them up again with their ordinary employment?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: The Statutory Committee have advised local committees that various kinds of treatment are required for nerve-shaken men. The Statutory Committee have been making careful inquiries into this difficult question, and they have under consideration at the present time a scheme under which appropriate cases would be treated and trained in an institution or institutions in which cases of ordinary wounds and illness other than mental would also be received.
  Colonel YATE: Will that consideration be brought to a speedy termination or is it to go on indefinitely?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: We are very anxious to bring it to a speedy termination, but there is a good deal of conflict of opinion as to the best treatment of these cases. The matter is now being considered.
  Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many soldiers discharged suffering from nerve shock who are in the county asylums at the expense of the ratepayers at the present time?
  Mr. HAYES FISHER: I am aware of a few cases—not very many.

  BRITISH SHIPS SOLD TO NEUTRALS.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the number of British ships sold to neutral shipowners since the outbreak of war; and also the total tonnage of such vessels?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The total number of British vessels of all kinds transferred to neutral flags from the 1st August, 1914, to the 31st October, 1916, is 253, with a total gross tonnage of 477,856 tons. Of this amount 344,053 tons were sold before the Government obtained power to control transfers, and a great part of this was tonnage that was already owned by neutral firms; 28,749 tons is Colonial tonnage; and
  56
  36,118 tons is sailing-ship tonnage. There were, in addition, three vessels with a tonnage of 10,082, which were placed temporarily on the British register in process of transfer from one foreign flag to another. The steam tonnage registered in the United Kingdom which has been sold to neutrals since 12th February, 1915, the date on which Government control became operative, is 58,853.

  GERMAN SEA RAID.
  Mr. HOUSTON(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether on the occasion of the recent German raid in the Channel, Admiral Bacon had full authority in his discretion to engage the enemy ships, or whether he had to await instructions or authority from the Admiralty in London before doing so?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Admiral Bacon had full authority, without awaiting instructions or authority from the Admiralty, to engage the enemy ships.
  Mr. HOUSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rumours are freely circulated that a number of British warships—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has submitted his first question to me, but not his second.

  DUBLIN BAKERS' DISPUTE.
  Mr. BYRNE(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any communications from Dublin requesting his Department to appoint an arbitrator to settle the dispute between the Master Bakers' Association and their employés; if so, will he-say when the arbitrator will proceed to Dublin; if he will proceed immediately so as to prevent the threatened strike of bakers which would bring ruin and starvation to the working classes of the city; if he is aware that the strike is threatend to take place this week if the question in dispute is not settled by arbitration?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Chief Industrial Commissioner is in communication with the parties to the dispute with a view to the appointment of an arbitrator.

  GLASNEVIN CEMETERY (STRIKE).
  Mr. CLANCY(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether or not his attention has been drawn to the strike amongst a considerable body of employés in the service of the Dublin Catholic Cemeteries Committee; whether it is a fact that one consequence of that particular strike is that a large number of bodies have remained un-interred for several days, and that danger thereby has arisen to the public health; whether the Cemeteries Committee is well able to pay the increased wages demanded by the employés which are called for in all the circumstances of the case; and whether, if the facts are as alleged, the Government intend to take any action?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke)The question did not arrive at the Irish Office until two o'clock to-day, and there has not been time to inquire into the matter.
  Mr. BYRNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make immediate inquiries into the state of affairs in Dublin at present? Is he aware that fever has already broken out owing to the corpses not being buried?
  Mr. DUKE: Doubtless I shall obtain the particulars which the question calls for; but I cannot say offhand whether there is a large number of corpses unburied, or what the consequences are.
  Mr. CLANCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the facts have been published in the newspapers in Dublin and that the matter concerns the Local Government Board, of which he is President?
  Mr. DUKE: If any communications on the subject had come to the Local Government Board I do not doubt that I should have become aware of the facts; but I think the hon. Member will hardly expect that I could keep myself acquainted with everything which occurs in Dublin.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the employés of the Glasnevin Cemeteries Committee are paid the magnificent wage of 25s. 6d. a week to live on?
  Mr. DUKE: I have never heard until this day what is the amount, or whether there was any dissatisfaction on the part of the men.
  Mr. BYRNE: Can anyone be satisfied on 25s. 6d. a week?

  National Penny Bank.
  Mr. BOWERMANasked the President of the Board of Trade when the Official Receiver will be declaring a further dividend in connection with the affairs of the National Penny Bank?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the Official Receiver is unable at present to fix any definite date for the declaration of a further dividend in the case of the National Penny Bank, pending the settlement of certain legal questions.

  MEMBERS' QUESTIONS.
  Mr. LYNCH: I wish to consult you, Sir, on a matter relative to your own authority in withholding a question to be addressed to the Prime Minister. I do not wish to take you by surprise in the matter, and I have not yet had an opportunity of consulting you. If it would be preferable to postpone this point until to-morrow, I will do so. If not, I will beg to read the question to the House, so that all the House may judge of the perfect fairness of the question I was going to put.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman had better speak to me about it. I am rather taken by surprise in the matter. If he reads the question he may be contravening the very point which he is anxious, I am sure, not to get round.

  IMPRISONMENT OF MEMBER.
  Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following letter:—
  "1st November, 1916.
  Sir, I have to inform you that Mr. Laurence Ginnell, M.P. for North Westmeath, has been arrested to-day under a commitment warrant issued by me, and has been taken to Pentonville Prison, for detention there for a period of twenty-one days in the first division, in default of payment of a fine of £50 imposed upon him on appeal by the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of London, upon a charge under Regulation 44 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, of knowingly making a false statement and an omission in a certain application, with intent to mislead an officer and persons acting under the order of an officer in the execution of their duties.
  I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
  JOHN DICKINSON.
  To the Right Honourable
  The Speaker of the
  House of Commons."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Colonel CRAIG: I desire to make an appeal to the Chief Secretary, and through him to the Government, to make still further improvements, especially as regards those officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have served for many years. The right hon. Gentleman held out some hope last Monday that it would be possible for him to go a little further if those of us who were interested in the matter could make a good case. In speaking, as I shall do, particularly on behalf of the county and district inspectors, I am doing so entirely on my own initiative, without any approach by them to me as a body, because I have felt for many years past that the higher ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary were underpaid, when one takes into consideration the terms of their service, the onerous work they have to perform, and also the fact that the esprit de corps of the force depends at all times practically on these higher officers. The pay and allowances of the higher grades in the Royal Irish Constabulary have not been changed since 1882, and many of the regulations governing their allowances were framed in the year 1870, and although the rank and file—I do not grumble about this—have had their pay and allowances altered from time to time, and as recently as 1914, the higher grades have remained unchanged and are in the position to-day that the county or senior district inspector is something like £30 per annum worse off than the county or senior district inspector in the year 1882. It must also be borne in mind that the number of these officers has decreased. In 1882, or in 1870—I am subject to correction; I have had very little time to make careful inquiry—there were about 255, and the number to-day is only about 230, some thirty-six of whom are at present seconded for service at the front, so that you have these men entrusted with a larger area than when there were more men to perform the same duties. The
  98
  area works out at something like ninety-five square miles for a senior district inspector to superintend in 1870, and in 1916 something like 180 square miles. So that you have these men, actually in a financial position some £30 worse than they were in 1882, performing work which is necessitated by almost doubling the area of their control.
  The Bill, as introduced by the Chief Secretary, is a great disappointment to these men. I have said over and over again, long before this Government, or even the last, came into power, that if ever a Unionist Government were returned, one of the first acts of absolute necessity and of justice which would have to be performed would be immediately to take up the case of these overworked, loyal men, who have brought and maintained the Royal Irish Constabulary to the high state of perfection at which it stands to-day. Long ago this question was a burning one that required almost immediate attention, but for one reason or another these cases have been shamefully neglected.
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): I understood my hon. and gallant Friend to say that the pay of these officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary has been reduced by £30 a year. I myself have inquired into the matter, and am not aware of any such reduction.
  Colonel CRAIG: I must have put my case very badly. To-day one of these higher officers—a county or district inspector—is on the whole £30 a year worse off, not because the Government have reduced his pay, but in consequence of some alterations in the system of Income Tax which were introduced not long ago, and also because the rents for lodgings or houses occupied by these highly paid officers have increased, not in one particular part, but all over Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to know a few of the particulars, I can give them to him, so that he may see that at the present moment they are really worse off. In the year 1882 the pay was £275—I am speaking of the financial position of first-class district inspectors of six years' service—to-day their pay is £275. Their lodging allowance in 1882 was £40 a year, and it is still £40. The servant's allowance was £45 on the first occasion, but now, taking off the Income Tax, employers' liability

  99
  and insurance charges, it is only £37 13s. 6d. The forage allowance was £50, and to-day it is £50. The stationery allowance was £3, and to-day it is £3. In the old days they used to receive from grand juries for Weights and Measures Act Duty an extra £10. These items brought up the total in 1882 to £423, while to-day the figures I have read out amount to only £405 13s. 6d. There is a further loss incurred through the nominal addition of £45, which is called an increase for taxable purposes These figures show that they are somewhere between £25 or £30 worse off than they were in 1882. In the old days they received free medical attendance for themselves and their families. That has now been cut down to medical attendance for the officers themselves only. In addition they have to pay a Motor Tax of £6 6s., a Petrol Tax of £10, and insurance against third-party risks £9, or a total of £25 6s. The men whose districts have been very much extended have to use a motor car. It is very strange that the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary should be placed in a worse position, as far as the Motor Taxes are concerned, than the local doctors. It is rather absurd that they should have to pay full taxes. If they get a Ford car or a car coming from abroad they have to pay the extra prices necessitated by the large increase in taxation—I think it is 25 per cent.—imposed on such cars coming into this country. All these things operate very much against the senior officers.
  The Chief Secretary the other day held out hopes that, with the exception of the Inspector-General, this Bill would be able to cover all other ranks. I would point out to him that there is a great difference between these officers and the rank and file so far as bringing pressure to bear upon the Government or, in fact, on anybody is concerned. They are 10th to do it. They feel they are in a position of being absolutely at the mercy of the authorities. It is some thirty-two years since the whole scheme of their pay, pensions, and allowances was reviewed, and if they allow an opportunity like this, when a Bill is introduced for the very purpose, to pass, I can conceive that they will have to remain on the same terms for a very long period. I would therefore earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the hardships of their case; they are men who dislike, beyond anything else, bringing forward their grievances or making what
  100
  they consider to be petty appeals either to the Chief Secretary or to the Government. It is, therefore, all the more necessary for us to take a very independent line at the present time, because we want to do justice where justice is due, and we also want the Government to round off a Bill which has been introduced for the purpose of alleviating the distress which undoubtedly exists through all ranks of the force. If I address ray remarks on this occasion principally to the case of the higher officers, I hope it will not be taken that there are not many similar points with regard to the Bill itself which, when we get into Committee, will require discussion and adjustment. I have gone into the thing very fully. On the whole, I believe the Bill is one which will tide the Government over for a further period. But before the Committee stage is reached I hope the Chief Secretary will make an earnest endeavour, by consulting some of us on this side of the House who are familiar with the subject, if he cares to do so, or by consulting the district and county inspectors themselves, to increase the measure to such an extent that they at all events will get some of the benefits in these very trying times.
  I would point out that the higher officers who take charge of a county or a very large district, sometimes covering 200 square miles, are in a very different position from men of non-commissioned rank. If one would picture anybody having power and authority in Ireland he must picture to himself a county inspector or a district inspector. We may have indifferent Inspectors-General or first-class Inspectors-General. We may have a weak Chief Secretary of a strong Chief Secretary. We may hare a Government which is not firm enough in its dealings with Ireland, but whatever the superiors may be, according to the chances which send them to Ireland, we always have permanently with us these trusted men, the county inspectors and district inspectors, to uphold law and order, and to make secure life and property. If the Chief Secretary will consider, as I am sure he has done—I am not by any means attacking the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will not think I am—not only the trying times through which Ireland has more recently passed, but if he will look back to the year 1906 and remember that all through the South and West there was a considerable amount of disturbance—[HON.

  101
  MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is common knowledge; I am talking about 1906 and onwards. It will be admitted by all parties that these men had a great deal of hard work to perform, that they performed it without fear or favour, and that, in every instance, they contributed to the high name which the Royal Irish Constabulary bears to-day.
  Mr. DEVLIN: What about your trusted men at Larne?
  Colonel CRAIG: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to continue; he can follow me in Debate if he wishes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be deterred by any side-wind from doing justice to this class of public servant. I would ask him to bear in mind that by a circular letter of the Inspector-General, dated 6th January, 1915, it was definitely laid down that the Royal Irish Constabulary were part of the armed forces of the Crown. I understand that prior to that time there was some considerable doubt, even at headquarters in Dublin, as to whether or not they were a civilian force, but since January, 1915, it has been granted that they are a part of the armed forces of the Crown, consequently they should be treated on a more generous scale and a scale more approximating that of the other armed forces of the Crown. With regard to these higher offices in the Royal Irish Constabulary, the great desire of everyone is that they should attract the best men in Ireland. If you are to carry on the force in the way in which it has been reared, it will be necessary to put some small incentive before county and district inspectors beyond what they have now, in order to tempt into their ranks the best blood of the country and the best men, and something that will be an incentive to those serving in the ranks to try to obtain commissioned rank and rise up to these more favourable posts. When the Bill was introduced and printed we made a searching examination of its various terms. All ranks have been treated either more or less generously, but somehow they have all been dealt with except the higher ranks of county inspectors and the higher ranks of district inspectors.
  There are two great objections to the measure as framed, one being that it discourages married men from entering these higher posts, because if a man is single he can afford to live at a much
  102
  reduced cost compared with a man who has to maintain himself and his family. The family grows up, and he looks for increased pay. They have to be educated, and a great deal of expense is thrown upon the married man's shoulders, all of which is escaped by a man who is not married. Therefore, the Bill seems rather to encourage the single man and docs not pay sufficient attention to the burdens that have to be borne by the married man. The second flaw in the Bill seems to be that it aims at cutting down pensions in the future. It appears that the Government intentionally framed the measure so that these men, who perform many services, after they have attained these higher positions, no matter what their pay was in the interim, when they retire will not have their pensions increased by the terms of this Bill. Both of these things are very bad for the higher ranks of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The steady married men who have settled down in their profession should be encouraged at all costs, and nothing should be done which would mean saying "Hands off!" to them by giving a preference to the unmarried men who make the Royal Irish Constabulary their profession.
  Next I come to the question of pensions. I think it takes thirteen or fourteen years for a district inspector to rise to the first class and to get the benefits of higher pay. Surely if a man gets to that stage, after long and faithful service, he deserves some of the advantages in the shape of increased pensions which would follow an increase of pay. I do not think it would be advisable for the right hon. Gentleman to in any way shirk the fact that pay later on counts for pension, and I do suggest that these officers deserve both increased pay and the consequent additional pension. The changes which some of my friends who have studied this question advocate are really very slight. They affect a very small body of men. It is almost impossible to say how many, because the number is constantly changing; but in these classes there are, roughly speaking, about 230 officers; a great many of them, who are of junior rank, are provided for under the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman will therefore recognise that our request applies only to a very small number, and will represent very little when calculated in pounds, shillings, and pence. What we suggest is that the

  103
  county inspectors and the district inspectors should have about £40 per annum increase all round, and that that should count for pension.
  The second point I am particularly anxious to make is in regard to the antiquated segregation of £50 per annum allowed for a horse and of £45 for a servant. We ask that those amounts should be amalgamated and treated together as travelling allowances, and that £45 should count for pension. This particular point may not be very easily grasped by the House at large, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that it is absolutely impossible now in large towns in Ireland—I do not care in what part—to get a servant for £45 a year, and to run a horse for £50 a year, with the present prices of fodder, particulars of which I have here. I may point out that the forage allowance was fixed in 1870; so, too, was the groom's allowance and the stationery allowance, the latter a very small matter. But these antiquated allowances make it totally impossible to keep a horse and servant for the sum granted by the Government. May I quote some rather interesting prices of forage obtained not from private but from Government contractors. In the year 1895 hay cost £2 per ton. In 1914 it cost £4 5s. per ton. Straw in the first year cost £1 5s. In 1914 it cost £3 1s. 8d. Oats cost £4 5s., as against £7 10s., and bran £4 5s., against £6 5s. In 1916 hay cost £4 15s., straw £2 15s., oats £10, and bran £11 6s. The total of these necessaries having thus risen to £38 16s., as compared with £11 15s. in 1895, yet the same allowance is now made to the district inspector and county inspector as in the year 1882. There is another point I should like to draw attention to, and that is the rent of the houses which these officers occupy. It has risen by at least 30 per cent.; therefore to talk about £95 covering these expenses is absolutely wide of the mark.
  My next point is with regard to motor cars, which are permitted, in some parts of Ireland, to be kept in lieu of horses. It is well known that the full licence duties have to be paid for the cars, and I do ask the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot see the justice of making some concession in these matters, which, though they may appear trivial to us here, mean very much to those who are living in these times of high prices and high rents under conditions dating back so far. To them, I sub-
  104
  mit, it is a matter of most extreme importance. If anything could damage the force it surely would be that a man should get into debt—that he should fall under obligations to moneylenders, or that he should find it impossible to provide for his family and for the education of his children. We therefore ask the Government to carry their Bill a little bit further, and see that this small number of men shall not be made to suffer while others are benefiting under it. May I add that military officers have several advantages as compared with police officers. For instance, in regard to petrol, a military man, so far as I know, can still get a grant of petrol while on duty, while the police officer for whom I am speaking has to provide it out of the small grant allowed by the Government. And when they do arrive at the very height of their ambition, at almost the end of their lives in the Royal Irish Constabulary, they find that their pensions are calculated in some instances on a very unfair basis. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration, seeing that he is in charge of the Bill, the bearing of these, as I consider, very unfair conditions in regard to the calculation of the pension on an average of three years prior to the grant. We find that in Clause 2, paragraph (4) of the Bill, where he deals with paragraph (c) of the Second Schedule of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act of 1883, he is doing away with the principle of calculating the pension when a man reaches a certain position—the principle of calculating the retiring allowance, not on the amount he is receiving at the time of the pension being granted, but on the basis of his pay for the preceding three years. I had this point submitted to me only this morning. I have not had time to look into it, but I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman, before the Committee stage is reached, should consider whether he cannot extend that provision to the higher-grade officers. It will require a small alteration of Section (12), 4 and 5 William IV., cap. 24, because it was under that Section and under that Act of Parliament that the calculation of pay was first made.
  Over and above these points, which affect the higher grades, there is a feeling undoubtedly existing amongst those of us who have studied the question that advantage has been taken of the undoubted staunchness and loyalty, under all and any circumstances, of these men—advantage has

  105
  been taken in this particular instance to absolutely neglect them. I am not grumbling for one moment at the terms granted to the subordinates in the slightest degree. Personally, I would like to see the Royal Irish Constabulary getting doubly better pay than at present. I consider that the rank and file have a great many grievances still which require to be removed. But there appears to be no logical reason why the Government on several consecutive occasions, since 1885, who has found it necessary to revise the scale for the rank and file and junior officers, should now come forward and say that they have still further concessions to make and yet refuse to recognise at the same time the fact that those who are at the head of the force are suffering equally under the same disadvantages. I know the case of the men will be dealt with generously by the Government, but I do trust that in Committee the Chief Secretary will recognise that if the smooth passing of the Bill is to be assisted, it will be wise on his part to take into consideration the few remarks I have made on behalf of these officers.
  There are many matters in the Bill which will require considerable discussion latter on, but I hope before the Committee stage is reached the right hon. Gentleman will consult someone—I do not care who—someone familiar with the conditions of service of the senior officers in the Royal Irish Constabulary, and try to come to some agreement whereby they may have some slight benefit as well as the rank and file under this Bill. I trust, too, that the right hon. Gentleman will, beforehand, consult the Chancellor of Exchequer, so that when we reach the Committee stage he may have a free hand. It will give great satisfaction to the men if this simple act of justice is done, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that his position and the position of the Government will be strengthened if, from the Inspector-General down to the lowest constable, the force is made contented by being assured that equal justice is meted out to all ranks.
  Mr. DILLON: The hon. Gentleman has made an eloquent and powerful speech, which was from the beginning, however, purely on behalf of the higher officers of the constabulary in Ireland. I do not know that I would have intervened in this Debate at all if the hon. and gallant Member had confined himself to advocating generally an all-round increase of pay for
  106
  the constabulary in Ireland. But he went out of his way to make an extremely offensive observation, and to speak about disturbances and attacks upon property that were prevalent for so many years in the South and West of Ireland. He spoke of the uniform fidelity of the higher officers of the constabulary throughout the whole of those stormy and tempestuous years. I lived through those years. I took a considerable part in public life, and I have no hesitation in saying that the worst of those disturbances were largely due to the higher officers of constabulary in Ireland, to their want of judgment and tact, to their lack of skill in handling the force; and in many—in innumerable—instances the collisions—the bad collisions—which took place between the police and the people would have been avoided if the police had been handled with tact and discretion. Why docs the hon. and gallant Member confine his wide sweep of reminiscences to the South and West of Ireland? One would suppose that the trouble was confined to the South and the West of Ireland. Were the constabulary never in trouble in the North? Is it not a fact that in one riot in Belfast there has been more harm done to the constabulary than has been done in years throughout the whole of the West and South of Ireland? When I listened to the hon. and gallant Member pouring out floods of eulogy on the uniform and the unchequered, unclouded fidelity of these gallant men—I forget all the adjectives he used about these gallant men—there arose in my mind the memory of other days when his predecessors on these benches, the Members from Ulster, denounced these very men in this House as Morley's murderers, because they dared to protect the Catholics of Belfast against the Orange rioters of Belfast. I think the hon. and gallant Member was unwise to rake up these reminiscences, and I think he showed bad judgment. But since he did rake them up it would be unjust and unreasonable to expect that we who speak for the South and the West of Ireland could listen to such an harangue—
  Colonel CRAIG: I did not go very far.
  Mr. DILLON: You spoke about the disturbances which characterised the South and West of Ireland all these years. No such thing as a disturbance, I suppose, was ever heard of in the loyal city of Belfast. I was once in Belfast at a peaceable meeting where the Orangemen

  107
  attacked us, and while I was at dinner messengers came to say that 150 of these loyal men were taken wounded off the streets of Belfast and hurried to hospitals within an hour—150 of these loyal men who have so challenged the admiration of the hon. and gallant Member. He drew a most pitiful picture of the condition of the officers of this force. I confess that if this is to be commented upon at all I should be rather interested in the case of the men. I think if the Government are considering this question at all that it is the men who require better treatment than this Bill provides. However, I cannot go into that now, and I was only led to make this observation by the line taken by the hon. and gallant Member. In my opinion a vast deal of the trouble that has happened in Ireland in the past, and a vast deal of the bad feeling which at times has existed, disastrous bad feeling, between the police and the people, was due to some of these very officers upon whom the hon. and gallant Member has pronounced such a tremendous eulogy. His enthusiasm carried him away to such a degree that he declared they were the standby in Ireland for good government. He said that Chief Secretaries might come and go, and that we might have weak or incompetent Chief Secretaries, and other officers, but, thank God, we always had the county inspectors; they always remained, and so long as they get a free hand property and life and so forth is safe. That is not my experience. On the contrary, I think that property and life in Ireland has been frequently endangered by the want of tact, and the want of police capacity on the part of the county inspectors of Ireland.
  In this connection I wish to say a word or two about the Dublin police. I am a citizen of Dublin, and have resided there nearly forty years, and I am bound to say that, although on more than one occasion I have been arrested by the Dublin police and carried off to gaol, I believe the Dublin police are a very fine body of men, and are deserving of good treatment from the Government. The Dublin police have very rarely been in hostile collision with the people. As far as my knowledge goes, and I speak now with very complete knowledge, because I have resided in the city for nearly forty years, they never have been in hostile collision with the people except it has been owing to what I would describe as misconduct on the part
  108
  of their superior officers. There once was a Head Commissioner of the Dublin police, Sir David Harrel, a man very well known in Ireland. He ruled the Dublin police for eight years, during a time of extraordinary political excitement, when the streets were frequently in possession of excited mobs, and when it was a period in Irish history of great political excitement. I heard Sir David Harrel boast—and this is an important test of the true spirit of a police officer—that throughout the whole of those years, although he had on more than one occasion to handle large, excited, and dangerous mobs—I remember well myself seeing huge bonfires lit in the streets of Dublin at night, so high was the state of excitement, a thing that would strain the forbearance of any police force—he boasted when he left that position to be promoted to the post of Under-Secretary that throughout those eight years no police officer in Dublin ever pulled his baton out of its sheath. That is not a boast familiar in the mouths of most district or county inspectors in Ireland. It shows the true spirit of the wise policeman, and it is enormously creditable to the man who made it.
  On recent occasions—I will not go into details—bad blood arose, horrible bad blood, between the police and citizens of Dublin. I do not think that any greater misfortune can happen to a city than that there should be ill-feeling between the police and the citizens. It is impossible to maintain order, and it is impossible for the policemen to discharge their duties properly, if there is continual bad feeling between them and the citizens whom they have to police. On the recent occasion on which ill-feeling did arise, and serious collision and bloodshed took place in the streets of Dublin, I am of opinion that the whole of the blame was to be laid on superior officers of the police, and not upon the constables themselves. I do not know how far the limits of order would permit me to go into the subject of the present police situation in Dublin. It is an extremely critical position, and although the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Duke) has not had very long experience of Irish government, he realises the truth of what I say. There is an Amendment on the Paper which has not been moved. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member (Major Newman) proposes to move it, but, if he did move it, it would open this discussion.
  Colonel CRAIGmade an observation which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
  Mr. DILLON: That is very strange, because it is an Amendment to adjourn discussion of this Bill until discipline has been restored amongst the Dublin police. I think the Chief Secretary ought to let us know, particularly in view of that Amendment being placed upon the Paper, what course—
  Mr. DUKE: I have not seen it until now.
  Mr. DILLON: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member proposes to move it.
  Major NEWMAN Major NEWMAN indicated assent.
  Mr. DILLON: He proposes to move it. Therefore I feel bound to deal with it. The hon. and gallant Member proposes to move—
  "That in view of the lack of discipline recently shown by a section of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, it is inopportune to immediately proceed with the further consideration of the Bill."
  Major NEWMAN: A portion of the Dublin police.
  Mr. DILLON: More than half: 600 I am told. At all events, it is a formidable proportion. That raises a very serious question. In view of the fact that according to my information the Dublin police complain of insufficient pay, I think they have a right to be put on a level with the London, Liverpool, or Manchester police. They have also other grievances, into which I do not propose to enter to-night, but I would point out that certain events have occurred in Dublin of the gravest possible significance, raising issues which perhaps it would be better not to have debated in this House, and I warn the Chief Secretary that they must be debated, and at considerable length, fully debated, unless we can receive some assurance that no attempt will be made to victimise the men who are on trial to-day. An improper course of procedure has been adopted in Dublin, so I am informed. Six men have been taken up, including, I think, the men who were dismissed from the police force for refusing to fire upon the people on that fatal day of the landing of arms at How the, and who were restored to their places after investigation by the Royal Commission.
  Mr. DUKE: Does the hon. Member tell me that is so?
  Mr. DILLON: I say that I am so informed. Is not that so? I am informed, I am not quite sure, and I speak under correction, that some of the men who are on trial are the men who refused to fire that day, who were dismissed for refusing to fire upon the people, and whose action was subsequently vindicated by the Royal Commission, when it was decided that the order to fire was illegal and that the police were perfectly justified when they disobeyed their officers. These men were subsequently restored to the police force, and, I am informed, they are now upon their trial.
  Mr. DUKE: I hope the hon. Member will not assume that any such thing has happened. It would amaze me to hear it. According to my views of the matter, the events of 1914 have nothing to do with the recent difficulty in Dublin, which, I am happy to say, has practically passed away. I cannot conceive that such a course will have been taken.
  Mr. DILLON: I think I have not made myself perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not for a moment mean to convey the idea that these men were being hauled up again in respect of what occurred in 1914. What I was informed was, that 500 policemen in Dublin joined the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and instead of hauling up the 500 men who are alleged to have joined that Order, six men were taken up and brought up for trial, and I am told they are on trial, and that amongst those six men—I do not know whether it is true or not; the right hon. Gentleman ought to know better than I do—were some of the men who were punished in 1914. They are not being tried now for what they did in 1914, but for what they are alleged to have done now. The right hon. Gentleman just used an expression of very great significance when he said that the difficulty in Dublin was nearly over. If he means that the Government are going to let these men off and not to inflict any punishment upon them, I think the whole discussion had better close, and things had better be pushed no further. I opened this matter because I want to warn the right hon. Gentleman that he must dismiss from his mind the idea that the very serious trouble with the Dublin police is over if there is going to be any attempt to victimise the men who are charged with insubordination. That is an issue of very far-reaching importance, and if the Government pursue that matter and inflict punishment upon these

  111
  men the whole matter will have to be debated in this House in the fullest possible manner.
  5.0 P.M.
  Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for East Mayo into his detailed statement about the Irish police, beyond saying that I fully agree with him in his admiration for the constabulary in Ireland, judging from what I have seen whenever I have had the pleasure of going to his country. There is one thing he said with which everyone must agree—that the Royal Irish Constabulary are impartial; they use their forces equally against Orange men and Nationalists. My object in rising is to support my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Craig) in his appeal for some consideration for those officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are getting no benefit under this Bill. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his desire not to approach the Treasury for one shilling more than he can help at the present time. Still, there are certain reasons why he might ask for a little concession from the Treasury for these men. Theirs is a very difficult and delicate position. There is no one to speak for them in this House. There is no interest taken in them from this country. Therefore, I desire to say something in their favour. I do not want to go into past history of any sort in regard to the Irish police. They have done their duty right well in the past and in the recent troubles, and no doubt we can depend upon them to do the same should we have to face even greater troubles in the future. Of late years they have been specially troubled. The abolition of the Arms Act by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman adds very much to their responsibility. I was sorry to hear the accusation of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) against the senior officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, that they did not carry out their duties with tact.
  Mr. DILLON: Some of them.
  Mr. STEWART: I am glad that the hon. Member qualifies his statement, because I have always thought that their office was one which required courage, firmness, and tact, and that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, it might fairly be stated that those duties had been well discharged. I think it would strengthen the position of the right hon. Gentleman
  112
  and give him a sort of underlying stratum of support in Ireland if people could feel that loyal, honest, and genuine service was appreciated by the Government. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not see his way, owing to the extremely high prices that these gentlemen have to face like the rest of us, which press especially on people with limited incomes, to give them something in the way of a war bonus, or an extra allowance of 10 or 20 per cent. on their salaries, say, for three years, subject to revision at the end of the three years. Figures supplied to me show that, owing to the large number of officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have gone to the front, you are now effecting a saving of £16,000 a year. Take an estimate of 200 of these men, with an average salary of £300 a year, in the higher grades. That is only £60,000; 10 per cent. on that is only £6,000, and 20 per cent. would be £12,000—that is, £1,000 a month to ensure a contented service. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might do that without doing violence to his conscientious objection to ask the Exchequer for more than is necessary. If there is a saving of £16,000 on the one hand, surely he can press the Treasury door open sufficiently to get a small allowance of from £12,000 to £15,000 on the understanding that the bonus would be only for a time, and that the matter should be gone into when the present high prices have passed away. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some further benevolent consideration to the appeal on behalf of these officers.
  Mr. HAZLETON: It is very strange that in the speech to which we have just listened the only appeal which has been made to the Government is an appeal, following that of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Craig) on behalf of the senior officers and more highly paid officials of the police forces in Ireland. I would like to remind the House that there is provision in this Bill for the district inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary; but it is our contention that not only are the county inspectors highly paid for police officers, but that there are far too many of them, and that the services of a great many of them could be dispensed with entirely with advantage to the country and economy to the Treasury. I would remind the Chief Secretary that a proposal in this direction was made as late as 1914, when the last Bill dealing with the police in Ireland was before the House.

  113
  Section 4 of the Bill provided in Subsection (1):"A county inspector may, if the Lord Lieutenant thinks fit, be appointed or assigned to two or more counties, or to any other area or combination of areas which the Lord Lieutenant may consider desirable." The object of that was to reduce the number of these highly paid unnecessary officials; but from that day to this I do not think that the Government has done a single thing to carry out the provision of the Act of Parliament of 1914. I think that this would have afforded them a suitable opportunity of doing now what they have neglected to do during the last two years. It seems a strange thing when we listen to the moving and pathetic appeals on behalf of county inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary, that advantage is taken of an agitation, started by the rank and file of the police in Dublin, to improve the position of these highly paid officials. The suggestion is made in an Amendment on the Paper which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that there has been indiscipline in that force. We know perfectly well that it is as a result of the agitation which the men have started that this Bill is introduced by the Government, and the higher paid officials of the force in Dublin, while they charge and condemn these men for taking part in the agitation, are themselves quite willing to take advantage of that agitation to secure increased pay for themselves. I am sure that the fact cannot pass unnoticed by the public in Ireland.
  With regard to the provisions of the Bill concerning the rank and file, while I may have something to say, in connection with Clause 2 on the Committee stage, I do not desire to enter into what are mainly Committee points now, but I do not think that the Chief Secretary was quite correct in some of his statements to the House in his speech on the Finance Resolution which preceded the introduction of this Bill. He took as the standard of comparison for the Dublin police, not the London or Manchester, or the Glasgow police, but the Bristol police, and he said among other things, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the Bristol police do not get the 8d. per week boot allowance which the Dublin men receive. He might not have left it at that, but have gone on to point out that where the Dublin men get the 8d. the Bristol men only get a 1d. per week less. There are other points that I shall have to refer
  114
  to later on, but I do think that the Government would be wise in dealing with matters of this kind, whether it be with policemen or any other servants of the State, not to wait to do justice until the very eleventh hour, when they have almost created a position of revolt in the ranks of the officials, but to realise the extraordinary conditions that have arisen on account of the cost of living, and to deal with those matters when they arise. The main foundation for this Bill, as I understand it, is the increased cost of living upon the rank and file. It is absurd to say that among the more highly-paid officials of the constabulary or the Dublin police the increased cost of living falls with anything like the same incidence, and that, therefore, they ought to be given the extravagant increases which have been suggested from above the Gangway.
  Major NEWMAN: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the question, and to insert instead thereof the words, "in view of the lack of discipline recently shown by a section of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, it is inopportune to immediately proceed with the further consideration of the Bill."
  I confess that I put down this Motion in order to get from the Chief Secretary some information as to what has been happening in Dublin in reference to this indiscipline among junior members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force. As Members of this House are aware, this whole matter has been censored by the English Press. That is another reason why I put down this Motion. I do not think that these things should be censored as freely as they are, with the result that only a few people like myself, who do keep in touch with Ireland, and get letters and newspapers from Ireland, have been aware of what has been happening. I agree with the hon. Member for East Mayo that the thing is important and must be gone into. I also agree with him that this House is perhaps not the very place in which to do that. But what are we to do? In an ordinary English shire or town police officers have got to look to the local authority. If they want an increase of pay, a war bonus or what not, they have got to go to the Watch Committee or some local authority. But in Ireland the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary have to look to the Treasury, and to this House, for any increase of pay

  115
  or war bonus. Therefore it is necessary that matters of this sort must be discussed in this House. The Chief Secretary says that he did not see my Notice of Motion on the Paper, nor did some hon. Members below me, but curiously enough several persons in Ireland have seen it, because I had two or three letters this morning wanting to know why I, who for so many years had been asking questions about additions to the pay of the Royal Irish Constabulary, was now trying to stop this Bill being proceeded with, and, incidentally, stop increases of pay.
  To my mind this matter is very serious. The hon. Member for Galway told us perfectly correctly that it is due to our action in this House that this has come about. We have procrastinated, we have put off the just claims of the police in Dublin and of the Royal Irish Constabulary, with the result that there has been among the Dublin police a defiance of authority, and I understand that some 400 of the junior members of that force have joined the Ancient Order of Hibernians. A member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, on entering the force, has to take an oath, and he swears that he will not belong to any secret society in Ireland or any part of the world, with the exception of the Order of Freemasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to hear those cheers, which show that the Order of Freemasons are so popular in Ireland. I am a Mason myself, and I dare say other Members of the House are members of that Order. At any rate, it is a fact that the policeman takes an oath not to become a member of any secret society except the Freemasons. The Ancient Order of Hibernians is not a secret society, but it is semi-secret; its constitution, aims, methods, and so on are pretty well known. If it be only semi-secret, it is wholly sectarian; it is confined absolutely to the Roman Catholic faith. No one who is an Orangeman can become a member of that Order, and to that extent it is a sectarian society, and a semi-secret one. I openly admit that all the terrible oaths that formerly were taken have been swept away, and in its present constitution the Ancient Order of Hibernians is merely a sectarian society. They say our faith comes first, and other things come next; and, to my mind, in that respect the Hibernians and the Orangemen stand on the same plane; both are sectarian societies in the true sense of the term. A Roman Catholic
  116
  cannot become a member of an Orange lodge, and an Orangeman cannot become a member of a Lodge of the Ancient Order of Hibernians.
  Both of those great societies are something more than sectarian; they are both great political assets of Ireland; they dabble in politics. If a candidate who is a Hibernian desired to be elected for one of the Divisions in the Ulster six counties and he wanted the support of the Orange lodges, I am afraid he would have a poor chance. Similarly, if an Orangeman wanted to be elected for one of the Divisions of the southern provinces of Ireland, he could not expect to have behind him the benefit of the Hibernian lodges. Surely it is unthinkable that those who are responsible for the preservation of the peace of a country like Ireland should allow a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, or the Royal Irish Constabulary, to belong to one or other of these great sectarian societies. I dare say some members below the Gangway will argue about the Order of the Freemasons. At any rate, the Freemasons take no part in politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]
  Mr. DILLON: They ruled Ireland for fifty years.
  Major NEWMAN: They have done so, but the Freemasons now are a great cosmopolitan body, dealing only with matters of charity, and with nothing more. I am a Mason, and I know that in a lodge of Freemasons no word of politics is ever introduced, and hon. Members are very much mistaken if they think that Freemasons allow politics in their lodges. I do not think I incur any penalty by saying that, or stating that the lodges of the Order of Freemasons deal only with matters of charity. I repeat that it is unthinkable that policemen in Ireland should belong to either of those two great sectarian societies. [An HON. MEMBER: "There are three of them!"] A constable entering the Ancient Order of Hibernians has to take an oath. [An HON. MEMBER: "Read it out!"] I will if hon. Members desire it. On the initiation of a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians a number of questions are put to him—"Do you wish to become a member of the Order of Hibernians?" "What is your age, name, residence, and occupation?" "Are you an Irishman or of Irish parentage? Do you now belong to

  117
  any society, secret or otherwise?"[An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the oath?"] If it is not an oath it is an obligation, and there is no great difference between an obligation and an oath. A member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians takes the obligation that he will, before all things, be a good Catholic.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the constabulary know the age, the nationality, and the religion of every man in Ireland?
  Major NEWMAN: The police in Ireland may have that knowledge, but that is no reason why a member of the force should be allowed to become a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which involves his accepting the obligation of being a good Catholic as against other people. Where feeling on matters of religion runs high, it is absolutely wrong on one side or the other that such a course should be permitted, and I trust that the Chief Secretary will be able to tell us that the officers of the force will be met in a reasonable manner and that this Bill will proceed without endangering safety.
  Amendment not seconded.
  Mr. P. J. MEEHAN: In connection with this Bill, I submit that there should be some consideration given to the position of the married members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Anybody who knows how the cost of living has increased in Ireland and how every household expense has increased will readily see that this bears very hardly on the married men of the force. They get only an allowance of 2s. a week, or about £5 a year, for house rent. No member of the force in Ireland can get a house in Ireland at that rent, and houses such as they need cost about £15 or £20 a year. The allowance of 2s. a week, therefore, is absolutely inadequate, and it is the only allowance they get. We have further to consider that these married members of the force have frequently large families, and as a strong point is made about the necessity of increasing the population, the fact that these men have large families should be taken into consideration; besides, it is not much encouragement to members of the force to marry if they get only a miserable allowance of 2s. a week for house rent. These married members of the force have their families to maintain, and ostensibly
  118
  this Bill is for the purpose of giving them an increase of pay on account of the high cost of living. I suggest to the Chief Secretary that he should take the case of the married members of the force into consideration. It is very easy to give them 2s. a week more than the single man without putting any burden on the Treasury, and economy could be effected by reducing the number of officers. In some counties the county inspector has very few stations, such as eleven or twelve in Carlow. In Queen's County the inspector has charge of twelve stations. In County Cork the county inspector has charge of fifty stations. Why should there be a separate inspector in charge of a small county like Carlow? One man would be sufficient for County Carlow, Queen's County, and Kildare. Some district inspectors, a good many of them, would be only too happy to combine a number of stations.
  Mr. REDDY: Who is county inspector for County Carlow?
  Mr. MEEHAN: I understand he is Major Price, but he has never taken up the duties of his office. There are many district inspectors who would be only too glad to take on increased duty in adjoining districts for one-third or one-half the amount at present paid to officers. Additional outlay could be met by reducing the number of officers and officials. The county inspector has his staff, a regular entourage, who are absolutely unnecessary. By reform there you would save a very considerable sum, perhaps £50,000 a year, which would enable the Government to give the married men of the rank and file what they ask by way of increased wage. Another question which requires consideration has reference to pensions. Allowances which are made to superior officers of the force are counted when fixing the pension, but, in the case of the constable, any allowance which is made to him is not so counted in pension. Why should that be so? Why should any allowance which is paid to a constable not be taken into account in fixing his pension, just as in the case of the superior officer? Men who have gone out on pension receive only small sums, allowances not having been taken into consideration, and, in putting that point before the right hon. Gentleman, I would ask him whether he could not make an increase of pension under the present Bill retrospective, at least for some period back?
  Mr. LOUGH: I am glad that my hon. Friend who has just sat down has called attention to the position of the married constables of the force, compared with that of the inspectors. I think that the cost of living, owing to the War, is not sufficiently considered. I think some small extra allowance might be given to the married men, and also, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, for each child, at any rate as a war bonus. If the right hon. Gentleman has a difficulty about adopting that suggestion as a general principle, surely something might be done at this time of war to respond to the appeal of my hon. Friend. There is a general disposition to make this a useful and practical measure, and in that respect it is capable of great improvement. These men belong to a most deserving class, and I hope they will receive the recognition which they thoroughly deserve.
  Mr. DUKE: I think it will be convenient if I refer now to the matters which have been raised, and also to the observations which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield (Major Newman) as to what happened in Dublin. What happened in Dublin was this. When it was known that the Treasury had sanctioned an increase of pay, then contrary to the prohibition of the Chief Commissioner of Police as to holding meetings outside, meetings were arranged to take place. That must be accounted for as a breach of discipline. Those who are acquainted with recent history in Ireland must, of course, acknowledge that the proper recognition of claims and the proper enforcement of discipline cannot be conditional one upon the other. It is a distinct police order that no men in the force, no matter what patronage they think they have or encouragement, shall procure a breach of discipline or commit a breach of discipline. Those who procure a breach of discipline must account for it. A great deal has been said with regard to the oath which they took on entering the police and as to whether they have broken it. I decline absolutely to believe that any body of men of the Dublin police have broken their oath. It is quite true that the Dublin police, as well as all Irish police, take an oath against the membership of political societies or secret societies. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Except the Freemasons!"] I believe there are very few men in Ireland—and I am sure the proportion in the police is not larger than anywhere else—who would so lightly regard
  120
  the sanctity of an oath that they would break it because of a dispute. At present, and until I have proof which does not exist, and that I do not believe to be forthcoming, I do not believe that the men of the Dublin constabulary in hundreds or in any considerable number have at all taken the course which is suggested. I have seen the statements in the papers, and my hon. Friend opposite referred to what he called the censorship. I have read so much in the papers which was untrue and so much which was mischievous, that if there was a censorship the class of publication that has taken place is a great reflection upon it. I cannot help wishing that people had an appreciation of the responsibility which rests upon those who are charged with any matter of government in Ireland, and cannot help wondering that they should rush lightly into reckless and alarmist statements about the relations between the police and their commanding officer. It is a very unfortunate thing that statements of that kind should be made, and it is a great pity that those who supply the public with information should not have facilities for ascertaining to what extent such alarmist information is well founded. As I say, I renounce the suggestion that any mass of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police have broken their oaths.
  With regard to the other matter of membership of societies, I regard it as an unfortunate thing that the oath against membership of societies has any qualification, and if hon. Members desire to alter that state of things, then, so far as I am concerned, they will find that my view is that there must be equal treatment for everybody in these matters of police discipline. The objection to membership of organisations on the part of those who are responsible for the conduct of the police is to membership of any organisation which may cut across the primary duty of the police. Taking that view of the matter, I have had it under consideration whether, without any regard to the oath under the Act of William IV. or to any of these matters, the proper mode of dealing with this question of membership of outside organisations is not to say to everybody who is in the police as well as to everybody who comes to join the police, "You must not join any outside organisation without the consent of your chief commanding

  121
  officer, because it is contrary to discipline." That, to my mind, is the sound mode of dealing with a matter of this kind, and I cannot help thinking that I should have the support of every Member sitting below the Gangway in this matter, and that whatever differences there may be as to the future political administration of Ireland that, at any rate, we shall all co-operate in seeing that the immediate future of Ireland is not disfigured either by insubordination of police or by disorder in any considerable body of the other citizens of Ireland.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain what he means as to not being permitted to join societies without the consent of their commanding officer?
  Mr. DUKE: I mean this. The general principle should be, at any rate with regard to organised and disciplined forces, that the members of that force ought to forego membership of other organised forces. Of course, nobody wishes that a man should be prevented from taking part in the administration of his church or of his chapel, or of any benevolent association if he is a member. If such course as I have indicated is taken, it will be necessary to trust whoever is responsible for the maintenance of order, and, at any rate, to trust the Minister who is responsible to this House in the matter, to see that no fantastic restrictions are put upon liberty. But there must be some restrictions. It is quite obvious you cannot leave it to the choice or caprice of individuals in organised forces to decide whether they will become members of some other organised body. With regard to the other matters, the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) referred to the fact that there were disciplinary measures taken. I am not aware and I do not believe that any member of the Dublin police who was foremost in organising insubordination the other day to the limited degree in which it existed is one of the members who was concerned in the transactions of 1914. I have no reason to suppose it has been the case, and if it had been the case, I cannot doubt but that it would have been brought to my notice. I would ask hon. Members to consider this. If a member were guilty of a distinct act of insubordination and defiance of authority at the present time which would be contrary to his membership of any organised
  122
  and disciplined force, would it be possible because he had done something else in 1914 which was not properly brought in question to decide that he should not be called in question for a breach of discipline now. It is quite obvious you could not proceed on those lines.
  My desire, as I believe it is the desire of every man who wishes well to Ireland and to Dublin, is that these recent troubles shall pass away, and that there may be an end of them. When I am challenged as to why the Administration did not take summary action in respect of an unnamed body of men who were said to have joined a political and secret society, I say that we do not take action, where I am concerned, until we know there is ground for it. No action was taken of that kind. The only action that was taken was that men who conspicuously and knowingly had disregarded the discipline of the force should be called to account by their superintendents, and with regard to what the hon. Member for East Mayo says were six men—I was told the number was five—a certain number who had openly and conspicuously taken a part with persons outside the police in organising what was undoubtedly an act of insubordination have been brought to a disciplinary account by the Chief Commissioner. It would not be proper that I should in any way apologise for insistence upon the maintenance of discipline in the police force in Dublin.
  Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR: Why should they be refused a sworn inquiry which they have asked for?
  Mr. DUKE: I do not know whether there is any authority for holding a sworn inquiry such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and unless there were some statutory authority taken to do so he knows it could not be done. I am told that one of the men concerned declared his wish for a sworn inquiry, and if there had been any means of holding such an inquiry I have no doubt it would have been given. There may be some cumbrous process of indictment for some offence of doubtful existence. It is clear that a breach of discipline existed in this case. That was plain beyond all question as I understand the facts. It was notorious that certain men had taken part in organising meetings which were not within the ordinary leaves for holding meetings. For offences of that kind there

  123
  must be disciplinary proceedings. If the House of Commons were not to hold in favour of the enforcement of moderate and reasonable discipline where there was a clear breach of discipline, then I should regard the attempt to hold the scales evenly between the contending interests in Ireland as absolutely hopeless. The position as to discipline is that which I have stated. Let me summarise it. I have no reason to believe that there have been wholesale adhesions to any political or secret society, whether a benevolent or maleficent society, of which I know nothing, and I have no reason to believe it is a maleficent society at the present time.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Nor at any time.
  Mr. DUKE: I do not want to discuss these matters. I do not believe that the men of the Dublin Constabulary, at any rate in any considerable number, have failed in any way in the primary obligation which they undertook on becoming members of the force. With regard to the question of discipline, I think the police in Dublin will find themselves safe in the hands of the Chief Commissioner, who was foremost in pressing upon His Majesty's Government the necessity for an amendment of the pecuniary position of the force. If he finds it necessary to take disciplinary measures, I believe this House will support him, and I believe that the great body of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police will recognise that he does nothing which is not just and considerate.
  With regard to the other matter of the mode in which these concessions have been made, a great deal has been said about agitation and pressure and yielding at the eleventh hour. When I became Chief Secretary on the 1st August, I found in existence applications from all branches of the Irish Constabulary, both the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, for a revision of their scales of pay. I was questioned about the matter in this House, and I promised my attention to it. Hon. Members knew by personal inquiries, the police themselves knew, and their officers knew what steps were being taken to find out what additions of pay were necessary on the grounds of justice. No pressure has actuated the Irish Office in its decision as to what amounts ought to be added to the previous pay of the police. An en-
  124
  deavour was made—and it was made without regard to the possibility which has been referred to on both sides of the Gangway that it would be disagreeable for the Government if concessions were not made—to ascertain what justice demanded, and when that had been ascertained, according to my view of the matter on the best examination that I could make of the facts, representations were made to the Treasury and Treasury consent was obtained.
  I confess that I did regard it with something like resentment that on the day when I announced to Members of the House that that consent had been obtained, steps were taken to lead constables of the Dublin police into action by the holding of unauthorised meetings which might bring them into conflict with their superiors. I thought it a most unfortunate thing. It was not fair to the police. Fairness to the Administration I do not ask for; I confess I do not expect it. But it was not fair to the police. It was not fair to the City of Dublin. The position of the Metropolitan Police in the City of Dublin has been a trusted position. They are, as has been said, a fine body of men. They have been a body of men who could always be relied upon to perform their duty, and that they, when the Government was on the point of introducing a Bill to make at any rate concessions in the scale of pay, should be led by protestations that they would get nothing unless there was a little disorder, or an appearance of indiscipline, to indulge in some appearance of indiscipline, seemed to me a very lamentable thing. I hope that no permanent ill results will come from it. I do not believe that any permanent ill results will come from it; but I should like to say that if it is thought proper to tamper with the discipline of the police upon any occasion and I have to decide what steps should be taken in such a case, I will endeavour to see that the punishment shall not fall upon the police who may be misled, but upon those who tamper with their discipline.
  With regard to the particular provisions of this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for East Down (Colonel Craig) spoke of the position of some of the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I told hon. Members who questioned me about the proposals of the Government that the Government had been considering police allowances as well as police pay. The provisions for police pay must of necessity be sanctioned by an

  125
  Act of Parliament; allowances which are made from time to time can be varied without an Act of Parliament. I said, quite accurately, that, except in the case of the higher members of the two police forces—by which I meant those at the headquarters of the two forces—there would be an amelioration of their position by the proposals the Government were making. My hon. Friend referred to the position of county inspectors and district inspectors. I considered, with the officers of the forces, the position of every rank. I should like to say, in justice to the superintendents of the Dublin police, that they joined with the Chief Commissioner in pressing that there should be consideration of what they regarded as the too stinted pay of the men in the ranks. The men were absolutely misled when they were told in the course of the improper proceedings which took place that their officers were resisting the designs of benevolent people to improve their position. As I said, with regard to both forces, I made an honest endeavour to find out the position of the officers as well as of the men. I did not find that there was a state of things which called upon me to press upon the Treasury increases of pay for the county inspectors and certain of the district inspectors; but it was quite true that their allowances had been fixed thirty, forty, or more than forty years ago, and that the value of those allowances had decreased in the intervening time. That has been taken account of, but it does not appear in this Bill. That matter has been represented to the Treasury. Although it does not require Parliamentary sanction, there will be an amelioration with regard to those allowances which have shrunk in value. It will not go to anything like the length which the hon. Member for East Down recommended to me, but it will go proportionately, at any rate, to the length we have been able to go in respect of those members of the force less advantageously placed.
  Colonel CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to indicate, more particularly before we reach the Committee stage, what those allowances will be? He will readily understand that if a statement of that kind is made it may materially assist us who have this matter at heart, and render it unnecessary for us to put down Amendments to the Bill.
  Mr. DUKE: I am not sure that I could give my hon. Friend detailed information of that kind that would not be misleading. I endeavoured to answer one or two questions about it when I was explaining the general proposals of the Government with respect to pay and allowances, and the effect unfortunately was that I misled my hon. Friends into thinking that nothing would be done.
  Colonel CRAIG: We are all anxious to assist the passage of the Bill, but if we have no such statement beforehand we must begin to put down Amendments. If, on the other hand, the Chief Secretary could give us a rough idea of how these allowances are to affect the higher grades, obviously the necessity for putting down Amendments would be less.
  Mr. DUKE: The difficulty about Amendments would be that you cannot move Amendments involving the expenditure of public money. I shall endeavour to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend, but I do not think it would advance matters or save time at this stage if I embarked upon a statement from memory of the small alterations that are being made in the allowances. If I tell him that the allowances the value of which have shrunk are being dealt with in the same spirit as that which has dictated the increase of pay, I hope he will accept the statement. I was dealing with the suggestion that there was here a yielding to agitation and to pressure. The hon. Member for Enfield (Major Newman) proposed that there should be no consideration of this measure of justice, as I have described it, until something had happened in Dublin. I am not quite sure what was the measure of time proposed by my hon. Friend. It was an indefinite moratorium. "It is inopportune to immediately proceed with the further consideration of the Bill." I do not regard the occurrences in Dublin, such as I have described them, as in any way absolving the Government from the duty of doing what they believe to be justice to the Dublin police. I do not believe that there is any such connection between the application of the police for an increase of their pay—which application was most reasonably and properly presented—and these recent misadventures. I do not believe there is any necessity to associate the demands of justice in regard to pay with any of these incidents. Therefore, I trust the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. I cannot hold out the hope that

  127
  there will be those handsome alterations which various hon. Members have suggested to me. It is very pleasant indeed if you can make a bold raid upon the Exchequer when you have no responsibility in the matter. But if the House meets the demands of justice with regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary I think we must be content, without yielding to the ambitious propositions which have come from one quarter and another in the course of the discussion on the Bill.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: As far as the Dublin Metropolitan Police are concerned, I understand that their pay is paid partly by the Corporation of the City of Dublin and partly by the Government. Is it proposed that the share paid by the Corporation of the City of Dublin shall be in any way increased, or is the whole of the burden to fall upon the British Exchequer? The Chief Secretary has anticipated one question that I was going to ask. I think everybody in the House was pleased to hear his statement that this Bill is not a Bill introduced, as one hon. Member put it, as the result of an agitation on the part of the men. If that statement had been accurate, the introduction of the Bill would have been a most pernicious proceeding and exceedingly unpopular with a great number of people. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman has made it abundantly clear that there is no foundation for that statement. If there had been any foundation for it, I should take a very different view of the Bill from that which I now take. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the Bill had been decided upon and the sanction of the Treasury granted before these occurrences, which he describes as lamentable, took place. We must be further reassured by the right hon. Gentleman's statement that if there had been offences against discipline he was determined to deal with them. One cannot help remembering that it is not a very long time since we were reminded that it was entirely through the fault of the Government in not being sufficiently strict at first that terrible and serious occurrences took place in Dublin at a later period. With regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary, I was rather surprised at the attitude of the hon. Member for East Mayo in reference to the view held largely about the police capacity and tact of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Mr. DILLON: Of a certain number of the district and county inspectors.
  Mr. RAWLINSON: Yes. I was rather surprised at the view which he held. I do not think it is held very largely in Ireland. Certainly it is not the view of people in Ireland whom I know. From them I have heard nothing but the highest praise of the way in which the Royal Irish Constabulary have done their work. I shall be inclined to support the Bill, and I only hope the Dublin Corporation will see their way to bear their fair share of this increased pay.
  Sir EDWARD GOULDING: I desire to support the Bill. I am very glad indeed that my right hon. Friend has introduced it as one of his first official acts. I regret very much, however, that he has not seen his way to deal with the district and county inspectors. I suppose that the consideration which really kept him off that part of the question was the obligation in regard to pensions. He has given us an assurance, however, that he will deal with the allowances. Those allowances at present are totally inadequate. They were, as my right hon. Friend staled, fixed thirty years ago, since when the whole position has changed, the whole conditions of living have altered, and the whole circumstances attending the upkeep of the position of these men are different. I hope my right hon. Friend will stand by his old generous disposition, and that when he comes to deal with the allowances of these county and district inspectors, as he has not been able to give them an increase of salary, he will see that the allowances in regard to forage, servants, and labour are put on a generous scale, and do something to meet the really legitimate demands of this very deserving class.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. DEVLIN: I am bound to say that we have all been deeply impressed with the very powerful and clear address which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has delivered in favour of not tampering with the police and those who are supposed to be the custodians of law and order. I am quite sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave utterance to what are undoubtedly his heartfelt feelings, though I confess that I am not aware of any occasion on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has

  129
  been equally eloquent when attempts were made to seduce soldiers from their loyalty to the recognised Government, and constitutional authority as given by Acts of Parliament passed in this House. He has told us that this agitation amongst the police was only instituted when it was found out that these concessions were being made to the Dublin Metropolitan Police. Those of us who are in Ireland know prefectly well that this agitation for improved conditions and better wages has gone on continuously for a period of over three months, and that these police, like almost every other section of the Irish police, were driven into what may be regarded as an extreme coarse in order to force the Government into what the Government of Ireland have never done, even in their treatment of their own public servants—examined the case with which it had to deal on just and equitable lines and so avoid being forced into concessions consequent upon violent agitation in the country.
  Mr. DUKE: I do not think I can allow that to pass. Immediately on my appointment I took these matters in hand, and before the recent occurrences these proposals were before the Treasury. On the day that the first of the disorderly meetings was held these proposals had actually been sanctioned
  Mr. DEVLIN: I accept the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the proposals were actually sanctioned. I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Gentleman took up these questions with every good intention, but concurrently with the operation of this good intention, there was what, in my judgment, is of more importance than the good intentions of any Chief Secretary, and that was the militant organisation of the men themselves. I must say that principles have been laid down in this House to-day that are extraordinary. They are principles which would strike at the very root and foundation of organised labour in these islands, for it would mean that men who feel that they have a just grievance are not to be permitted to organise and to put forward their views in any form which they believe to be most effective for their purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has told us that he hoped that concessions would not be made to the demands expressed in the form in which the demands of these men are expressed.
  130
  Every one of us in this House, and elsewhere, knows that the dominant forces in this House, and outside, just concede to the working classes, whether they are sweeps or policemen, precisely what the working classes are strong enough to demand. For myself, I may say here that practically all I know about these men joining the Ancient Order of Hibernians was what I read in the newspapers. If you lay down as a universal principle of equality that men who are in a police force of this character are not to join societies, then complete and absolute liberty should be conceded to them.
  I am not going to make any attack upon the Freemasons. I know nothing whatever about them. I have no doubt that they are all that members of that organisation in England have described them to be. But I cannot blind myself to the fact that Freemasonry in Ireland is a large political organisation—is a most powerful and scientific political machine. Every one of us knows that it eats into and corrodes the whole social and political life of Ireland. Everybody knows it. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman is ignorant of it. I could give him a list of appointments made to Government offices in Ireland. In every branch of the public service where Freemasons decide—at all events, if they do not decide look at the statistics and consider!—I think it will be found that every position above the position of crossing-sweeper, although the Irish people are overwhelmingly Catholic in the three provinces of Ireland—90 per cent. are Catholics, or the great bulk of these positions are held by those who are hostile to our faith and our aspirations. We in Ireland do not want anything from you. We do not want any mercy. We do not want magnanimity. We want justice, and we want equality.
  Colonel CRAIG: And money!
  Mr. DEVLIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says money. The difference between the hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself is this: I am here to plead for the poor policeman and the wretched toiler who needs defence, and who needs a man to stand up for him. The hon. and gallant Gentleman stands, as he has always stood, for the rights of the rich and the powerful, for ascendancy and a dominant force. Of course we want money. We want our own money. We

  131
  want our own Government. We want our own police. We want to be an integral, useful, and powerful part of your Empire. We want the right to conduct our own domestic affairs according to the purposes, instincts, aspirations, and genius of our own people. If we did, it would be a better thing for you in this as in every other thing concerning Ireland. Trust the people, and allow us not only to run our own country, but run it on our own money! I did not intend to intervene in this Debate at all, but while I am on my feet I want to emphasise a point which has been raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare. How is it, when complaint is made against a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, or against a soldier, that these men are entitled to a sworn inquiry and yet a sworn inquiry is refused to members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police? I do not know by what methods these complaints are adjusted, but I say here that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman should take note of the matter, and, if possible, deal with it, if he can within the compass of this Bill, when we come to the Committee stage. I think every policeman against whom complaint is made in the City of Dublin is entitled to precisely the same tribunal to determine the complaint as a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary or a member of His Majesty's Forces. I hope, also, he will deal with this question of policemen joining societies. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he will support it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that he is manifesting great courage.
  Mr. DUKE Mr. DUKE dissented.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Very well, I will take it so, and I will say that he is manifesting great courage. He says he will boldly and determinedly battle with the powers of evil that present themselves to him. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if he wants complete equality in the forces of the Crown, if he wants it in the constabulary, it is not for him to put on us the onus of doing it. Let him take his courage in both hands and do it himself, and say to these men that they cannot belong to any society. Though I know perhaps less about the Metropolitan Police or of the Royal Irish Constabulary than any man in this House—I know only what I read in the newspapers—I say to him
  132
  frankly that it may be all right, and there may be a misinterpretation of the conditions that exist, but undoubtedly an attempt has been made to drive these men out of the organisation which they think they ought to join and which they think it is legitimate to join. We do not hear the hoary falsehoods repeated here about the Ancient Order of Hibernians which have done duty on many other occasions. Countless men of this organisation are to-day fighting in France and Flanders, and they are amongst the most valorous and courageous. When the call was first made for support in this War the entire funds of the organisation were invested in the War Loan. We heard to-day from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has spoken that he knows now that there was no oath. He did not read for us that precious document that has done such powerful duty in many a well-fought contest in English constituencies. This organisation has lived and fought down every allegation made against it. Yet only Catholic people, where the land is predominantly Catholic, are denied any share in the administration of the government of their own country. The police feel that this is a vehicle through which they can have their grievances redressed. If you say it is not you have no right to give liberty to other societies and other organisations whose judgment is hostile to them. That is the demand I make. I apologise to the House for intervening at this stage of the Debate, but I thought it my duty to do so.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]

OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION—No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): The House will recollect the Bill that was passed to restrict the output of beer and to reduce the quantity of brewing materials imported into this country. The general effect of that Act was that the brewer was limited to an output

133
of 85 per cent. of the amount which he brewed in any quarter of the standard year. That standard year was the 1st of April, 1915, to 31st March, 1916. No brewer is allowed to brew more than 85 per cent. of what he brewed during the corresponding quarter of that standard year. The Act was passed early in August, but it practically took effect from 1st April of this year. In order to give time for adjustments, the first three quarters of the present financial year were taken as the period of adjustment. It has been found that that is not quite long enough, and, without in any way affecting the quantity which may be brewed or the reductions which may be obtained by the Act, we propose, in Clause 1 of this short Bill, which I am asking the House to read a second time, to allow adjustments to take place for the whole of the four quarters of the present year ending 31st March next, instead of restricting it to the three-quarters ending Christmas. That is the simple effect of the first Clause of the Bill—gradually to distribute the reduction evenly over the whole year instead of tying them down to the actual amount brewed in one particular quarter.
Then, under the second Clause of the Bill, a difficulty has arisen which is rather complicated. It arises out of this, that taking the standard year ending 31st March, 1916, which is the standard applied to the Bill as a whole, a different quantity standard, if I may use the expression, was allowed to be adopted by brewers who preferred it—that is to say, the year ending 31st March, 1915, or what I may call the 1914 standard. The general standard of the Bill is what I may call the 1915 standard, but as a quantity standard only, and not as applied to the other provisions of the Bill, any brewer who preferred it might take 1914 instead of 1915. In that case, instead of being allowed 85 per cent. of the output of 1915, he was allowed only 70 per cent. of the larger output of 1914, and a considerable number of brewers availed themselves of that option, and took the alternative quantity standard of 1914. Under Clause 2, Sub-section (2), paragraph (c), of the Act, power is given to the Commissioners, where any change has taken place in the circumstances of the brewery after the 31st March, 1915, and the standard barrelage does not, therefore, afford a proper standard of comparison, they may make such adjustment as they think proper in the number of barrels. The
134
House will observe that that power only extends to changes taking place in the standard year proper. The effect of that is that any changes which have taken place in the circumstances of the brewery prior to the commencement of the standard year proper cannot be dealt with under Clause 2, Sub-section (2) (c), and, broadly speaking, that is a satisfactory position. You cannot extend the paragraph in question beyond the commencement of that year, otherwise endless complication would be caused, and the taking of the option of the 1914 year is entirely within the discretion of the brewers. If they take that year, they take it with its advantages and its disadvantages.
But there was one point, and that is a point dealt with here in Clause 2, which was not contemplated either by ourselves or by the brewers, and it was this: It occurs occasionally that brewers having more than one brewery, close down the others, and brew the whole of their output in one brewery. The output is not necessarily reduced. The same quantity of beer may be brewed in one brewery as was being brewed in two breweries. That sometimes occurs when one brewer purchases another brewery. He then closes down one of the two breweries, and does all the brewing in the other. During the 1914 year, where that has been selected by a brewer, it is clearly contemplated by the Act that he should be able to take as the standard of comparison the total amount of the beer which he was brewing, whether it was being brewed at the time in one brewery or two breweries; but he may have closed down one of those breweries in 1914, and then, as the Act is worded, he would be precluded from reckoning any beer brewed except in the brewery where it is now being brewed. Therefore, this Clause permits him, in calculating his standard, to take the quantity brewed in the brewery closed during 1914, but it gives a certain discretion to the Commissioners which is necessary, because there may be cases, and, in fact, there are actual cases, where the brewer has bought a brewery which he has closed during 1914 or, at any rate, previous to March, 1915, and, although he bought a brewery he did not buy the whole of the trade. It is possible the brewery might have some tied houses attached to it, and he might have bought the brewery with a proportion of the tied houses, and not the whole, in which case he would not be entitled to the beer which is now being brewed by the

135
brewers who purchased the remainder of the trade, and who probably took the year 1915 as the standard, and it is quite impossible to take the beer from them and hand it over to this other brewer. If they were both allowed to have the same rights, the result would be that the standard quantity as a whole would be increased, and therefore this Clause allows that calculation to be made so as to give the brewer who closed the brewery in 1914 the standard amount which was really represented by the trade in his possession at the time the brewery was closed. That is really what Clause 2 does.
Clause 3 extends Clause 6 of the Act, under which the Board of Trade may, at the request of the Army Council, grant a special certificate to any brewer in Ireland authorising him to brew beer in excess of the limits prescribed by the Act if the addition is required for the use of military canteens in Ireland. That Clause was inserted by the House, because a considerable number of troops had been sent into Ireland who were in excess of the ordinary population, and who were sent in for reasons which could not be foreseen, and which rather vitiated the 1915 standard or the 1914 standard. Therefore, authority was given to the Board of Trade, on the request of the Army Council, to allow a certain quantity to be brewed to meet that special requirement in Ireland, and that has been restricted, I need hardly say, to the smallest possible amount. Altogether something like 10,000 or 12,000 barrels, speaking from memory, have been sanctioned under that provision. We now find ourselves in an exactly similar position in this country, namely, that a very large number of Colonial troops have come to this country who are a clear extra, and who are not, as are British troops, drawn from the population who have previously-consumed the beer They are an extra, and they require beer at the canteens, but the Army Council, with the rights which they possess under the Act of obtaining certificates for any quantity of beer which was brewed for them by any brewer for those canteens during the standard year, cannot provide this extra quantity without depriving other brewers of rights which they possess under the Act. Therefore, what I wish to ask the House to do is to take the word "Ireland" out of Clause 6 of the Act by this Clause 3 of the amending Bill now before the House, so as to
136
give the same authority for exactly the same reason, namely, if the Army Council find that their rights are insufficient. I may say that every possible care will be taken that, unless extra beer is urgently required, both in the opinion of the Army Council and of the Board of Trade, these rights will not be extended, and I am satisfied that those who are working this matter for the Army Council are doing their very utmost to do without this, or, at any rate, with very limited quantities, but they fear there must be some extra quantity; and, therefore, I ask the House to be good enough to take out the word "Ireland" and apply that Clause also to England. I apologise for having to bring in an Amending Bill so soon, but the restrictions on manufacture are somewhat difficult to administer, and I hope this Amending Bill will pass into law without delay,
Mr. SHERWELL: I do not rise for the purpose of opposing this Bill in any way. It is a Bill that is very simple in its scope, but is not so simple in its construction. I am very much indebted to the hon. Gentlemen for the explanation he has given of Clause 2. It is the only approach to an explanation that I have been able to get from any source that I have consulted. I have referred the construction of this Clause to a number of high legal friends, and until I heard the hon. Gentleman I had no idea what really was the precise object. The House is familiar with the fact that the authorities have been for some years searching for a final test of drunkenness, but I cannot conceive, and certainly have never encountered, a finer test for the sobriety of a man than the test of this Clause. Any man who could construe this Clause with any approach to its ostensible meaning would put any suspicion against him of lack of sobriety beyond all possible reproach. The object, as I understand, as described by the hon. Member is a simple one, but I am not quite sure that the safeguards are present in the Clause as here drafted. I very much dislike the provision which confers a discretionary power upon the Commissioners, which discretionary power may conceivably be exercised in a direction contrary to the intention of the original Act; but if we are assured the discretion of the Commissioners will be used in the direction indicated by the hon. Member, then I would not like to press my objection to that particular Clause in the Bill.

137
I am not so satisfied about Clause 3, because, although the hon. Gentleman referred to the presence—the unexpected presence, as I gather—of so many Colonial troops in this country, therefore augmenting the demand for beer, I would remind him that the presence of these Colonial troops is a temporary and fluctuating presence, and that the number of "Colonial troops in this country who may make a transient visit or a transient stay are more than compensated for, or approximately compensated for, by troops moving from this country to the various seats of war, and I am not quite sure that the Clause as drafted in the Bill does not provide for a larger number than is really intended by the Government, or really required for the particular purpose. The Bill is, as I said at the beginning, one that is very simple in its scope, but I do suggest that the Board of Trade should scrutinise a little more closely the construction of Clause 2 before the House is asked to enter on the Committee stage of the Bill.
Mr. S. ROBERTS: I desire to thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing this Bill, and I thank him for responding to a question which I put before him which was brought to my notice by a constituent of mine. The case is a very simple one. The brewery is closed after the year 1914.
Mr. PRETYMAN: During the year 1914, or prior to 1915.
Mr. ROBERTS: It would be very hard if that brewer were deprived of the quantity of beer he brewed at that brewery, and which he transferred for economical working to another brewery. I believe there are eight similar cases in the whole country, and I think it would be a very great injustice if my point were not met. I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting this case in the way he has done. I have only one other criticism to make. My friends are suspicious of leaving this matter entirely in the hands of the Commissioners. Supposing the Commissioners were to say that half this quantity would be quite sufficient, in my opinion that would not be exercising their discretion in a judicial spirit. As far as I am concerned, I am willing to accept what the hon. Gentleman says, providing the Commissioners administer the Clause in the way which has been suggested.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I will undertake that they do.
Sir FRANCIS LOWE: This Bill is introduced in the interests of the brewers, and I entirely approve of its provisions. There is another class, the free licence holders, who have a point to raise, and they have asked for an Amendment which is not included in this Bill. While we are having an amending Bill they think the Amendment which they desire should also be introduced. I hope I am in order, because it seems to me that it will be very inconvenient to have a number of amending Bills, and while we are having this one it is quite proper that all these points should be dealt with. The off-licence holders say that under Clause 5 of the principal Act they are entitled to have the same amount of beer supplied to them as they have hitherto been receiving from the brewer with whom they have been dealing, and to do this they have only to get a certificate from the brewer they formerly dealt with and take it to any fresh brewer and get a similar amount from him. That had the effect of giving them just as free a market for the purchase of their beer as they had before the passing of the principal Act. They now say as Clause 5 of the old Act stands, when they have once got their certificate and given it to another brewer they become tied to that brewer and cannot transfer it from one to the other, and if the second brewer does not supply them satisfactorily they have no alternative and still have to keep on dealing with him. What they ask is that there should be a Clause introduced which would enable them to transfer this certificate, as in the past, from one brewer to another, instead of being tied to the first brewer to whom they take the certificate. I should be very glad if my hon. Friend would give me his views on this subject.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I can only reply by leave of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I will answer the hon. Member very shortly. The point he has raised was only sent to me to-day, and I had a letter from the interest for which my hon. Friend is speaking in this case, and to which we were very much indebted while we were framing a valuable part of Clause 5. I do not think anything can be done in regard to this point, because what the Bill does is exactly what my hon. Friend says: it allows a free seller of beer not only the free house, but grocers and people who sell beer on off-licences to get a certificate from a brewer who used to

139
supply them in the corresponding quarter of the standard year, and that they can transfer to another brewer in they do not get on with their original brewer and if they do not wish him to continue to supply them. We cannot allow them to transfer more than once a quarter. They get a new certificate each quarter, and if we were to allow constant changes they would have to be referred to the Commissioners, and the administration would become impossible.
Sir F. LOWE: Supposing the certificate is obtained for the first quarter and he transfers it to another brewer who does not supply him satisfactorily, in the next quarter he cannot go to another brewer until next year.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The next quarter he may go to another brewer.
Sir F. LOWE: Yes, next year.
Mr. PRETYMAN: The point my hon. Friend raises is what will happen in the year 1917. I will undertake to deal with this matter.
Sir H. DALZIEL: It is a Committee point.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I hardly think an amendment of the Act is necessary, but I will confer with my hon. Friend about it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Rea.]

ANZAC (RESTRICTION ON TRADE USE OF WORD) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of the Use of the word Anzac in Connection with any Trade, &c.)
(1) As from the commencement of this Act it shall not be lawful to use in connection with any trade, business, calling, or profession the word "Anzac," or any word closely resembling that word, without the authority of a Secretary of State, and this prohibition shall apply notwithstanding that such word forms part of any trade mark, or of the name of any company or society or other body, which has been registered before the passing of this Act.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of this Act he shall be guilty of an offence
140
against this Act, and liable on conviction under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts to a fine not exceeding £10, or in the case of a second or subsequent conviction not exceeding £100; and when a company or society is guilty of any such contravention, without prejudice to the liability of the company or society, every director, manager, secretary, or other officer of the company or society who is knowingly a party to the contravention, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and liable to the like penalty.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "As from the commencement of this Act."
The Committee is aware of the purpose of this Clause. It is to prevent a company from continuing trading, although it has been authorised by the Government for the most part of a year. It is a company which has paid its registration fees, which has been accepted by the Government, and it has a turnover of something like £1,000,000 in the course of a year. The Government now practically say that they have made a blunder in registering this company. They say, "We have had a representation made to us since this company was registered that it ought not to be allowed to continue to trade, and we ask the House of Commons to step in and pass a retrospective measure preventing this company from really having any existence." What I wish to point out to the Government is that if this Bill is passed with these words in, this company will only have one month to wind up all its affairs, pay all its liabilities, and get rid of all the guarantees which it has had. Under these circumstances, I cannot but contrast the manner in which this company is being dealt with and the two years allowed to German companies. I submit that the month provided for in this Bill is altogether too short, because there are enormous assets to be realised. I am informed that considerable guarantees have been given, and the company has got about 20,000 agents all over the country, and it would be almost impossible to deal with all these matters if the business of this company is brought to an end all at once. I think the whole thing is a measure of confiscation, and there can be no denial of that fact having once allowed the company to be formed. I submit to the representative of the Board of Trade that if it is intended to continue with this

141
measure there should be inserted a provision to provide fair compensation in regard to the taking away of this particular business. I submit respectfully that the time is too short, and that it ought to be extended to some considerable extent.
Sir CHARLES HENRY: With much of what my right hon. Friend has said I am in full agreement. With the main object of the Bill I am in complete sympathy. Its object is to prevent the word "Anzac" being used for trading or other purposes, and if the Bill was confined to that I should give it my hearty support. If, however, the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, this motor company is being dealt with very hardly. I ask my hon. Friend if it is possible not to make this Bill retrospective, and whether the object which he has in view would not be attained if he prevented anyone using the word "Anzac" for trade purposes in future. As this motor company has now established itself, and as it is a very large organisation, registered with the approval of the Board of Trade, the hon. Gentleman must own that it is rather hard lines to come down drastically upon this concern in this way by closing it up and withdrawing registraton from it. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will maintain that this company can trade under another name with the same organisation. That is quite right, but I am sure he will appreciate the difficulties with which this firm will be confronted and the enormous expense they will be put to. What this Bill does is practically to take away the goodwill of this company, because they have established their trade under the name of the Anzac Motor Company. As this is the only concern trading under that name, perhaps some exceptional consideration ought to be shown to them. The Bill need not be made retrospective, or, at any rate, six or nine months should be given to them to make their arrangements, so as to alter their name and let the trade and their customers know the reason why they are obliged to do this. In legislation of this kind every attempt ought to be made to see that no undue hardship is inflicted upon any concern of this kind.
Sir W. ESSEX: As far as this Bill is concerned, I am in hearty sympathy with it. My only objection is that it is piecemeal legislation, to which exception may
142
very fairly be taken. I think the number of those trading under pseudonyms ought to be reduced, and men ought to be compelled to get permission to use any pseudonym they choose, whether it is Anzac or anything else, from the Board of Trade or some properly qualified person, who should give sanction for operating as a trading concern under these imaginary pseudonyms. Under such names everybody knows how all sorts of imaginary claims of a misleading character are put forward. They are quite unnecessary and are occasionally dishonest, and I think a review of the whole circumstances will show that this Bill is desirable in order to preserve the use of this word to which all those from our Colonies attach very great importance. Even if one trading company has been led into a mistake, I think we should put this matter right now and make the whole thing retrospective. Even if we do make this small inroad upon the privilege of this particular company, we ought to do it in order to defend and maintain fully the desirability of the State controlling all trade pseudonyms whatever.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I need hardly say that the Board of Trade, in asking the assent of the House to this Bill. desire to inflict the least possible hardship upon anyone concerned. We perfectly recognise that some little hardship is imposed upon those firms who are trading under the name of "Anzac," but I really do not think that their case is aided, and they might very well say, "Save me from my friends" when the right hon. Gentleman gets up and uses exaggerated language, telling the House that the Government have committed a blunder, and that this firm, of which he constituted himself the champion, was not to be allowed to trade, but would have to wind up its affairs, realise its assets, and bring its business to an end. There is not a single one of those statements which is really in accordance with the facts. We are neither going to prevent the company trading nor will it have to wind up its affairs, realise its assets, or bring its business to an end.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the "Anzac" Company be allowed to trade?
Mr. PRETYMAN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to state what I have to say. None of those statements are accurate, and I do not think the case is aided by making them to the Committee. In the ordinary way, not by special permission of the Board of Trade,

143
but under the existing law, this company and another company registered themselves under the "Anzac" title and paid the ordinary capital duty upon their capital. I do not think that the Board of Trade or any other Government Department committed any blunder in not intervening; in fact, they had no right or power to intervene unless a Bill were brought in at once. At a later date the Commonwealth Government, for reasons which I dealt with on the Second Reading, and which obviously commands the sympathy of the House and of every hon. Gentleman who has spoken, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, asked us to prevent this name which was to them a sacred name, and not only to them, but, I think, to the whole Empire, from being used for trade or business purposes, and on receipt of that letter we at once acted. We did not wish to take compulsory measures if we could avoid them, and we wrote the following letter to this firm and other firms as well:
"The Australian Government have drawn attention to certain instances of the employment in this country for trading purposes of the word 'Anzac.' In view of the association attached to this name, its use in connection with trade and industry has been entirely prohibited in the Commonwealth of Australia., and the Board of Trade trusts that in the circumstances the traders and public in the United Kingdom will respect Australia's wishes by abstaining from the use of the word for such purposes."
That letter was written to this firm on 7th July last, so they have already had considerable time in which to consider the matter. They replied on 8th July, declining to comply with the request of the Board of Trade, but saying that they might go into the matter at a later date. One of the suggestions which they made in their letter was that they might consider it if the Government would purchase all their stock-in-trade. I hardly think the right hon. Gentleman would desire the Government to accept that suggestion. We were obliged, because the firm would not agree to our request, to bring in this Bill, but we desire to give them every possible time, and certainly not to deprive them of any money so far as it can be avoided. They will be allowed to re-register under any other name without any extra charge whatever. They will not have to pay again for registering, and, needless to say, the duty which was paid on the capital when registering under the name of "Anzac" will not be re-exacted from them. I am perfectly prepared, if it will meet the
144
wishes of the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, to extend the time within which the Bill will come into operation to three months instead of one month. We warned this company on 7th July, and the Committee will see, if the Bill comes into force some time towards the end of this month or the middle of this month, that they will have till February next to change their name. I may say that the motor cars which this company sells are not called "Anzac," but, I believe, the "Oakland" motor cars. Therefore, the name of the cars will not have to be changed. All that will happen will be that within the period allowed they will have to inform their clients and customers that their name is no longer "Anzac," but some other name that they will have to take. I do not think that it would be very gracious for us to cavil about the matter. I feel that who ought not, if possible, to question too closely a request of this kind coming from the Commonwealth Government. We desire, I am sure, to act upon it heartily, but at the same time to minimise the hardship to any British firm. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken will accept my suggestion that we allow three months instead of one month. It will give these firms ample time. I really could not consider any question of compensating them for their advertising.
Sir H. DALZIEL: The hon. Gentleman has used rather strong language, as he generally does when he tries to get a Bill through the House, and I think his experience is that it does not facilitate the passage of the Bill. He took upon himself to say that this company would be in no way inconvenienced if the Bill passed as it stood. As a matter of fact, if the company is to be wound up—
Mr. PRETYMAN: I must really ask the right hon. Gentleman not to misquote me. I admitted that the company would be inconvenienced, and I regretted it, but now the right hon. Gentleman gets up and says that I said that the company would not be inconvenienced.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman in the slightest. It is quite unnecessary, because he says enough without any misrepresentation. He says that it is not true to say that this company will have to be wound up. That will be absolutely necessary. The company must be wound up. The mere statement that they are going to

145
have free registration proves that the hon. Gentleman's original statement was wrong. The company will have to be wound up, and it will cost them a great deal of money. Not only so, but if they are so minded they can get rid of obligations they have entered into all over the country. It will be an entirely new company, and the new company may or may not take over the obligations of the former company. It is by no way bound to do so. The new company can repudiate the obligations of the old company made all over the country. There are obligations, I understand, to renew cars for several years. The new company may or may not take over these obligations. There are obligations to about 20,000 customers all over the country. The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that there will be no necessity to wind up. Then every contract made to buy from the "Anzac" Company is not necessarily binding on the new company, and when the new company is created it does not necessarily follow that the bad business of the existing company will be taken over. If they desire to repudiate certain obligations, the Government have given them every facility to do so. When the Government takes their money and gives them a licence to trade, now nearly over a year ago, and when they have spent thousands of pounds in advertising, I say that it is a very tall order for the Government to come down say, "We have decided, at the request of a Colonial Government, that you must stop trading and get out of it as best you can." In face of the request of the Colonial Government we have no other course, although, by the way, the word "Anzac" is not the peculiar property of any particular Government. I do not think that the Government can refuse the request; the Colonial Government having made it, we have nothing to do but to accede to it, but the Government ought to make some allowance for the goodwill created and the money expended. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the extension to three months. It is certainly a concession. I have gone into it, and I am satisfied that it could not have been done in a month. I understand, with regard to registration in future, that the new company will be allowed to have free registration, and that the money they paid for registration of the word "Anzac" will be refunded to them.
Mr. PRETYMAN Mr. PRETYMAN indicated dissent.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I know. I understand what the hon. Gentleman means. Any surplus there may be on the amount paid will not be charged. They are to register the new company without any expense to themselves. That is a considerable concession. The hon. Gentleman will allow me to point out that these provisions are not in the Bill at all. It passed its Second Reading probably in an empty House and without any opposition, and these provisions were not in it. If it had been passed into law as it stood, a great injustice would have been done. I have no interest in the matter at all, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will again consider the advisability of setting a precedent which may be dangerous.
Sir W. ESSEX: I should like to know if I rightly understand the bargain which has been offered to this company. If this company propose, under the new registration to enlarge its capital, they will pay on the increased amount?
Mr. PRETYMAN: Certainly.
Sir W. ESSEX: On the other hand, in view of the concession, if they decide to register with a smaller capital, the old registration will stand?
Mr. PRETYMAN: I have not admitted that any winding up is necessary at all, and I do not believe that it is. All they will have to do will be to apply that the name under which they are registered shall be changed from "Anzac" to something else.
Sir C. HENRY: I would like the point cleared up.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil): Can you [referring to Sir E. Carson] change the name of a company without winding up?
Sir E. CARSON: I am not a Law Officer of the Crown.
Sir C. HENRY: I regret that there is no Law Officer of the Crown present to give us advice. It is rather important whether the company can change its name without going into liquidation.
Mr. BRUNNER: Perhaps I may be able to enlighten the Committee. I happen to have been a director of a company which changed its name and did nothing else. Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the question whether these trade marks which have been registered can be reregistered without further fee?
Mr. PRETYMAN: Certainly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir H. DALZIEL: I beg to move to leave out the words "without the authority of a Secretary of State."
7.0 P.M.
This is rather an important matter, because this Bill as it stands provides that you can take away the power of trading by this Anzac Company, but that any Secretary of State can give it to any firm or trade combination which he desires. If this Committee is going to declare that the word "Anzac" is not to be used in trading we ought to do it thoroughly and completely, and we ought not to leave it in the power of the Home Secretary to give it to any other firm or any other combination. As the Bill stands, it has undoubtedly that power. Why should the Secretary of State have authority practically to veto the legislation we are passing? Any Secretary of State can write on a piece of parchment, "I authorise you to trade as the Anzac Company." It does not help the Bill. I do not know why it is put in. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to take it up.
Mr. PRETYMAN: I need hardly tell the Committee that there could foe no possible question of the Secretary of State giving permission to anyone to use this word for a trade purpose, but it seemed to us that there might foe some purpose, which might be desired by the Commonwealth, for which this name could be used which might be held as coming within the definition of the Bill. We did not think it was desirable to have to bring in another Bill in order to get such a case sanctioned merely for that purpose. I am in the hands of the Committee in the matter. I think it is a wise precaution. Any Secretary of State who used this power for the kind of purpose that has been feared by the right hon. Gentleman would have to answer to the House, and I cannot conceive such a thing as possible. No one would be fit to be a Secretary of State who used his powers in such a way.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Why does not the hon. Gentleman make clear to the Committee that which he has just said in his speech by inserting the words "at the re quest of the Dominion Government"? That would probably meet the whole difficulty.
Sir H. DALZIEL: Will the hon. Gentleman make it "at the request of the Colonial Government"?
Mr. PRETYMAN: I have no objection.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Sir H. DALZIEL: I want to make a final protest against the position taken up by the Government. They have treated us fairly in regard to the details of the measure, but I think they ought to have taken into account to a certain extent the vast expenditure that has been incurred by their authority.
Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title and Commencement.)
This Act may be cited as the "Anzac" (Restriction on Trade Use of Word) Act, 1916, and shall come into operation at the expiration of one month from the passing thereof.
Amendment made: Leave out the words "one month" ["at the expiration of one month"], and insert instead thereof the words "three months."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

FOREIGN POLICY.
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 22nd February, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. R. LAMBERT: I have no desire to do anything which might under any circumstances embarrass the Government, nor do I intend to use any but the most guarded terms in what I am about to say. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs the other night made a speech on the Adjournment and used language which, I think, goes a little beyond what has been the constitutional practice of this House. I feel that at a time like this it is all the more important that Members of the House of Commons should be particularly jealous of those privileges which we possess, seeing that all our liberties are built

149
upon precedent, and that if we allow an unfortunate precedent to be established we may find ourselves regretting it afterwards. What did the Noble Lord say?
"We all know that to undertake to govern a country at a time like this is to undertake a task which is really beyond human powers. We all recognise that. We are perfectly conscious of the many mistakes we make, of the many deficiencies of which we are guilty, but I cannot believe that anything which waters down the responsibility of the Government is likely to improve it. We must do what we think right. We must carry on the Government of the country, badly I agree, but as well as we can do it,"
Now we come to the all-important words:
"and we cannot share that responsibility with the House of Commons or with anybody else—not during the War."
Towards the end of his speech he appealed to the House to
"give us confidence and support and not to try to take upon itself duties which with all the respect I have for the House. I am satisfied it is incapable of discharging, namely, the administration of the affairs of this country in a time of great stress and strain, such as that through which we are now passing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1916, col. l668, Vol. LXXXVI.]
The point I want to emphasise, and which I object to, is the remark which he makes that the Government cannot Share the responsibility with the House of Commons during the War. The Government cannot, even if it would, divest itself of our share of the responsibility, and, indeed, we have it on the authority of the Prime Minister himself, speaking on 26th July, that that is so, because my right hon. Friend said this:
"When you come to write the history of the War the responsibility for what was done must be shared by all sorts of people, and amongst others, by the House of Commons."
When the hon. Member (Mr. Hogge) interposed "the Cabinet only," the Prime Minister emphasised the point by saying:
"My hon. Friend has got his share of responsibility. When the day of account comes, and the tribunal is opened and judgment is to be pronounced, we shall all, each in his own measure, some I agree with a greater measure and some with less, have to bear our share of the responsibility."
I am bound to say I think there is a great difference between those two utterances, and I think the Noble Lord will, upon reflection, admit that the expressions which he used went, perhaps, a little further than he intended to go. After all, it is not a new doctrine. We have had expressions from time to time in past years, all showing that there is a great responsibility resting upon the House of Commons, and Lord Palmerston, speaking in 1864, said this:
"Her Majesty's Government are responsible to this House to give every information as to any communication which may take place with foreign governments with respect to our foreign policy."
150
Of course we all admit that at a time of war like this it would be utterly unreasonable to expect the Government to make public important communications or to behave as if no great war were going on. That is not what we want. But we remember certain things. First of all, we remember that in an ordinary Session, in peace time, there is the safeguard that the front Opposition Bench is more or less kept informed of important events which are going on. No one at a time like this wants to move or to support a Vote of Censure on the Government. We do not want to have to censure them after the mistake has been made, but we want, if we possibly can, to give them assistance and to prevent mistakes being made. I very much regret that the other, day the Noble Lord seemed utterly to discountenance the suggestion which was put forward either that we should have a Secret Session to discuss foreign affairs or that something in the nature of the Commissions which are set up in France should be set up in this country. We feel that if only chosen Members of this House, from all parts, could be allowed to know what is going on, a very great deal of the uneasiness which is felt in all parts of the House from time to time would be allayed and the Government would be greatly strengthened, and confidence would be given to the country. I cannot help remembering that so long ago as 1864 Mr. Cobden himself in this House suggested that it was time for a reform of our Foreign Office system on those lines. He suggested that it would be an advantage if something of the kind were established. Fifty years have passed away—fifty years, I will not use the cant term of secret diplomacy, but fifty years during which the House of Commons has often been deprived of the advantage of being able to consult with the Government freely, and the result has been that we woke up one morning in August, 1914, fifty years after Cobden made that speech, to find that we were landed in a most terrible war. We are all of us anxious to help. We all of us recognise that the country is deeply interested in this terrible War, and we all of us want to do all that we can. I would earnestly urge the Noble Lord to consider whether, after all, there might not be a very great deal of advantage if he could possibly, with some modifications, but whether with modifications or without, set up something in the nature of the Commissions in France about which we have heard so much, which certainly have

151
answered very well in that country and which, I believe, would prove the best solution that could be found for the difficulty in which we find ourselves to-day.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: I certainly have no right to object to my hon. Friend (Mr. It. Lambert) having brought up this question, which I quite recognise is a question of very great importance and difficulty. Let me deal first with the unimportant part of it—the question whether I expressed myself properly on Tuesday last or not. So far as that is concerned, I think, if my hon. Friend will allow me to say so, he was a little too hard upon my language. It is quite true that he read perfectly rightly what I said:
"We cannot share that responsibility with the House of Commons or with anybody else."
It entirely depends upon how you read that phrase. What I meant was this: Not that the House of Commons had no responsibility—I should be the last person to assert that. The House of Commons has a great responsibility in all matters affecting the government of this country—but what I meant was that the Government also had a responsibility which is distinct from that of the House of Commons. That was the responsibility which I meant in the phrase I used when I said that the Government could not share it with the House of Commons. It is a very small matter, but that is the true construction of what I said and it is certainly what I meant. I think if my hon. Friend will refer to the earlier observations I made on that occasion he will see that what I had in my mind was this: that in order to secure anything like vigorous—one can only use the same word—responsible administration, you must leave the responsibility to those who are charged with the Executive power of the State for the time being. You cannot share that responsibility. I am sure that is a sound doctrine. It is quite true that if the duties are improperly exercised, if; mistakes are made, if negligence is found to have been committed, then the Minister who is guilty of negligence or of a mistake must undoubtedly be censured by his fellow-countrymen and necessarily dismissed from his office.
Mr. LAMBERT: That is after the event.
Lord R. CECIL: It may well be there are some questions—there certainly are some questions of administration which
152
could be presented beforehand to the House of Commons, and which ought to be presented beforehand to the House of Commons; but in the Department with which I am connected it is unfortunately the case that in the vast majority of cases the Foreign Minister—for it really is he—must act. He has to make up his mind, he has to send a telegram, he must decide and he cannot shift any part of that responsibility on to anybody else. That is what I intended to convey to the House, and I think that my hon. Friend will agree that in that form there is no kind of objection from a constitutional point of view to what I was trying to say.
The hon. Gentleman went on to press upon me what the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. Ronald McNeill) pressed very much upon me, on that occasion, namely, that some means ought to be found of taking the House of Commons more into the confidence of the Government. Both my hon. Friends will recognise the great difficulty of the position, I know. I have reason to know that the hon. Member for St. Augustine's Division realises it fully. I am very anxious; indeed, nobody can be more anxious than the Minister to be able to make his full defence. Even if he has been wrong, he would like to put before his fellow-countrymen at the earliest possible moment all the reasons which induced him to take a step, and all the difficulties he had in determining the step to be taken. Of course, he wants to lay that before his fellow-countrymen at the earliest possible moment. The difficulty is to find some means by which that can be done, and be done freely, because it is of no use unless it can be done freely, without injury to the public service. I should be very glad to confer with my lion. Friend who has just spoken, or any other Member of the House to see if any plan can be devised which would meet that case. I cannot pretend to feel, if he will allow me to say so—it may be an insular prejudice—a great admiration for the foreign system of Commissions. That seems to be the wrong thing. That seems to be watering down the responsibility of a Minister without giving any real control over policy. I believe that is wrong. I believe that a Minister should be responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I see my hon. Friends recognise the justice of that observation. That I believe to be the right view. Therefore, I am not in favour

153
of introducing, particularly in the middle of a great war, an entirely new constitutional system such as the establishment of Parliamentary Commissions would be, but I am very much in favour, if it could be devised, of some system which would enable the Ministers of the Crown, particularly those connected with the Foreign Office, to give much more freely than they can do in Debate in the House of Commons, the reasons for their policy, the difficulties they have had of all sorts which cannot even be alluded to in Debate in public, and which cannot even be suggested in public, and to lay before their fellow-countrymen what their real case is. I can only repeat that I shall be very glad, as the hon. Member for St. Augustine's Division knows I am very ready, to confer with anybody who takes an interest in the subject on that point, and if any plan can be devised which is not open to the objections to which I have aluded, I am quite sure my Noble Friend Lord Grey will be only too glad to adopt it, as I have had an opportunity of speaking with him on this subject.
Mr. SHERWELL: I think there will be general agreement that my hon. Friend (Mr. R. Lambert) has broached a question of extreme importance and has usefully occupied the hour for this Adjournment Debate. I am not quite satisfied or reassured by the speech of the Noble Lord. I quite agree with him that this is not the appropriate time to consider the subject of such a modification of our present system as would give the House an opportunity of establishing a Commission that might be a sort of intermediary between the Executive and the House of Commons. I do not for one moment suggest that the period of war is the most appropriate occasion for an innovation of that kind. But I would suggest to the Noble Lord, and through him, if possible, to his Cabinet colleague, that a large body of opinion in the country is regarding with grave misgiving this increasing accumulation of knowledge and of power in the hands of a body which, in essence—indeed in fact—is a self-elected body. I think the Noble Lord is wrong if he underrates that growing feeling in the country. If the present stream of tendency in this regard is allowed to continue it will undermine the authority of the Government by destroying the last vestiges of respect for Parliamentary forms and Parliamentary procedure. I am quite satisfied that if we have in front of us an intensification of
154
the purely executive powers and authority of the Administration of the day, we shall have an upheaval by way of revulsion from this particular evil which would do permanent and, perhaps, irreparable damage to those forms of constitutional government as we have hitherto known them in this country.
Might I suggest to the Noble Lord that he has not quite met one point that has very great relevance and importance in this particular connection. We had noticed during the War that increasing disinclination on the part of the Government to take into its confidence the House of Commons in reference to very important matters of State and Executive concern. So far as the divulging of those particulars or data would tend to weaken the action of the Executive of the day, there would be no dissent in any quarter of this House. No one asks or desires to ask that the House of Commons shall so assert its powers, prerogatives, and privileges as to demand the divulging of information the publication of which or the leakage of which would seriously hamper or interfere with the action of the Executive in the conduct of the War. But we have noticed this—we have had a very striking illustration of it to-day—that while the Government has been increasingly jealous of divulging information, perfectly proper and legitimate information, to the House of Commons, it has at the same time pari passu shown an increasing tendency to take certain gentlemen representing the Press into its confidence and to give them from time to time information which is all-important which is denied to Parliament and particularly to the House of Commons. I venture respectfully to submit to the Government that there can be no possible defence for action of that kind. If information is of too sacred or too important a character to be divulged, even confidentially, to the House of Commons, clearly it is information which should not be given to a body of irresponsible gentlemen solely because they are connected with the conduct of the Press of the day. Earlier in the conduct of the War we had the Government actually selecting particular sections of the House of Commons as the recipients of private information, although that information was denied to the House as a whole. Again and again we have had instances of the leakage of information given by the Government to a particular class or a particular group of Members of

155
this House, when that information has been denied to the House as a whole. I submit that the Government have got themselves into a perfectly false position in this regard. Either they must take full responsibility for their action, and say frankly that they do not regard the House of Commons as a party to responsibility for the conduct of this War and must state that they stand upon their individual responsibility as the Executive of the day, or they must show complete impartiality with regard to the channels of information. Do not let them deny to the House of Commons, on the ground of high State policy, information which sometimes the House thinks it has a right to receive and, at the same time, give that information—sometimes of a most important character—to irresponsible gentlemen solely because they are by the accident of circumstances connected with the conduct of the Press of the day.
Colonel GRETTON: I desire to support what has just been said by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sherwell). The Foreign Office by tradition have been a secret office for many years and the secrecy of their proceedings have been emphasised very materially during recent events. There is a great danger in this matter. They are always talking of the difficulties. Difficulties generally accumulate through incompetence or bad management. There is no reason why any Minister or Government Office should be ashamed of those difficulties if he or it is dealing with them in a competent manner. Therefore I am not impressed by the argument of difficulty. What the House has a right to complain about is that information is given to the Press very often which is not given to it. I am sure the Foreign Office and the Government itself would find it an advantage if it were to take the House from time to time into its confidence and to give it information as to what has passed. We all recognise that many matters occur which cannot be publicly discussed, but there are many matters also which can be so discussed and which it is right the House of Commons should discuss and upon which it is the duty of the Government and of Ministers to give information.
There is undoubtedly throughout the country a growingly profound distrust of Foreign Office policy. It is felt that it has made most conspicuous blunders—the
156
most conspicuous blunders that have been made by any Government Department during the War. We ought to know what their difficulties are, and how it is that they failed to overcome them in the way the nation expected. I am sure this Debate will be most useful if it induces the Government to take the House more frankly into its confidence, and if it results in the Foreign Minister doing so. Surely information which can be given to the Press in confidence may also be given to the House of Commons, so that hon. Members may know what the Government are doing and may be able to judge if they should remain in charge of the conduct of affairs in this country.
Sir E. CARSON: No doubt the question raised to-night is a very important one. One can very well understand why there should be considerable discontent at the present moment. The country thinks it sees from time to time failures in our diplomacy—failures in the management of foreign affairs for which it is unable to account. That naturally creates an uneasy situation and grave anxiety in the country. At the same time, I think it would be well for the House to recollect that this question of giving more publicity to foreign negotiations—to diplomatic negotitaions—is one that has been very often considered during the last; fifty years or more. I have been twenty-four years in this House, and to my knowledge it has arisen on many occasions. But the truth of the matter is that nobody has ever been able to suggest a way in which the House and the country could at critical times get more information in regard to dealings with foreign questions without probably doing a great deal more harm than good. The responsibility must be with the Government—certainly while the War is going on, and as certainly during acute crises before a War. You must leave the responsibility with the Government, and the responsibility of this House is to take care that if that Government fails it shall no longer be trusted. I know of no other responsibility that this House has or can have.
No hon. Member who has spoken in this Debate has given a concrete instance of the kind of information this House should get. I do not know what hon. Members have running in their minds. I do know a great many Members think there has been failure in our diplomacy in the Balkans—they think we have had a policy of

157
drift with regard to Greece. Would they really like, at the present time, to have all the dispatches between this country and Roumania, Greece and Serbia, which have passed during the last year or year before, laid before Parliament and before the country, and before the various countries concerned, with the result that in some country there might be condemnation of this country because it had not paid sufficient attention to it, or condemnation by another Government because it had not received sufficient attention? Such a position would be impossible, and for my own part I have never yet, much as I would like to know many facts, much as I would like to criticise many things which have arisen in various critical situations, I have never yet, in the years I have been in this House, been able to see in what manner these communications could be made to the House and to the country without doing far more harm than good.
I have every sympathy with the observations made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sherwell), who asks why the Press should get information which this House does not get. Why should Cabinet Ministers and the heads of Departments—not merely the Foreign Office, but other Departments—convey to the Press with their own gloss upon it certain information which they refuse to give to this House? I never could understand the reason of that. I have a strong suspicion it is an attempt really to square the Press, and I think nothing is more harmful, in the course of the anxious period through which this country is passing, than that there should be an attempt in any way to put a gloss upon or whitewash any Department by putting the view of that Department, not as its view to be challenged but fully inquired into, but putting it forward as a case that is not to be afterwards answered or discussed, and putting it forward in a way which really misleads the public and does not inform the country. What the effect of these interviews is I do not know, but I can only say that, in my opinion, the setting-up of these secret meetings with the Press is very apt to aggravate the position that exists with regard to the giving of information to this House. What is the responsibility that the Press have in relation to the Government? Why are they given information which is withheld from the representatives of the
158
People? I really think some day or other—the sooner the better—we should have a full explanation given to this House as to why this action is taken with regard to the Press. With respect to the other matters raised in this Debate, my Noble Friend has replied as far as any Minister could, when he said he would be quite anxious to consider any proposal of a practical character that could be put before him. I doubt very much, in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves, whether anybody will be able to discover any system by which any information can be given to the public of the character which we have been talking about in this Debate that might not do more harm than good to this country.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: I only wish to say a single word on the subject of the speech which has been delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson). If there is one advantage which may come from this announcement made yesterday or the day before, that the First Lord of the Admiralty was going to see a number of Press representatives—what reason there is for it I cannot tell; it may be that suggested by my right hon. Friend—but there will follow the advantage that it will be impossible to refuse to the House of Commons information which is granted to a number of journalists, and I hope that this House may bring pressure on the Under-Secretary, or the Prime Minister, or whatever other responsible Minister may be concerned, to communicate to the House of Commons in private. It certainly was done at the last Secret Session; they should communicate to the House of Commons in private the information which they have given to the journalists. If the journalists of this country are to be trusted, are not Members of the House of Commons equally to be trusted? Is their discretion less? Is their responsibility less? Is it not the fact that not a single reason which the Under-Secretary can put forward could possibly be suggested for not communicating to the House of Commons the information which is given in secret to members of the journalistic profession?
Lord R. CECIL: This part of the Debate has been raised since I spoke.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: The point was raised, it is true, with great force and cogency by my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College. With regard to the points raised by the hon. Member for the

159
Cricklade Division, I can only say that, having had an opportunity of looking at the system which prevails in France, a system of Commissions for the consideration of foreign affairs, a system under which the Minister who is responsible to the Chamber becomes practically the mere mouthpiece of the Committee, I think that is not a satisfactory state of things. If you are to have Ministers in this House, they ought to be men speaking with authority and liable to be Parliamentarily punished for the mistakes which they as Members of the Government have committed. It is, of course, impossible, ordinarily speaking, to communicate to the House of Commons information as to negotiations between foreign Powers which would not be made patent to Ministers who conduct them on the part of foreign Powers. Although, as a private Member of the House of Commons, I would immensely like to know a great many things which are going on at the Foreign Office, things of interest not merely to myself, I am content to remain in ignorance of them generally because I am sure publication would not be of advantage to the cause for which they are undertaken. I do not think, especially in view of the circumstances of the times, the House of Commons ought to be put in possession of information of a secret nature provided there has been no disclosure to the Press. The House of Commons will be aware that no information leaked out in regard to what took place at the last private sitting.
Mr. R. McNEILL: There was nothing to disclose.
Mr. HOBHOUSE: Having recently passed two or three weeks in France, especially among the civilian population, I found there was not a single case of revelation of what took place in the French Chamber either in the Press or among the general public by members of the Senatorial body or of the Chamber. There was the most extraordinary reticence observed by the members, and if that could occur in France surely equal reticence could be observed here by the British people, and their representatives could be equally trusted.
Sir J. JARDINE: I think the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. R. Lambert) is to be congratulated on having raised this Debate. Certainly the language used by the right hon. Gentleman (Lord R. Cecil) was a little too ambiguous, and, consider-
160
ing the immense importance of the subject, it was very desirable that he should be asked to explain exactly what he meant. We have heard now that he had no intention of attacking any of the existing prerogatives of Parliament The constitutional doctrine, therefore, remains that we in Parliament constitute the great inquest of the nation, and have the right to inquire into all that goes on. We do that, but there may be times—for instance, when a great war is being waged so near our shores—when that does not fully apply, and we might refuse to demand evidence in regard to every single thing that goes on. On the whole, I am fairly satisfied with the explanation given by the Noble Lord, and I am gratified to find that he and Lord Grey keep an open mind on the question of Commissions. Commissions may perhaps answer well in France. They might answer in this country, with our Parliamentary ways and our various national characteristics, but I should be loth to say whether the system would succeed until I had seen the plan upon which the Commissions were to be made.
In other Departments that method might be used without the dangers that might result from revelations of what was going on in the Foreign Office. I can imagine the view being urged, considering that we hardly ever have any Debate on Indian affairs, that it might be very well if there were a body like one of these Commissions to keep us acquainted with what the Administration was doing, and in that way give to the House greater knowledge of Indian affairs, so that on the next occasion when the Indian matters came forward for discussion there would be more Members than there are now with considerable knowledge of the matters they had to debate. Looking at the fact that most of the things with which the Secretary of State for India deals are not matters of great secrecy, and that every year the India Office publish Reports of innumerable things going on in India, there would not toe the same danger in dealing with these matters in the way I suggest as there might be in the case of the Foreign Office. Certainly, there might be considerable advantage in the House of Commons getting more information, when we consider how very few of the six hundred and seventy Members of this House have an intimate knowledge of that enormous Dependency. To a certain extent that remark applies to another place,

161
more particularly to the scarcity of those who have spent all their time in India and who know the ways of the people as well as the ways of the administration and the politics that connect India with our worldwide Empire and our foreign relations. Possibly the system of Commissions might be useful in some other Departments, but this is not the time to labour any of these points. I am glad that the suggestion has been brought forward and that it has received a sort of sympathetic consideration, but I do suggest that it should be cautiously dealt with before any particular plan is accepted.
Mr. OUTHWAITE: The right hon. Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) wanted to know some particular examples of the information we desire to be disclosed. I would like to point out to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs that on one or two occasions I have put down questions only asking for some statement as regards statements already made and divulged by Ministers in Allied countries, and I have not been able to understand why on more than one occasion the Noble Lord should have said it was not in the public interest that such a question should be put. He has taken occasion to condemn me for having put such questions. I will mention one instance. The Minister of Foreign Affairs for Russia made a statement to a
162
newspaper interviewer with regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House as to the future of Constantinople. I asked if we could have the statement regarding this disclosure made by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, but the Noble Lord seemed to think that there was something improper in my asking that the people of this country, and hon. Members in this House, should know what it was that had been disclosed by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs. Surely it was perfectly legitimate that we should have information that had already been made public in another country. I will give another instance. There was published in the Press here a statement made by the Prime Minister of France, Monsieur Briand, with reference to the question of Greece's intervention on be half of the Allies. Surely that is a very important matter. According to the Press statement here, which was passed by the Press Bureau, presumably, Monsieur Briand made a very important statement as regards the attitude of Italy towards the intervention of Greece. But when I asked for information about the matter, the Noble Lord seemed to think that it was improper.
Notice taken that forty Members were no present; House counted, and forty Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Seven minutes before Eight o'clock till to-morrow (Wednesday).