Commons Sitting of 9 November 1916

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Rhodes Estate Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; to be read third time.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland, under the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, 1914, as to the application of the Teachers' Salaries Grant [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
GOVERNMENT CHEMIST.
Copy presented of Report of the Government Chemist upon the Work of the Government Laboratory for the year ended 31st March, 1916, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.

    BRITISH PRISONERS' CAMPS IN GERMANY.
    Sir HENRY DALZIELasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can explain the circumstances under which Dr. Scarlett Synge, a British subject, was permitted to pay a visit to the British prisoners' camps in Germany?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord R. Cecil): I understand that Dr. Synge was doing medical work in Serbia when it was invaded. She appears to have fraternised with the invaders and to have subse-
    370
    quently obtained permission from the German authorities to visit a few of the British prisoners' camps in Germany.
    Sir J. D. REES: Can the Noble Lord say whether Dr. Synge's records are worthy of credence?
    Lord R. CECIL: I do not think too much inportance is to be attached to what Dr. Synge says. The Reports of the American Embassy on most of the camps have been presented, and they are the ones in which we have absolute confidence.

  KING CONSTANTINE (BRITISH MINISTER'S INTERVIEW).
  Sir EDWIN CORNWALLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement in reference to the nature of the interviews which the British Minister to Greece has recently had with King Constantine; whether any undertakings given have been in writing; and, if so, will he inform the House of their terms?
  Lord R. CECIL: No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot.

  SPEECHES OF MEMBERS.

    CONSTITUTIONAL, POSITION.
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to statements made by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark in New York, and particularly to his repudiation of the statement of the Secretary of State for War that peace suggestions from neutrals would be unwelcome at present to Great Britain and her Allies; and if he will state why this hon. Member was allowed to go to America?
    Lord R. CECIL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy on the 8th instant.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the Noble Lord answer the last part of the question?
    Lord R. CECIL: I explained yesterday—I am not clear that my hon. Friend was here—that at the time this passport was issued it was not customary to ask the purpose for which the journey was to be undertaken, unless there was some reason to suspect the bona fides of the applicant. I used those words or words to that effect. Therefore no inquiry was made as to the

    371
    hon. Member's purpose in visiting America. Since that date the practice has been changed, and now everybody is required to state the purpose for which they desire to go.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not the fact that last September the hon. Member went to America for the second time? Surely he had to go to the Home Office or the Foreign Office and say, "I am going to America again"?
    Lord R. CECIL: I think that if my hon. Friend will refer to my answer he will find that that is what I stated—that at the time the hon. Member got his passport it was not necessary to give information as to the purpose of the journey.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Is it not the fact that last September applicants had to state their reasons?
    Lord R. CECIL: The hon. Member had already got his passport then. I do not suppose—but I am speaking now without inquiry—he had any further visa.
    Sir J. LONSDALE: Will the Noble Lord consider whether some statement should not be made—
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a Debate. I must remind hon. Members that we have 233 questions on the Paper.
    Mr. RONALD McNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered in America by the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark advocating intervention by the United States, and asserting that the Secretary of State for War does not represent true feeling in England; whether the Mid-Lanark Liberal Association has declared by resolution that the hon. Member does not represent the opinions of his constituency, and has called upon him to resign his seat; and whether the Government will take steps to inform the American Government that the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark has been repudiated by his constituents. and represents no section of public opinion in Great Britain?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Bonar Law): I have seen a report of the speech in the Press, but I do not know if it is accurate. I understand that the attitude of the Mid-Lanark Liberal Association is as described in part two of the question, but I do not consider it necessary to make any state-
    372
    ment to the United States Government on the incident. The publicity already given to it ought to be sufficient.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the prominence given and the satisfaction expressed in the German and pro-German Press in regard to the utterances of certain Members of this House who no longer possess the confidence of their party organisations in their constituencies; and whether, in view of the fact that these constituencies are by exceptional circumstances deprived of their normal constitutional rights of expressing their verdict on the action of their Members, he will devise some constitutional method of compelling these Members to seek re-election or surrender their seats?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not see any means by which the hon. Member's suggestion could be carried out.
    Mr. BUTCHER: Is there no mode of dealing with cases of that sort except by a Motion for expulsion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I know of none, and that is the answer given by the Prime Minister; no doubt after inquiry.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that many aged persons in receipt of old age pensions in Ireland who were compelled by illness and decrepitude to seek treatment in union infirmaries and hospitals have been deprived of their pensions on this account by the pension officers; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I would remind the hon. Member that Section 3 (1) (a) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908, declares the receipt of Poor Law relief (other than relief excepted under that Section) to be a disqualification for the receipt of a pension. The pension officers have no power to deprive any old age pensioners of their pensions in consequence of the receipt of Poor Law relief. What the pension officers do in any case where a pensioner receives Poor Law relief of a kind apparently involving disqualification for a pension is to bring the

  373
  matter before the local Pension Committee or Sub-Committee, and it is for them to determine whether the pension should be revoked, subject to a right of appeal to the Local Government Board on the part either of the officer or the pensioner.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary if he will explain the delay in paying to old age pensioners the extra 2s. 6d. granted by the Government; and if he will say when the claimants in Ireland are likely to be paid?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I am not aware that there has been any undue delay in dealing with applications by old age pensioners for the grant of additional allowances. Over half a million pensioners have already applied for allowances, and some time must necessarily elapse before the pension authorities can decide the whole of the application. This will not, however, affect the date from which the allowances, where granted, will be payable, such date being governed by the date when the application was preferred.

  RENTS (IRELAND).
  Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that landlords of agricultural holdings in Ireland are demanding increased rents from the tenants, and on some estates, such as the De Vesci estate, the landlord has actually served notices to have the rents raised through the medium of the Land Court; and whether he will fake steps to prevent rents of agricultural holdings in Ireland being raised during the period of the War through the operation of the Land Court or otherwise?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): The landlord of a holding to which the Land Law Acts apply is entitled under Section 8 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, to apply to the Court subject to the provisions of that Section for an Order fixing a fair rent to be paid by the tenant of such holding. There are fifty applications of this nature at present pending for hearing before the Land Commission, some of which are on the estate of Lord De Vesci. The notices mentioned in the question are, I am told, notices for the purpose of raising the question for judicial decision. The cases are at present sub judice.

  MONASTEREVAN MEDICAL OFFICER.
  Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that the Monasterevan dispensary district, with a population of nearly 6,000, is at present without a resident medical officer owing to the action of the Local Government Board in refusing to sanction the temporary appointment made by the Athy Guardians of a medical officer for the duration of the War; and whether he intends to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. DUKE: I dealt fully with this matter in my reply to the question of the hon. Member for Kildare (South) on the 7th November.

  SCHOOL TEACHERS, IRELAND (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware of the dissatisfaction in Ireland at the war bonus granted to the Irish teachers, who were admittedly underpaid in pre-war time, especially at the distinction made between male and female teachers in the granting of the bonus; and whether he will secure that a bonus of 7s. 6d. a week will be granted to Irish teachers with salaries of £2 per week and under, and 5s. per week to teachers whose salaries exceed £2 per week, irrespective of sex, and that the bonus shall be retrospective from 1st January, 1916?
  Mr. DUKE: The Irish Government are at present in communication with the Treasury on this subject.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: How soon may we expect a reply?
  Mr. DUKE: I expect the hon. Member is as much a prophet as I am.

  POTATO SUPPLY.
  Mr. LUNDONasked the Chief Secretary whether in view of the prospects in store for the working classes in Ireland during the coming winter, he will see that the Local Government Board sanctions reductions in the rents of labourers' cottages in any rural district where the local public body responsible to the ratepayers consider it advisable this such should be done; and will he also consider the advisability of arranging that

  375
  in the coming spring seed potatoes will be given to the poor, the same to be paid for by instalments extending over a period of years, as has been done on previous occasions?
  Mr. DUKE: In the opinion of the Irish Local Government Board, the suggested reductions of the rents of labourers' cottages would not, to any appreciable extent, meet the circumstances referred to. The Local Government Board consider the question to be one of wages rather than of rate aid. I propose to discuss further with the officers of the Board the question whether effect can properly be given to resolutions of the local bodies to which he refers. As regards the latter part of the question, if later on it is found that as the result of the partial failure of the potato crop the poor are unable to obtain an adequate supply of seed potatoes, the suggestion of the hon. Member will receive full consideration.
  Captain DONELANasked the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) the amount of potatoes shipped from Ireland by or for the Government during the present season?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): The Department have no Returns of this nature, and the hon. Gentleman had better put his question to the Under-Secretary for War. The War Office is, I think, the only branch of the Government exporting foodstuffs from Ireland.

  DISTURBANCES IN IRELAND.

    JAMES COADE.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that James Coade, who was shot by Captain Bowen-Colthurst on the 25th April, 1916, has left a father, mother, four brothers, and four sisters, to all of whose support he helped to contribute; whether he is aware that it was admitted by the Crown in the recent Skeffington Inquiry that James Coade took no part in the rebellion, and had no connection with the Irish Volunteers or any other body implicated in it; whether he is aware that no provision has been made for the dependants of the murdered man, and no compensation offered to them either by the authorities
    376
    or by the representatives of Captain Bowen-Colthurst; whether it is the intention of the Government to make any such provision or compensation; whether the services of Captain Bowen-Colthurst to the Government of Ireland' have warranted the indefinite continuation of the payment of a pension to him; and whether, in view of the murders committed by Captain Bowen-Colthurst, the Government will provide that if his pension is continued adequate provision for the dependants of his victims shall be a first charge upon it?
    Mr. DUKE: An application for compensation to the relatives of James Coade has been referred for consideration to the Rebellion (Victims) Committee. The pension of Captain Bowen-Colthurst is not under the control of the Irish Office.
    Mr. BYRNE: Having regard to the exceptional case of this boy, could not the Government deal with this case separately, in view of the means by which he met his death?
    Mr. DUKE: I apprehend that the case is one of the various classes of cases that I think, with the assent of the House, it was decided to refer to a Committee for investigation. The Committee is at work, and the proper mode, clearly, to deal with it is that the Committee should report upon it.
    Mr. BYRNE: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that this is one of the boys who was murdered by Captain Colthurst? Does he not think it better that those who have been murdered should receive separate treatment without the case going to the Committee?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot add anything to the answer I have just given to the hon. Member.

    SINN FEIN ORGANISATION.
    Mr. LYNCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that, previous to the Dublin rebellion, membership of the Sinn Fein organisation was consistent with conformity with the law; whether his official information shows that at any time the Sinn Fein newspaper had committed any act of illegality; whether any precedent can be cited for retrospectively making actions illegal which were not illegal when committed; and, if not, whether he will release from prison Mr. Arthur Griffiths and offer him suitable compensation for his prolonnged detention?
    Mr. DUKE: I cannot deal by answer to questions with the matters of argument raised by the hon. Member. The fact is, as I am informed, that Mr. Arthur Griffiths has been interned under an order of the Home Secretary under Article 14 B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations as a person of hostile association. In these circumstances, there can be no question of granting him compensation for his arrest and internment.
    Mr. LYNCH: Might I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have this case looked into, on the ground that Mr. Griffiths certainly has been guilty of no crime since the rebellion; and if he was guilty of any infringement of the law before that event, why was he not then prosecuted?
    Mr. DUKE: That is a matter of argument which, with great respect to the House, I think it is impossible to deal with in answering a question.

    DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY (CLAIMS)
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary if he has received a resolution from the Dublin Fire and Property Losses Association, expressing dissatisfaction at the delay in settling the claims of the sufferers; if he is aware that six months have now elapsed since the destruction of the property in Dublin, and no payment on account of buildings has yet been made; and if he will say when they may expect to be paid? Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies of the 18th and 24th October to the questions of the hon. Members for the Harbour, St. Stephen's Green and College Green, Divisions of Dublin.
    Mr. BYRNE: Having regard to the dates of the questions and answers, will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the advisability of paying these people immediately? Is he aware that the building trade in Dublin is in a deplorable state, and there are hundreds of men idle owing to places being burnt down? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give something definite now?
    Mr. DUKE: This is a matter which has been the subject of a great many consultations and deputations, and, so far as I am concerned, no time has been lost in dealing with it.
    Mr. BRADY: If an owner is prepared to rebuild, and he has his plans ready, will the Government make an advance recommended by the Goulding Committee?
    Mr. DUKE: I am not, of course, able to commit the Treasury to a recommendation of the Committee, but as to the other part of my hon. Friend's question, if there is an owner in a position to build, and whose building depends on the money which has been pledged to be advanced being forthcoming, it would be available in the ordinary way in which moneys are advanced for building purposes. I may add, a case arose the other day in which this had to be considered, and it was thought a reasonable mode of dealing with the difficulty that the Treasury payment should be made against the certificate in the manner in which it is ordinarily provided from an extraneous source.
    Mr. BRADY: What I want to understand from the right hon. Gentleman is this: if specific cases can be given to him wherein the owners are prepared to start building to-morrow, say, will the money recommended by the Committee be advanced to such owners on the certificate; and will the right hon. Gentleman tell us or the owners how much in each case will be the amount of the grant?
    Mr. DUKE: I am still not able to commit the Treasury to accepting en bloc the recommendations of the Committee. The recommendations of the Committee, within their powers, will, as I understand the matter, be acted upon by the Treasury, but as to the other matters of procedure, when there is an owner who is ready to build, no difficulty will be put in his way by withholding the amount which is to be provided from public funds.
    Mr. BRADY: How can the owner build unless he knows the amount he is going to get?

    PRISONERS' LETTERS (CENSORSHIP).
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that letters from Irish prisoners sentenced to terms of penal servitude are being unreasonably censored, in many cases two-thirds of the latter being completely blotted out; if he will say if this is to continue; and, if so, what means prisoners will have to let their friends know their condition?
    The SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Herbert Samuel): The censorship of these letters has been carried out in accordance with the Regulations, and has not been unreasonably exercised. I am informed that in no case has deletion

    379
    amounted to two-thirds of a letter; the deletions were considerable in only eight cases out of a total of 475 letters. No hindrance is placed in the way of prisoners informing their friends as to their condition.

    WOMEN PRISONERS.
    Mr. BYRNEasked the Home Secretary if he has yet considered the advisability of releasing Miss Helen Molony and Miss Kearney, two Irish prisoners interned at Aylesbury without trial; and will he say why they are being detained?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I would refer to the reply which I made yesterday to the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield.
    Mr. BYRNE: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if these two ladies have been victimised owing to their connection with the trade unions in Ireland, and are they being detained on that account?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Certainly not.
    Mr. LYNCH: Has any charge been formulated?
    Mr. SAMUEL: Yes.

  OFFICIAL REPORT (CENSORSHIP).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether copies of the Debates, as issued to Members, are either stopped or censored when addressed to Australian newspapers or Australian citizens?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; they are not stopped or censored, so far as I am aware.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand such action to be against the wish of the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Certainly; if anything of the kind is done, which I do not believe, it will be done by the Australian Government.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say who is responsible for censoring the Official Debates in this House before they go to Press?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That, I think, is a question for the authorities of this House—certainly not for the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Home Secretary whether instructions or counsels emanating from the Government have been given recently to the Press to avoid mention of any speech delivered in this House or to suppress reference to any part of a Debate; and, if so, whether he will state the reason for such proceedings?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I have made inquiry from the Press Bureau, who know of no such instructions or counsels, nor am I aware of any having been given through any other channel.
  Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is responsible, or has he any knowledge who is, for the censoring of the OFFICIAL REPORT?

  EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS (LICENCE HOLDERS).
  Sir GEORGE GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the nationality of the following persons, respectively, whose names appear in the Annual Return for 1915 as holding licences to perform experiments upon living animals, and, in the case of any of them whose nationality is British, whether they were naturalised or are British-born, namely, Bach, Neumann, Ofenheim, Rajchman, Scholberg, Schutze, Seidelin, Sudmersen, Krause, Naidu, Asayama, Ikeda, Itagaki, Iwasaki, Kojima, Kakehi, Kuno, Kuroda, Matsuoka, Okada, Tsuji, Yagi, Yanagawa, Takahashi, Tsurumi, Kozawa, Zilva, Spitta, and mavrogordato; whether certain persons of the name of Grünbaum, who were formerly so licensed, now hold licences under another and, if so, what name; and what is the nationality of such persons?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I shall be happy to send my Friend the particulars he desires with respect to each of the persons mentioned in his question.

  WAITERS OF ENEMY ORIGIN (LONDON).
  Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Home Secretary whether he has information as to the number of waiters and other employés of enemy origin employed in the hotels and restaurants in London and in the country?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir; such information is not available.

  GERMAN PRISONERS (ESCAPES).
  Sir E. CORNWALLasked how many German prisoners have escaped from the camps in this country; and whether they have all been recaptured?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State thinks that it is undesirable to give this information.

  CONTEMPT OF COURT (PETITION OF MR. S. NORRIS).
  Mr. PRINGLEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a petition from Mr. Samuel Norris, Douglas, Isle of Man, at present imprisoned for contempt of court there; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I have received this petition, but by constitutional usage the exercise of the prerogative in a case of this kind rests with the Lieutenant-Governor. I will send the petition to him.

  ISLE OF MAN (INHABITANTS' PETITION).
  Mr. PRINGLEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a petition, signed by many inhabitants of the Isle of Man, asking for redress of grievances of which they complain; and whether he is prepared to take any steps to allay the discontent in the island?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I have received the petition referred to. It relates in part to certain judicial proceedings for the recovery of rates and other matters in regard to which I have no authority to interfere, and in part to questions of legislation which, in the first instance, are matters for the consideration of the local legislature. No representations have reached me from the local legislature. I have not, therefore, seen my way to take any action in the matter. As my hon. Friend may be aware, the subject of constitutional reform in the island was thoroughly investigated some years ago by a Committee, and measures were in progress at the time of the outbreak of war for giving effect to a number of important recommendations made by the Committee. Further pro-
  382
  gress with these measures was by common consent suspended during the War, but they will be resumed in due course. The Insular Government has, in consultation with my Department and the Treasury, made provision to meet the distress which the War has brought upon one section of the community, the persons dependent on the boarding-house industries, and apart from this the island has not been adversely affected by the War.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is there any reason why the steps which were being taken to reform the Government of the Isle of Man should not be continued in the course of the War?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; it is very difficult for either the Isle of Man or the Home Office officials to give attention.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if there is any question of union of the Isle of Man with this country, he will take care that the Isle of Man bears its fair share of the Public Debt?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I do not think that arises out of the question.
  Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this petition has notoriously been organised by an agitator in the Isle of Man, and that copies of it have been sent to all the old women in the Midlands at somebody's expense?

  NATURALISATION CERTIFICATES.
  Mr. S. BENNasked the Home Secretary if every certificate of naturalisation granted to an alien has in it this qualification: that he shall not when within the limits of a foregn State, of which he was a subject previous to his obtaining his certificate of naturalisation, be deemed to be a British subject unless he has ceased to be a subject of that State in pursuance of the laws thereof, or in pursuance of a treaty to that effect; and when he intends taking steps to ask Parliament to amend the Naturalisation Act of 1870?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Naturalisation Act of 1870 was repealed by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, which came into force on 1st January, 1915. Certificates granted since that date do not contain the qualification referred to by the hon. Member.

  PROFESSOR ETHE.
  Sir H. DALZIELasked whether Professor Ethé, an unnaturalised German, was in Germany two months after the out break of war; whether the Home Office used its influence to obtain his return; and whether, before he was allowed to return to Aberystwyth, the local chief constable was consulted?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Professor Ethé returned to this country from his vacation in Germany in October, 1914, and was given leave to land by the Home Secretary at the special request of the University College of Wales, in order that he might resume his duties at Aberystwyth. The law did not at that time require that before- he went there he should obtain the permission of the chief constable.

  SHOPS (EARLIER CLOSING ORDER).
  Sir H. DALZIELasked the Home Secretary whether he can inform the House of the modifications that have taken place in his original Regulation in respect to the limitation of evening trading?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The modifications made by the Amending Order of 27th October, which were announced in the Press at the time, were as follows: the closing hour where it was 7 was altered to 8; the exemption for meals was extended to include any refreshments consumed on the premises, and tobacco supplied at a meal for immediate consumption; and an exemption was added for the sale of motor or cycle supplies or accessories for immediate use.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the exceptions he has given he is showing rather the disadvantages of this Regulation and how it can be evaded?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
  Mr. W. THORNEasked what alteration he has made in the Early Closing Order since Monday, 30th October?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No alterations have been made in the Order since the Amending Order of the 27th October.

  JUVENILE PROCESSIONS (STREET ACCIDENTS).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has
  384
  been called to the fatal accident which occurred the other day owing to children walking in procession through the darkened streets; and will he consider the advisability of issuing a police regulation making it an offence for juvenile processions to walk through the streets after dark?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Commissioner of Police last year wrote to various bodies, including the Boys' Brigade, advising them to conform to the military practice of having front and rear lights when marching in formation at night. It has been represented to the police that through inadvertence this direction was lost sight of on the occasion when the fatal accident to which the hon. Member draws attention occurred. The Commissioner proposes to communicate with the various children's organisations and urge them to adopt and carefully observe this necessary precaution.

  ALIENS (CHANGING NAMES).
  Major HUNTasked whether there is now any law which entirely prevents aliens from changing their names at the present time; and, if so, how long has that law been in existence?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Aliens who are enemies are prohibited from changing their names by a Regulation made under the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, on 8th October, 1914. There is no law to prohibit the change of name by alien friends.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I ask whether that refers to the surname only or the full name?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I should like notice of that. My recollection is that it applies to any change of name.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Germans in this country changed their names from Wilhelm to William and from Johann to John both before and since the War?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has arrived when it will be necessary to prevent naturalised persons from changing their names?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question, and the hon. Member must give notice.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    POLICE RECRUITS.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of the police are not only willing but anxious to join up, and under these circumstances whether he will make a statement making their position clear with regard to pensions and allowances and their reinstatement in the force after the War; and is he aware that dissatisfaction is prevalent throughout the force in this connection?
    Mr. SAMUEL: A very large number of constables have already joined the fighting forces, and I am advised that those who remain are no more than sufficient to carry out the necessary police duties, including the numerous and important duties essential to the carrying on of the War which the police must perform. The privileges of those who have been allowed to join in respect of pensions and allowances are stated in the Police Constables (Naval and Military Service) Acts, and are, I believe, well known. I am aware that many constables would be glad to serve in the Army if they could be spared; but I do not think there is any dissatisfaction with the conditions of service in the Army
    Mr. BILLING: Would the right hon. Gentleman state whether, in the event of a constable leaving the service or leaving to join up, he loses his pension or allowance; and whether those who did it in the past have lost their pensions and allowances?
    Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir; not those who left with permission.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
    Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to deny the privileges of citizenship to those men who from objections, conscientious or otherwise, refuse to perform the national service demanded of them?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of the necessity for such legislation.

    RUSSIAN JEWS.
    Sir H. DALZIELasked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that there are over 30,000 Russian Jews of military age in this country who
    386
    are not political refugees, he proposes to take any steps for their immediate recruitment?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: This matter has been carefully considered by the Cabinet, and certain steps are now in preparation.
    Sir H. DALZIEL: May I ask if those steps will be taken soon?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes; I hope so.

    SOLDIERS' PAY.
    Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Kaffir privates to be employed as a labour force in France are to be paid 2s. per day; and, seeing that this is twice the sum receivable by British soldiers without dependants, will he take steps to raise the pay of the latter when in France to the rate of 5s. or 6s. a day paid to privates in the forces of the Overseas Dominions?
    Mr. FORSTER: As I stated on the 7th instant, the Kaffir private will receive 8d. a day in cash, and 1s. 4d. a day reserved until discharged, less any payment allotted to his family. The wages of the Kaffir have to be fixed in competition with the South African market, to attract the necessary labour. I am happy to say that other considerations enter into the question of the British soldier's pay. I may remind the hon. Member that in addition to his pay, the British soldier has certain rights to separation allowance and pension.
    Mr. OUTHWAITE: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] that after the married British soldier has made an allotment—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information, not asking for it.
    Commander WEDGWOOD: Is it correct to describe these men as "Kaffirs" when they are half-caste Cape Boys?

    MAN-POWER BOARD.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will outline to the House the latest change approved by the Government with regard to recruiting and the distribution of manpower generally, and whereby managers of Labour Exchanges will approve men now serving La the Army for transfer to civil employment, inspect, revise, and check lists of employés, decide between skilled

    387
    and unskilled labour, and direct local tribunals as to the men who can be exempted from military service on the grounds that some work of national importance has been found for them?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Pretyman): In outline the scheme is one for releasing for the Army men now in civil employment by the substitution of men relatively unfit for military service, without impairing the efficiency of munitions work or other essential industries. The function of the Employment Exchanges will be to act as the centres at which supply and demand will meet, and at which suitable substitutes are to be selected.
    The selection of men now serving in the Army for transfer to munitions work will be performed by officers of the Employment Department chosen for this work on the ground of their special knowledge and experience, and acting in co-operation with the military authorities and representatives of the Ministry of Munitions.
    It is obvious that points of doubt and difficulty will arise as regards the lists of unskilled men transmitted by employers to divisional officers under the provisions of the scheme, and in this connection the services of managers of Employment Exchanges who have had much experience in dealing with industrial matters must be of great assistance. Matters, however, of difference with the employer or of technical inspection will not be dealt with by the managers, nor will they issue any directions to local tribunals, although their advice will be freely at the disposal of the tribunals.
    Major NEWMAN: Is it not the fact that the Employment Exchange is the old Labour Exchange, one and the same?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, the name has been changed.
    Major NEWMAN: Yes, that is all.
    Major NEWMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the personnel of the Labour Exchanges, who will in future control the allocation of the man-power of the country, includes any men of military age and fit for service?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: I do not think it is correct to say that the Employment Exchanges will control the allocation of the man-power of the country, though they
    388
    undoubtedly are and will continue to be an essential part of the machinery by which this man-power is distributed. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to replies already given in this House.

  UNINTERNED GERMANS IN ENGLAND.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the statement of Herr Cohn in the Reichstag last Thursday that there are still 28,000 Germans uninterned in England, while all the English civilians in Germany have been arrested; and whether he will consider the advisability of now carrying out the same policy here?
  Mr. SAMUEL: My attention had not been called to this statement, and, if it was made, it is not correct. I would refer the hon. Member to the figures I gave in the Debate on the Home Office Vote on 29th June last, from which he will see that the total number of persons of German and Austrian nationality, male and female, of all ages, at liberty here was about 22,000. Of these, 10,000 are women, 4,000 of the males are of friendly race, and a large proportion of the remainder are aged and infirm. As regards the internment of British subjects in Germany, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply he received from my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs on 10th July, which, I understand, still holds good, and which does not accord with the statement quoted in the question.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Would the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to read the reports of the debate in the Reichstag in regard to this question and continue our policy on the same lines as the Germans?
  Mr. SAMUEL: I am not challenging the accuracy of the hon. Member's quotation, but the original statement itself is not accurate.
  Sir E. CARSON: Are there any English subjects uninterned in Germany?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has stated in the answer which I have quoted that—
  "There are a number of women and men over fifty-five, and also a number of men of military age, most of whom have been released or exempted from internment on account of ill-health or because they are German in sentiment."
  Sir E. CARSON: Do you know the number?
  Mr. SAMUEL: No, Sir.

  ENEMY BUSINESSES.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the restaurant of Josef Lauer, at 20, Ganton Street, Regent Street, W., a naturalised German, is the daily meeting place for at least forty enemy aliens of military age, and that German is exclusively spoken there; whether an order for the internment of Lauer has been issued, and through some influence been withdrawn; whether Lauer is the father-in-law of Paul Stulik, of Percy Street, who has lately been interned; and whether any influence has been exerted against the internment of Lauer and in favour of the release of Stulik?
  Mr. SAMUEL: An order for the internment of Lauer, who is, as stated, the father-in-law of Stulik, was made by me under the Defence, of the Realm Regulations on 27th October. Its enforcement has been suspended at the request of the Advisory Committee until the representations against the order which Lauer has made to the Committee have been heard and decided upon. His restaurant has been frequently visited by the police, who have been unable to find any evidence that it is, as stated by the hon. Member, a daily meeting place for alien enemies or that only German is spoken there, although a number of foreigners of various nationalities frequent the restaurant. A notice is exhibited requesting that only English be spoken. No representations have been made to me against the internment of Lauer or in favour of the release of Stulik, and I would strongly deprecate the suggestion in the question that outside influence plays a part in deciding cases such as these. Both the police and the Home Office, as well as the Advisory Committee, consider evidence as to character both for and against persons of enemy origin, but the decision is reached solely on the facts of the case.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he has had no reports from the police with regard to this particular restaurant?
  Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; I have had one or two reports from the police.
  Mr. HOGGE: Do the police speak German?
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked whether the wife of Paul Stulik, an interned Austrian, whom he decribes as a British-born woman, is in reality the daughter of a German whom he himself interned last week; and how is it that this German woman, married to an Austrian interned husband, is allowed to carry on a licensed house in London?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The father of Mrs. Stulik is a naturalised British subject of German origin against whom an internment order has been made under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and the case is now under consideration by the Advisory Committee. Mrs. Stulik herself was born in England, and is a British subject, and must, therefore, be described as a British-born woman. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 31st October.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary on what authority he states that Reichenfeldt's restaurant is frequented by French and Serbians; whether he is aware that the bill of fare is printed in German, and German and Hungarian languages are solely used; whether he is aware that this restaurant has taken over most of the customers from. Voight's hotel, which he closed some months ago; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. SAMUEL: My information is based on inquiries made by the police. The police obtained a number of menu cards all of which were printed in English. If the hon. Member is in possession of reliable information which supports the allegations made in his question I will be glad if he will communicate it to me in order that I may further consider the case.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Max Zeller, who, according to his information, gave up business in April, 1915, is still carrying on business in Charlotte Street; that his name is still over the door; that he constantly visits a German restaurant at 35, Charlotte Street, and there complains bitterly, in violent German, that the Home Secretary's new

  391
  Order for closing shops is ruining his business; and whether he will consider the desirability of interning him?
  Mr. SAMUEL: The inquiries I have caused to be made show that the business referred to is now being carried on by Max Zeller's son, who is a British-born subject and is about to be called up for military service, that the name Max Zeller is not, as stated by the hon. Member, exhibited over the door, and that Max Zeller himself is at present in hospital, having undergone an operation. The inquiries do not bear out the statements made in the last part of the hon. Member's question, and I shall be glad if he will submit to me the evidence on which they are based.
  Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Home Secretary whether he has further considered the case of Joseph Kraft, the German tailor of Bond Street; whether he is aware that, when he first came to this country thirteen years ago, he was a prominent member of a German Socialist Society at 107, Charlotte Street; whether he is still of military age, and boasts of his influential customers who would prevent him being interned; whether he still is definitely pro-German; and, if so, why he is not interned?
  Mr. SAMUEL: This case is now under my consideration in consultation with the Board of Trade. Kraft who, as I have already stated, is a Hungarian and not a German, came to this country nineteen years ago when seventeen years of age. The inquiries I have been able to make so far do not bear out the allegations made against him by the hon. Member, but I am investigating further the information he has been good enough to send me.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Has he not been in this country nearly as long as the Judge Advocate-General?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I deprecate these personal allusions to Members, present or past.
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a question of general policy, is it not fair to refer to the case of an enemy-born subject apart from the individual menti6ned in the question?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question is not designed to obtain information, but to cast a slur.
  Mr. PRINGLEI will put a question on the Paper.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what is the present position of the firm of Messrs. Kirchner and Company, of Leipsig and London; whether any Germans, naturalised or otherwise, are identified with the present management or conduct of the business; whether an examination is being made into the history of this firm; will he ascertain whether any German machines sold in London by this firm were disposed of to the Colonies; and, if so, how were they described upon the declaration forms?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: An Order was made on the 10th July requiring the business of Kirchner and Company to be wound up, and the liquidation is under the sole control of Mr. James Fraser, the controller appointed to conduct the winding-up. I have no information as to the ultimate destination of the machines sold by the firm in London
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my hon. Friend whether these controllers send in any interim reports?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have already answered questions on this point. We are in constant touch with the controllers, and obtain information from them as required.
  Sir E. CARSON: Are those reports in writing?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Sometimes, if necessary.
  Sir E. CARSON: Can we see them?
  Mr. BOOTH: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question whether an examination is being made into the history of this firm in view of the fact that the Board of Trade, in August, 1914, had a strong complaint of an ex-employé of the firm that the firm brought machines over here, painted them as British, and sold them as British, and deceived the Colonies?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that all these cases are considered by an Advisory Committee consisting partly of hon. Members of this House, who go into the merits of the cases without any prejudice and hear evidence on both sides and advise the Board as to whether action should be taken on the evidence then before them and on which the Board act.
  Mr. BOOTH: When there is an exceptional opportunity of getting at the facts as in this case when you have access to the books and evidence you could not get before, why not do so?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The facts and all evidence are laid before the Committee. If any further evidence, as has happened in certain cases, comes before the Board and it appears certain facts have not transpired in the case I send it back to the Committee for further consideration, so that it may be judicially considered by the Committee without any passion or prejudice.
  Mr. BUTCHERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the firm of Ettlinger and Company, metal brokers, who carry on business in London, and until lately carried on business in India; whether this firm had before the War close business relations with, and largely financed, the German firm of Schroeder, Schmidt, and Company, of Bombay, who shipped large amounts of manganese ore from India to Germany; whether this firm had also before the War close financial relations with the German firm of Beer, Sondheimer, and Company, of Frankfort, who largely controlled the trade in zinc concentrates from Australia; whether he is aware that the Indian Government in June, 1915, closed down the business of Schroeder, Schmidt, and Company, and in July or August, 1916, closed down the business of Ettlinger and Company in India as being a business carried on in enemy interests; and whether the Board will take the necessary steps to close down the business of Ettlinger and Company in London in the same way as the Indian Government closed down the business of that firm in India?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am aware of the facts stated in the hon. Gentleman's question, but the partners in the firm of Ettlinger and Company are naturalised British subjects, and the business is not within Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Amendment Act, 1916.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Is it not possible for the Board of Trade in this country to shut down this firm in the same way as the Indian Government shut it down in India?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have looked into this question, and I am afraid that legally we have not the power.
  Mr. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman bring legislation before this House similar to the Indian legislation, so as to enable us to deal with such cases?
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will furnish particulars of all sales which the Board of Trade or the Public Trustee have effected of enemy-owned shares in British companies?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I will lay on the Table of the House a list of the enemy-owned shares in British companies which have been sold.
  Mr. TERRELL: Will the hon. Gentleman have a copy circulated with the Papers? It would be a convenience to Members.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the declared policy of his Department, in the sale of enemy interests in British companies, to see that the shares do not get into the hands of other manufacturers with the effect of stopping competition?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes, in cases where such action is in the public interest.
  Mr. G. TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, approximately, 96 per cent. of the share capital of the Union Cable Company, Limited, is owned by the Deutsche- Kabelwerke Company, of Berlin; whether this company is still continuing to carry on its private trade in competition with British firms under the direction of its pre-War manager; whether the contracts which the company obtained last February from the corporation of Coventry resulted in a profit or loss to the company; whether the company is making any contribution to the revenue of the country either by way of Income Tax or Excess Profits Tax; and whether any attempt is being made to sell its enemy-owned shares either by private treaty or public auction?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The share capital of the Union Cable Company, Limited, was held as stated in the hon. Gentleman's question, but the Public Trustee has now negotiated a sale of the shares to British subjects. The tenders made by the company to the Corporation of Coventry were investigated by the supervisor of the business last March, and he reported to the effect that the tenders were at a price

  395
  which showed a fair trading profit. The company is subject to the same provisions with regard to Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax as any other company carrying on business in this country.
  Mr. TERRELL: Has the company made any contribution towards Income Tax and Excess Profits Tax?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: How can I tell that?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That question should apparently be put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. TERRELL: On a point of Order—
  Mr. SPEAKER: There is no doubt about it. The Board of Trade cannot know the answer to that question.
  Mr. TERRELL: If the management of this company is in the hands of the Board of Trade, surely they must know.
  Mr. SPEAKER: How is it possible without notice that the Minister responsible can answer a question of that kind? It is perfectly impossible. If the hon. Member attaches any importance to his question at all, the least that he can do is to give notice of it.
  Mr. TERRELL: It is on the Notice Paper. It is the question I addressed to the hon. Gentleman. May I press the hon. Gentleman for an answer to the question?
  Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member to have no redress if a question is deliberately evaded by a Department?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The question asked me was whether they were liable, and I distinctly answered by saying that they were liable.
  Mr. TERRELL: Does the company make any contribution?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I said, "Yes, they were liable."
  Mr. TERRELL: What I ask is, whether there is any contribution, whether they pay anything?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: They are under the same liability as anybody else.
  Mr. TERRELL: May I read the question. Whether the company is making any contribution to the revenue of the country, either by way of Income Tax or Excess Profits Tax?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I say that they are liable, and they are under the same rules as other people. I have not the exact amount they have paid, if they have paid anything. I will inquire if the hon. Gentleman will give me notice.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer!
  Captain BARNETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the firm of A. W. Faber, London, had its head office in Berlin and factories at Stein, near Nuremberg, Geroldsgrün (Bavaria), and Newark (New Jersey, United States of America); will he say if such firm has been ordered to be wound up as an enemy firm; if so, on what date and who is in control of the liquidation, whether he is aware that the late manager of the said firm is offering for sale in the City of London the A. W. Faber specialities at the old prices and under the same trade mark, Cast ell, which is the family name of the Count and Countess von Faber-Castell, the German proprietors of the firm of A. W. Faber; and. if so, whether he will take steps to put an end to this evasion of the Trading With the Enemy Acts?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The business of A. W. Faber carried on in this country was ordered to be wound up on the 24th February, and Mr. S. J. Field was appointed controller. The late manager is now carrying on business on his own account, and has sold rubber bands under the Castell mark which are manufactured in the United States. I am considering what further action, if any, should be taken.
  Mr. S. BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the stock of the British Petroleum Company was owned by Germans; if it is now vested in the Public Trustee; and why he has not the power to sell if he can obtain a reasonable price?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The whole of the capital of the British Petroleum Company, Limited, was held by or on behalf of a German company, and is now vested in the Public Trustee. Russian, French, and Belgian interests claim to be entitled to 49½ per cent. of the capital of the German company. The question of how best to deal with the shares in the national interest is under consideration, and pending the result of that consideration I am not prepared to authorise a sale.
  Sir E. CARSON: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman or of the Government in such cases as those mentioned in the question, where all the shares were owned by Germans, to prevent them using the name, British Petroleum Company?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Yes; I think it is very probable that the name will be changed.
  Mr. HUNT: Will my hon. Friend see that the Belgians and French get their fair share? Is he aware that the Belgians complain very much that they are not well treated by the British Government? And I think it is probably true.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I can answer that without notice. Particular care has been and is being taken to watch their interests; and in answer further to my right hon. Friend's question, I do not think he will object to the name "British" remaining if the company becomes British by purchase.
  Sir E. CARSON: No. My objection is to calling a thing "British" which is German.

  HOME RULE (SUGGESTED CONFERENCE).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the danger of keeping open the Irish question, he will consider the suggestion of a conference of which the members shall be the Prime Ministers or representatives appointed by the respective Governments of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, and Great Britain, and the leaders of the Nationalist and Unionist parties in Ireland; and, if so, whether the terms of reference will be such as to allow of free treatment of the problem along the lines of the greatest and boldest conceptions of democratic government and future development?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it would be practicable during the War to ask the Dominion statesmen to undertake the duties suggested in the question.
  Mr. LYNCH: Would it not be an advantage to have an expression of their corporate opinion in favour of Home Rule?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: There would be advantages, bat there would also be disadvantages.
  Mr. FLAVIN: What would the disadvantages be?

  FINANCIAL ARTICLES (ATTACKS ON LORD CHIEF JUSTICE).
  Colonel GRETTONasked the Prime Minister if the attention of the Public Prosecutor has been drawn to the series of articles lately appearing in the "Financial News" which attack the Government, and reflect particularly upon the Lord Chief Justice; and if it is proposed to take any action in the matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that articles of the kind referred to have lately appeared. So far as I know there is not the least truth in the suggestion made. When the question was put down I communicated with the Lord Chief Justice, who desires it to be stated that he knows nothing, and has never heard of any dealings or interest in shares of any Marconi Company by any Ministers or "person of influence" other than those which were fully investigated some years ago by a Committee of this House, I cannot say more than that these articles are being watched by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. About fourteen days ago I handed a question in at that Table bearing on this subject asking permission to ask a question whether the Prime Minister's attention had been called to these articles in the "Financial News," and whether he did not consider, in view of the attack upon the probity of British Ministers which might cause dismay amongst our Allies, some statement might be advisable. I was refused permission to put that question on the reading that no question calling attention to anything appearing in any paper—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We must get on with the business. The hon. Gentleman can raise that at the conclusion of Questions, when I shall be very glad to deal with it.

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of the award of a purely nominal pension to every sailor and soldier to enable them to claim revision of their pensions should disability arising from service overtake them at any time?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; I will see that this suggestion receives consideration.
  Mr. BIRDasked the Prime Minister the date when the present scale of separation allowances to soldiers' wives, children, and dependants was fixed; and what would be the increase required in the current allowances to bring their purchasing power to the same level now as at the date when they were originally fixed?
  Mr. FORSTER: The scale for wives was fixed in September, 1914; that for children in February, 1915. Allowances to dependants stand on an altogether different footing, being based on the net contribution of the individual soldier before the date of his enlistment. I am not prepared to give an official estimate of the amount required to bring purchasing power to the same level as before, as that is to some extent a matter of opinion.
  Mr. BIRD: Will my hon. Friend give his favourable consideration to an increase of these inadequate allowances?
  Mr. FORSTER: They are under the consideration of the Statutory Committee.

  ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS.
  Mr. ANDERSONasked the Prime Minister how many Committees he has set up so far to deal with economic and social questions arising out of or following the War, and the subjects which these Committees are considering?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As I have said, in answers to questions on the 1st November and 17th October, I hope soon to arrange for the publication of a list of these Committees.

  PENSIONS BOAED BILL.
  Mr. HOGGEasked the Prime Minister when the Pensions Board Bill will be introduced?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I will deal with this question when I state the business for next week.

  ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a short Act
  400
  for the purpose of legalising the position of children not born in wedlock provided their parents afterwards marry?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think the time opportune for reopening this question.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (UTILISATION OF SERVICES).
  Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH- BENTINCKasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to utilise the services of prisoners of war, or by other means, to cultivate the 12,000 acres now under fallow, and also the land which, in spite of national necessities, now lies derelict; and whether he will consider the advisability of the Government now under taking the duty of increasing the acreage under tillage?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland): So far as the services of prisoners of war are concerned, I beg leave to refer my Noble Friend to the answer which I gave to his question on the subject on the 2nd instant. As regards other sources of labour, I can only say that they are hardly sufficient to keep the present area under crops in a good state of cultivation, and that I do not know of any labour which can at present be diverted to derelict land.

  EXCESS PROFITS.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day to debate excess profits and their relation to the rise in the price of food and the cost of the War?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry I have not got the answer to this question.
  Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some firms are making 100 per cent., and not the percentage allowed by the Government?

  PARLIAMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
  Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Committee of both Houses of Parliament to confer with the Foreign Office from time

  401
  to time so that Parliament may be kept in closer touch with Foreign affairs than is possible under the present system?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not prepared, as at present advised, to commit the Government to this proposal.

  SWEDISH DELEGATION.
  Sir E. CORNWALLasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of arranging for the members of the Swedish delegation now in this country to meet and confer with Members of Parliament, either by means of a Joint Committee of both Houses or otherwise?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware whether it is the wish or within the competence of the Swedish delegation to engage in such a conference.

  PARIS ECONOMIC CONFERENCE (RESOLUTIONS).
  Sir J. LONSDALEasked the Prime Minister, if his attention has been called to the fact that, owing to the uncertainty as to the trade policy to be pursued by this country after the War, British development of the production of goods and materials which were formerly supplied mainly or exclusively by Germany is being seriously hampered; and whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to prevent the dumping of German goods in accordance with the Resolutions of the Paris Conference?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: His Majesty's Government have already expressed their approval of the principles laid down in the Resolutions of the Paris Economic Conference. The methods by which those principles can best be applied are being considered by the Committee on commercial and industrial policy, and also by the Departments concerned.

  MILITARY AND NAVAL SITUATION (SECRET SESSION).
  Mr. HOBHOUSEasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent private communications made to the Press by individual Ministers, he will give
  402
  another Secret Session of the House in order that it may be fully informed of the military and naval position?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not sure, having regard to our past experience, that there is a general desire for another Secret Session. If there is, the Government will give it careful consideration.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Perhaps my right hon. Friend can state how that information can best be conveyed to the Government, because a good many Members of this House have intimated to me their agreement with this question?
  Sir E. CARSON: May I ask my right hon. Friend if some opportunity will be afforded, whether by Secret Session, or otherwise, of communicating to this House what has already been communicated to the Press by the First Lord of the Admiralty?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the question of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hobhouse), I think it would be difficult to describe the process, but I have noticed that there is some method by which the wish of the House can be discovered, and I am sure that it will be seen in this case. I am sorry that I can add nothing to the reply given the other day by the Prime Minister.
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: May I suggest that my question has conveyed to the Government already the sense of the House in this matter?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That is not quite sufficient.
  Commander WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he expects this House to consider the question of man-power, which is of extreme importance at the present time, unless it is discussed in a Secret Session?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite agree that it would be extremely difficult to discuss it in any other way, and obviously it is a question which ought to be considered both by the Government and the House.
  Mr. BILLING: How is it that these secrets cannot be given to the freely elected representatives of the people, and yet they can be given to hired editors of the Press?

  AIR SERVICE.
  Mr. BILLINGasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of Lord Curzon's recent Report on the Air Service, thereby substantiating the prediction of the Member for East Herts, he will consider the Paper dealing with the creation of an Air Ministry and an Imperial Air Service handed to him by that Member on 12th April?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Lord Curzon's Report is a confidential document, and I cannot accept the hon. Member's description of it. The whole subject is being fully considered.
  Mr. BILLING: Would the right hon. Gentleman mind inquiring whether the paper which I handed to the Prime Minister personally has been considered, and whether, if it has not, it is going to be considered?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt that it received the consideration which it deserved.
  Mr. LYNCH: May I ask whether it is not a fact that the chances of the Allies in this War are being injured by putting up such a wretched organisation as the Air Board, and whether it is not time that this question was grappled with in some masculine spirit?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: That must be a matter of opinion, and I am not prepared to express one just now.

  TEMPORARY POSTAL WORKERS (WAR BONUS).
  Mr. W. THORNEasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the discontent existing among the temporary postal workers because the men have only received 1s. per week as war bonus and the women 6d.; if a petition has been presented for an advance of 5s. increase on war bonus; the reason why no reply has been sent to the petition; why he has refused to meet a deputation of the workers in question; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J. A. Pease): Many of the temporary postal workers referred to by the hon. Member have recently received increased wages independently of the increased war
  404
  bonus mentioned in the question. A reply to the petition referred to was deferred until a decision had been arrived at by the Government in regard to arbitration. In view of the decision recently announced by the Prime Minister to appoint an arbitration tribunal, it seems unnecessary to receive a deputation, but I have not, in fact, declined to do so.
  Mr. THORNE: May I ask when this is going to be arbitrated upon?
  Mr. PEASE: When the tribunal is established all questions affecting increases of wages will be referred to that tribunal.
  Mr. WARDLE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the tribunal will be appointed?
  Mr. PEASE: I am not in a position to say. That is a question for the Prime Minister.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.
  Mr. BYRNEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the quantity of food supplies and other necessaries for the military carried on the Irish railways for use in Great Britain and by the Allies in France; if he is aware of what a stoppage on the Irish railways would mean to the trade and commerce of Great Britain; if he is aware that English railway workers have received two increases of 5s., making their war bonus 10s. per week; and if he will consider the advisability of recommending that the Government should treat Irish railwaymen the same as railway employés in Great Britain?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I cannot add to the replies given to the questions on this subject which were asked by the hon. Gentleman on the 12th October and previous dates.
  Mr. BYRNE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that large quantities of supplies are being carried on the Irish railways for the use of the military authorities?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is asking exactly the same question as that standing on the Paper.
  Mr. BYRNE: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the claims of these men to be treated the same as their colleagues?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. FLAVIN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the railways of Ireland are under the direct control of the Government inasmuch as the military have several times recently stopped the running of trains.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: That is a military matter.
  Mr. DEVLIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Irish railway workers are taken on to work from 14s, per week?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am afraid I could not answer that without notice.
  Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Board of Trade will, through its own channels, make inquiries in order to ascertain if there are reasonable grounds for supposing that any persons or rings are unreasonably withholding food or other necessaries of life or manipulating markets in order to artificially raise prices; if there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, will steps be taken against the suspected parties under the existing law; and, if that is inadequate, will he introduce adequate legislation?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I may refer the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon. Friend made in reference to this subject in a speech in the House on 17th October, in which, I think, all the points now raised were dealt with. I am sending him a copy of the passage dealing with this matter. As has already been stated, it is hoped that the powers of the Board of Trade will he strengthened in the near future.

  TRADE AND NAVIGATION (STATISTICS)
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the published accounts relating to the trade and navigation of the United Kingdom, Table B, Shipping (Foreign Trade), includes British or Foreign shipping engaged on the import and export of munitions of war?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The table includes all vessels bringing cargo to or taking cargo from the United Kingdom, whatever the nature of the cargo may be, other than vessels engaged on Government service which, except in a few special cases, are not included in the table.

  IMPORTS (FLOWERS AND FRUIT).
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the imports of fresh flowers for the first six months of this year from abroad reached a value of £158,000; whether there is any restriction on such imports; and whether he will take steps to provide for the cargo space devoted to this purpose being better employed?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: Practically the whole of our imports of fresh flowers are received from the Channel Islands and France, and I do not think it necessary to restrict their importation.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked if there is any and, if so, what restriction on the importation of fruit?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: A prohibition on the importation of all foreign canned, bottled, dried and preserved fruit (except currants) was imposed by a Proclamation dated 10th March, and licences thereunder have been granted for the importation during the present season of a quantity of such fruit equal to 50 per cent. of the imports in 1915. There is no prohibition of the importation of fresh fruit.

  CHARING CROSS RAILWAY BRIDGE.
  Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will say what action the Government proposes to take in view of the rejection by the House of Commons of the Bill promoted by the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company for strengthening the Charing Cross railway bridge?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I understand that the railway company propose to introduce another Bill for this purpose, and the matter can then be further considered.
  Sir J. D. REES: When will that Bill be introduced, and who is responsible for the risk to the travelling public resulting from the rejection by Parliament of the previous Bill?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I suppose the responsibility rests with the House for rejecting the previous Bill.

  WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether directors of the Marconi Company have seats on

  407
  the board of the Deutsche Betreitsgesellschaft für Drahtlose Telegraphie, of Berlin; and whether this Berlin company is a subsidiary of the Telefunken Company?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am informed by the Marconi Company that certain of their directors were before the War on the board of the Berlin company referred to, in which the Telefunken Company holds a majority of the shares.
  Mr. R. GWYNNE: Will the hon. Gentleman say when they retired?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I cannot say.
  Mr. GWYNNE: Is he aware the names appear in the "Wireless Year Book" published by the Marconi Company?
  Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has got the information, there is no necessity to ask for it.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an agreement was concluded in 1913 between the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited, and the Gesellschaft für Drahtlose Telegraphie, of Berlin, or the Telefunken Company; whether such agreement covers Australia, New Zealand, Spain, and the United States; and, if so, has this agreement been operative since the beginning of the War?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I am informed by the Marconi Company that in 1913 an agreement of a commercial nature was concluded between them and the Telefunken Company, that the agreement dealt in some matters with Australia, New Zealand, and Spain but did not embrace the United States, and that this agreement has not been operative since the beginning of the War.
  Sir R. COOPER: How can the hon. Gentleman say that it does not cover the United States, seeing that Clause 14 of this agreement specifically deals with most important matters connected with wireless in the United States; and how can he say that the agreement is not operative, seeing that the Australian company is operating under this agreement?
  Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the close interlocking arrangements and agreements between the British, Belgian, and German wireless telegraph companies;
  408
  if so, can he say what special steps have been taken to ensure that every wireless operator on British and Allied ships is strictly loyal to the cause of the Allies?
  Mr. J. A. PEASE: The arrangements which existed before the War between British, Belgian, and German wireless telegraph companies were mainly directed to the regulation of competition between the rival services, and did not affect the rule that only certified operators of British nationality might be employed on British ships. Since the outbreak of war still more stringent measures have been taken to exclude operators of doubtful origin or trustworthiness.
  Sir R. COOPERasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if a full and strict inquiry is held into the loss by enemy submarines of every British merchant ship; if so, is special inquiry made as to the nationality and reliability of wireless operators on these ships; and (2) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the close interlocking arrangements and agreements between the British, Belgian, and German wireless telegraph companies; and, if so, can he give an assurance that special precautions have been taken to ensure that wireless operators on all vessels of His Majesty's Navy are strictly loyal to the cause of Britain and her Allies?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer these questions. The reply to the first part of Question 105 is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, the subject of nationality and reliability of all wireless operators in British merchant ships is dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, who has just dealt with the matter. As regards Question 150, operators in His Majesty's Navy are all necessarily British subjects. We have every reason to rely on the loyalty of naval operators, and no case has occurred to doubt their zeal and loyalty to the cause of their country and their Allies. It may be observed that no candidate is now accepted for entry in the Navy unless he is the son of British-born parents on both sides

  PETROL SUPPLIES.
  Mr. BOOTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the restric-

  409
  tion of petrol supplies has satisfied his expectations; and can he state if any petrol is at present being allowed to enemy aliens in this country?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The steps which have been taken have resulted in a considerable improvement in the position, but it is still of importance that users of petrol should endeavour to restrict their consumption to the utmost extent possible. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the question which he asked on the 21st August.
  Mr. BOOTH: Is he not aware that the previous answer was an evasive one?

  WEST CORK PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATE.
  Mr. HAZLETON(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether Mr. Frank Healy, a candidate for the Parliamentary constituency of West Cork, is at present detained by the Government of this country and has been refused permission to go to Cork to further his candidature; whether Mr. Healy applied for such permission, and what decision has been taken in the matter?
  Mr. SAMUEL: My attention had not been called to the speech referred to. Mr. Frank Healy has been living at Bournemouth under the requirements of an Order made under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. On 11th October he wrote to the Chairman of the Home Office Advisory Committee asking to be allowed to return to Ireland, and requesting him to inform me that he was willing to give an assurance in similar terms to those required as a condition of the release of prisoners at Frongoch, and also to find sureties to the peace to any reasonable amount. On 24th October a letter was sent from the Home Office to Mr. Healy saying that he would be released from his obligation to remain in Bournemouth on his signing the undertaking, of which a copy was sent to him, and on his entering into a bond with two sureties. To that letter no reply has yet been received. Mr. Healy has been free to return to Ireland at any time after 24th October on his giving the assurance and entering into the bond which he offered in his letter of 11th October.

  FOREIGN HOPS (IMPORTATION).
  Mr. R. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether 998 cwts. of. foreign hops were imported in the week ending the 25th October, and 1,556 cwts. in the week ending the 1st November; whether these hops were bonâ fide en route to British consignees or actually paid for by them before the 1st June; and, if not, will he say when he revised the conditions for permission to import hops announced on the 16th August?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The figures given in the question relate to the weeks ending the 21st and 28th October respectively, and the importations were all permitted in the circumstances described in the answer to a question by the hon. Member for Maidstone which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT for 16th August.
  Mr. MCNEILL: Does not the reply to which the hon. Gentleman refers definitely state that the licences to import were restricted entirely to consignments which were bonâ fide en route, on the 1st June?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No, not entirely. It was entirely as regards the United States and neutral countries, but it was specifically stated that shipments—there have been some small ones—from France and Belgium would be allowed to continue.
  Mr. McNEILL: Am I to understand that these consignments referred to in the question are all from France and Belgium?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: No; the hon. Member is not to understand anything of the kind. Consignments often come from all sources for the reasons stated by the hon. Member, namely, that they were already under way or had already been paid for.
  Mr. McNEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any of those which arrived as late as the end of October were actually en route on the 1st June?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: If they came in under that provision, they were. None have been allowed except under the conditions definitely stated to the House.
  Mr. McNEILLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the 2,554 cwts. of foreign hops which were imported in the two weeks ending 1st November occupied cubic space of shipping sufficient to have carried 638 tons

  411
  of grain; whether shortage of tonnage is one of the reasons officially alleged for the present high price of bread; and whether it is the policy of the Government to continue the import of hops regardless of the scarcity of the necessaries of life partly caused by such imports?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: The figures quoted appear substantially to represent the facts. Shortage of tonnage is doubtless one of the factors affecting prices at the present time and it is "with a view to saving tonnage that restrictions have been imposed on the importation of a number of articles, including hops, which may be imported only in the circumstances described in the answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone on 16th August.

  MILK
  Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received information from Folkestone in regard to the waste of milk; and if he has yet made investigations into the matter?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I have secured some information relating to this matter, and further inquiries are being made.

  COMMITTEE ON WORK OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.
  Major HUNTasked the President of the Board of Trade for what reason the Committee on Work of National Importance are allowed to send circular-letters to private and public institutions for the purpose of finding jobs for strong and healthy conscientious objectors, when so many wounded and injured soldiers are in want of employment?
  Mr. PRETYMAN: It is one of the duties of the Committee to find work which is in their opinion of national importance for such persons as have been exempted by a tribunal on condition that they do such work, and have been referred to the Committee by the tribunal. It is, therefore, necessary for the Committee to put themselves in communication with employers.
  Major HUNT: Why cannot jobs be found for men who have come back invalided or wounded from the War in preference to people who are perfectly well and fit? This is very unfair.
  Mr. PRETYMAN: I would appeal to the House in this matter. There are forty-five questions addressed to the Board of Trade to-day. It is really impossible for one individual to be master of every detail arising out of every one of the forty-five questions, and at the same time to do the administrative work which has to be done.

  River Barrow (Flooding).
  Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware of the losses caused to occupiers of land within the Barrow area by the recent heavy floodings of that river; and whether, taking into consideration the necessity of protecting, maintaining, and developing the sources of food supply during the War, he proposes to take any steps to prevent a recurrence of the annual floodings of this river, and preserve for the benefit of the people of Ireland and the United Kingdom the valuable food commodities that are annually destroyed by the floods in the Barrow area?
  Mr. DUKE: I am unable to add anything to the statement of the Home Secretary on 29th May last in answer to a question on this subject of the hon. Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County.

  Prison Warders, Ireland (Increased Pay).
  Mr. MEEHANasked when the Irish prison warders will receive the increased pay granted them?
  Mr. DUKE: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of yesterday to the question of the hon. Member for Dublin (College Green) on this subject.

  Rural Housing (Ireland).
  Mr. LUNDONasked what steps the Local Government Board propose to take with the schemes of the building of houses under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in the rural districts of Kilmallock and Croom; and, having regard to the fact that the inspectors appointed by the Board to hold the inquiries in these cases have long since made their report, will something be done to expedite the proceedings and give housing accommodation to people who reside in hovels?
  Mr. DUKE: One thousand cottages have already been provided under the Labourers Acts in Kilmallock rural district, and 500

  413
  in Croom rural district. Owing to the stringency of the money market and the present cost of building materials, the Local Government Board have not yet seen their way to make Orders upon the schemes to which the hon. Member refers.

  Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1914.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether anything has been done by the Irish Government to carry out Section 4 of the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1914; how many county inspectors have been appointed or assigned to two or more counties, or to any other area or combination of areas which the Lord Lieutenant considers desirable; and whether it is proposed to make any changes in this respect?
  Mr. DUKE: One county inspector has been placed in charge of counties Wicklow and Carlow. No further exercise of the power conferred by the Section referred to is at present deemed advisable.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what allowances received by district inspectors, county inspectors, and assistant inspectors-general of the Royal Irish Constabulary are pensionable; what allowances received by the rank and file are pensionable; and whether he will consider the question of making pensionable in the Bill now before the House allowances to the rank and file for boots, arms, straw, and the making up of uniforms?
  Mr. DUKE: In the case of county and district inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary the servants' allowance is pensionable and also that for house rent pro- vided it does not exceed one-sixth of the officer's pay. Assistant inspectors-general have no allowances, and those of head and other constables are not pensionable. The suggestion in the last part of the question was considered by the Committee of Inquiry of 1914, who reported that they were unable to recommend it inasmuch as it would introduce one scale of pension for married men and another for single men.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland from what source are the funds at the disposal of the Crimes Special Department of the Royal Irish Constabulary derived; who controls their expenditure; and what was their amount for the last financial year?
  Mr. DUKE: It is not in the public interest to supply this information.
  Mr. SHEEHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if it is in accordance with police regulations that, after his marriage, Constable Martin is allowed to remain on at Robinstown, sub-district of Kilmessan, or whether the regulations provide that in circumstances such as his he should be transferred elsewhere?
  Mr. DUKE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second, in the negative.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the number and religious persuasion of the county inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  Mr. DUKE: There are thirty-seven county inspectors in the Royal Irish Constabulary, of whom thirty-three are Protestants and four are Roman Catholics.
  Colonel CRAIGasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the increased scale of allowances proposed to be granted to officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  Mr. DUKE: £5 in lodging allowance, £ 10 in allowance for one servant, and £10 in forage allowance.
  Mr. P. MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that married men of the rank and file of the Royal Irish Constabulary are allowed only a marriage allowance of 2s. per week; and whether, considering the increased cost of living, he will make representations to the Treasury to have this allowance substantially increased for the same reasons as he has recommended an increase of the allowances of the higher officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member refers to the allowance in aid of rent which is given to married head constables and other constables residing out of barracks, and which is at the rate of 3s. a week in the six large cities and 2s. elsewhere. The Committee of Inquiry of 1914 who considered this matter did not feel justified in recommending an addition to this allowance, and the recent increase in the cost of living has been recognised by the grant of a war bonus to head and other constables. Having regard to the proposals now before the House for an increase of the ordinary rates of pay of these ranks,

  415
  I do not think that a case could be made out for the suggestion in the hon. Member's question.
  Mr. MEEHAN: Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recommended an increase of £5 yearly as lodging allowance to superior officers, and does he not consider that there should be a similar allowance made to the rank and file?
  Mr. DUKE: Those matters were considered before the consent of the Treasury was asked for the various modifications that are the subject of the proposals partly in the Bill and partly by way of proposed Treasury Minute. I think I cannot add anything as to the calculations to which those who advised me and I came, except by referring the hon. Member to the two sources.
  Mr. MEEHAN: Is it not the fact that the allowances of the superior officers are being increased just because they were fixed years ago? Is it not also the fact that this allowance to the rank and file was fixed at the same period?
  Mr. DUKE: The allowance to which the hon. Member refers, so far as my knowledge goes, was actually under revision by the Committee appointed for the purpose in 1914. They took evidence, and recommended and reported against the proposed change.
  Mr. MEEHAN: Was not that a pre-war Committee?
  Mr. LOUGH: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that something in the nature of an extra allowance could be made to married men during the War-confined to the War period only?
  Mr. DUKE: It is exceedingly difficult, in regard to the complex nature of the proposals of the Bill in this matter of the Irish police to say on a question across the floor of the House, what are the conclusions of the Executive; I hope the matter will be raised in some more convenient form.

  Galway Gaol.
  Mr. HAZLETONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has received representations from various public bodies in the county Galway protesting against the reported intention to close Galway Gaol for present purposes
  416
  and convert it into a bridewell; and whether these representations will receive favourable consideration?
  Mr. DUKE: Representations have been received in the sense mentioned. It is not intended to convert Galway Prison into a bridewell, but to make it a minor prison. This reduction was decided on after full consideration by the Irish Prisons Board as part of a general scheme of war economy and by reason of a great decline in the number of prisoners. Four prisons in all were involved. The matter is open to reconsideration if circumstances should so require.

  Outbreak of Fever, Connemara.
  Mr. O'MALLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that fever has again broken out in Letter- more, Connemara; and whether the Irish Government are taking steps to prevent these recurrent outbreaks in that district?
  Mr. DUKE: Two members of a family which had previously been affected developed typhus fever about three weeks ago. They were at once removed to hospital, together with three contacts (members of the same family), who subsequently took ill of the disease. The requisite measures of disinfection and cleansing have been carried out, and the district is being kept under close observation.

  Tralee Floods.
  Mr. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Local Government Board have taken any steps to relieve the distress caused amongst the poor in Tralee by the recent floods; and whether they will immediately enter into communication with the local committee, who have collected a considerable sum for this purpose?
  Mr. DUKE: An inspector of the Local Government Board visited Tralee on 30th ultimo and furnished a report with regard to the recent flooding. He has already been instructed to warn the relieving officer of the district that he should take steps to relieve sufferers who require assistance and are entitled to receive it from the rates. The Board will be very glad to co-operate with the local committee, and will instruct their inspector accordingly. No special fund has been placed by Parliament at the disposal of the Board for the purpose of relieving sudden distress.

  Education (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Intermediate Board undertook by resolution, subsequently published, to give a year's notice of any proposed change to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction with respect to the arrangement made between these two Government Departments; can he state whether any such notice was given to the Department of Agriculture before the new rule was made, whereby a written examination in experimental science was added to the system of inspection which had been in operation for fifteen years; and, if so, will he state on what date such notice was given?
  Mr. DUKE: The view of the Board is, as I understand, that they gave more than a year's notice of their intended new rules. I am, however, referring the question to the Board.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) what educational bodies, if any, had been consulted by the Intermediate Board before the new rule affecting the teaching of experimental science was formulated; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the recently issued Report of the National Board of Education of Ireland, in which, on page 9, the Commissioners state that before the adoption of any new Regulations of sufficient importance, or likely to prove contentious, full opportunity shall be afforded to managers, teachers, and other persons interested, by conference or written communication, to lay their views before the Board; and whether the Intermediate Board propose to follow the same course before it introduces any new Regulations, in view of the protests which have been made by educational bodies against the new rule dealing with experimental science?
  Mr. DUKE: I have asked the Board of Intermediate Education for their answer to these questions, and expect to receive it after the next board meeting, which I am told is fixed for the 16th instant.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the cause of the delay on the part of the Estates Commissioners in completing the sale of the farm of William D. Curtin, of Caherlevoy, Mount-Collins, county Lime-
  418
  rick, which was purchased by them some years ago for the purpose of relieving congestion on the Mahony estate in that district; and whether he will take steps to see that the sale is completed without further delay, so that the land may be of use to the uneconomic holders there for the coming year?
  Mr. DUKE: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in stating that the Estates Commissioners acquired these lands from Curtin some years ago. Negotiations which commenced some years ago for the purchase of the lands in question were delayed at first owing to difficulties experienced in arranging for a means of access thereto, and when these were overcome formal proceedings for sale were instituted and the statutory requirements as to title and other matters were being complied with when war intervened, with the result mentioned in the reply which was given to the hon. Member's question of the 26th July. As stated in reply to his question of the 26th October the Commissioners hope soon to be in a position to complete the purchase of the lands referred to, and if possible to place the purchasers in possession in time for the coming spring work.

  Vaccination (Prosecution in Ireland).
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been called to the prosecution under the Public Health Act by the Antrim Board of Guardians of the Rev. S. E. Bowen, of Crumlin, for refusing to allow to be vaccinated a child for whom he had already been fined under the Vaccination Act; whether in this case the Attorney-General's fiat for prosecution was obtained; if not, what steps he proposes to take to prevent such action by boards of guardians and to indemnify Mr. Bowen for the punishment thus inflicted on him; and whether he will reprimand the Antrim Board of Guardians for action ultra vires in this case, and have surcharged to them the costs thus incurred by them?
  Mr. DUKE: Inquiry is being made into this case.

  QUESTIONS.
  Mr. BILLING:I should like you, Sir, to explain to me why a question was refused which I took to the Table fourteen days ago bearing on an article in the "Financial News," the question being, "What

  419
  action the Government proposed, or if they proposed to take any action against the 'Financial News' for articles which they had published bearing on the probity of British Ministers of such a character as to cause dismay among the Allies? "The question now appears on the Paper, No. 71, in the name, I think, of the hon. Member (Colonel Gretton). Perhaps you will tell me why one Member is allowed to put down a question and another is not?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not recollect all the questions which have been submitted to me or those which have been refused. If the hon. Member could provide me with a copy of the one which was refused, I should probably be able, from intrinsic evidence, to show him the reason of its refusal.
  Mr. BILLING: Am I to understand that you are the final court of appeal, and that in each case when the Table refuses a question the clerks must take the question personally to you?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I am responsible. I have very heavy duties, and as far as I can I discharge them, but the gentlemen at the Table assist me very much in the discharge of the duties. If they have any doubts they bring the question to me.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the business for next week?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: On Tuesday we propose to introduce the Pensions Bill. The Prime Minister might be asked on Tuesday for the business for Wednesday.
  Sir E. CARSON: When are we going to have these Bills for the amendment of the Ballot Act which raise the question of votes for soldiers and sailors'? We were told we should have them immediately after the holidays.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot give a definite answer. I understood the Prime Minister was to consult my right hon. Friend as to the machinery for doing it. If he will put a question to him on Tuesday, I am quite sure an early day will be arranged.
  Mr. HOGGE: Will the Pensions Bill be circulated before Tuesday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: It must be introduced in the ordinary way before we can have the Bill before us.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Will the Leader of the House, as a rule, be able to tell us on Thursday not only the business for the following Tuesday, but also the business for the following Wednesday? It makes it very difficult for Members to arrange what they are going to do in the following week if they only know the business which is to be taken on one day.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite recognise the justice of the point made by my right hon. Friend, and it is always the desire of the Prime Minister to give the information, but to-day he is unable to give it.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is the Government's difficulty due to their sense of the pre-cariousness of their own existence?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not aware of that.
  Resolved, "That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday next."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on Application.)
This Act shall not apply where proceedings have been instituted before the passing of this Act.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
This is a matter which was brought up in discussion when the Bill was in Committee, and I think it had very general support.
Mr. MOLTENO: I beg to second the Motion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir F. Smith): The hon. Member has stated his recollection that when this matter was being considered on the Committee stage the Clause which he now moves had very considerable support. I do not know whether he was here or not, but my recollection is precisely in a contrary sense. It is that it was supported momentarily by the hon. Member who introduced it, but that he assented at once to the reasons which were stated against it, and the proposal was withdrawn. I cannot believe that if the hon. Member had been present when the Amendment was considered in Committee he would have thought it worth while to put it down at this stage of the Bill. The answer to it is a very short one. The hon. Member proposes in effect that the increased penalties under this Bill shall not apply where proceedings have been instituted before the passing of the Act; in other words, that if anyone has been guilty of the kind of corruption that is dealt with in this Bill he shall enjoy the advantage that if he is convicted after it becomes law he shall only be punished by the penalties which were possible under the old law. I am unable to see by what argument such mitigation can be recommended to the House. It can only be on the hypothesis that there is some kind of implied contract between the criminal and society that the penalties shall not be increased as against the criminal from the date at which the offence was committed. Either these penalties are proper penalties or they are excessive penalties. The opinion of

467
the House, and I believe of the community generally, is that the penalties proposed to be substituted are proper and not excessive penalties, and if that is true there can be no conceivable reason why persons who commit this kind of offence should enjoy such an advantage.
Question put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of Laws Relating to Accessories.)
Without prejudice to any other mode of proof, if any person is a party to or connives at any offence under the Public Bodies Corruption Practices Act, 1889, -or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, as amended and extended by this Act, he shall be deemed to have knowingly and wilfully abetted the commission of the offence, and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I would ask the Attorney-General whether he has considered this, and whether, in view of the memorandum which was sent him in order to acquaint him with the point of view from which these Amendments have been drafted and put forward, he is willing to accept it?
Sir F. SMITH: I really did not know until I had read the long series of Amendments standing in the hon. Member's name, which show very great industry and very considerable research into the whole law of corruption, that he had bestowed so much attention on the subject. If the times were opportune for a meticulous reconsideration of the whole law relating to corruption, I think the long series of Amendments which stand in his name would deserve the attention of the House. But this is by general agreement a war measure which is rendered necessary by the very large number of Government contracts which have come into existence and by the scandals which were exposed in a recent criminal trial. I do not think for a moment the House would allow it if the Government itself proposed to recast the whole law of corruption. I have considered the Amendments of the hon. Member and the two in the name of the hon. Member (Sir W. Beale), and the same observations
468
apply to both. If I might hazard a conjecture as to how they had been arrived at, I should surmise that, unless the hon. Member possesses a skill in draftman-ship more subtle than I attributed to him or a more general knowledge of the law I of corruption than is required for an ordinary commercial career, he had received the assistance of some member of my own profession who takes a great interest in the subject. Such industry is laudable, but the point we have to decide is whether or not the House is prepared, when addressing itself to a Bill of this scope and with this object, to revise and redraft the whole law of corruption. If I asked the House to do it, the House, I am sure, would refuse, and I hope and believe that it will not permit this to be done as the result of private enterprise. If a different view is taken, I must address myself to the task, but it might take many hours and perhaps some days. Unless in a particular case direct relevance is established between these Amendments and the proposals of this Bill, my advice is that the present moment is not opportune for their consideration.
Mr. KING: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, with some of which I entirely agree. I will not trouble him except with one or two drafting Amendments on the last page of the Order Paper. I shall, however, reserve the right to say a few words upon the Second Reading, and I shall feel greatly honoured if the right hon. Gentleman will listen for a few minutes.
Sir F. SMITH: I will make a point of being here.
Mr. SPEAKER: I had intended to rule most of these Amendments out of order.
Motion and Clause, by leave. withdrawn.

CLAUSE 1. (Increase of marimum penalty in Certain Case.)
A person convicted on indictment of a misdemeanour under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, or the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, shall, where the matter or transaction in relation to which the offence was committed was a contract or a proposal for a contract with His Majesty or any Government Department or any public body or a sub-contract, to execute any work comprised in such a contract, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven nor less than three years:
Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the infliction in addition to penal servitude of such punishment as under the above-mentioned Acts may be inflicted in addition to imprisonment.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, after the word "sub-contract" ["a sub-contract to execute any work"], to insert the words "or a proposal for a subcontract."
It is quite obvious that these words would stop up any loophole in this Clause without attempting to extend or amend the law of corruption. Here is a definite case where I think corruption might come in and might be stopped. The right hon. Gentleman will notice that it is quite obvious that corruption might begin before the contract is made. It is quite possible, in view of the legislation we are now passing, that attempts at corruption would be made on these lines, and would be outside the purview of the Act, because the contract was not actually signed or completed when the corruption occurred. The words of my Amendment would stop up that loophole. I hope they will be considered, and if they cannot be adopted here, I hope they will be considered in another place.
Mr. MOLTENO: I beg to second the Amendment.
Sir F. SMITH: If the hon. Member will read the words of the Bill a little more carefully, I think he will see that his object is attained by the measure in its present form. The relevant words are
"where the matter or transaction in relation to which the offence was committed was a contract or a proposal for a contract with His Majesty, or any Government Department, or any public body, or a sub-contract"…
I read the word "sub-contract" as being auxiliary to the words "or a proposal." Therefore, I think my hon. Friend's object is attained.
Mr. BOOTH: I raised a point on the Committee stage. I want to get at the man who, while not holding a contract, or even a sub-contract, may be behind the scenes and may be financially interested. It is very often the case that a large firm nominally gets the contract, but the bulk of the work is being done by a firm which is never disclosed, except by an agreement with a small firm. What I want to be clear about is that the person behind the scenes who may be corrupt shall come under the purview of the Act.
470
He may be financially interested. Sometimes it is a moneyed man who is behind the tradesman. The actual contractor may be in too weak a financial position to get the reward of his own labour, and he may be in the hands of financial people. It has been a common thing during this War for stockbrokers' clerks and men about the City to be connected with silver-mining companies, and to go into the manufacturing districts with options, contracts, and orders for boots, clothes, and other materials, and they often say they have the backing of financial men in the City to finance a contract if some bonâ-fide manufacturing company would work with them. That does not prove my point, but it shows how varying are these transactions of people trying to get their little bit of plunder when a large amount of fresh business is suddenly thrown upon the market. If I can have some assurance that this Bill will cover the financial man behind the scenes, I shall be more satisfied. I do not think the Amendment is much more satisfactory than the Clause, but at any rate it seems to go a little bit in my direction. What I want is an assurance that the real man can be got at.
Sir F. SMITH: There is a difficulty in giving an assurance in any matter of legislation that the real man will be got at, and that there is no possible loophole, but I think if the hon. Member considers the wording of this Clause, he will see that it has been put in very comprehensive language. I am not quite sure that he has given special attention to the words of the first line of the Clause—
"A person convicted on indictment of a misdemeanour under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, or the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, shall…"
The hon. Member will see that there is a very considerable number of offences covered by those two Acts. I would invite his attention to the qualifying words which follow the words I have just read, any person who is convicted on indictment of a misdemeanour under either of those Acts
"where the matter or transaction in relation to which the offence was committed was a contract or a proposal for a contract…or a sub-contract"
shall be liable to the penalty. That is the true meaning of the Clause. If the hon. Member can suggest any words

471
which, without destroying the whole construction and value of the Clause, would make it more comprehensive, I would gladly consider it. But I really think that there is no corruption which comes within the class of offences with which this Bill deals that this Clause misses. I do not think the hon. Member need be apprehensive that any class of offence which is of the same family as those we propose to deal with under this Bill will escape the action of the Bill as an Act.
Mr. BOOTH: I am much obliged.
Amendment negatived.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. Samuel): I beg to move, after the word "imprisonment"["in addition to imprisonment"], to insert the words "or prevent the infliction in lieu of penal servitude of any punishment which may be inflicted under the said Acts."
This Amendment is put down to redeem an undertaking I gave at the Committee stage. It was the desire of the Committee that it should be made clear on the face of the Act what is the intention, and what we believe to be the effect of the Act, that the sentence of three years' penal servitude is not a minimum sentence. It is only the minimum amount of penal servitude to be given. As an alternative, the penalties allowed in the earlier Acts may also be imposed when a charge is made which comes within the four corners of this Act.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Short Title and Interpretation.)
(1) This Act may be cited as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, and the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, and this Act may be cited together as the Prevention of Corruption Acts, 1906 to 1916.
(2) In this Act—

(a) the expression "consideration" has the same meaning as in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906; and

(b) the expression "public body" has the same meaning as in the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889.

Sub-section (3) of Section one of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906, shall in its application to Scotland be read and
472
construed as if a town council, a parish council, a school board, and a district committee were specified in addition to-the councils named therein.
Mr. KING: I beg to move, after"1889,"to insert a new Sub-section:
(c)"The expression 'agent' includes any person employed by or acting for another."
As these three Acts are not going to be read together, I think it is necessary to make the term "agent" include what it is made to include in the Act of 1906. You want the term "agent" to include the employé of the person who is guilty. I think this is a point which must have slipped the observation of the draftsman or of the Attorney-General.
Mr. MOLTENO: I beg to second the-Amendment.
Sir F. SMITH: My own view is, though I do not pretend to be a draftsman, that these words were not necessary in the Act quoted, but the draftsman took a different view. He thought the words were a useful addition to the Act, and that the term "agent" should include any person employed by or acting for another. I doubt whether those words are necessary, but as they were so stated in the Act of 1906, and as that Act and this Bill, when it becomes an Act, are not to be read together, I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
Sir H. DALZIEL: I congratulate the Government on having passed this Bill, though I do not think it is going to serve to the fullest extent the purpose for which it was intended. It may assist, but I do-not think it will go anything like so far as they anticipate. I think that better business management would probably make this Bill unnecessary. I only rise to recall to the attention of the House a question which took place on the Second Reading stage. As the House knows, the-origin of this Bill was caused by a case-which was brought before the Court in which action was taken in respect of bribery and corruption in the Army Clothing Department. When the case-was before the Court, Mr. Muir, the prosecuting counsel, made a statement that it was with the greatest difficulty he was

473
able to obtain all the necessary assistance, support, and evidence from the War Office to carry on the case, and, if possible, obtain a conviction. Mr. Muir's standing in the legal profession is very high, and when he makes a statement of that kind it naturally attracts a good deal of attention. The Attorney-General disposed of the suggestion I put forward by reading a statement made by Mr. Muir at the end of the case. I have since refreshed my memory, and I am inclined to believe that there is a good deal of substance in what Mr. Muir said. If the Attorney-General has had an opportunity of refreshing his memory, I should be glad if he can give me any further information on the subject.
Sir A. SPICER: It is said that you cannot make people honest by Act of Parliament. That is perfectly true, but at the same time you can, by wise legislation, remove a great deal of temptation, and I say as one who has had a fairly long experience in the City of London with a great many of the commercial representatives that the Act of 1906 has done a great deal of good to all those who are employing large numbers of those who, as agents, are going about the country obtaining business. I am quite sure that if you question the principals of firms all over the country they would say that the Act of 1906 has done a great deal of good in helping to remove temptation and in helping to prevent corruption. I am much obliged to the Government for granting us several Amendments. I am only sorry that the Attorney-General did not see his way to go quite as far as we wanted in regard to the fiat, but, having told us that the application for the fiat was never allowed to remain in his chamber longer than three days, I am quite sure he will live up to that statement in future, and, if he does so, neither he nor his successors will have much criticism from those who are trying to work this Act.
Mr. BOOTH: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his references to me, and the kindly way in which he has spoken of the difference of opinion which has existed, but as expressed today I am not very far out of accord with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, certainly not at all with what he desires to accomplish. But I do not take the same view of the success of past legislation. This Bill would not have been
474
necessary if past legislation had been a success. I doubt if my statement will be challenged when I say that never has there been so much secret bribery in the history of England as there has been within the last twelve months. Soon after the War broke out I ventured to warn the Government as to what would happen when these large contracts would have to be placed. All the commercial travellers were busy asking each other, "What has to be done to get orders from So-and-so?" It was the one topic of all business men. There is no difference of opinion on this point, and man after man threw up his job rather than go down to Aldershot and Pimlico, and so on, looking for orders in these conditions. There are very many men who went into other occupations, where they received less remuneration, rather than plunge into a maelstrom of that kind. I uttered a warning note in this House, and if the Government had taken any notice of it, all this Pimlico business and these scandals would have been avoided.
The Government themselves are largely to blame for a lot of the corruption which has gone on in Government Departments; not consciously or wickedly, but by the way they have treated any hon. Member in this House when he wants to bring things before their notice. Prom whatever quarter he comes he is not looked upon with favour. He is looked upon as a man who is causing trouble. Look at the impudent answer which I got today. I put down a question about facts which came to my knowledge accidentally. I received certain information as to a company which, instead of being wound up, was increasing its business, and I got an answer which was intended to influence me against coming forward again. Of course it will have the opposite effect, because these understrappers of the Government are unable to gauge the quality of a man. I have brought this matter of corruption forward again and again. I did it very reluctantly and only after a great deal of anxious bought, because I did not like to be the first man in the House to suggest that bribes were being paid and a large amount of corruption was going on when we were just beginning a European War, and I had to ask myself what would be the effect on our Allies and our enemy and on recruiting if I brought these things to the notice of the House. But when, from a sense of duty, I did do so, there was not the

475
slightest bit of thanks or encouragement from any Government Department, or from the supporters of the Government. They are largely to blame because of their attitude when a man gets some information on all these matters which ought to be changed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney (Sir A. Spicer) is wrong about the effects of legislation. I believe that he would spare no time and no trouble in order to purify the commercial life of this country from secret bribery. If we could do it by legislation so much the better. I am a believer in education and in a right spirit permeating the country. The Government ought to set the first example. If they are slack, most of the private people and private firms who during this War come into touch more with Government Departments—except the Ministry of Munitions, which is largely run by business men—are slightly deteriorated as a result of the contact. They find that the code of honour with regard to careful expenditure is not so high in Government Departments as it is, say, on the Manchester Exchange. I am sorry to have to say these things, but if attention is not paid to them, if the members of the Government are not careful there will be many more ugly scandals to come. I ventured to warn them that there was far more jobbery going on, about ten times as much, as during the Boer War under the Unionist Government. I knew the action of my party when that War was on, and therefore I thought that it was my duty as a Liberal Member, rather than to leave it to the other side, to warn them that there was far greater jobbery and corruption going on under the Liberal Government conducting this War than under the Unionist Government conducting the Boer War. Not a single member of the Government chose to give a single moment to ask what foundation I had for this. I had a lot of material, but I got nothing but frowns from even my own party leaders, and from the understrappers as well. At that time the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bonar Law), after I had made this point, said that he agreed with me that he and his party were taking careful note of very many things which were reported to them, but that they would not deal with them during the War, but would do so after the War.
476
I was one of the first to suggest the change which led to his joining the Government, and now that he has joined the Government I hope that he will induce his colleagues to attend to this matter. We do not want these things stored up and kept until after the War, in order to get at some person, or body of persons. We want them put right as we go on, because the taxpayers are entitled to have their interests looked after. I hope that this Bill will be a success. I have no faith in it whatever until there is a better spirit in the Government, and, to a certain extent, in this House. Not merely was I discouraged by the Government when I brought some of these points forward. I put questions upon the Paper with regard to huts and all kinds of contracts, when I knew that jobbery was going on all over the country. Information was supplied to me by clergymen, magistrates, workmen, trade union leaders, and men of all kinds. I began to put questions on the Paper, and not only did the Government show no anxiety to have this corruption, which has led them to bring in this Bill, stopped, but members of my party came to me individually every day and begged me not to take these things, but to leave them to Conservative members. I do not see why we should not speak of these things because Liberal members are in power. If I were to be challenged on a point like this, I could bring the testi-money of dozens of men. I know my colleagues too well to think that they would challenge me and stand the risk of revelation. That attitude still continues, and it existed at the beginning of the War. Therefore, I appeal to the Government in a matter of this kind that, if we are vigorous in one thing, we should be vigorous in all, and I ask them to be vigorous not only against Germany, but against corruption in this country. But I have no faith that this will be done until I see a different spirit on that bench.
Mr. KING: I desire to refer to a few points in connection with this Bill which are really the points underlying the Amendments that I had on the Paper. This is emergency legislation. I have always objected in this House to emergency legislation being brought forward here for the purposes of the War and yet being permanent after the War. We are now amending the law of corruption, so that it will continue in this form after

477
the War. What is the result of acting on that principle? We carry through Amendments hastily, I will even say sloppily, and there they remain as monuments of our legislation after the War. The time will come when we shall find the loopholes, deficiencies, and faults in this legislation, but then we shall be occupied with new difficulties and we shall not be able to remedy them. My point is that a little more care, a little more time given now, would save a great deal of the trouble that will come afterwards. I have the highest opinion of the ability of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. I know that I could put this Bill in a better form with an hour or two's work. I am quite certain that they could do so in a minute or two, and if only they would put their hearts into future legislation and give a little more time and a few more minutes to it the result would be much more satisfactory.
There are one or two points as to which, I believe, there are serious loopholes in the Bill. First of all there is the fact that corruption must be corruption through the passing of money. If, for instance, a man who has a big factory and who is selling goods to the Government says to the inspector, "You are passing my goods, and if your son or any nominee of yours wants to get a position in my factory he shall do so on advantageous terms." That would not be corruption under this Bill, and yet it is just this sort of thing that may very likely occur. Another point is that the offence must be committed within the United Kingdom. A number of these houses have agencies or branches in Paris or even in the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. Corruption which had been actually done in these places would not be corruption under the Act. Therefore, if a man says, "I have an office in Paris. If you call at my office there they will be very glad to see you," and a bribe is offered there. No offence is committed under this Act, because it was done outside the United Kingdom. I think that that is a very serious defect which might be of detriment to the public interest. There is one other point. When a Government contract passes through the hands of an agent, a man who is not a British subject, apparently, under the Bill as I read it, corruption would not be an offence for which a man might be indicted. Those are three points to which the Government should devote a few
478
minutes' consideration, and in respect of which right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench might amend the Bill and make it very much better. That is why I have attempted to intervene in this matter. I confess freely that I had the assistance of a man very much abler and of very much greater experience than myself. I hope that this Bill will be a success. I believe that I could make it better than it is, but that even as it is it may be useful.
Sir F. SMITH: I have heard the compliments which the hon. Gentleman and others have addressed to this Bill, and. still more to the Government, and also the criticisms, and in spite of these I do not gather that anybody really entertains any doubt that this Bill, even in, its present form, is a most desirable Bill, and a Bill which attains objects which have not previously been attained. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has formed, I am afraid, a very unfavourable view of the Bill on its technical side, and he tells us, not as I gather as a result of his study of it, but as a result of the study of this anonymous gentleman on whose behalf he speaks, and who, he says, is a far abler man than himself, that it is a very bad Bill, and the hon. Gentleman more specifically says that we have accepted sloppy Amendments to a sloppy Bill. I think that that is rather ungrateful, because the only Amendment which I have accepted to-day is the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman himself.
Mr. KING: I did not say that the Amendment was sloppy in any way. I said that the result was that legislation passed in this form was liable to become sloppy.
Sir F. SMITH: The only Amendment I consented to accept was an Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, which, in my humble judgment, was not necessary to-the Bill, and which has no artistic importance. The hon. Gentleman added the observation that he could have put the Bill in a very much better shape. Here, again, if he means that himself and his more learned adviser could have put the Bill in a better shape, all I can say is that on Committee stage and Report stage we ask nothing more than to have Amendments relating to this Bill which would improve it. The hon. Member has had every opportunity of putting down such Amendments both on the Committee stage and Report stage. The hon. Member did

479
not take the opportunity on the Committee stage, perhaps because at that time he was preoccupied with another matter. But on the Report stage it was clearly open to him to put down Amendments, of which I would gladly have availed myself, if they would have improved the Bill. I think the hon. Gentleman has not sufficiently read the Bill, for he said that this measure only deals with corruption where the inducement is money. If the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill he would not have laboured under that delusion. The hon. Member is apparently of opinion that if anyone in connection with a Government contract takes the matter to the Isle of Man, the business can be done there with impunity, and he could come back and defy the law. I would only remark that if the hon. Member knows anybody who contemplates that method of evading the law he will do that person a service if he gives him a caution.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) I quite recognise took a great interest in these matters long before the occasion of the second Bill was disclosed. He has read the Government a lecture on their many shortcomings. We who sit on these benches receive so many homilies relating to the public service that we have perhaps become a little more hardened than we should be. The hon. Member said, I forget the exact limitation which he put, but I think he stated that since the beginning of the War the extent of the corruption which went on had not been paralleled before. That, of course, involves a general charge, but I think it is one the hon. Gentleman would not have put forward on his responsibility except with knowledge of particular instances. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not have said that there existed a degree of general corruption in the public service of which we have had no similar experience.
Mr. BOOTH: I did not say that. I was referring to the previous Act having been passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney, who thought it would do a great deal of good; but the prevailing opinion among business men is that there has never been so much secret bribery and corruption in the history of England as in the last twelve months, although the previous Act had been passed. I did not give instances that cross-examiners could deal with, but I gave
480
what I was entitled to give, namely, what was the opinion prevalent among business men.
Sir F. SMITH: It really comes to this: that as the result of reports made by business people, the hon. Gentleman states that there has never been so much corruption in the public service.
Mr. BOOTH: No; I wish to correct that. I never said the public service.
Sir F. SMITH: If it is not the public service there is a little difficulty in seeing how precisely the hen. Member justifies the very grave picture which he drew. I certainly understood him to say that.
Mr. BOOTH: I am sure the OFFICIAL REPORT will bear me out that what I said was—and I distinctly limited it to that—that there has been more bribery and corruption during the last twelve months than ever existed before.
Sir F. SMITH: As a public official I am anxious to deal with charges of this kind, but to say that there is an immense amount of private corruption is a general and a vague charge. I do not wish to misrepresent what the hon. Gentleman said, but what he meant was that there was unexampled corruption, and I understood his general suggestion to the House to mean that he had made complaints to Government Departments, that he had been repelled, and that no desire had been shown to inquire into individual cases which were placed before one or other of my colleagues.
Mr. BOOTH: I was very specific in what I said. I said that, as the result of continual information which I received, I put questions on the Paper of this House, and, as for instance to-day, I was discouraged by the answers given to me from putting them on the Paper again. I put questions down time after time in relation to the question of huts, clothing, and a number of matters, and I got only discouraging answers, which convinced me that the Departments never wished to make inquiry.
Sir F. SMITH: I do not know where really my hon. Friend stands now. Am I right or wrong in understanding my hon. Friend to say that in the first two years of the War there was unexampled corruption as having relation to the public Departments?
Mr. BOOTH: That is not what I said. I said that there was ten times more corruption going on in this War than there was in the Boer War, and I adhere to that.
Sir F. SMITH: There is ten times more hostilities going on than ever before, and I suppose the hon. Gentleman means that there is ten times more corruption going on. But that is a general charge.
Mr. BOOTH: I did not use the words which you use.
Sir F. SMITH: The meaning of the Bill is to deal with corrupt practices, and what is the point of the hon. Gentleman's observations?
Mr. BOOTH: I cannot help you.
Sir F. SMITH: When my hon. Friend says this degree of corruption exists, is it meant as a criticism of the Government? I understood him to say that he has given information to the Government, and that he had received no indication of any willingness to inquire into specine cases. I have only been a Law Officer of the Crown for some twelve months, and during those twelve months, if any Members had brought cases to my notice, I am quite certain that they would have received a sufficient answer. I would point out that the Director of Public Prosecutions acts under my instructions, and I am responsible in this House and elsewhere. If my hon. Friend has really cases which would tend to show in any particular instance that there has been corruption of this kind, not only public corruption, but private corruption, I snail have them inquired into, and I extend to my hon. Friend this unmistakable invitation: If he will call my attention, not to hundreds of cases, which must be present in general or partial knowledge to his mind, that will support his charge that there has been corruption, private or public, during the first eighteen months of this War—if he will give me twenty cases, if he will give me ten cases, if he will give me five, if he will give me one, I shall cause inquiry to be made by the Director of Public Prosecutions.
5.0 P.M.
Mr. BOOTH: The illustration I gave in my speech was not an imaginary charge of corruption against Departments; it was that the Government had been slack in dealing with things brought to their notice—in dealing with matters of jobbery in connection with contracts. What was
482
the attitude of the Government on the timber contracts? What about the huts scandals?
Sir F. SMITH: If that is all the hon. Gentleman intended to suggest, I really do not think the House will acquit him of flinging about serious and reckless charges. If all he was thinking about was such things as these contracts, let me say that we are dealing with quite a different subject. We are dealing with a Bill aimed at corruption, and yet the hon. Gentleman on the Third Reading makes a very serious reflection and brings very grave charges as to the extent of corruption. [An HON. MEMBER: "Let him withdraw them!"] I do not think it is necessary for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them. He has made statements which to the House it is perfectly clear have no meaning whatever. I repeat that if the hon. Gentleman still persists in the charge that corruption exists to such an extent, I, as the representative of the Departments charged with the exposure and punishment of this offence, challenge him to give one single case, and I undertake, if he does so, I will have it inquired into, and if there is sufficient evidence I further undertake that a prosecution shall take place.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy recalled the attention of the House to a discussion which took place on the Second Reading of the Bill in reference to observations made by learned counsel (Mr. Muir) who prosecuted in the case which, as the House knows, led to the present Bill. My right hon. Friend pointed out that in that debate Mr. Muir, in opening the case, stated to the jury that the prosecution had not been enthusiastically received in the Army Clothing Department. My right hon. Friend said, and I agree with him, that such a remark coming from counsel who himself represented the Crown, coming from a man of great experience and moderation of language, was one which demanded some inquiry. I agreed at the time with what my right hon. Friend said. He has asked me, to-day whether I am able to make any further statement to the House on that subject. I am not in a position to make a complete statement, but I can make a statement which will show to the House that in the limited time at my disposal the matter has not been neglected. I asked Mr. Muir to come and see me, and I discussed with him the statement he had made and inquired as to what justification there was for it. I also saw Lord Rother-

483
mere, who, as the House knows, is the head of this Department, and, as a result of the interview, I invited Mr. Muir to reduce into writing the specific facts on which he relied in justification for his general reflection on the Department. I should not be dealing candidly with the House if I did not make it quite clear that Mr. Muir adhered to what he had said, and, under these circumstances, the proper course was to require him to reduce into a formal statement the charges or statement which he made with details and the names of the various persons concerned. I received that document from Mr. Muir, and I forwarded it to Lord Rothermere yesterday or the day before, with a request to him to be good enough to submit it to his Department and let me hear from him the reply in detail to the statements made by Mr. Muir. In the time I had at my disposal I could not do more. I shall be glad to communicate the result to my right hon. Friend.
I do not claim, and I do not think anyone in the Government claims, that this Bill is going to end corruption. Our claim is very modest. We claim only that the law would be strengthened in these matters if it is amended in the direction which the Bill suggests. That is the principle underlying this Bill, and dealing with these matters as I do with great knowledge, I assure the House that the Government does not need, on this subject, any warning to the effect that the result of this Bill will not be to end corruption. We are well aware
"How small of all that human hearts endure
That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!"
Ours is an extremely modest claim. It is that this Bill will make it more costly and more disgraceful for those who choose to break the law of this country.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the third time, and passed.

CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. MACLEAN in. the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Alteration of Bates of Pay in Certain Banks of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, 4 and 5 Geo. 5, c. 54.)
(1) The pay of district inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary shall be accord-
484
ing to the rates specified in Part I. of the First Schedule to this Act instead of the rates specified in Part I. of the First Schedule to the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1914 (in this Act referred to as "the Act of 1914").
(2) The pay of constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary shall be according to the rates specified in Part II. of the First Schedule to this Act instead of the rates specified in Part II. of the First Schedule to the Act of 1914.
(3) The pay of constables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police shall be according to the rates specified in the Second Schedule to this Act instead of the rates specified in the Second Schedule to the Act of 1914.
(4) Subject to the provisions of this Act any enactment with respect to the pay of district inspectors or constables shall apply to pay at the rates authorised by this Act in like manner as it applies to pay at the rates actually in force at the passing of this Act.
(5) In this Act the expression "constable" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1914.
(6) Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 1914 and the First and Second Schedules to that Act are hereby repealed.
Mr. P. MEEHAN: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (2), to insert the words-"save that in the case of married members of the Royal Irish Constabulary not higher in rank than head constable the rates specified in Part II of the First Schedule to this Act shall be increased by two shillings."
This Amendment has been put down with the object of making an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the married men in the rank and file who, I think, have a very strong case for consideration in this respect. The lodging allowance which they get on marriage is the sum of 2s. per week. In other branches of the public service the allowance is considerably greater. A prison warder, for instance, gets an allowance of 7s. per week. A sergeant in the Army is granted from £15 to £20 per annum for lodging. The lodging allowance allowed to the higher officers in this force has been increased by a sum of £5 per year. If it is necessary to increase the allowance for the officers, I cannot see why that for the married men in the rank and file, which was fixed at the same time as that of the

485
officers, should not also be increased. To my mind, they have an unanswerable case for an increased allowance. If a single man is deemed to be entitled to 3s. more per week on account of the increased cost of living, surely the married man is entitled to something beyond that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this question his consideration.
Mr. HAZLETON: I desire to second this Amendment. I was surprised to hear the answer given to-day by the Chief Secretary at Question Time to an hon. Member above the Gangway with regard to the allowance to the higher-paid officers of this force. I understand that to vary or increase these allowances it is not necessary to have the authority of a new Act of Parliament, but that the Executive have power to take any action within limits which it considers right in the matter. I hope that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway who have shown so much interest in the lot of the higher officers will join with us in pressing this very moderate claim on behalf of the lower-paid men. I should like for one moment to refer to the Report of the Departmental Committee which considered the question of the police force in Ireland in 1914. I want to read one short paragraph—paragraph 20, which says:
"In the years 1905 and 1912 the Board of Trade made special inquiry in six cit es in Ireland as to the price of certain commodities which included bread, flour, potatoes, beef, mutton, pork, bacon, eggs, milk, butter, cheese, tea, sugar and coal. In 1906 the inquiry was extended to four other towns, and Mr. McLeod has nformed us that his department find that the mean idvance in price in the six cities between the years 1905 and 1912 was about fifteen per cent."
On the information supplied to that Committee it was decided by the Government in 1914 to further increase the pay of the lower ranks in the force. If they acted thus in 1914 on an increase in the cost of living of 15 per cent., I think they ought to have done considerably more than they propose under this Bill, seeing that the increase since 1914 has been, not 15 per cent., but nearer 60 per cent. My hon. Friend told the Chief Secretary at Question Time that he does not desire to make a difference now between married men and unmarried men I do not think that is a fair position for him to take up, because it must be clear to everyone that married men have far higher expenses by reason of their families than the unmarried men, and it would be reasonable to concede some additional amounts to them,
486
either in this way or in some other way, so that they may be better enabled to meet the increased cost of living.
Mr. BRADY: I desire strongly to support the Amendment, and I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will deal generously with these men.
Colonel CRAIG: Since an hon. Member below the Gangway appeared to throw out the idea that because I specially brought forward the case on the Second Reading of this Bill of those not mentioned in this Bill at all, I was less sympathetic to those in the Bill, I should like to say that I stated at the time that I desired in every way to support anything that could be done for this force, and if the hon. Member goes to a Division, I shall certainly support him.
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Duke): Hon. Members have laid stress upon the difficulties of the married man in these times, and any of us who, either in the remote or more recent past, have taken part in a raid on the Treasury know how attractive that argument is. It is a perfectly reasonable argument to be addressed to the Government, that there should be a variation in the case of the married men. The first answer to that is, however, that its proposed introduction is an entirely new principle in the remuneration of public servants. It is proposed to substitute for the principle of remuneration for work done a provision for the worker which depends upon the degree of his necessity. That is not a thing known, I venture to pay, in public life or in any employ, and, outside the Government service, I do not think I ever heard it proposed. It would result in some such transaction as this. There is a post for which the market rate of wages is, let us say, 30s. There is a man who can live on 15s. Very well, let him have 20s., a single man. There is another man who is a very deserving married man, who has two children. Perhaps he has 25s. But the case then has to be considered of the married man with perhaps ten children, and really it is a wonderful testimony to the courage and endurance of many of the married men in the Royal Irish Constabulary that they have very large families indeed. But what is being proposed here is the introduction, not of a scale of remuneration for work done which would have some relation to the market rate of pay, or considerations of that kind, but a system of ascertaining what are the necessities of

487
those who do the work, and graduating your payment accordingly. If I had the capacity for dealing with a matter of that kind, I would not shirk from the task, or from making a recommendation, however hardly it might be met at the Treasury.
It is said that the case of these men has been harshly dealt with. Let me tell the Committee just what has been done about a constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary with ten years' service, and what his present position is. In 1913 a constable in that position who was a married man had 24s. pay and an allowance of 2s. or 3s,. according to whether he served in the city or in the country. The allowance was not less than 2s. I do not want to overcharge my memory as to when the advantage of residence in the city was given. A man with ten years' service in the Constabulary Force had thus 24s., and 2s., namely 26s., at least if he was a married man. At the present time he has 27s., and if he is in the city, 3s., or in the country 2s. That is 29s., or 30s., and a War bonus of 3s. 6d. That gives him 32s. 6d. or 33s. 6d. Under the proposal of this Bill he will have, if he is a man in the city, 30s. of pay, 3s. of lodging allowance, and 3s. 6d. of War bonus. I do not think it can be said that a man in that position has been neglected. That is all I can say. It would not be right for me in times of great public difficulty to be lavish, or to pretend to be lavish, with public money. It seems to me that a man who, for the sake of the avoidance of personal inconvenience or for securing popularity, is lavish of public money at such a time as this is guilty of an offence of which I would not be guilty. On the other hand, I would not be guilty of proposing, or being a party to, what was less than what in justice is required, and I must say that in the scale of pay which has been adjusted with great pains and care what was essential and just has been aimed at. Whether it has been ultimately arrived at, I am not sure. It has been pointed out that allowances rest on a different footing. They have always done so, but, having regard to the amelioration which has been made in the position of married men, and the difference of principle in dealing with them on the lines recommended, I hope that, although the proposal is as attractive as it is, this Amendment will not be pressed on the Committee.
Major NEWMAN: The Chief Secretary led us to suppose that no married man
488
joining the public service can get a greater rate of pay because he is married, and has perhaps a numerous family. Let me point out to him that under a recent arrangement between the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions this very thing is being done. Under that arrangement men no longer fit to serve at the front, and willing to serve in garrison work at home, are by arrangement with the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Munitions—they are still soldiers—to be transferred from the Army to work on munitions, and they are to work at a certain minimum wage, 7d. an hour with overtime. That is the minimum, but there is something more than that. If that man in the Munition Army Reserve has a wife and a certain number of children he may be able to get more pay per week. In addition to his 7d. he gets 2s. 6d. a week, I think, for two or three children, and if he has five children or more he gets 5s. There is a public servant, a soldier transferred to munition work, married, with a large family, and because he is he automatically goes into munitions, and gets 2s. 6d. or 5s. a week more. If that can be done in the case of a soldier munition worker, surely it can be done in the case of a constable if the Chief Secretary cares to do it. If he does not like to do it—
Mr. DUKE: It is not in accordance with the manner in which a discussion upon questions of public business is usually conducted in Committee in this House that the hon. Member should rise and say that with regard to a war bonus if I choose to introduce provisions as to pay in the police force which tally with those which have attracted his attention I am at liberty to do it, and that if I do not do it the responsibility is upon me. I am not able to do it, as I have told the Committee I am not able.
Mr. O'SHEE: The right hon. Gentleman in describing what has happened since 1913 in increases in pay has not mentioned, probably he is not aware, that in 1914, when the last Act was passed dealing with this matter, though pay was increased, immediately after the passing of the Act the Treasury deprived a certain class of police-constables of an allowance which they had hitherto received. I refer to the men in charge of stations. Sergeants or acting-sergeants in charge of stations received up to 1914, up to the passing of the Act, what is called a station allowance of 8s. 8d. a month—nearly 2s. 2d. a week. Immediately after the Act

489
had passed to give them increased pay the Treasury made a regulation depriving them of this allowance. It was a gradual taking away with one hand of what had been given with the other under the Act. Is that allowance going to be restored or not? Of course, this Bill does not deal with allowances. It deals with pay, but may not we have, after this Bill has passed, something similar to what occurred in 1914, when the last increase in pay was given under the Act? As I have said, the Treasury then made a regulation taking it away with the other hand. Are we going to have the same thing repeated again? Is some other allowance to be taken away as soon as this Bill passes giving an increase in pay? I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can use his influence in the Treasury to get that allowance of 8s. 8d. per month taken away in 1914 restored for the men in charge of stations. The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that probably the average number of constables to a police station in Ireland would be about six; so that the station allowance affects probably one man out of every six in the Constabulary Force in Ireland. It is, therefore, a very important matter. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiries if he has not already had the information given to him on this point with regard to it, and to endeavour to get the station allowance restored.
Mr. DUKE: I have a hazy recollection of the facts relating to station sergeants, but I do not remember sufficiently clearly to warrant my giving a definite answer. If an allowance has been withdrawn against the manifest intention of the Act of Parliament—if that has happened—I should certainly represent as strongly as I can that it ought to be altered. So far as increases pay under this Act are concerned, the hon. Member will see that I should regard as a breach of public duty the withdrawal with one hand secretly and quietly of a benefit which Parliament had conferred. The hon. Member will find that I shall be no party to any such thing, and I am sure he will find that no Member will be a party to a transaction of that sort.
Mr. DEVLIN: Would not the right hon. Gentleman be willing to apply the same principle with regard at least to the increases in allowances to officers also to the men, and increase the allowances of the men? In addition to the increase in the salaries of officers you have also increased their allowances, and the Member
490
for Queen's County (Mr. P. Meehan) asks you to adopt precisely the same line in regard to the men. If you say, that you cannot give an increase in salary, but that you will, at all events, give an increase in allowances, that will meet the hon. Member's point, and we simply ask for the men what you are prepared to give to the officers.
Mr. DUKE: I desire to meet every representation which can reasonably be met. My present belief is that the whole of these changes have been so adjusted that they are relatively fair, but on any question of allowance it is open to any member of the force to make a representation. I am not excluding the possibility of such a representation. At the same time, it is impossible for me at this time to hold out hope that it will succeed. All I can say is that it will receive a reasonable answer.
Mr. MEEHAN: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not consider that a lodging allowance of 2s. is a sufficient allowance? It is meant to cover the rent of the house. Anybody who knows Ireland knows that a constable cannot get a house for that. If it is not meant to cover the rent, it is a contribution. Surely, if it is considered that the officers should get an increase of £5 a year in their lodging allowance, the same reason applies in the case of a married constable? I cannot think that there is any difference. If there is a necessity in the one case, surely the same necessity exists in the other?
Amendment negatived.
Major NEWMAN:I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (3).
This House on Tuesday and to-day has given so far some hours to discussing the needs and the rights of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan. Police. As I said the other day, both these forces are in a very peculiar position. They have to look to this House for their wants and for the redress of their grievances. It is only occasionally that we are able to attend to these matters, and it is perhaps only after a great deal of pressure from the members of those forces that the Ministry moves. I am glad to say-that it took very little to move the present Chief Secretary For a great many months I have been putting down questions on this matter, but it was only when the present Chief Secretary came into office that something was done. I am perfectly convinced that both forces are

491
very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having taken the matter into his hands as quickly as he has done. We have got to realise that what we do at any stated time in connection with the Royal Irish Constabulary or the Dublin Metropolitan Police has certainly to stand for some years before it can be adjusted again. Therefore it may be worth our while to take this opportunity of doing the thing thoroughly, and of meeting any possible grievance and difficulty which may arise in either of the two forces. As this Bill came before the House there unexpectedly arose in the Dublin Metropolitan Police Force a difficulty which we have been called upon to settle. The question is one which embraces the broad question of discipline in the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The Chief Secretary on Tuesday told us that we should have to deal with that question, and he said how in his opinion it ought to be dealt with. He said we ought
"to 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."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 7th November, 1916 col. 121.]
That is, I take it, what this Committee has got to do this afternoon. We have to deal with this question one way or another before this Bill passes from the Committee. The Chief Secretary—and I rather took note of the words used on Tuesday—spoke of
"the immediate future of Ireland."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I do not see eye to eye in relation to the government of Ireland. I believe he thinks that after a short while the Act of 1914 will be in operation. I myself do not think it will be. At any rate, when that Act is in operation, then automatically the Dublin Metropolitan Police will come under the Irish Parliament and thus pass out of our control. It may, therefore, be that in the immediate future we in this House will have nothing more to say to that force. We have, however, also to consider the question of the Royal Irish Constabulary, though if and when that Act is in operation that force will, as I understand, for a period of six years be still under the control of the Imperial Parliament and not under the control of the Irish House. Though the outlook for the Dublin Metropolitan Police may be certainly unimportant, that for the Royal Irish Constabulary is important. The Chief Secretary went on to declare that
492
until that happens members of both these forces, and especially the Dublin Metropolitan Police—this, I think, in answer to an hon. Member who put a question—ought to forego membership of other organised forces. That is the question. Is this Committee going to agree with what the Chief Secretary said? Is the Committee going to say that members of the Irish Police Forces, whether they belong to the Dublin Metropolitan Police or the Royal Irish Constabulary, shall not be allowed to become members of what the Chief Secretary called "organised forces."
What is the immediate position? Owing to the censorship on this subject—to which I have alluded—we, of course, in this House have to rely upon what the Chief Secretary told us on Tuesday. I listened to his speech then, and I read his speech over very carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I say this: It is an admirable example of the sort of speech that gets past the Censor, for certainly no Censor could object to passing it! To my mind, however, it was somewhat difficult to make out from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman told us what is the exact position. He said, so far as I can make out, that no member of the police force had actually broken his oath or obligation by joining the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which is admittedly what some of them did. They had not, it appears, broken the oath which they took, an oath imposed upon them by an old Statute of William IV., by which it was enacted that they should not belong to any secret or political society with the exception of the order of Freemasons. The Chief Secretary admitted, because we all knew it, that a certain proportion of the Dublin Metropolitan Police had undoubtedly committed a breach of discipline. They had, in defiance of orders, rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, issued by superior officers, gone to a meeting of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, I think, indeed, two successive meetings. I understand that under the eyes of their superior officers, they formed themselves into a lodge or branch of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. That breach of discipline was not denied. I understand it has been dealt with. The Chief Secretary told us that one member of the police force who was suspected of being a ringleader had been dismissed. A few others had been fined £l each, and some others have been transferred to other stations.
Another point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that the police

493
were led astray, as I understood him, by certain civilian influence or civilian element, in conjunction with a few of the ringleaders, amongst the members of the force, by "procuring"—that is the expression I think he used—by "procuring" a breach of discipline amongst the members of the force. The ringleaders in the force have been punished. Whether that punishment was adequate, more than adequate, too severe, or not severe enough, I do not know. But they have been punished. What about the civilians? What about those who went about and got hold of these policemen and tried to suborn them to do something directly contrary to the order of their superior officers? Have they been dealt with? Have they been arrested or punished? I should imagine that under some portion of the Defence of the Realm Act, even in Ireland, anyone who went about trying to seduce the police from their allegiance to superior authority ought to be very severaly punished. I should like to know whether or not that has been done? I should like the Chief Secretary to answer that. I should also like him to tell me whether or not any members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police at the present time belong to the Ancient Order of Hibernians. Some 300, as I understand, joined this Order. Are they still members or not? Does the matter really rest in this way: that the ringleaders have been punished, one man dismissed, two or three men fined, and other men transferred to other stations, and that the bulk of the force are allowed to retain their membership of this lodge, which they formed; or has the lodge been broken up and has every man of the force given an explicit undertaking that he will no longer belong to that Order so long as the instruction against it holds out?
I should like to get from the Chief Secretary an answer to another question. I know that to a certain extent the Chief Secretary has to reap where another has sown. To a great extent he has our sympathy. He has had to meet a difficult situation—a nasty situation. He is not a military man. Perhaps he does not realise what disobedience to an order lawfully given means. Perhaps he hardly realises what the penalty would be if these young constables, who might be, and I dare say ought to be, not constables in Dublin, but serving with the Irish Guards on the Somme, had been soldiers, and had disobeyed an order lawfully given. I urge
494
him to deal with us frankly and fairly in this matter. I repeat a suggestion which was made, I think, at the conclusion of the speech of an hon. Member below the Gangway, and that is, let us allow these constables to belong to no secret society whatsoever. Do not let us have the Hibernians, Orangemen, or Freemasons, at any rate so long as both these forces are under the control of Parliament. What may happen after they are transferred to the Dublin Parliament does not concern us now. Up till then, for the safety of Ireland, for fair play, and on behalf of the peace of that country, let us lay down once and for all the rule that, so long as we here have control of these forces, so long as they have to look to us for their emoluments and so on, we will not allow any member of those forces, be he county inspector, divisional inspector, subordinate officer, head constable, or what not, to be a member of any secret society—Freemasons, Ancient Order of Hibernians, or Orangemen. If the Chief Secretary will give us assurances on this point I shall not press my Amendment to a Division. If not, I should certainly like to test the feelings of the House in the matter.
Mr. DILLON: I do not desire, on this very delicate subject which has been raised, to say anything that will increase the difficulty of the task of the Chief Secretary. He knows by this time, what I said when he came to Ireland, the extreme difficulty of his work. I cannot think, however, that the hon. Member who undertook to raise this very important discussion had exactly the same principle in his mind when he did raise it. It has undoubtedly a very broad and a very far-reaching incidence. He has forced upon the House a discussion which it is now quite impossible to avoid as to the police-constables in Dublin. In the course of his observations he made what appeared to me to be meant as a reflection upon the Chief Secretary's capacity for governing Ireland. He said, "He is not a military man." I suppose in the eyes of the hon. and gallant Gentleman—recently become"gallant"—nobody is fit to govern Ireland except a military man.
Major NEWMAN: Hear, hear!
Mr. DILLON: The Chief Secretary will be hardly surprised to hear that I consider that rather in his favour than against his qualifications for governing Ireland. In opening his observations the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield said that this

495
was a broad question of discipline. I quite agree. It is a very broad and far-reaching question of discipline. What is the complaint made by the hon. Member? He alleges that 500 police of Dublin have formed themselves into a lodge of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. I did not gather that from the observations of the Chief Secretary the other day, but that is the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, and statements somewhat similar have appeared in the Dublin Press.
I told the Chief Secretary the other day that, while the police in Dublin have had, I think, substantial grievances as regards their pay, these were by no means the whole of their grievances. I know something of the Dublin police, and I know that for many, many years there has been simmering in the ranks of the police, the constables and sergeants, a great deal of discontent, quite apart from their pay, and that discontent had many causes, into which I do not like to go in any detail, but substantially it was concerned with the fact that there were certain influences at work which convinced the police that promotion in the ranks of the Dublin Police Force did not go according to merit and efficiency. It is undoubtedly true that was the belief of the police, and when the hon. Member for Enfield comes forward at the eleventh hour, in face of this agitation in Dublin, of which he has drawn so lurid a picture, and proposes—I was very glad to hear him make the proposal—to alter the oath—a most improper oath—under which the police of Dublin have been bound for years, I think it is another unfortunate illustration of the characteristic which is so frequently manifested in the government of Ireland, that these grievances may go on for year after year, and for generation after generation, and nobody thinks of remedying them, or of listening to them, until some great crisis arises, which threatens the community and law, order, and discipline with serious danger.
The other day, when some of us pointed out that both the Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police, by an extraordinary oath, are prohibited from belonging to any secret society or any political association, excepting the Society of Freemasons, several hon. Members cried out that the Society of Freemasons is not political. I do not know anything about the Society of Freemasons in this country, or about the details of its proceedings in
496
Ireland; but I do know this, that you may-state that fact until you are black in the face, but you will not get any man in Ireland to believe it. I speak as an outsider altogether, quite ignorant of these matters, as, being a Roman Catholic, I am obliged to be, but it is a very singular-thing that the great Society of Freemasons, against whom I do not desire to make any attack whatever, in certain countries, in certain times, has become a most powerful and dominating political society. Nobody who has studied history will challenge that. It is a matter of public knowledge that the great revolution in Turkey was carried out by the Grand Lodge of Salonika, and that all the Young Turks whose names were famous throughout the world at that time owed a great-deal of their remarkable power, which enabled them to overthrow the Sultan's-rule, to the fact that they were leading and high up in the Masonic Order. That is a matter of common knowledge throughout Europe, and it is remarkable that in certain countries and at certain periods the Masonic Society, which in this country may be, for all I know, and I believe it is, a purely charitable, social, and benevolent society, becomes when under the control of certain individuals, and, under the stress of certain peculiar circumstances, locally a most powerful and formidable-political association. It was so in Italy, Portugal, and Turkey. That has been the case in Ireland for three or four generations, notoriously, and it is perfectly idle-to deny it.
Here is the oath which the constabulary of Ireland and the Dublin Metropolitan Police are compelled to swear, with one slight variation, to which I will draw attention in a moment. This oath—and it is a thing which it is well for the Chief Secretary to take note of—was imposed upon the constabulary in 1836, at a time when a great deal of the Penal Code against the Catholics had been barely repealed—I mean when the Catholics of Ireland were an oppressed majority of the population, and really were kept out of all authority and all social position in their own country. The oath is:
"I, A B., do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign,"
and so forth, and then it goes on to detail the duties which he undertakes to perform—
"and that I do not now belong, and that I will not while I shall hold the said office, join, subscribe or belong to any political society whatsoever, or to any secret society whatsoever, unless to the Society of Freemasons."

497
That oath, imposed upon the constables of a Catholic nation, where the vast majority of the people were suffering under cruel oppression from the law, and where that majority were forbidden by the Church, under pain of mortal sin, to join this association, was an act of highhanded oppression, and was calculated in the eyes of the people to mark out the policemen as partisans of the ascendancy faction who ruled Ireland for many years, and this act destroyed all idea of faith on the part of the Irish in the impartiality of the administration of the law. I say, therefore, that the infliction of that oath, which has gone on to this hour, was a cruel and very outrageous insult to the Catholic people of Ireland. Here is the form of oath taken by the Dublin Metropolitan Police—
"and that I do not now belong to, and that while I shall hold the said office I will not join or belong to, any political society whatsoever, or any secret society whatsoever, unless the Society of Freemasons."
That form of oath, administered to the Dublin Metropolitan Police, admits in the very words of the oath that the Freemasons are a political society, because. it says, "I will not belong to any political society except the Society of Freemasons."
Major NEWMAN: Secret society.
Mr. DILLON: The wording of the oath conveys the meaning which even the framers of the oath recognised.
Sir J. LONSDALE: "or any secret society."
Mr. DILLON: That is the situation. In a country governed, as Ireland has always been governed, without the slightest regard to the wishes of her own people, on these men was imposed a duty so difficult and delicate that it was almost beyond the resources of men to carry out those duties in a way to command the public confidence, and the Government in those days went out of their way to frame an oath which would destroy, in my opinion, all hope of impartiality on the part of the police. How has that worked out? I need not go over the long history, alluded to the other day by the hon. and gallant Member, of disturbances and collisions-between police and people. All I will say with reference to that is that it is one of the most horrible misfortunes that can happen to any town or country in the world that the police should be looked upon by the people, not as their protectors, servants and friends, but as their
498
enemies, and as the instrument of a tyrrany against which they have struggled. It is not alone in the spirit embodied in that oath and the whole administration of the Metropolitan Police, and the Constabulary as well, but it is that they have been always placed under the control of officers who are out of sympathy with the masses of the people. One of the causes of the trouble in Dublin—and now that the subject has been raised we should speak perfectly frankly—is that the belief has grown up amongst the police—and I believe it to be a sound one—that promotion does not always wait upon merit, but is the reward of certain occult influences, outside influences, and political views which ought not to enter into the question of the promotion of a police force at all. There you have one of the causes, and I warn the Chief Secretary that he had better inform himself on that matter fully before he proceeds to deal with this trouble in the Dublin Police, or before he imagines that he has got rid of the trouble altogether.
6.0 P.M.
Considering all these things, I think the way in which those police have carried out their duties in the city, as a rule, has been worthy of all praise. They are a very respectable body of men, a very efficient body of men, and I must say physically, I think, the finest body of police in the world. I do not think I have ever seen a finer body. They have been once or twice, but only once or twice, in my memory badly in collision with the people, and one of the causes of their discontent is that they believe, and we believe that those collisions were entirely due to the want of skill, the want of police training, the want of tact, and the want of popular sympathy in the case of their superior officers. Over and over again, you have put men at the head of the police in Dublin who have no more experience of police duties than I have, or any man in this House has. That is a perfect outrage. To be a successful police officer requires careful training; it is not a thing a man can take up as he takes up-golf or any form of amusement. I admit golf needs some amount of training. But to police a great city requires long experience in training. I am not saying anything against the present Commissioner, because he has had the training, but his predecessor and others before him had no more knowledge of police duties, and no more training and experience, than the first man you meet in the street.

499
That was the cause, in my opinion, of the terrible troubles, the trace of which is still, to some extent, existing in the city, and the terrible troubles of 1911 and 1912, when the city was in a state of disorder. These are all contributory causes towards the present trouble, and in face of this delicate and difficult situation the hon. and gallant Member calmly proposes to cut out the very modest proposals of the Government to meet the grievances of these men in regard to their claim. In proposing his Amendment the hon. and gallant Member pours a flood of denunciation on the Dublin police, and challenges the Chief Secretary to punish—by way of a piece of amusement, I suppose, not having enough anxiety on his hands in Ireland—500 Dublin policemen. No man out of a lunatic asylum ever made such a proposal. I would like to see what the hon. and gallant Member would do if he got rid of 600 policemen.
Major NEWMAN: Send them out to the trenches.
Mr. DEVLIN: Send you out to the trenches.
Major NEWMAN: I have been out.
Mr. DEVLIN: I never saw you anywhere but here since the War commenced.
Mr. DILLON: When the hon. Member throws that taunt to the Irish police it is -a base taunt. They were willing to go to the trenches, and the very finest regiments you have put in the field were the Irish Guards drawn from the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Police. They offered to go to the trenches, but Lord Kitchener and the War Office forbade them to go, and the Irish Government was so much afraid of us that they would not allow the Dublin Police to go. We offered Lord Kitchener, on several occasions, to create three battalions of the Irish Guards from the Dublin Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary, and they were quite willing to volunteer, and they would not have them, so that the hon. and gallant Member had better drop that form of taunt. It is unworthy of him because these men were willing to go, and they would have formed the finest troops England ever put on the field. The hon. and gallant Member calmly proposes to punish five hundred of the Dublin police because they joined, as he alleges out of his great knowledge, the Ancient Order
500
of Hibernians. What is the Ancient Order of Hibernians? It is not a secret society, it is not an oath-bound society, and it is not a political society. It is a friendly society registered under the Insurance Act. It is an open legal friendly society which is open to Catholics. I admit it is a sectarian society, but in Ireland the Freemasons are a sectarian society closed to Catholics, and all that the police have done—I admit it is very delicate ground, but they have been smarting under grievances which have existed a long time—all that it is alleged they have done—I do not know whether it is a fact—is that 500 of them have joined the Ancient Order of Hibernians. I ask on what grounds of justice can the hon. Member take up the position that they are not as much entitled to join the Ancient Order of Hibernians as the officers are entitled to join the Freemasons. That is an impossible position.
If the hon. Member wants my opinion, I will give it to him. I would not allow, if I were administering the affairs of Ireland, a policeman to join any society. I would carry it further, and I would not allow any man engaged in the administration of the law to join any society. But we know perfectly well that up to quite recently every man engaged in the administration of the law in Ireland was a Freemason. I say that the law, whether it be administered by policemen or magistrates or prosecutors, or the Attorney-General or judges, they ought to be all above suspicion and stand equally between His Majesty's subjects, no matter what society they belong to. Therefore, I go further than the hon. and gallant Member does, as I would require every judge, magistrate, Crown prosecutor, and everyone, whoever he may be, in carrying out the law to take an oath that he would not belong or did not belong to any association. We all remember the Lord's Prayer, and human nature is weak, and if you have before you in the administration of the law a man who is bound to you by the bonds of an association you are tempted to be friendly. The principle is a sound one. Remember, when we talk so lightly about punishing these constables in Dublin, you have a very delicate situation in Dublin and Ireland in general. Whatever the action of these men may have been, that action has been the result of long-continued injustice for which they saw no remedy whatever, and now for the hundredth time in the history of Ireland, when they have

501
taken strong action and some attempt, at all events, is made to remedy their grievances, and an addition is made to their pay by the Government, the hon. and gallant Member says he thinks this ought to be removed.
Mr. DUKE: The situation which has been described by hon. Members does not impress me with alarm or even indignation, but it is, nevertheless, a situation which requires to be regarded with temper and forbearance as well as reasonable courage. I want to say a word with regard to the Amendment. My hon. Friend opposite says that hundreds of members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police have broken their oaths by joining a secret society, and he says that I should dismiss them. Now that is a very bold and simple proposition. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who probably has as good a means of knowledge on this question as the hon. Member opposite, and probably as good as I have, of this society, which is stigmatised as a political and secret society, the joining of which is said to be a breach of the oath, says it is not a secret society and it is not a political society. Now I am called in question in no moderate terms because I do not accept a newspaper report, a biassed and interested newspaper report published with a definite intent and not a good intent, which is not only an indictment of the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, but is a conviction of them, and I am expected, upon a series of newspaper reports as to the honesty of which I will not say I doubt, although I am convinced that they are mischievous in many particulars—upon these I am asked to accept the indictment and conviction, and to proceed to statutory punishment. If I were capable of conduct of that kind, I think I should demonstrate that His Majesty's Government made a woeful mistake when they invited me to go to Ireland to endeavour to discharge the duties of Chief Secretary. It is not in that spirit that I deal with any question in Ireland, and rather than do so I would resign the office which I hold. What the hon. Member for Enfield (Major Newman) proposes practically means that an editor here and there, an editor in Belfast, and perhaps one in London, have convicted the members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, or some of them, of a breach of their oath and that I should proceed to punish them.
Major NEWMAN: What I said was that owing to the censorship we really do not
502
know what has happened, and I asked the Chief Secretary to tell us exactly what has happened. I merely mention the fact that he had already punished five of these men in various degrees.
Mr. DUKE: I will deal with that point in its proper place. I am called into question and subjected to public censure because I have not proceeded to extreme measures with the Dublin Police Force on the ground of the allegation that has been made against them, and made with a real motive, in various newspapers. A few nights ago I told the House what my knowledge was of this matter. I said it was alleged that a considerable body of these men had broken their oaths. I said that it will be the business of the Administration to ascertain whether these men have broken their oaths or not. It is not the business of any Administration to assume that men have broken their oaths. The hon. and gallant Member for Enfield declares that he does not know, and the, hon. Member for East Mayo declares that he does know, the facts with regard to the Ancient Order of Hibernians. This body has been entirely reconstituted in recent years, and I have said I will not believe that a body of Irishmen, whose conduct has been generally excellent, could be deliberately guilty of a breach of their oath, and that I must be satisfied these men have broken their oath before I conclude in my own mind that they have. More particularly so when it is always present to my mind that the Statute which constituted this body put me at their head, and consequently the members of this force are entitled to expect that I will have some little regard for their honour and not assume lightly that they have committed such a scandalous offence as a breach of their oath. If the course which the hon. Member for East Mayo has indicated is followed, there will be no need for that investigation. During the years in which the hon. Member for East Mayo and I have sat in this House I have not) found myself in agreement with him on many occasions, but we are in agreement here. The hon. Member said frankly, and I think courageously, that a member of the Dublin Metropolitan Force ought not to belong to associations which may affect his discipline. That is the proposition which I lay down in this matter, and I extend it to all bye associations. I may say, with regard to the Dublin Metropolitan Police, that I am not anxious to find that they have committed

503
either breaches of discipline or infringements of an obligation more solemn than discipline, but if I find that they have and that it is persisted in I shall not shrink from any duty which my position imposes upon me. I have, however, to be satisfied first. That is all I need say with regard to the questions: what is the Ancient Order of Hibernians; who is said to have joined it; has he joined it; and does he when his attention is called to the matter persist in his membership? When the facts are clear, the course of duty for the man who is charged with discipline in that force will also be clear, and I can tell the hon. Member for Enfield that if I am minded to shrink from that duty I shall take care that some man who is not succeeds me.
There have been breaches of discipline or acts of indiscipline. I said so. I deplore them. It has been to me a most painful business. There have been acts of indiscipline which it seemed to the very experienced Chief Commissioner ought to be dealt with in a particular manner. I am going a little further. There has been a defiance of authority in another matter which has led me to the conclusion that the Chief Commissioner should deal again with the question of discipline. The Chief Commissioner will do his duty in that matter, and the Chief Secretary will endeavour to do his duty. But assuming that, just see what is proposed. Here is a force of upwards of 1,000 men who have done police duty and done it creditably and well for a very long time. There are breaches of discipline which I believe are of a transitory nature and which I also believe will entirely pass away if the situation is dealt with moderately and reasonably and not in the provocative way which is pressed upon me from some quarters. On those breaches of discipline the hon. Member comes and says, "The Dublin Metropolitan Police are in a disturbed condition. Let us improve the situation by refusing to all of them, refusing to the whole one thousand, eleven hundred or twelve hundred, an increase of pay which the Chief Secretary has declared on his responsibility in this House is due to them as a matter of justice." My hon. Friend thinks that would help police discipline! He likened police discipline in Dublin to military discipline, and suggested that if they had been soldiers and had done certain things they would not have been in a trench but under it. My hon. Friend's cheerful suggestion is a sort of incitement
504
to me to go even further than the powers-of the head of a police force would induce me to go. Take them at 1,100 men, take them at 1,000 men, half of them married men with families living in Dublin, anxious, so far as I know, chiefly to do, their duty and to earn wages on which they can live; take the single men anxious-to earn money, and the greater part of them anxious to save a little so that they may get married; take it that among them are some who are insubordinate. The course which the hon. Member recommends to me is a course which, I believe, would probably result in giving me not a few rafractory spirits who had been misled into acts of indiscipline, but a compact body of men who would say, "You have stood up in the House of Commons and pressed upon it as a measure of justice that we should have an increase in our pay. There have been newspaper reports of widespread indiscipline and undoubted acts of individual indiscipline, and so you are going to inflict summary punishment upon the whole of us and deny justice to us en bloc." Those are not my notions as to the proper mode of carrying on government.
I want the men of the Dublin Metropolitan Police to understand fully what the position is at the present time and what are the risks. The risk on the part of the public is that a body of men would run away from their discipline and would have to be displaced. If they were not a disciplined force, if they had ceased to be police and had become a body of refractory persons, then a plain duty would fall upon the man who was charged with the administration. That does not arise, and I do not fear that it is going to arise unless the Dublin police are egged on and incited and provoked to something which I do not conceive that they have ever entertained. That situation is not going to arise. What is the next thing? It may be that there will be isolated acts of insubordination. If you get isolated acts of insubordination in a disciplined force and they are not repented of and no amend is made, there must be punishment for indiscipline, and no man of sense, whether he sits in this House, in any quarter of it, or whether he is a citizen of Dublin, or a man engaged in administration, or whether he is a member of the-police force, can doubt that if there is persistent disobedience and refusal to discipline in a disciplined force there must be punishment. I want that to be clearly

505
understood. I still have confidence that the men of the Dublin Metropolitan Police will remember their old traditions and their duty, and, if they are let alone, I am sure that they desire to do their duty. Taking that to be so, the road will be easy for every man who has not committed an offence for which it is impossible not to punish him to get on comfortably and well in the situation in which he has chosen to embark.
I desire the well-being of the Metropolitan Police. I desire it because by Statute I am at the head of that force; I desire it in the interests of Dublin; and I desire it for the common credit of the nation where it has been supposed we can govern ourselves without recourse to those means of violence and those recondite measures which are pressed upon one by irresponsible people. In the proposals here I have endeavoured to do justice to the Metropolitan Police. If I have failed, it has not been for want of intent. I believe that the police desire no more than that they should receive justice. I expect that they will yield to those to whom they owe allegiance that allegiance they owe, and in that confidence I ask the House to reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Enfield, and to put it in the power of the administration to deal justly with the Dublin Police Force, so that if recourse has to be made to acts of discipline they will feel, at any rate, that the hand of discipline is not the hand of injustice.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: This is not an entirely Irish question, because, peculiarly enough, there is at this moment a similar dispute in this country arising out of the decision of certain policemen to join a trade union, which they have done, and which has compelled the authorities to take action against them. The House generally will appreciate the spirit in which the Chief Secretary has approached this question. If I were to quarrel with anything that he said, it would be his reference to irresponsible persons, because I take that reference to be to the Gentleman who has the honour of representing my Constituency, Enfield. But I want to say to the hon. Member for Enfield one or two things. First, he had better stop, and I think the House ought to stop, talking about either driving men into the trenches or shooting them immediately you have a grievance against them, because people in the country and working men are beginning to ask, when so much is
506
being said about the trenches, how it is that a man can be a major in khaki one day and in plain clothes the next.
Major NEWMAN: As this is about the second time in this Debate that the same charge has been made against me—of course, it is a charge of cowardice which the hon. Member makes against me—may I explain that at this time last year I was out in France. I was in the trenches about ten days afterwards, and I stayed in the trenches till the second week in January, when I came home with rheumatism. I have not been allowed to go out since, and I am at present on light duty, doing recruiting in Whitehall without pay.
Mr. DEVLIN: And attacking your own countrymen here.
Major NEWMAN: I may or may not be attacking my own countrymen here, but I want to put it to the House that these perpetual charges of cowardice—that is what it is—which are being made against me are rather unfair. After all, the hon. Member for West Belfast is a younger man than I am. I am forty-six, and he is younger than that.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. J. W. Wilson): The hon. Member was permitted to rise to make a personal explanation, but not to proceed to make a personal attack—especially in an interlude.
Mr. THOMAS: I never said anything about cowardice. What is the explanation of the hon. Member? It is that there is a reason for his absence from the trenches. If he is entiled to say that, we must accept his reason without knowing it before, are we not entitled to say to him, "What reason have you got to accuse other people of cowardice until you know their side of the case as well?" The answer to him, therefore, is that nothing is so calculated to cause irritation and ill-feeling as the mere statement, made in this House whenever working men revolt against something, that they are to be treated as a lot of children and either whipped or driven into the Army. This question affects the real principle of citizenship. On two occasions, once about nine months ago, the men on the Southwestern Railway who are employed as policemen, and who take precisely the same oath that has been read out—in every sense policemen, with all the powers of the ordinary Metropolitan Police—decided to join a trade union. The

507
railway company, which was nominally their employer, said, "You have broken your oath by this action." They said, "We cannot permit you to join a trade union, when by being a member of that union you may be called upon to break the oath of allegiance which you have taken." But even the railway company did not take the drastic remedy pre-posed by the hon. Member for Enfield. They did not say, "We will dismiss you," but what they said was, "We will give you an opportunity of either leaving your union or sticking to it, in which event we will give you a job equivalent in pay and everything else." On the other hand, I joined issue with my own men on this question, because I do not think it is a good or right thing to have people who are in the position of policemen in a trade union or associations with large masses of men where they are bound by the very nature of things to come in conflict with the authorities. Although the bulk of the men want to be in the union, I took a stand immediately and said, having regard to the discipline required and to the fact that you are compelled to take an oath, and that you have either got to be loyal to the union or to break the oath, no man ought to be allowed to be put into that position. That is the stand I took then against my own men, and I stand to that position to-day. You cannot expect either the employer to put a man in that position normally and you cannot expect the State to encourage him in that position; but the question cannot stop there. If you deny to policemen or others the ordinary rights of combination and opportunities to improve their position, then you must of necessity provide means for redressing those men's grievances. In the case I have mentioned it was notorious that the men were driven to that step because there were no means of redressing their grievances, and advantage was taken of the fact that they were unorganised and could have no support. Therefore, I put it to the Chief Secretary that, in considering this question, it is essential to keep in mind that if men of this position have grievances and complaints there must of necessity be some avenue open whereby those grievances and complaints can be remedied.
On the other hand, you have no right to say to a constable, private or sergeant, you shall be denied associations in certain directions, if you are going to allow the head of the police to have similar associa-
508
tions—in other words, if it is right in the interests of law and order and for the good of the community to lay down the rule that a constable shall not be a member of a society, no matter what that society is for the moment, then you have got to apply that rule rigidly at the top of the tree as well as the bottom. If you do not, then you cannot blame the men for following the example of others, and you are on the high road to break the very discipline which is necessary. I rose to put this point because it is not purely an Irish point. It is an English point as well. It is felt in London, and in this country, but I do appreciate what the hon. Member for Mayo has said that in a matter of this kind it would be far better for the men to be free in every sense from associations, and the only way to keep them free is to give them real and legitimate opportunities of remedying any grievances they may have and of improving their position. If the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Enfield is followed in that direction lies disaster. It is a cruel thing-to anyone who knows about Ireland and the state of things and feeling that exists there to see men goaded practically to do the wrong thing. It is an easy matter in a great dispute for someone to say to the men do not do so-and-so, stop out or go on strike. But the people who are entrusted with responsibility have got to-look all round a question before they take that course. We find seething discontent in Ireland to-day, and anyone who has been there knows it exists, and we have the impression created by the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield. After all the people in Ireland do not know him so well as we do. There would be no harm or danger or difficulty if the full measure of the situation was understood, but unfortunately it is not understood. Because it is not understood it will be more desirable in the interests of Ireland and of this country that friction and irritation should be avoided, instead of aggravated in the manner suggested by a step like that which has just been put forward.
Mr. DEVLIN: There is an Amendment on the Paper which deals with the question we have just been discussing, and the Chief Secretary has not told the House whether it is his intention to accept that Amendment.
Mr. DUKE: Which Amendment does the hon. Gentleman refer to?
Mr. DEVLIN: It is in the name of the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin (Mr. Nugent), and its purpose is to alter the oath which the police now have to take.
Mr. DUKE: I said when the Bill was before us on Second Reading that I saw no answer to the objection there was to retaining this exception in favour of the Order of Freemasons in the oath, and that I proposed to take the necessary steps in accordance with that view. It is difficult to say what I will do on a particular Amendment, because it is not quite so simple as to enable me to say yes or no with regard to the particular Amendment, but, of course, I propose to make the change.
Mr. DEVLIN: A great deal of the time of the House, and the time perhaps that ought to be occupied with other matters contained in this Bill, has already been taken up in the discussion of this question, and I wanted, as far as possible, to avoid the repetition of the discussion, therefore I am very glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman, in pursuance of the promise which he gave when the Bill was before the House on the Second Reading, proposes to accept the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend. I desire to make one or two observations in reply to the hon. Member for Enfield (Major Newman). He stated that I, with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Thomas), charged him with cowardice. I desire to say that I did nothing of the sort, and I want it to be understood that I do not in the slightest degree feel that I was entitled to charge him with anything of the sort. The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension if he thinks that in anything I said that I charged him with cowardice. I had no such intention in my mind, but I want to point out this: The hon. Gentleman states that, for reasons of infirmity, he has been compelled to come back here from the front where, I understood, he spent ten days.
Major NEWMAN: Three months.
Mr. DEVLIN: Undoubtedly the hon. Gentleman has manifested activities, intellectual and physical, in this House which certainly do not indicate that he is in a very infirm mood. He has come here day after day in khaki, and he has put questions on the Paper making reflections upon leaders, organisations, and
510
causes, and many things that affect Ireland and her welfare, and then, when he stands up in the House when a claim is made for justice for a body of public-servants like the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and when he says that the proper place for them is not in Dublin but in the trenches, am I not entitled to put to-him a tu quogue and ask him why he is-not there himself, because these other men, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, were prepared to go if the Government will allow them to do so. But I may point out to the House that the hon. Gentleman represents perhaps one of the most reactionary elements in Europe. He represents the South of Ireland landlords. I myself have the greatest admiration for the straightness and courage of the Ulster Orangemen, but I have nothing, but contempt for the Southern Unionists. He is a gentleman who lives upon the toleration and good will of his Catholic fellow-countrymen, and then avails of his-position as an English Member of Parliament in this House to use every opportunity at his command and every incident for the purpose of misrepresenting the people who treat him kindly and tolerantly in Ireland.
As long as the Irish police were instruments of tyranny they- were the most-superb and heroic body of men in the world, but when they are endeavouring to work in a spirit of sympathy, as they have been in the Dublin Metropolitan. Force, and to regard the people as their friends and their comrades and fellow citizens, and not as slaves and creatures whom they can trample upon, then the hon. Gentleman comes here and says that their action is illegitimate. I think no-means is illegitimate for men who feel that they are badly used, and badly paid, and badly treated, and no method is so which is not revolutionary in their judgment which is used in order to extract the concessions which justice demands. The moment they do that the solution of the problem from this South of Ireland representative of an English Tory constituency is to refuse to this force the justice which even the Chief Secretary for Ireland believes should be conceded to them, though I. must confess I think even yet the demands of the Dublin Metropolitan Police have not been conceded as adequately as they ought to have been. I am very glad this discussion has been raised. It was not raised by us. An

511
issue has been raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, and we are glad it has been raised. We have never claimed for Catholic constables in Ireland, nor for Catholics in any branch of activity, rights or privileges which ought not to be given to those of every religious persuasion. It may be some information to the House to learn that this is the first time I ever heard of this oath. If the Dublin Metropolitan Police have done no greater service than the service of bringing attention to bear upon what I regard as a most anomalous condition of things, they have rendered a great service indeed. Let all policemen in Ireland stand upon the basis of a common equality. Let them either join the Hibernians or any other society they like, and let them join the Freemasons or any other society they like, but if the principle which the hon. Member opposite has laid down as a leader of the Labour cause, a still more acceptable principle, is to be the principle that operates as to men in great disciplined forces charged with the custody of the preservation of public authority and law, and if those men are not to have any connection or affiliation direct or indirect with associations, then I say let that be a common principle equally applicable to all men in the force.
Mr. NUGENT: I see no harm in my intervening in the Debate, because I have been indirectly referred to by more than one speaker. During the Second Reading of this Bill the Chief Secretary made a number of statements to which I intended to reply at the time, but I thought I had better wait until we saw what developments took place. The right hon. Gentleman's statements were inaccurate. His first statement was that somebody unnamed, in order to get an increase for the Dublin Metropolitan Police, had succeeded in seducing them into disorder. That statement is absolutely inaccurate. If there is any disorder among the Dublin Metropolitan Police, the Chief Secretary himself is responsible. This has been going on for months. Every effort was made to elicit some information from the Chief Secretary. I myself wrote an appeal to him asking that when he was considering this question that he should receive a deputation from the men. That would have necessitated no organisation, no meetings, no anything. What was the reply? It was that if the Chief Secretary con-
512
sidered it desirable, if the constables approached their officers and if their officers agreed, then he would receive a deputation. I pointed out to him the ridiculousness of the position, and that if he considered it desirable that he should communicate it to the constables. How were the men to know otherwise? It would have saved the Chief Secretary and others considerable trouble if he had adopted that course. If men have grievances the best way to remedy them—it may not be the way of Dublin Castle—is the way any business would be transacted, namely, ascertain what the grievances are.
Another statement was made by the Chief Secretary as to the holdings of meetings. Meetings were held during the last two months, at first in the Forresters' Hall, but subsequently the Commissioner of Police advised the men to hold their meetings in Capel Street police station. They were held there, and not the slightest indication was given to the men that they would receive any attention, but dark hints were thrown out by officers that the men who put forward these grievances would be victimised. Who were the men selected? The men who organised the meetings in Capel Street Police Station with the authority and permission of the Chief Commissioner. Again, we were told by the Chief Secretary that no man who took part in the famous Howth proceedings would be penalised. That, however, has happened. The very man who has been penalised was one of those who got up a memorial on behalf of the two men dismissed appealing for their reinstatement. Because he got up that memorial the officers threatened that he would be dealt with. I tell the Chief Secretary—I know the Metropolitan Police, and am probably more intimate with them than anybody else—that they have not the slightest grievance or resentment against the Chief Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner or against the main body of officers, but they take objection to the fact that it is permissible for a certain lady to go to these men inviting them to attend prayer meetings and try to seduce Roman Catholic constables to attend Merrion Hall and another hall, and that those who go have the advocacy of this particular lady for their promotion. That promotion was not given for merit. The original rule was that there should be an examination, but the examination was dropped and this other was substituted.

513
As regards the hon. and gallant Member representing Enfield (Major Newman), so far as I am concerned, I only regret that he was ever born in Ireland. It is a great pity that we have such things produced in Ireland.
Major NEWMAN: It is a most distressful country.
Mr. NUGENT: It is unquestionably distressful that we should have to witness one who claims that he was born there never ceasing in his attacks upon the land that had the misfortune to give him birth. I have listened to the suggestion made not by one speaker, but by all, that this antiquated rule which prohibits men from joining any secret society other than the Freemasons should be wiped out of existence. I am glad that that is now recognised. I agree that men should not belong to any secret society—Catholic, Protestant, or anything else—which, as the Chief Secretary said, should cross or interfere with the discharge of their public duties. But how is this to apply? Did the Chief Secretary interfere when the district inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary called meetings in Lurgan to invite constables, sergeants, and officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary to sign the covenant and to cooperate with the Unionist party in Ulster? That gentleman was not interfered with. When the district inspector of Lurgan called the meeting and when one of the constables in order to indicate the spirit of revolt was among them raised a flag over his own house, it nearly provoked a riot. It is a terrible objection to a man that he should be a member of an organisation of Catholics, but it is no objection when he signs the covenant or joins the Freemasons' organisation. There is no objection to their attending meetings in Merrion Hall, and there is no objection to attending Miss Price's parties once a week in order to report progress. Let me say to the Chief Secretary that so far as the Metropolitan Police are concerned he is quite right in saying that they are a perfectly loyal body of men and have not broken the rule. The hon. Member for Enfield is extremely anxious to know whether they will join the Hibernian Society. Time will tell. We must await developments. It will be quite time enough to answer that question later on.
This action of the Metropolitan Police has served more than one good purpose, because it has compelled hon. Gentlemen
514
above the Gangway to at once admit that the statements made regarding the Hibernian Society are absolutely false, and that this bogey of the Hibernian Society and the Hibernian oath, which was used all over the country for political purposes, is false. The hon. Gentleman now admits that the Masonic organisation is a perfectly secret society, from which Catholics are excluded by their religion. In the City of Dublin more than 80 per cent. of the people are Catholic, and in theDublin Metropolitan Police more than 80 per cent. of the men are Catholic. They are informed that they can join the Masonic organisation and have its influence to secure promotion, but that if they join a Catholic organisation, or the Hibernian Society, it is an entirely different thing. The Ancient Order of Hibernians is not a political society and is not a secret society. It is a society registered under the Friendly Societies Act, its books are open for inspection to every member of the society, its returns are made to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, it is approved under the Insurance Act as one of those societies which are to administer it. I can say here without fear of contradiction that there is no society in Great Britain that has been able to conduct its business better. We are told that because the men are alleged to have joined the Hibernian Association they have broken their oath. It would have been far better if there was less disposition shown to penalise the five or six men who are regarded with complete confidence by not 200, 300, or 500, but by the entire Metropolitan Police Force. It may suit the convenience of hon. Gentlemen to suggest the dismissal of 100, 200, or 500 men, but those who have any interest in the City of Dublin or in the country will recognise that there is a limit to human endurance, and that if there is to be any penalising of these men there will be more trouble than either the hon. Member for Enfield or the Chief Secretary himself imagine.
7.0 P.M.
During the discussion reference was made to making responsible the person who is supposed to have seduced these constables. In all humility I may claim to be the person responsible for anything that has taken place. We Irish politicians do not enter politics for amusement or remunerative employment. We enter them knowing the risks and we never shirk from accepting the responsibilities and paying the

515
penalties whatever they may be. During the last two weeks in Dublin great efforts were made by the military authorities, and continual statements were made that I would soon be lifted under the Defence of the Realm Act. The right hon. Gentleman can apply that at any time he likes. For any action we take we shall be prepared to accept the responsibility. If it is the desire, as it should be the desire of everybody not only in this House, but connected with the Government of Ireland, to have peace, not only among the police force, but peace in the City of Dublin, it will not do to provoke disorder. No one is more anxious to prevent disorder in the Metropolitan Police Force than I am. I would, therefore, make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. There are too many victims already, and those responsible for the maintenance of discipline would do well to be a little more generous and a little more lenient when they recognise that these men are suffering under an intolerable grievance and burden, and that the whole crime with which they are charged is that of attending one meeting with regard to which a statement was published in the Press, and, when the arrangements were made for the meeting, instructions were issued that they should not attend a meeting that evening. That is the offence. The offence against the man who was dismissed was that he stood outside the steps of the hall, and met constables coming in in plain clothes, and when they are off duty it is understood they can go where they like, so long as they do not go outside the metropolitan area. That is a generally recognised principle. The only remark made in the charge-sheet was that he good-humouredly remarked to the officers who were standing outside, "Boys, we have got a guard of honour to-night." It was an awful crime. The Chief Secretary can penalise these men. He can have this man dismissed. It would be far better in the interests of good government, in the interests of the City and Metropolitan police, and in the interests of the peace of the city to be generous in this critical period whenever you are introducing a Bill which to some extent will remove some of the grievances under which the men suffer.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left but stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
Mr. BYRNE: I beg to move, at the end of the Sub-section, to add the words,
"save that in the case of married constables not higher in rank than sergeant the rates specified in the Second Schedule of this Act shall be increased by the sum of two shillings."
Having regard to the house rents and food prices in Dublin, I do not think I am, asking too much for the married men of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. After all, since 1882, the Dublin Police have only received an increase of 2s. a week in their salary whilst the London Police have received an increase of 12s. The Dublin police are a Metropolitan body, and the London Police are also a Metropolitan body, and I claim that any advantage or concession given to the London Police should also be given to the Dublin Police.
The CHAIRMAN: I am not familiar with this question. I may take it that the Amendment the hon. Member is now proposing is not covered by the one which was moved at the beginning of the proceedings.
Mr. BYRNE: The Royal Irish Constabulary is a county force, and the other is a Metropolitan force. The two Amendments are practically the same for the two different bodies, and that is one of the reasons why I think the Dublin Police, as a Metropolitan body, have a very good claim for consideration. The cost of living in Dublin is well known to be more than 2s. in advance of that in the country parts of Ireland. For that reason alone, I think the Chief Secretary should try to accept this Amendment.
Mr. FIELD: Surely as such a large amount of money has been given to the police here in London and elsewhere, the Dublin Metropolitan Police are entitled to at least equal treatment. We are told there are equal laws in the three Kingdoms, and we belong to the United Kingdom, and what is good for England is good for Ireland. But when it comes to a question of pay or work or anything of a material character, there is a difference of treatment as between the two countries. I think this is a reasonable Amendment which ought to be immediately accepted by the Chief Secretary.
Mr. DUKE: I must point out what the position is. The married men of over eight years' service will now receive 34s. pay, 3s. lodging allowance, and 3s. 6d. war bonus—a total of 40s. 6d. I hope the

517
Amendment will not be pressed. If it were in my power to meet it, I feel so much impressed with the difference between the position of married men in London and the provinces that I should be glad to do it.
Mr. RAWLINSON: May there not be a way out of the difficulty? The scheme, as I understand it, is that the Corporation of Dublin pays part of these men's wages. There is a limit put upon that by Act of Parliament. Why is there no Clause inserted in the Bill extending the limit? They, as well as the British taxpayer, might pay some part of this rise which I gather from all sides of the House is considered desirable. Surely the city gets the benefit of the valuable services which are being rendered by the force, and when there is a rise in wages they should pay some share of the increase, and there is no doubt Dublin is in no less prosperous a condition owing to the War than it was before.
The CHAIRMAN: I think it does not arise on this Amendment or on the Bill.
Mr. BYRNE: The Dublin police rate is 8d. in the £l—the highest in the United Kingdom. The valuation of Dublin was increased only twelve months ago, and it brings in unasked to the British Treasury £180,000 a year. I do not think I am asking too much when I ask for 2s. for the policeman out of that £180,000 they are getting unasked.
Mr. FIELD: If it is in order to discuss the point that has been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman we can go into the figures. I think there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member (Mr. Hazleton) dealing with this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman really does not understand the subject at all. He does not know what he is talking about. When an hon. Member does not know much about the subject it would be well for him not to talk.
Mr. RAWLINSON: I thought it was a most harmless suggestion when there is a certain amount of difficulty, and even some question of a point of Order whether such an Amendment as this could be raised. When the Chief Secretary thought it desirable that the thing should be done, and it could not be done out of the Treasury, I suggested that possibly the city which was. getting the benefit of the services
518
of these men would be in a position to contribute some small portion. If it is impossible, I should be the last person to press it.
Mr. FLAVIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman shows in the matter of the Metropolitan Police of Dublin the same amount of ignorance, if I might use the phrase, as he always shows in connection with the national sympathies of Ireland. He alleges, quite truly, that the ratepayers of Dublin are paying 8d. in the £1, but why does he not acknowledge at the same time that the ratepayers have no control over the force? It is a purely military force. Why should he ask the ratepayers of Dublin to increase a rate, which is already the very heaviest burden, for a body of men over whom they have no control in any shape or form? I should like to know from the Chief Secretary, when he talks about 3s. a week lodging money allowed to the married men, whether, in the course of his manœuvring in Ireland, he has made any inquiries as to what the actual lodging money paid by the married men is. I would ask him to place himself in the position of a married constable having a wife and five or six children to educate, clothe, and maintain. Five or six children in a family means at least two different sleeping apartments, and a kitchen. That means a rent at the very lowest estimate of 9s. a week, and of 9s. a week which they pay, the Government in their magnanimity allow them 3s. a week, so that in reality you have to make a deduction from the 40s. a week, which he says they are getting, of 6s. a week. The right hon. Gentleman is beginning his career in Ireland, and I hope he will begin it with a strong hand and a clean sheet. He has a long road to travel, and I hope he will travel it with character and determination.
Amendment negatived.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Alteration of Enactments Relating to Pensions and Allowances and Gratuities.)
(1) Section three of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1908, which authorises an increase in the amount of pension that may be granted to the widow of a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary in certain circumstances shall apply in the case of widows of constables of the Dublin

519
Metropolitan Police in like manner as it applies in the case of widows of constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
(2) In calculating the amount of the pension allowance or gratuity that may be granted to a superintendent of inspector of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, or to the widow or children of such superintendent or inspector, any lodging allowance payable to the superintendent or inspector shall be treated as part of his annual pay.
(3) In calculating the amount of the weekly allowance that may be granted under Section one of the Irish Police (Naval and Military Service) Act, 1915, in respect of a married member of the Royal Irish Constabulary or Dublin Metropolitan Police who, being a reservist, has been called but, or, not being a reservist, has joined His Majesty's Naval or Military Forces for the purposes of the present War, the weekly amount which that member was receiving from police funds at the time of his being so called out or joining shall, as from the commencement of this Act, be computed as if the rates of pay authorised by this Act had been in force at that time, and as if any war bonus granted to the police force had then been payable, and the amount of any such weekly allowance may be altered so as to give effect to this provision.
(4) Paragraph (c) of Article 14 of the Second Schedule to the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883, which provides for the calculation of a pension, allowance or gratuity in certain cases on the basis of the average annual amount of pay received by a constable in the course of the three years next before the date of his death or retirement, or the injury or cause occasioning his death or retirement, instead of on the basis of his actual anual pay at that date, shall cease to have effect except where a constable has been promoted to a higher rank within such three years, or where a constable (not being incapacitated by infirmity of body or mind) retires before the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and nineteen.
(5) In the application of Sub-section (2) of Section three of the Act of 1914 to any pension, allowance or gratuity granted after the commencement of this Act, any reference to any Schedule to the Act of 1914 shall be construed as a reference to the corresponding Schedule to this Act, and any reference to the commencement of that Act shall be construed as a refer-
520
ence to the commencement of this Act, but nothing in that Sub-section as so applied shall affect the operation of Section two of the Police (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1915.
Colonel CRAIG: I beg to move to leave the Sub-section,
"(4) Paragraph (c) of Article 14 of the Second Schedule to the Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1883, which provides for the calculation of a pension, allowance or gratuity in certain cases on the basis of the average annual amount of pay received by a constable in the course of the three years next before the date of his death or retirement, or the injury or cause occasioning his death or retirement, instead of on the basis of his actual annual pay at that date, shall cease to have effect."
My hon. Friend (Sir J. Lonsdale) has asked me to put a question to the Chief Secretary. His reason for putting down the Amendment was simply to get from him a statement in order to allay the fears of certain members of the Royal Irish Constabulary with regard to this Subsection. They are not wholly aware of its legal meaning because it is. somewhat complicated, and a statement as to its meaning will save a tremendous amount of correspondence. Perhaps he will explain the reason of the Sub-section in such language that the constables themselves will be able to grasp it readily, and so save a great deal of trouble in the future.
Mr. DUKE: The Amendment is intended to give to the constables in both forces advantages which are already enjoyed by officers in respect of the computation of pension. It does not take away anything the men have got, but it does remove the restrictive effect of the provision in the Act of 1883, which is quoted in the Sub-Section. That provision was to the effect that the pension, allowance, or gratuity in certain cases was to be calculated on the basis of the average annual amount of pay received by a constable in the course of the three years next before the date of his death or retirement, or the injury or cause occasioning his death or retirement, instead of on the basis of his actual annual pay at that date. That provision excluded the actual annual pay. The object of the Amendment is to enable us to take the actual annual pay into account in deciding what the pension shall be.
Colonel CRAIG: In other words, it is a benefit.
Mr. DUKE: It is a benefit and not a disadvantage.
Colonel CRAIG: That is what I wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. O'SHEE: May I point out that the limiting words at the end of the Sub-section from the word "except" take away a good deal from this alleged benefit? Undoubtedly the first part of the Sub-section does give a benefit by providing that the actual annual pay at the time shall be the basis of the pension. And then it goes on to say
"except where a constable has been promoted to a higher rank within such three years, or where a constable…retires before the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen."
I think the Chief Secretary ought to go a little further, and by leaving out that part of the Sub-section extend the benefit that he proposes to confer by the first part of the Sub-section. It would be very welcome if he does that. I think the basis of pension in the Army is the actual pay at the date when the pension accrues. Why a different rule should apply to the Royal Irish Constabulary I do not understand. I think the Chief Secretary ought to leave out these limiting words.
The CHAIRMAN: There is an Amendment next following which deals with that point.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. HAZLETON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the words,
"except where a constable has been promoted to a higher rank within such three years, or where a constable (not being incapacitated by infirmity of body or mind) retires before the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and nineteen."
The object of this Amendment is to alter the basis of calculation of pensions of constables. The present basis was laid down in the Act of 1883, and it takes into consideration the average rate of pay of the three years immediately preceding the date of their retirement. During those three years they may have received an increase of pay; they may have received promotion in rank, but their pension is calculated not upon the
522
basis of the higher rate of pay that they may possess at the date of their retirement, but of the rate of pay for the preceding three years, which may have been considerably lower. I would suggest in all earnestness on this Amendment that the Chief Secretary would consider the point I am putting. The allowances in connection with the higher officers of the two forces are pensionable. The allowances of the men are not pensionable. That is a distinction which we have tried to get the right hon. Gentleman to remove, but we have failed. I think he might very well take the fact into consideration that these allowances of the men are not taken into account when arriving at the amount of their pensions. The practice is a very old one, and there is no reason why it should be continued at the present time. If these men have earned promotion, and they have received an increase of pay, it is presumed under the law that they have deserved it. If they have deserved and earned an increase of pay, they might fairly be considered to have earned a pension based upon that increase of pay. If the Chief Secretary would bear in mind what is, I understand, the prevailing practice in connection with the Army or the Navy he would find a very good precedent for the course suggested in my Amendment. Take the case of a man who may be a captain in the Army or who may have an equivalent rank in the Navy. If he is promoted to major and in three months time he has got to retire, his pension, so far as I understand the position, is not the pension of a captain, but the pension of a major. Why you should go back over the rate of pay of the last three years in the case of these police constables in the Irish forces I fail entirely to see. Since the right hon. Gentleman will not make the concession we have pressed upon him in connection with taking the allowances of the men into calculation when settling the amount of their pensions, at least he ought to make this concession which I now propose, and by so doing remedy to some extent the injustice which is being done by his failure to persuade the Treasury to concede the other demand.
Mr. FIELD: I beg to second this Amendment. It only proves what I have said before in regard to these money payments. Surely, if this thing is done in England, we have a right to similar treatment in Ireland!
Mr. DUKE: The effect of the Amendment would be to induce an able-bodied man, who had received promotion and increased pay, to retire on pension earlier than he would otherwise do in order that he might reap the advantage which the Bill confers. He might reach the fixed age next week or next month and forthwith retire on the pension appropriate to that age. That does not seem reasonable. The matter has been considered, and those who advise me take the view that the mode in which this matter is dealt with here is at least as favourable as the mode which usually governs pensions, as indicated in the Superannuation Act. The change would be detrimental to the force. It would put a premium upon the retirement of able-bodied officers immediately they reached the higher grade of pay. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Sir J. LONSDALE:

NEW SUB-SECTION (Calculation of Pension.)
"(5) For the purpose of calculating the amount of any pension which may be granted to any head or other constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary or the Dublin Metropolitan Police, from the date of the passing of this Act 'annual pay' shall include five pounds four shillings per annum for each married man or widower with a family."
Colonel CRAIG: I do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh (Sir J. Lonsdale), but I have a manuscript Amendment which will come later. I think what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman is quite appreciated in regard to the effect of Sub-section (4). It does substantially help in fixing the pensions higher than they would have been under the old scheme. I think hon. Members on all sides of the Committee recognise that it is an advantage. But I would ask whether it would be possible to make that Sub section also applicable as regards Section 12 of 4 and 5 William IV., Chapter 24. On the Financial Resolution I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would turn up that Section and endeavour to make this Sub-section cover the case of officers as well as the case of men. In this Sub-section (4) he has undoubtedly removed one of the hardships.
Mr. DUKE: As I am advised, the benefit which is given by this Sub-section to the constables is a benefit already enjoyed by officers.
Colonel CRAIG: I think if the right hon. Gentleman would turn up the Statute, as I did before coming here to-day, he would find that the officers have their pensions when they retire calculated not on the rank which they have reached but calculated upon the average pay of the three years preceding the period on which they retire. I think he will find that that is the case. I have just refreshed my memory by going into the Library and turning up this Section. If he would recall to mind the fact that on the occasion of the Financial Resolution I made a special appeal to him to turn up that Act, which relates to the retiring pensions of the officers, and I said that he would find they are in the same position as the men were before he inserted into this Bill Sub-section (4) of Clause 2. My Amendment will be on the Paper for the Report stage, and, if my right hon. Friend is kind enough to go into the matter, and it does not harmonise with his statement, perhaps he will allow it to be dealt with on the Report stage.
The CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member doe3 not move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh?
Colonel CRAIG: No.
Mr. P. MEEHAN Mr. P. MEEHAN rose—
The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment has not been moved.
Mr. MEEHAN: Am I not entitled to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh? I intended putting a similar Amendment on the Paper.
The CHAIRMAN: Yes. I thought the hon. Member was trying to pursue the other question.
Mr. MEEHAN: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh—new Subsection (Calculation of Pension.)
The effect of the Amendment is that when a constable or a sergeant retires on pension his lodging allowance of 2s. a week will be taken into account when the amount of his pension is being calculated.

525
At present it is not taken into consideration, although in the higher ranks the allowance granted to the officers are taken into consideration when the amount of pension is being calculated, unless the lodging allowance is more than one-sixth of his total salary and emoluments. The effect of the Amendment is to put every officer in the force under the rank of head constable on an equal footing with his superior officers. I think it is a very reasonable Amendment, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will accept it
Mr. O'SHEE: I support my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is quite unfair that the county inspectors and district inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary should have their pensions calculated not merely on their pay, but on the allowances added to the pay, while the constables, head constables, and sergeants should have the pensions calculated on the pay only. The rule should be the other way. If there is to be any distinction between the officers and the men, it ought to be in favour of the men, and not of the well-paid officers. It has been stated that a first-class district inspector has three allowances in addition to his pay—£40, £45, and £50, making a total of £135—which is added to his pay of £275. The allowances for constables and sergeants are on a very meagre scale. The lodging allowance is only 2s. a week, or £5 4s. a year. The only other allowances are for clothing and boots. I do not know the allowance for clothing. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Craig) informs me that £l 6s. is the amount of the allowance for boots. It is contrary to fair play that these men, who are not paid a high salary, when they retire should not have their pensions calculated on their allowance as well as on their pay, as has been the rule for the higher officers. If this is a Treasury matter, I should prefer personally that the Treasury would alter the basis of the officers by excluding the allowances when pensions are being considered, in order that, if the money is not available all round, they may put the men on a fairer basis in calculating the pensions.
Mr. BOYLE: I appeal to the Chief-secretary to accept this Amendment. The present position I consider a mean evasion of the responsibility of paying the full pension on the wages which the constable earns. This scheme has been in operation for some years. It was devised largely by
526
police officials, in order to keep down the expenditure of the authorities when increases had to be given to the police in recent years owing to increased prices of food and other things. To the credit of most of the English authorities, they have abolished this arrangement and made the allowances pensionable. I am connected with a police authority in England, and I know that since the War commenced the allowance that was made has become pensionable. I appeal to the Chief Secretary to follow their example in this matter. It is a very small matter, but it is a source of continual irritation, and from the time it was introduced until it was abolished, in the case of the police authority with which I am connected, we had continual requests from the police that the allowances should become a portion of their pensionable pay. This is not a matter on which, as some Gentlemen said a short time ago, we are appealing for anything from British taxes. We are asking that this should be paid out of our own taxes. The taxes of Ireland show a very considerable balance, out of which this reasonable allowance can be paid. Surely the sympathy which the Chief Secretary has shown will not fail him at this moment. I hope that he will not resort to the device of saying that he is anxious to do something but cannot, because he is in a position of great power. Local authorities in England, who have to pay a very large proportion of the police pension to have the privilege of control, have seen fit to do this, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, who is custodian for the time being of the Irish public purse in this matter, will not refuse this small amount to the policeman.
Colonel CRAIG: My hon. Friend (Sir J. Lonsdale) did not call my attention to this Amendment before he left the House. He only asked me to move another one, and I did not move this one simply because I had not time to look at the Paper and I did not see it. But I associate myself most heartily with what my hon. Friend has said on this Amendment. All parties are agreed as to this Bill and are, allowing the right hon. Gentleman to get it without very much debate, and I hope that he will concede this small sum for the benefit of those under the rank of head constables. If he does so, the elasticity permitted by the Treasury will not be abused, because, so far, none of the Amendments which have been put down have cost the Treasury

527
a shilling. Later on there is something about the Masonic Order, but there is nothing more that will cast any burden on the Treasury. This matter is one which is beyond discussion, so far as the merits are concerned. In every other force the amount which is given to married men for lodging money, which is here £5 4s. a year, is taken into account in calculating the pension. The other allowances which were referred to, £l 6s. for boots, 3s. for straw, and 6s. for the upkeep of the arms, are not asked for, and this small amount is asked for by all parties, so that perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to give way and accept this Amendment.
Mr. HAZLETON: I join in the appeal made to the Chief Secretary in this matter. The amount involved is very small, but it is not altogether a question of money, because the men do feel the distinction which is made between the officers and themselves. They have a sense of grievance which would be removed by this small concession. This is one of the chief reasons why I urge the Amendment upon the right hon. Gentleman. I trust that he will not say, in connection with this Amendment, as he did in connection with the one I moved a short time ago, that this small increase in pension would be an inducement to able-bodied men to retire sooner than they otherwise would do, because the amount is so small that it would have no effect whatever in that direction, and it would be only doing what all parties are agreed would be an act of justice to the men.
Colonel YATE: I support what has been said by my hon. Friends regarding this Amendment. I think that it is a very reasonable one. But as an outsider, in considering the matter, I do not think it would be right, as has been suggested, that the officers should be robbed to pay pensions to the men. Whatever is done, I trust that the officers will be allowed to continue to have their allowances calculated, and will not be curtailed in order to pay extra pensions to the men. I hope that these will be granted on their merits. I have been listening to this Debate with some interest. It seems to me that the officers and men of the force are suffering considerably under existing regulations. For instance, men who are promoted cannot retire with full pension until they have served three years from the date of their promotion. That struck me as being very
528
hard. A man ought to be able to retire on the pension calculated on the pay which he is enjoying when he retires. It is very hard to require such a long interval to elapse before he can retire on full pension. With regard to the matter under discussion, I trust that this concession will be made, but without any detriment to the pensions which are already given to officers.
Mr. FIELD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken is under a misapprehension. There was no suggestion from any of my colleagues to the effect that the pensions of the officers should be reduced. The suggestion which we made was that the men should be placed in the same position as the officers. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accede to this because we do not desire to go to a Division on this point. But I am afraid that if we receive the same kind of non possumus answer as we have received all along we shall be obliged to take a Division.
Mr. DUKE: I must remind the Committee that these scales have been carefully calculated, and there is not that ground for comparison which has been suggested in the respective conditions of the officers and men with regard to these allowances. The officer in the Royal Irish Constabulary enters on a certain scale of pay and allowances, and a certain proportion of the allowances is pensionable. That is general with regard to all. It is the normal state of the officers as a body. The position with regard to the rank and file is entirely different. A married man may get a lodging allowance, but all this has been taken into account by the committee which has considered the matter with a great deal of care and which took advice in 1914. This Committee took the view that this was a change which could not be recommended. It would put the married policeman in a different position with regard to pensions from the single policeman.
Colonel CRAIG: In abetter position.
Mr. DUKE: It may be that the sympathy of the Committee for the married state is such as to recommend this course to its acceptance. Those who have considered these matters from that standpoint have impressed their views upon me, and although it may seem ungracious to refuse an Amendment presented and supported by the persuasiveness of every

529
variety of representative of Ireland, I must give the same answer—that I cannot consent to the Amendment.
Mr. P. MEEHAN: The right hon. Gentleman has given no reason or argument in answer to those which have been put forward in support of the Amendment. Although the amount of money is very small, the principle

Division No. 64.]

AYES.

[7.50 p.m.

Anderson, W. C.

Hackett, John

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Hazleton, Richard

O'Donnell, Thomas

Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

Hudson, Walter

O'Dowd, John

Brady, Patrick Joseph

Jowett, Frederick William

O'Grady, James

Byrne, Alfred

Joyce, Michael

O'Mallsy, William

Clancy, John Joseph

Keating, Matthew

O'Shee, James John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Kelly, Edward

Reddy, Michael

Cosgrave, James

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

Crumley, Patrick

Lardner, James C. R.

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

Sheeny, David

Devlin, Joseph

Lynch, Arthur Alfred

Sherwell, Arthur James

Dillon, John

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

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Donelan, Captain A.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

Donovan, John Thomas

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

Thomas, J. H.

Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.

Molloy, Michael

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Duffy, William J.

Morrell, Philip

Whitty, Patrick Joseph

Farrell, James Patrick

Muldoon, John

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Field, William

Newman, John R. P.

Yate, Colonel Charles Edward

Fitzgibbon, John

Nolan, Joseph

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nugent, J. D. (College Green)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Patrick Meehan and Colonel Craig.

Goldstone, Frank

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

NOES.

Baird, John Lawrence

France, Gerald Ashburner

Radford, Sir George Heynes

Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

Grettan, John

Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Barnett, Captain R. W.

Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, S.)

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc, E.)

Henry, Sir Charles

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Hewart, Gordon

Robertson, Rt. Hon. John M.

Bird, Alfred

Hewins, William Albert Samuel

Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

Bliss, Joseph

Holmes, Daniel Turner

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

Bridgeman, William Clive

Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Bull, Sir William James

Howard, Hon, Geoffrey

Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

King, Joseph

Shortt, Edward

Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Alisebrook

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Chancellor, Henry George)

Mallalieu, Frederick William

Toulmin, sir George

Coats, Sir Stuart A. (Wimbledon)

Marks, Sir George Croydon

Weston, J. W.

Cory, Sir Clifford John

Marshall, Arthur Harold

Whiteley, Herbert James

Cowan, W. H.

Meysey-Thompson, Colonel C. E.

Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Currie, George W.

Neville, Reginald J. N.

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

Denniss, E. R. B.

Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

Duke, Rt. Hon. Henry Edward

Pearce, Sir Robert (Staffs, Leek)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

Peto, Basil Edward

Mr. Gulland and Lord Edmund Talbot.

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Pretyman, Ernest George

Fletcher, John Samuel

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

CLAUSE 3 (Short Title and Commencement) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Repeal.)
The Statutes mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act shall be repealed to the extent mentioned, and in the said Schedule.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
involved is great. There is a difference between the treatment of the men and that of the officers, and we feel that we ought to divide on this Amendment.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 68.
Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That the Clause be read a second time."
Mr. DILLON: I only formally move this Amendment, which is to remove a portion of the old oath. I have moved the Amendment, which is to come after Clause 3, with certain corrections of misprints in the Clause as it appears upon the Paper. Instead of "shall stand repealed," I have put "shall be repealed," and after the word "mentioned" I have inserted the-word "and."
Colonel CRAIG: I have not really had time to consider the question, but as far as I understand it a great many men have joined the Freemasons' Society, and I would like to ascertain whether the effect of this Amendment might not press rather hardly on those who have joined a society which, so far as I understand, he could not leave once having joined it
Mr. DUKE: It is quite true that there are men in the constabulary now who have joined the Order of Freemasons, but I do not at all gather that there is any desire to penalise them, and I understand that the intention is to have a fresh form of oath which has not on the face of it that obvious inequality and that provocative exception with which the Amendment deals. I gather from the hon. Member for East Mayo that I correctly interpret his desire in this respect, and the desire of those who act with him. There is an additional reason for it which I might perhaps mention. When a man has attained commission rank he has to renew his oath with regard to that position, and obviously it would be unjust that a man who has entered the force upon certain conditions should be deprived of the just expectation of promotion because in a different time and in a different temper there was used what now seems an obsolete expression. I shall propose to insert a qualification, when we come to the Schedule, by means of words which provide that the repeal will have effect so far as respects persons who join the respective forces after the commencement of this Act. I must say I am glad to accept the proposal which the hon. Member has made.
Mr. DILLON: I accept the qualification which the right hon. Gentleman has stated, and I only desire to add this one word. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman has been most conciliatory and most fair, and I am very glad to be able to make such a concession, if concession it be. I trust the right. hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in dealing with the present situation in Dublin, will make a new start, opening a new chapter, and adopt a tone of conciliation all round. He will find that it will pay.
Question put. and agreed. Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Pensions of Retired Members of Royal Irish Constabulary.)
In. so far as any provision in this Act alters or increases the pensions payable to
532
any member of the Royal Irish Constabulary not higher in rank than head constable, such alteration shall extend to the pensions of all members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have retired since the first day of January, 1900. as if they had retired after the passing of this Act.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. BYRNE: This Clause deals with the pensions of men who retired instead of waiting—
Mr. DUKE: I must raise a question with regard to this Clause, which proposes to confer certain rights of pension on persons who have ceased to be members of the constabulary. The scheme of this Bill is to deal with men who are now in the force, and if that principle is not regarded it would have a considerable effect from a pecuniary point of view on the operation of this Bill. I venture to ask, therefore, if it is in order in this Bill to deal with those who have passed through the force?
The CHAIRMAN: It is not, and I really called upon the hon. Member to move the second Clause standing in his name.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Age at Which Pay Will Cease.)
No salary or wages shall be payable to any county inspector, district inspector, head constable, sergeant, assistant-sergeant, or constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary, or superintendent, inspector, station-sergeant, sergeant, or constable in the Dublin Metropolitan Police after attaining in any case the age of sixty-five years; but nothing in this Section shall affect the pension rights of any such officers or constables.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
8.0 P.M.
Mr. BYRNE: It is well known to everybody in the House that as matters stand there is no compulsion on the men to retire. But there are certain duties of which men are relieved when they reach a certain age. The men remain in the force, and stand in the way of other men who are waiting for promotion. I may give an instance in the Dublin force, where there are officers at the present moment who, I believe, do not take their turn at night duty on account of the weather, and there-

533
by an injustice is done to other officers who have to undertake an extra part of that duty. These men, I believe, are entitled to their maximum pension, and I suggest that they ought to take it, especially as there are a number of men waiting their turn for promotion. Men who have done long and faithful service in the police force ought in justice to have some opportunities for promotion. As the rule that men should retire at sixty-five is carried out in a number of Government Departments, it should also be extended to the Dublin police, the duties of which force involve bringing men out in all classes of weather, day and night. If men do not take their turn at night duty, then an injustice is done to those who, as a result, have a double share of such duty.
Mr. DUKE: On the general principle underlying the observations of the hon. Member I have nothing to complain, but It seems to me that this question of the age at which a man shall retire is very much a matter of administration not subject to hard and fast statutory rules, and it would, on the whole, so far as this Bill is concerned, not be wise to introduce a statutory provision of this kind. Indeed, I do not know what the effect of it would be. I do know that in a general way we do not desire to keep people engaged in the police force on duties which they are not capable of performing, and the cases to which the hon. Gentleman has called my attention shall certainly be looked into.
Mr. FLAVIN: May I point out, with reference to the right hon. Gentleman's objection to a statutory maximum age of sixty-five years, that the present minimum age for entering into the force is eighteen years and the maximum twenty-five, and if a man joins at the maximum he will at sixty-five have done forty years' active duty. Surely that ought to be sufficient for the average man. He cannot be as capable of doing active duty both day and night for the preservation of peace and the protection of life and property as men of from twenty-five to forty years of age. A man who has put in forty years' active service has done enough, and I therefore have much pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend's proposal. Younger men, more active, and fresher in life, of greater
534
physical development, ought to get opportunities of promotion after a certain period of service, and they should not be debarred by the fact of older men keeping on in the higher positions.
Mr. FIELD: I do think the promotion aspect should be considered by the right hon. Gentleman. There are lots of young men in the force anxious for promotion who are debarred getting it by the present system.
Mr. NUGENT: I should like to point out specially it is well known there are certain men allocated to soft jobs, and these men keep those positions a long time. The Chief Secretary has promised to inquire into the matter, and when he does so he will find that this is one of the chief causes of irritation in the force.
Mr. BOYLE: I do not think men over sixty-five years of age should be kept in the force. There are undoubtedly some men who get soft jobs and remain on them until they are almost carried out. One does not like to apply too hard and fast a rule to these matters, but at the same time they do give rise to a great amount of irritation, for these men by being kept so long on these soft jobs spoil the chances of promotion of other men, and at the same time put upon them a larger amount of the heavier duties than they would otherwise be called upon to do. This is a matter for the serious consideration of those who administer the police. They should keep their eye on these things. Of course the Chief Secretary has to get his information from the man at the head of the force, who, in turn, gets it from his subordinates. I am afraid that the time of the Chief Secretary is too much occupied with other matters for him to know who has got these soft jobs at the various police stations in Dublin. I think sixty-five is an age at which a man might reasonably be expected to go to his own corner, rather than keep a soft corner in the police force.
Mr. HAZLETON: I should like to ask the Chief Secretary who has promised to further consider this matter if he can give us an assurance that provided on inquiry it is found that a rule similar to this obtains in police forces in Great Britain he will introduce it into Ireland. There is

535
no reason why, if it obtains in England it should not be extended to Ireland, and if the right hon. Gentleman will give us that assurance it will go far to meet the case we have put forward.
Mr. DUKE: Having regard to what has been said, especially with regard to the Dublin force, I certainly will make full inquiry into these matters. But I should be very reluctant to introduce into this Bill a provision which might be taken to be directed against some individual persons when the matter could be dealt with by police regulations. The question shall have my attention.
Question put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Municipal Control.)
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. HAZLETON: I desire to move this new Clause which I handed in in manuscript. I do not intend at this stage of the proceedings to press it, however. I want to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the matter, which has been raised to some extent by the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), who has referred to the fact that it would be possible to raise the Police Tax in the City of Dublin. My Amendment, if adopted, would be rather in the other direction. The

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Acts Repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal

6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 13

…

Constabulary (Ireland); Act, 1836

Section 17, from "whatsoever" where it last appears, to "Freemasons."

6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 29

…

The Dublin Police Act, 1836

Section 44, from "whatsoever" where it last appears, to "Freemasons"

Schedule brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. MULDOON: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a second time."
I might suggest that a provision preserving the interests of those who have already joined the society might, perhaps, more conveniently be inserted after the new Clause 4.
Police Tax in the Metropolitan Police? District of Dublin has been a burning grievance for a great many years with the ratepayers and citizens. It is not so much that they complain that there is any difference in treatment as compared with local authorities in this country where-there is acharge for the maintenance of a local police force, but where the difficulty comes in is whereas in Manchester, or any city in this country, the local police forces are under the control of the local authority, in the city of Dublin, neither the City Council nor any of the various urban authorities in the area have one single word of control or any power whatever over the Dublin Metropolitan Police. I urge the Chief Secretary to look into this matter, and to see if there is not some way, either by a special Bill or on further stages of this Bill, of dealing with the anomaly which exists that whereas the citizens of Dublin are called upon to pay this tax, which is the highest one in the whole of the United Kingdom, they have no control over the police.
The CHAIRMAN: I confess I did not understand this manuscript Clause when the hon. Member handed it in, but as he has explained it, it is quite outside the scope of the Bill. We are not dealing with the sources from which the money is obtained; we are dealing only with how it is paid.
Schedules I. and II. agreed to.
New Schedule—
Mr. DUKE: I think the object desired by the hon. Member could be attained by inserting, at the end of the first paragraph in the third column, the words "so far as respects persons who join the Royal Irish Constabulary after the commencement of this Act" and, at the end of the second paragraph in the third column, the words "so far as respects persons who-join the Dublin Metropolitan Police after

537
the commencement of this Act. "I think that that will meet the hon. Member's view. But if he thinks it would be more artistic to do it in a different manner on Report, I dare say we shall not quarrel over that.
Schedule read a second time.
Mr. DUKE: I beg to move, at the end of the first paragraph in the third column, to insert the words "so far as respects persons who join the Royal Irish Constabulary after the commencement of this Act."
Mr. HAZLETON: After the passing of this Act.
Mr. DUKE: It is the same thing. "Commencement" is the technical expression for its coming into operation.
Colonel CRAIG: I want to enter a protest against this proposal in order that it may be recorded that I did so. I do not intend to press my objection further than to say, as a member of the Masonic Order, that I do not think it is necessary that this step should be taken. I see the point of view of hon. Members below the Gangway—that, if there is to be a restriction, so far as joining any of these societies is concerned, there should be no exception whatever. Hitherto the Masonic Order has taken a place entirely by itself. It takes no political part whatever in the life of Ireland, nor, as far as I know, in the life of England. At the same time, I am fully alive to the fact that, as it is a secret society, hon. Members say that if there is to be a rule that men of the Royal Irish Constabulary are not to be permitted to join any secret society, the rule must apply here also, and with this protest I am prepared to waive my objection. I hope, however, that members of the Order, whether inside or outside the House, will not regard it as any slur upon the society. We are in the midst of a great war and we all have to sacrifice something. I have none of my Friends here to support me or even to advise me in this matter. Therefore I simply enter my protest, and, faced with the fact that we want to show a united front wherever we can, and in the interests of the discipline of the force, I withdraw my opposition.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: At the end of the second paragraph, in the third column, insert the words "so far as respects persons who join the Metropolitan Police after the commencement of this Act."—[Mr. Duke.]
Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.

OUTPUT OF BEER (RESTRICTION— No. 2) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Special Provisions as Respects Closed Breweries.)
Where the year ending the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and fourteen is adopted by a brewer under the proviso to Section two of the principal Act for the purpose of computing standard barrelage, and the brewer proves to the Commissioners that during or since the year so adopted the brewer has closed any brewery at which beer was brewed during that year either by the brewer himself or by any person then in possession of the brewery, and that the brewery was so closed as part of the private brewing arrangements of the brewer and has not since been used as a brewery, so much of any beer so brewed at the closed brewery as the Commissioners think just in the circumstances shall be deemed to be beer brewed at the brewer's brewery for the purpose of that Section.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. SHERWELL: There is one point to which I think the attention of the Committee and of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill ought to be directed. The effect of this Clause as it stands is to grant an extension of output in the case of certain brewers who claim that they are entitled to that extension on the ground that, although the brewery or branch brewery may have been closed, the trade in that brewery or in that branch brewery shall be accounted to them in the total standard output. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that in 1914, the year that is now chosen, under the normal working and administration of

539
the Act of 1904, which is now embodied in the Consolidated Licensing Acts, a number of licences were suppressed under the Compensation Funds associated with these provisions. The brewers and the owners of these licensed houses received compensation based upon the barrelage of the trade done in those houses. If you allow as a standard the total output of 1914 you are actually allowing them an increase over the current output by reckoning in the quantity of the trade for which ample compensation has already been paid. It is a fact that in 1914 something like £400,000 were paid to the brewing trade in compensation for houses suppressed under statutory powers. It is a question whether I think some allowance and some deduction ought not to be made in consideration of that fact. I quite recognise, as my hon. Friend will doubtless remind me, that the same omission was made in the original Act. It was not noticed at the time; but I feel bound to call his attention to the matter, as practically one involving a practical consideration when you are fixing the standard output of a particular brewery.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Prety-man): I am bound to say that the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention has not been considered, but so far as, at short notice, I can make an answer to the hon. Member, I hardly think it affects the case, as the total brewing has already been reduced by 70 per cent. I do not know that that is a complete answer; what the hon. Gentleman wants is to put right an omission in the original Act.
Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

ANZAC (RESTRICTION ON TRADE USE OF WORD) BILL.
As amended, considered.
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of the Use of the Word Anzac in Connection with any Trade, etc.)
(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.
Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "State" ["without the authority of a Secretary of State"], insert the words, "given on the request of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia or of the Dominion of New Zealand."—[Mr. Pretyman.]
Bill, as amended, reported; read the-third time, and passed.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Whereupon Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd February, proposed the Question,
"That this House do now adjourn."
Adjourned accordingly at Half after Eight o'clock till Tuesday next, 14th November, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day.